Sita Worship and Domestic Violence in Indian Society

G. A-D.

Though exact figures are impossible to obtain, it is estimated by experts that approximately 67.5% married women in India are victims of physical abuse at the hands of their husbands (Ellsberg, Jansen, Heise, Watts, & Garcia-Merono, 2008). A number of research studies claim that this violence is a result of the phenomenon of ‘Sita worship’, the veneration of the Goddess Sita for her representation of the ‘perfect’ wife: silent, obeisant, obedient, and devoted to her husband despite his treatment of her. India is home to a variety of religions, however because Hinduism influences the nation’s popular culture so heavily, non-Hindu people are regularly exposed to Hindu values and ethics. It is for this reason that all Indians should be included in a research paper of this nature, as Sita worship is not a phenomenon exclusive to Hindu people. This paper will explore the relationship between domestic violence and Sita worship in Indian communities, and relate it to the theories of Rene Girard regarding the public and private spheres, before proposing methods to approach the issue.

In Indian society the goddess Sita has been one of the most popular mythological heroines since she was first written about in the Ramayana, one of the two fundamental scriptures at the foundations of Hinduism, generally agreed to have been written between 500-100 BCE. She is perceived by many as the paragon of wifely virtue with her complete devotion to her husband Rama throughout the epic even though he regularly fails to reciprocate her selflessness. A number of surveys conducted over the last ten years in India have found that the overwhelming majority of respondents favoured Sita above all other mythical women, the Sutherland study claiming as high as 90% (Kishwar 1997; Sutherland 1989).

In an extremely brief summary of the Ramayana: Rama is banished by his father’s wife to the forest and is accompanied by his wife Sita in exile. While away, Sita is kidnapped by the demon Ravana, and held hostage for over a year. In that year, Sita is aided in repelling Ravana’s sexual advances by the Gods, who recognise her devotion to Rama. When Rama rescues her, he doubts her chastity and orders her to undergo agni Pariksha, or fire trial, where she is to be burnt alive and if she has been chaste the Gods will spare her. She passes the test, and Rama accepts her back, only to banish her again because the people in his kingdom are spreading rumours doubting her faithfulness, even though she passed the agni Pariksha, because his first loyalty is to his subjects, not his wife. He gets his brother Lakshmana to take Sita to the forest and then leave her there without explanation, and he does not know it but she is pregnant with his twins, who she gives birth to in exile. When Rama learns of this he lets her return to his kingdom, however again accuses her of not keeping her chastity, and orders her to undergo another fire trial. She refuses, and instead calls on the ground (Mother Earth) to open up and swallow her if she has been chaste. She disappears into the earth and Rama is left ‘heartbroken’ (Gombrich, 2005).

Though there is much contention among scholars of the exact motivations behind their behaviours, for example that Sita’s last act was one of defiance against her husband, instead of a compromise on the suggested fire trial yet still an act of submission to his need to test her, the fact remains that throughout the Ramayana Sita is long-suffering with no recourse. Hindu scriptures present the perfect wife as one who sacrifices; this is how a woman practices good Dharma (the Hindu concept of ultimate morality and ethical behaviour) (Brockington, 2004, p. 656). A woman’s primary function is as a wife, and the most empowering thing she can do is be completely devoted to her husband (Leslie, 1991, p. 213). This is so empowering that it can even transcend death, as it did the fire trials of the Ramayana. This commonly held value in India of a woman’s importance being contingent on her relationship to her husband has led to a culture of women who will silently suffer abuse, accepting blame for her husband’s actions and refusing to seek justice against him for fear of social ostracising. The Ramayana and Hindu scriptures have underpinned this modern social construct that is an effective patriarchal tool of male control over women, and while this phenomenon is by no means exclusive to Hindu culture, the inherent inequality in a worldview that involves a woman’s value as contingent on her devotion to a man whose value is not judged by the same virtue perpetuates a gender inequality that contributes directly to increased levels of gendered violence(Barat, 2003, p. 216).

Sita worship contributes to greatly skewed views on gender expectations, which is often manifested in gender-based crime (Koenig, Stephenson, Ahmed, Jejeebhoy, & Campbell, 2006). This can be attributed to the Marxist theory that states that when one group is perceived to be superior to another, they hold a power over them that is inevitably abused and often in a violent context.

