Understanding and Resisting Intimate Partner Violence in India

Exploring intimate partner violence in India, its sociocultural aspects and solutions to overcome the issue

Economic growth and empowerment have improved the lives of many, including the Dalit community in the country. But has this empowerment made women less vulnerable to violence? Financial independence and economic empowerment should have ideally translated to a lower risk of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). But the data shows otherwise; employed women, especially the ones who earn more than their partners, face a higher risk of IPV.

A recent study by Sowmya Dhanaraj and Vidya Mahambare points to this counterintuitive trend. According to their study, women engaged in paid work were found to have a higher (27.2%) incidence of IPV as compared to women who are not in paid work (20.0%). This points to a situation where women who are earning and are therefore economically empowered face a higher risk of IPV.

With the Indian government rolling out policies to bring the underutilised female population into the workforce through women empowerment schemes, there is a lingering question of how to tackle issues such as IPV and whether the present policies genuinely address the issues faced by women.

Understanding IPV

Let us examine the complex relationship between employment and IPV in Indian women. In the National Family Health Survey 5, 29.3% of women have experienced IPV, among whom 31.6% belong to rural areas. In contrast to the high percentage of IPV, only a fraction of these cases are being reported. Out of these cases, only a small percentage of women have sought help from unofficial sources such as family and friends. Even fewer sought help from official sources like lawyers, social services, or police.

In the last two decades, women's empowerment schemes have focused on education, employment, entrepreneurship, and microcredit. These measures fail to address the larger issue of patriarchy within society that constraints women. Recent studies conducted by the IMF and NCAER reveal a particular pattern in IPV among women. Women who are employed, especially women employed in the formal sector or better-paid jobs, face a higher risk of IPV. This risk is particularly higher when the male partner is less educated.

This is an empowerment paradox of sorts, where women are expected to be empowered through policies, but in reality, social systems, prejudices, and cultural practices hold them back. IPV has many mental, physical, and economic consequences for the survivor. Additionally, this also result in the depletion of women’s ability to work and the overall productivity of the institution where they work. This may discourage firms from hiring female employees in the long run.

Cultural Influences on Empowerment

Women have for long occupied a lower position in the gender hierarchy of Indian society. This can be observed in family structures, rights, and how property is passed on from generation to generation. The patriarchal gender roles dictate that men should be ahead of women in all aspects of life.

Therefore, when a woman outearns her husband, there is a change in this traditional social structure and patriarchal roles that threatens the husband's status. This makes the husband resort to a ‘backlash’, which is often through violence. It is therefore patriarchy operating through social norms that devalue the role of women, deplete women’s bargaining power, and worsen violence towards women.

The scenario becomes severe when we consider that women also have unknowingly internalised these patriarchal values, creating a pang of female guilt. The study done by Sowmya Dhanaraj and Vidya Mahambare sheds some light on this area. They find that female guilt, or a feeling of acceptance of IPV, is more common for females with middle education levels as compared to low or high education. This may be because females with high education levels are likely to be in more socially acceptable jobs, and females with low education may be forced to get into employment by the household itself. Compared to them, females with middle education may be in socially ‘unacceptable’ jobs or have to break the social structure in pursuit of their employment. The resulting male backlash that happens is being felt as a genuine response by the women themselves, as they feel guilty of damaging the social structure and household hierarchy.

From a sociocultural perspective, the rates of IPV are directly linked to the cultural factors and institutional norms existing in that particular society. In such a scenario, policy interventions by Governments and economic changes brought in by markets will do little to change the scenario. What we require is a change in society and its constraints on women, which will require far more concerted efforts.

Why society?

The society plays a larger role in mitigating IPV than the government or the market. In most countries, financial freedom for women translates to empowerment and a reduced risk of IPV. In India, however, the states that have exhibited robust economic growth, such as Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, are ranked among the worst offenders. These data suggest that IPV does not correlate with a region's economic prosperity; instead, it is influenced by the societal norms and gender roles prevalent within each culture.

Social norms supporting violence against women perpetuate IPV regardless of economic status. NFHS-5 reports that over 45% of women in India support wife beating under particular circumstances, such as neglecting children and arguing with the husband. This study reveals the deep-seated social conditioning that women go through as one of the major contributors to IPV in India.

The ‘Bell Bajao Andolan’ by Breakthrough encouraged neighbours, especially men, to ring the bell and interrupt whenever they overhear violence against women taking place. Men who were seen as violators were now transformed into campaigners against IPV. It reached 130 million people, and according to estimates, it resulted in a 15-20% reduction in justification of IPV. This demonstrates that it is society that needs to change, and a collective stand against IPV gives the best results.

Moving Forward

The Bell Bajao Andolan campaign provides ideas to tackle the problem. Creating a social change is often complex and will require sustained effort for a long period. As a first step, initiatives where there is a community engagement to identify and develop collective solutions to prevent IPV will help.

While there are laws that prevent IPV, women often find it difficult to approach the police or the judicial system to protect themselves from IPV. This is partly because the violence is carried out by their partners, and taking legal recourse will only put them in a situation of social and familial vulnerability. Additionally, it may also impact their financial and emotional well-being. At the same time, there is a need for support structures for women and spaces where they can seek help. Women's collectives and self-help groups can play a critical role in building such social systems and tackling IPV within their groups.

There should be social action through influencers, digital media, and other such channels to reframe ideas of masculinity. Patriarchy has equally impacted men as much as women. It has created deeply entrenched gender roles that always require men to be the prime sustainers of a family’s finances. It has made men the commanders of their household, where they have to shoulder difficult responsibilities and decision-making roles.

Unless these social roles are broken and structures of society recalibrated through sustained action, the problem of IPV will never completely fade away.

---