EDITORIAL
Those in authority must avoid language that risks normalising harassment as moral conduct
Bihar’s Jamui made headlines after a minor girl was molested and her male friend, a young boy, was harassed, a disturbing incident that sparked widespread outrage. But beyond the crime itself, the incident has brought attention to another troubling issue, and that is the manner in which some public representatives speak about moral policing and crimes against women and children.
Bihar Minister and Jamui MLA Shreyasi Singh said moral policing could be carried out in a more “decent” and “elegant” manner. Another state Minister, Shravan Kumar, termed such incidents as “sporadic”. Shreyasi later clarified that her remarks had been taken out of context and said the incident was unacceptable. But a question remains: Why should moral policing be discussed as though it can have a respectable version?
There is nothing decent about one person deciding that they have the right to monitor another person’s conduct. There is certainly nothing acceptable about using intimidation, humiliation or violence to enforce a personal idea of morality. A child does not lose the right to safety because someone disapproves of the child’s company, clothing, behaviour, whereabouts or relationships. People can disagree with how others live and express those views, but they cannot claim a private licence to enforce them. That distinction needs to be stated clearly, particularly by those holding public office.
Words from ministers carry influence. The language used by political leaders should leave no room for the impression that the circumstances of the victims somehow explain or soften the conduct of the accused. Calling moral policing “decent” or “elegant” risks making the method the subject of debate when the real question is about moral policing. The same caution applies to the description of such cases as “sporadic”. Perhaps the intention was to say that such incidents do not define an entire state or its people. But a crime does not become less serious because it is described as occasional. For a victim, an assault or public humiliation is not a statistic. It has lasting consequences. Goa has seen its own controversy over comments concerning victims. In 2021, senior ruling party politicians faced criticism after allegedly questioning why two 14-year-old victim girls in a Benaulim rape case were out late at night and referring to parental responsibility. The criticism centred on concerns that attention was being directed towards the circumstances of the victims rather than the crime. That is a line public discourse must be careful not to cross.
The Jamui case is extremely disturbing because the victims were minors. The circulation of videos online showing their humiliation makes the protection of their identity, privacy and dignity an equally important concern. And Jamui is not an isolated case. Reports later emerged from Odisha of a tourist couple allegedly being harassed while travelling towards Kapilash Temple. In Bihar’s Samastipur, another girl was allegedly molested, with the incident recorded on camera. These are manifestations of the deep-seated patriarchal mindset.
A society cannot claim to protect morality while tolerating humiliation and violence in its name. A boy and a girl being together does not give strangers the right to interrogate them. Disapproval does not justify harassment. And moral disagreement does not create a licence for force. The message from those in power should be equally simple: people are free to hold their own moral beliefs. They are not free to impose those beliefs through fear, humiliation or violence. That is not moral policing. It is a breakdown of the basic respect for law and individual dignity that a society must protect.