Much research has been done assessing the relationship between Sita worship and levels of spousal abuse and domestic violence (Goel 2005; Hess 1999; Ellsberg et al. 2008; Koenig et al. 2005); however it is important to note that no study claims it to be the sole cause of domestic violence and/or underreporting. There are myriad other factors that influence and incite violence, however India is unique in that there is a clearly discernable factor that is a direct result of religious influence (Archbold-Digby, 2010, p. 3). The issue of domestic violence alone is an alarming social problem, however in India it is exacerbated by Indian women’s underreporting. An American study in 2002 explored the level and nature of domestic violence and reporting within Indian immigrant communities. It found that 40.8% of Indian women had been the victim of domestic violence and of these women only 3.1% obtained protective orders. This is a drastically low number when compared with the 33% of native Boston women who obtained protective orders against their abusers(Goel, 2005, p. 644). The researcher failed to accurately estimate the relation between these figures and those that would be experienced within India, claiming that they would be similar. A 2006 study based on a survey of women found that in fact domestic violence was dramatically increased in India, varying between 60-75% of women experiencing it; the lower levels are experienced in urban communities and as the families live more rurally, the risk of domestic violence increased (Ellsberg, Jansen, Heise, Watts, & Garcia-Merono, 2008).

Girardian theory offers an explanation as to why domestic violence is such a prevalent yet tolerated aspect of Indian society. Girard claimed that violence was a part of all cultures, and that where primitive societies lacked a legal system with which to deal with violence, they turned to religion instead. Furthermore, violence could only be quelled with more violence; however the reciprocal violence was channelled, whereas the original violence was chaotic. This channelling was often manifested in ritualistic violence, or sacrifice of the ‘scapegoat’ or ‘surrogate victim’. “Through one final act of ordered violence, the disordered violence ceases (Decker, 2007-2008, p. 114).” With the scapegoat serving as a ‘container’ for wider social violence, violence has effectively been channelled into what society would deem a more ‘palatable’ direction. It is the tendency of all societies, not just Indian, to hold a significant distinction between public and private violence. Public violence is far less acceptable due to its disordered nature. Private violence, however, presents an ordered violence. The violence is contained geographically (within the home), and the victims are limited to those within the location, such as children or partners. Decker states that it is because the victims of private violence are almost always women, that it is such a tolerated aspect of society because society is male-dominated and as a result men are less likely to be the victims, and it is assumed that “male dominance in the home will stave off violent disorder in the streets (Decker, 2007-2008, p. 115)”.

Studies of perpetrators of domestic violence support the notion that disordered violence is circumvented by private violence; one found that there was a distinct characteristic of a category of offenders that was antisocial, and potentially psychopathic (Jacobson & Gottman, 1998, p. 38). In Girardian theory, these men pose a significant violent threat to the public sphere, however because they have an outlet in the private sphere, this threat is rarely realised. Another study found that it was also common for abusers to be “frustrated, weaker men” who needed a private outlet for their aggression at being dominated by stronger men outside the home(Anderson & Umberson, 2001, p. 375). Gender disparity presents the wife as the ‘scapegoat’; seen to be the source of frustration and violence, which the man must redress through violence toward her. Girard argues that though his theories are based on primitive societies, the modern world has its roots in primacy, and that despite a developed and complex legal system, law is merely a ‘continuation’ of ritual.

Decker proposes a three tiered approach to addressing domestic violence under the Girardian model. First, we must make redundant women’s label of ‘the other’, removing their potential to be scapegoats or surrogate victims. Second, we must transform gendered violence in the private sphere by redefining the difference between public and private sphere violence, making both equally as unacceptable, and thirdly, redefining legal concepts to reflect this development.

Women are traditionally perceived as different, not just in Indian society but universally, however the legitimacy of this perception of difference is arguable, especially when considering its origins and viability in a modern context. Women’s existence is seen as ‘relational’, their value contingent on their relationships to others, a concept heavily influencing Sita worship. Men’s existence, however, is ‘autonomous’, they are independent self-agents. To Girard, one need only be different within a society to be the scapegoat, and to prevent this, we must reconceptualise these differences as “nongendered variations in a universal, inclusive humanity (Decker, 2007-2008, p. 121)”. A first step in addressing this is to redefine rules of law to handle problems that were previously seen as exclusive to women, to instead be seen as affecting all society. For example, domestic violence is traditionally seen as exclusively hurting women; however we must reconceptualise it to see that when a woman is battered, society suffers as it loses her contribution as a fully functioning and effectual person, and it is detrimental to the wider community’s social health. Identifying differences as variations among humans, instead of as being gender-based, removes the inability of men to relate to women on an equal plane, thus removing the threat of scapegoating. This approach would need to be taken by wider societal authority, such as media and education. An effective way to do this would be to approach gender identification as part of a vast spectrum, as opposed to the traditionally binary approach. By seeing gender liminally the concept of the other is diluted. Some feminists argue against this proposal; while they generally agree gender should be seen as spectral, they are concerned that by removing a dichotomy, they are removing what it means to be a ‘woman’(West, 1992), however Decker argues that while this may be an initial sacrifice, the benefits of what it would bring to society deem it worthwhile.

