Prof Bhaskar compares Hathras and RG Kar cases, revealing systemic failures in India’s state apparatus in addressing violence against women, exclusively for Different Truths.
If the Hathras incident represents a planned failure of the core state, how can the case of R. G. Kar be seen as a success? The former involved the rape and murder of a girl in the significant state of Uttar Pradesh, while the latter pertains to the murder and alleged rape of a doctor on duty in the progressive state of West Bengal. Each case highlighted the dysfunction of the core state, which engages agencies to investigate instances of rape and murder of young girls in India, often leading to ambiguous outcomes or conclusions that undermine the nation. The RG Kar case is particularly significant in the history of murder and alleged rape in India because it was institutional, if not institution-sponsored; it involved a victim who was on duty at a premier hospital in Kolkata. In each of these cases, the state has failed the nation.
On August 9, 2024, a young lady doctor on duty in Kolkata’s RG Kar Hospital was brutally murdered and allegedly raped and the responsibility of enquiry was entrusted to the notoriously credible CBI. The CBI made every effort to find the culprits, but after 90 days of dedicated investigation, they were unsuccessful. It appears that the accused were granted bail by the court, which could not enforce the law due to a lack of sufficient evidence. This outcome was difficult for the civil society of West Bengal to accept, leading to renewed protests. This situation reminds us of the heinous crime in Hathras, where a young girl was raped and murdered, and her body was cremated in the absence of her parents or guardians. The civil society did not question the core state in this matter.
Many innocent people in India still have faith in state agencies like the CBI. What might have happened if the CBI had not been given the responsibility to identify the culprits? The outcome probably would not have differed much, as the crime could have gone unaddressed, or another agency would have taken over, engaging in routine work without a genuine commitment to justice.
The underlying issue is the core state’s unwillingness to prioritize the safety of girls and society as a whole. Why is this the case? The simple answer lies in the fact that the core state operates as a legal entity, while society functions as a moral one, and these two entities often diverge. Furthermore, the core state tends to maintain the status quo, whereas civil society advocates for change. As a result, routine work often lacks a true commitment to social issues.
It is a naïve statement that a system is what we make it. We, the people of India, live in a system that we did not make; we were thrown into it for unquestioned acceptance. This is because of India’s robust civilisation where the system is not one but multiple as understood by the social non-state groups. The system is made by the state through agencies and institutions. Most innocent people do not understand the intricacies of the functioning or non-functioning of these agencies and institutions. The state is the super institution that makes rules for the imposition of innocent people. Innocent people abide by the rules or pay the price for their violations.
What happens when state agencies violate the rules? First, the Supreme Court may reprimand officials from these agencies for failing to reach logical conclusions. Second, civil society may criticize the functioning of these agencies, although this often has little impact on their operations. Third, some officials may be caught red-handed and suspended by competent agencies, such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED), due to unethical practices. However, this does not necessarily affect the credibility of the agency itself. All of these scenarios involve components of the state, which holds significant power. Next, we must address the issue of state violence, which can be understood as a violation of human rights—specifically, the victim’s right to receive timely justice.
State violence is not readily visible other than in the international domain like the imposition of war on another sovereign state. In the case of national state sovereignty, the violence may be understood by provocative speeches by the members of the dominant ruling polity that engage people of conflicting interests in ethnic conflicts, riots, lynching, genocide, gang rape and all that. The state is a unit for conflict resolution. So at a point it tries, or shows to try, to resolve conflicts. Some innocent people die and most of the people forget the initial conditions that led to violence. Innocent people live in survival instinct – ‘roji-roti’. So they live as a consequence of the system rather than becoming the cause of its formulation.
Returning to the main issue: Was the CBI’s failure to submit the charge sheet in the R. G. Kar murder case intentional, or was it influenced by another authority? What role did the state government play in this situation? It seems that the state government did not oppose the CBI’s involvement in the case, likely because civil society in West Bengal expressed concerns about the investigation that could be conducted by the state police. Did the state government anticipate that the CBI’s failure would be inevitable? After 100 days following the murder, civil society in West Bengal began to question both the willingness and the capability of the CBI to uncover the truth and deliver justice for the victim. However, it remains unclear why an agency like the CBI would choose to undermine its credibility.
The state does not wage war on the nation or its people; however, it can certainly hide the coercion it imposes on them. The problem lies in the complex misconceptions that arise from the interchangeable use of terms like “state,” “nation,” “country,” and “civilization.” The political authority that governs the state is not synonymous with the nation or the country. Therefore, the civil society that has increasingly begun to question the actions and methods of the state or its agencies should not be interpreted as anti-national or seditious. The state exists for the nation, rather than the other way around, as the people are the ones who formed the state, particularly within the European context of the last five centuries. The power of the nation is ethical and informal; it cannot impose its will on the state. In contrast, the power of the state is formal.
The issue goes beyond what I’ve previously discussed. If innocent people understand their right to know the truth, they will begin to demand justice. This demand can either weaken the state or provoke a more violent response. The first scenario could lead to a fragile state, while the second could escalate violence. If both outcomes are undesirable, the core state must take proactive measures to ensure justice for innocent individuals.
Picture design by Anumita Roy
By
By
By