Many parts of the world, including India, lack institutional accountability for sexual violence. Anukriti Dixit argues for bringing together anti-caste and decolonial frameworks for justice to counter impunity in such crimes. This, she argues, would realise justice for victims in cases where the power differentials involve caste, class, and indigeneity
Anti-caste and decolonial scholars claim that mechanisms of the state often exonerate powerful perpetrators of sexual crimes through inadequate inquiry, by misdirecting the causes of sexual violence, and by acquitting evidently guilty parties. Perpetrators can act with even greater impunity if they are in positions of disproportionate power and socially sanctioned privilege. Such factors include class, caste or racial privilege, as well as political support or hierarchical privilege within organisations.
Impunity is more severe in cases where perpetrators are in positions of disproportionate power
But the state also allows people to act with impunity when it neglects structures of privilege. For example, if the state refuses to believe victim testimonies, this can foster a culture of silence.
In India, caste plays a significant role in granting impunity. Society excludes caste-oppressed people from education, employment and basic human rights, and largely protects 'upper' caste people from prosecution or conviction. When institutionalised barriers prevent access to justice, the representation of caste-oppressed people in judiciary and law enforcement is low. 'Upper' caste people may also impose violent social sanctions on caste-oppressed people seeking justice.
'Upper' caste men and women are disproportionately likely to commit sexual crimes against caste-oppressed people, particularly women. Indeed, in several cases, the state has acquitted or released 'upper' caste men without commensurate punishment for the rape, sexual harassment, and assault of caste-oppressed people.
Anti-caste scholar V. Geetha’s work on impunity suggests that the state is complicit in granting impunity to gender and caste-privileged subjects. Geetha explains that state-run institutions often focus on prioritising the sovereignty of the state over the rights of people.
So, what does this hierarchy – based on factors including caste, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and ability – mean for the rights of marginalised subjects? Policy-makers need to be able to assess how far the rights and bodies of marginalised people are recognised. Governments must create channels for citizens to access justice, and must employ extra-state mechanisms to grant citizens their rights.
Geetha suggests developing a 'transnational jurisprudence', which includes finding common ground to define 'feminicide' (a political term encompassing more than femicide because it holds responsible not only the male perpetrators but also the state and judicial structures that normalise misogyny), caste-based or racial violence, and their commensurate punishments. We can find these links in international sexual crime tribunals and in human rights codes of conduct.
The work of Rita Segato is also relevant to the legal solutions for impunity. Segato writes that the symbolic structure of sexual assault constructs impunity as an act of total dominance. Acts of feminicide are thus the exhibition and establishment of patriarchal and hierarchical regimes. Every act of rape or murder of women, gendered and sexual minorities re-inscribes this social order, reproducing impunity, rather than leading to impunity as a consequence.
The continuous reproduction of impunity through repeated sexual crimes creates a misogynistic cycle of abuse
According to Segato, this continuous reproduction of impunity through repeated sexual crimes creates a misogynistic cycle of abuse of bodies and power. In her essay Territory, Sovereignty, and Crimes of the Second State, she summarises the three significant characteristics of impunity:
Segato proposes a new framework for classifying misogynistic crimes such as feminicide as akin to genocidal crimes with similar human rights jurisprudence required for accountability. Geetha and Segato both argue for the adoption of transnational frameworks to undo impunity and end repetitive cycles of injustice.
There is an urgent need to counter misogynistic structures of knowledge, and anti-caste and decolonial scholars make it clear that a transnational focus will strengthen accountability.
The study of political epistemology includes asking how knowledge and power and, consequently, experts and citizens, are related. To counter impunity for sexual violence, we must replace misogynistic structures of knowledge – such as rape myths – with just and fair knowledge about the victims, the lack of accountability and the toll of sexual crimes on societies. We must think of impunity in sexual crimes not as a problem for women, but as a problem for societies and human rights as a whole.
We must think of impunity in sexual crimes not as a problem for women, but as a problem for societies and human rights
Concrete changes to accountability measures should include ensuring that legislators and other formal or informal channels of justice within organisations are informed about the dangers of holding misinformed, misogynistic or sexist beliefs about rape, sexual assault, and the related difficulties for victims to seek justice.
In earlier research, I discussed how epistemic impunity implies a lack of institutional accountability among those who produce knowledge. I question the academic practice of 'leaving out’ caste, gender, and other forms of marginalisation in our research. Indeed, they are complicated variables and might add ‘more work’ or lead to ‘fewer publication opportunities’ for academics. But now, more than ever, academics have an urgent responsibility to ensure the production and communication of ethical knowledge about the dangers of impunity patterns.