When redefining the difference between public and private sphere, dominance is the major issue to be approached. Dominance is a channelling of societal violence, and regardless of its manifestation, it is inherently a violent concept and ineffective in circumventing disordered violence in the public sphere. Girard’s fundamental argument is that controlled sacrificial violence averts disordered violence in primitive societies. In modern society, this translates into the perception of the home as the place for ritualistic, acceptable violence that prevents larger societal violence. However, Girard also argues that violence is reciprocal; a never-ending chain reaction to itself, thus inevitable and impossible to eradicate. The study that found men who were abusive were potentially psychopathic, found that of the men who committed violence inside the home, 44% also committed it outside the home, refuting the Girardian theory that private violence avoids public violence. Other research shows that channelling one’s violence into short controlled bursts of aggression, such as using a punching bag, actually leads a person to act and feel more aggressive, not less (Bushman, 2002). We must eradicate violence wherever it is committed, promote equality and abolish male dominance. As Girard argues, when men use violence to dominate women, they are allowing themselves to be dominated by violence.

Decker argues that the most effective way to remove the dichotomy between the public and private sphere is through legal structures. To Girard, law serves as a redress to violence, and is a tool of revenge. Decker proposes that it become mandatory to pursue criminal action against private sphere abusers, regardless of their victims’ desire to prosecute. He also discusses noted feminist lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her fight to make the law gender neutral, and promote legal equality. This solution would serve to address the issue of underreporting in Indian communities, because it would give the women a position from which they could securely seek justice, whereas today women have many factors impeding their plight. It is traditional in Indian households for the husband’s extended family to live with the couple. Therefore when a woman seeks to redress domestic violence she is not just opposing one man, but his family as well(Sharma, 2005, p. 386). Furthermore the extended support system present for the husband serves to increase feelings of isolation and difference in the woman, which further discourages her from seeking help against him.

The legal framework in India to deal with domestic violence was recently updated in 2006 as the “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005”. The very name shows its gender-exclusivity and has been widely criticised for its lack of gender neutrality. It defines domestic violence as habitual assault of or cruel conduct towards a woman by her partner, forcing her to lead an immoral life, and otherwise injuring her, by means of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic abuse. The Act also protects anybody who may be living with the abuser, for example when a woman is abused by her brother or son. It can provide a woman with a protective order against her abuser, as well as legal, medical or housing assistance, and made domestic violence an offence for which an abuser can be heavily fined and/or imprisoned for up to twelve months without bail (Agrawal, 2005). Men’s groups in India have criticised the Act for not protecting abused men, however the Indian Minister for Women responded by saying that while gender equality under the Act would be ideal, the fact that victims were predominantly female legitimised the exclusivity. Further criticism has been angled for the Act’s failure to include protection of women from women, such as in extended households where a woman may be abusing her son’s wife. This is still technically domestic violence, and arguably common within Indian communities, however there is no comprehensive legal framework with which to address it.

Despite its origins being over two thousand years old, Sita worship provides a very real, tangible threat to Indian society today. It is, of course, not solely destructive, otherwise her popularity would not be so transcendent, however its negative effects are threatening enough to require attention. Domestic violence is particularly high in India, and when it is sanctioned by scripture it becomes a religious issue. Its prevalence indicates that it is widely tolerated by Indian society, and isolation of women within families contributes to high levels of abuse with comparatively low levels of reporting. Girardian theory explains this tolerance as part of his Public and Private Sphere models of violence, and proposes that the solution to this issue lies in reconceptualising Indian women from being scapegoats to equals with men. It is when this equality is sanctioned by society and supported by India’s legal framework that domestic violence will decrease and greater social harmony will be enjoyed.