Violence against women has been a widespread historical phenomenon, transcending cultures, races, and religion. In recent history, however, women have begun to receive the same rights as their male counterparts in many nations across the world. There are, of course, exceptions and nations whose government grants equal rights, but whose people reject this equality. India is one of the later. Women legally have equal protection under the law, and yet, socially speaking, women are still treated as inferiors. As inferiors, they are not protected to the same degree as men, leading to some very dangerous (sometimes fatal) social norms.

India has a rich culture in terms of violence against women. It is not the history though that is so concerning, but rather the current practice of these practices. Female infanticide is rampant, and sex selective abortions are even more widespread. The issue of sex selective abortions is so wide spread that it is in fact illegal to determine the sex of a fetus, for fear that females will be killed ("The Worldwide War on Baby Girls"). Honor killings, while illegal, are rarely punished as harshly as murders not related to family honor. As recently as 2008 sati, the ritual suicide of a widow by means of her husband's funeral pyre, was still being practiced, albeit rarely. This blatant disregard for equality is astonishing to the Western point of view. Why are women considered some much less than men in India? Critics (Chesler, Gray) say that the fault lies with religion, but this is not the case. Violence against women in India is not religiously motivated, and can instead be attributed to traditional values and social pressures.

India is the only non-Muslim majority country that has a major problem with honor violence against women (Grewal). Chesler and Bloom claim say that while Muslim apologists cling to honor violence in Hindu communities as proof that these crimes are not religiously motivated, this is not the case. They say that Hindu honor violence more often targets men, and is more to do with the caste system in India than Hinduism. According to Chesler, violence perpetrated by Hindus is not the same as violence perpetrated by Muslims, making it a religious issue, not a social one. This is not an unpopular opinion in the West.

Many Western critics have alleged that religion is to blame for the violence perpetrated against women in traditional societies such as India. However, there is no portion in the holy scriptures in the large religions in India that allow for violence against women. There are passages which instead state the inferiority and submissive role of women, but these are not so very different than the passages written in the Bible or Torah(Narasimhan-Madhavan 406, 411). These passages state that women are more sexually deviant, less pure than men. They state that women may be wild and untamed socially and sexually before she is married (in particular Hindu goddesses), she becomes grounded and fulfilled when bound to a man in matrimony.  This is a common concept for religious texts written in a time when women were considered inferior by the society in which the texts were written. 

While these texts don't justify the killing of women, they do sit on a dangerous edge. Many of these religions are prominent in places in the world that are still very traditional. If read from a patriarchal point of view, one can interpret these readings as placing women under the control of men. If that is the case, then why should violence not be employed to keep them in line? 

It is not just religion that is to blame for permissible violence against women. The blame can be placed largely with cultural norms and traditional values. Take for instance honor killings. Many would claim that honor killings are solely a Islamic value.(Chesler) However, these critics do not take into against the very different religious sects and practices in nations like India. They fail to notice that this is not a phenomenon confined to non-Christian sections of the world. In Brazil, a Catholic nation, it was not until 1991 that "legitimate defense of honor" was outlawed as a defense for killing one's wife (Brooke). There is no tie to Eastern religious practices here, and yet honor killings were permissible, in the very near past. This can be explained by the male dominated nature of Brazil, which is similar to that of India(Brooke). The West likes to say that this is an Eastern problem, only brought to the West by immigrants, and yet India has never had a law on the books that makes honor killings legal (Grewal).

It is, however, worth mentioning that nearly all honor related violence perpetrated in the West comes from immigrants or immigrant communities (Gray). These areas also tend to be extremely religious, with the dominant religion being Islam. However, these issues do not tend to pop up in Westernized families who practice Islam, or those whose ethnicity coincides with the "culture of honor". It is not religious principles that motivate these violent acts, but rather a cultural tradition of honor and shame as related to women's bodies.

Throughout most of written history, men have been the central players. They are responsible for the wars, the great deeds, the laws. India is no different. In fact, India has held onto its androcentric point of view longer than many other developed or developing nations. It is from this history that the view of women's bodies containing the honor of families arose.

India as a nation has had a long history of takeovers and conquering(Narasimhan-Madhavan). As a result, the practices associated with the claiming of a new land, especially those concerning women (rape, kidnap, forced marriages, etc.), became normalized. With the conquering of a new land, as in most histories, it is normal to subjugate the people overthrown. Typically those targeted are those least able to fight back, which tended to include women. When taking a woman, the invaders not only received the spoils of a battle, but also managed to shame the people they had conquered. Women's bodies began to represent India's land (Narasimhan-Madhavan), and therefore whoever had the power to take the woman also had the power to take the land.

Since women were most often the targets of raiding invaders, it became a cultural norm for women to be kept away from strange men, married away early, and monitored so that they did not shame the family by being abducted. The thought process was that if kept under lock and key, they could not be taken away easily. It was also during this time that a woman's body and sexual behaviors became tied with a families honor. If a woman was taken away and violated by a different sect or nation, the family has been dishonored (Narasimhan-Madhavan). Over time, the threat of invasion faded, but the concept that women's bodies were the vessel of a family's honor did not. It is here, not in religion, that the justification for maiming and killing to recover ones honor became normalized. As such, ways to protect women's honor became more important. To be protected, a woman must be bound to a husband. If women were married earlier, it was less likely that they would be kidnapped because they had a husband and his family would see to her protection. This gave rise to the practice of child marriages ("Girls Not Brides").

