Shraddha Walkar Murder Case | Let’s not blame the victim, but focus on society

Mehrauli murder case: Aaftab Amin Poonawala (left) and his live-in partner Shraddha Walkar. Image courtesy: Twitter)

A crime has been committed. A woman is dead. The gory details are out, narratives spun daily, along with endless debates over women’s choices which further jeopardise independent women’s socio-economic standing. This roughly captures the popular discourse around the Shraddha Walkar murder case in Delhi.

The preliminary police report suggests the perpetration of the treacherous crime by her live-in partner, Aaftab Amin Poonawala. The accused’s religion did trigger the usual gibberish. After the cacophony around that absurdity, the word ‘live-in’ has grabbed the attention, while the crime itself is not the focal point.

Despite court precedents holding live-in relationships permissible, the social stigma attached to it continues. The purgatory of social judgement women face for choosing to be in live-in relationships, further narrows the possibility of their access to legal remedies in case of violence. However, let’s not forget that intimate partner violence or domestic violence, which led to the above murder, is not just confined to live-in partnerships. It, in fact, is most common in the institutionalised relationship of marriage.

Where we stand now, narratives are spun, conveniently pinning the blame on live-in relationships — derivative of vicious moral policing prevalent on women, stemming from a shallow interpretation of Indian culture. This reinforces the culture of victim-blaming, where women are held responsible for being attacked. What’s lost is that the narratives themselves are a form of sociocultural hostility meted out to women.

Paradoxically, marriage, despite the thousands of dowry deaths yearly in India, continues to enjoy the status of being sacrosanct. The National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) in 2021 explicitly mentions ‘cruelty by the husband’ being the most prevalent form of violence against women in India. Therefore, stigmatising live-in relationships for this crime can be called ignorant, at best, and caustic at worst.

The infamous Tandoor Murder in the 1990s, which bears uncanny similarities to this ‘fridge murder’ now, involved a married couple. In intimate partner relationships — irrespective of them being live-in, marital, casual or open — women are subjected to violence of various forms and intensity.

Then comes those seemingly well-meant concerns about women’s safety. Under the garb of its benevolence, these protective concerns are wrapped in patriarchy. Protection is accorded at the cost of women’s mobility, and independent choices. As if the morality-driven choices offered are their Laxman Rekha (protective boundaries), and choosing to cross the line would invariably land them in trouble.

Reports indicate Walkar could have been enduring an abusive relationship. The ‘choice’, the operative word here, runs on a tricky plane. Do women choose to be violated? No. An emphatic No. Do women choose to endure? Yes.

But, why do they do so? Why cannot an independent woman fight back? The answer lies in the existing social structure ridden with misogyny. Despite being economically self-reliant, which often defines the mainstream understanding of women’s independence, women are often socially ostracised for making their choices without their parents, and crossing the boundaries set by the family structure.

When abused and away from the paternal home, often women withdraw themselves for making a wrong ‘choice’. No corrective measure seems viable as the blame falls on her. The abuser goes scot-free, and the sufferer continues to suffer — family, society, and the world at large turn a blind eye. Till one day everyone’s conscience is pricked by an unbearable tragedy.

The repercussion of the ongoing narratives will reflect in the socio-economic realities of the aspiring, independent women in India. It is no secret that single urban women in India often find it difficult to rent a house, and live independently, because of their ‘single’ status. Landlords are prone to seek families as tenants: what if the single woman transgresses her limits of singleness? In a social environment, where women’s access is already limited, these narratives are adding more fire to it by erecting the biggest shackle for women — hindering them from realising their potential, both, educational and economic.

It is a clear case of potential human resources for the country stagnating in ‘protection’ — a grievous form of injustice.

This crime could have been averted, had the social reaction towards Walker’s life choices were not a matter of immediate judgement and disapproval. While this is a treacherous crime and cannot be loathed enough, the biggest culprit may be society’s unreasonable expectations and impositions rooted in misogyny. Sadly, those haunt Shraddha Walker even in death.

Debangana Chatterjee is Assistant Professor, Centre for Research in Social Sciences and Education, JAIN (Deemed-to-be University), Bengaluru. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.