More than enough has been said and not done about the unfortunate incident that took place in Delhi. When a young woman is violated inside the trusted confinement of a cab, that's bound to raise questions. And it did. Since the lady was inebriated at the time, is that an excuse for anyone—male or female—to infringe her personal space? Wouldn't blaming her be like blaming all the men in Delhi for her rape? In the same breath, doesn't the recruitment of this particular taxi driver with a history of sex offence on his side demand due corporate regulations? However, won't it also beg some consideration because it's unfair to not let a person with a horrible past have a second chance at leading a noble life? On a similar plane, what good would a blanket ban on a taxi-booking service in the capital city serve? Can it miraculously bring down the number of sexual violence reported up north? Well, no.
For two reasons.
1. Certain diseases don't find a cure because we refuse to accept them.
2. Flawed mentality is one of those prevailing diseases in our country.
As a matter of fact, whenever we read about rape, it's depressing how the violence involved is amazingly overlooked. Thanks to our regressive society, the whole act is seen as sexual more than anything else. That's also one of the factors why rape victims are largely seen as liabilities by their family members. Once we come to a place where we realize that penetrating someone against their consent is no different from duly punching a person in the face, we'd be able to deal with the problem better. But as of now, we have a long way to go to classify this disease. Outrage—not full-fledged remedies—comes naturally to us. As a result, everybody is angry because this ugly event took place. We don't have the solution though. And that's probably making us angrier. We really don't have a clue how to prevent it in the near or distant future. Now, do we?
PS: In other news, three women flung a young lady from the ladies compartment of a running local train in Mumbai last week. The source of this conflict was a seat. In plain words, a murder took place with all the parties belonging to fairer sex as well as the mute audience (read: co-passengers). So, how is this any different from what happened to that 27-year-old from Delhi? Wasn't violence at work? Wasn't somebody's personal space infringed? Wasn't a mode of transport in order? Or is it too difficult to connect the dots when violence is overtly visible in one case while it's magically overlooked in another? Who isn't crossing the line?