Another reason girls are seen as inferior and gotten rid of when possible is the financial strain of having a daughter. While sons will grow up and take care of their parents, girls are expected to grow up and leave their family for their husband's home. An old Hindu saying goes "Raising a daughter is like watering your neighbor's garden (Ramachandran). A woman shall leave, and all effort put into her raising shall be a wasted investment. Not only that, but here is the cost of her marriage to consider.

While dowries have been illegal in India for decades ("Girls Not Brides"), it is still a widely held practice. This dowry is paid to the husbands family at the wedding. If the dowry is not paid in full, or the husband's family believes they didn't get a good woman (i.e. disobedient, can't produce sons, etc.), the woman can be in serious danger. She may be tortured or even killed as a result (Bloom). That is not even to speak of the dowry killings in which a young woman is killed so that her husband may marry again and gain another dowry (Chesler). Women are monetarily a burden, and therefore, they are less than men.

Socially, India is quite traditional. The role of an Indian woman is to be a wife and mother. As a result, often there are often pressures from in laws to start having children as soon as possible(Ramachandran). A woman who cannot conceive is a bad investment, and will be ostracized, as will other members of her family (Littlejohn). When a woman does conceive, she is then pressured to get a sex determination test, even though to tell a parent the sex of a child in India is illegal ("Gendercide's Affect"). After the sex determination test is done, one of three things usually happens. 

If the child is a boy, the mother and father are congratulated on having conceived a son, and preparations begin to celebrate the child when he is finally born(Ramachandran). If, however, the child is a girl there are two scenarios which are most likely to play out. If this is the child's first girl child, then, while disappointed, the family will accept the girl child into the family. They will celebrate, not to the same extent as when a boy is born, but still they will be glad for the child(Ramachandran). If this is not the first girl to be born to the couple, almost always the pressure starts for the mother to have an abortion. The husband, his parents, her parent, and both extended families will begin to tell her that they cannot afford a second girl child, that they must get rid of it. If a mother refuses, she faces being thrown out of her home, divorced, or even beaten(Ramachandran). Most times, women give into these pressures, even if they would like to keep the child.

Socially, a boy child is necessary. Women who cannot have boy children are considered burdens to their husbands' families. They have failed in their role to further their family line. They are not enough. Similarly, men are considered less than men when they cannot produce male issue. Men without sons are considered less virile, more effeminate(Ramachandran). In a traditional culture like India, this can be catastrophic, and can impugn the honor of the family (Ramachandran). In India, being a largely poor rural nation, the name of a family is everything, as is the ability of people to continue their line through sons. When the only currency readily available to most of the population is prestige, a son is necessary to further one's own standing in the community.

The social inequity continues even after birth and infancy. Boys are sent to school, while girls remain at home. Girls are not to leave their house unaccompanied by family members, yet boys can go wherever they please. If the family only has enough money to give one child a full plate, they will give the boy child a full plate and the girl child the scraps("India's Daughter"). Boys and girls raised in this environment are taught from infancy that they are not equal, that women are less, that men are more. Is it any wonder then, that when they grow up, boys do not treat women as full people?

In an interview given after the gang rape of Jyoti Singh, posthumously called India's Daughter, the rapist showed no remorse. They said that she should not have been out at eight at night without her family. It was her fault. She was being "promiscuous", by being with her boyfriend at a movie. While upsetting, this is not unusual. Even in the West, rapists use "she was asking for it" logic often. What is instead appealing is the opinions of the lawyers involved in their prosecution.

Menorah Lal Sharma says that women are meant to be like a "temple flower", kept away from the streets and revered. He says that if they are "left out on the streets", they become sullied and dirty. A.P. Singh says similar things, saying that "of course they(girls) should go out, but ... not with boyfriend". Singh says that if his daughter, sister, or aunt were to "act as she did" (being outside at eight at night), he would "light them on fire" ("India's Daughter"). He further says that it is good that she died, that she would have been a "walking corpse" had she lived after her rape. Sharma perhaps best sums up the tone of the men in the film with "India's culture is the best culture. There is no room for women in India".

These men are educated. They went to school, and further on to university, and yet they see that a rape victim is less than human, and that a woman out at night should be burned alive. There is perhaps no greater example of how much of a social norm female inferiority is. They are less than man, and because of this, it is not as important how you treat them. These deeply held beliefs on the role of women in society are major causes of the acceptance of gendercide.

It is also worth mentioning that India's historical caste system is also a motivation for honor violence. Traditionally, it was unacceptable to marry outside of ones caste, or to even touch their clothing (Narasimhan-Madhavan). If one was to marry into a lower caste, they would bring immense shame and dishonor to their family, which could only be cleansed by blood.

If there is ever to be change made to the worth of women in India and other nations like it, the youth must be educated, especially young girls. If we educate the young, traditional superiority of men would be challenged ("Girl Rising"). Teaching young men that women are their equals and should be treated as such would change societal conceptions about the importance and worth of women. Educating women in India would also take away one of the many concerns with keeping and raising girl children; financial cost. If girls were educated, they would be able to support not only themselves, but their families. This would also make the women of the nation less dependent on men, and give them a more equal standing in their own country ("Gendercide's Affect"). Educating women would increase the national economy, and would make the currency of honor less necessary. If honor is no longer all important, and women no longer contain a family's honor in their bodies, violence towards women will be greatly decreased.

Violence against women in India is a very real and present issue. With hundreds of years of son preference, opinions will not change over night. In order to fully change opinions and isolate incidents of violence, we must first fully understand the motivations of such acts. Blaming one factor, or ignoring others completely will not enact change. While Western critics say that Islam is to blame, it is a short sighted and illogical argument. Religion is to blame only when combined with traditional practices and rigid social norms. Religion in and of itself is not the cause.

