I work for an NGO in India that supports survivors of domestic violence. We run a crisis line, shelter, legal advocacy center--you know, all that stuff. It seems like there is a huge degree of disbelief among Broadsheet readers that the domestic violence bill in India would need to so comprehensive as to include "insulting a woman" and "witholding income". I'd like to explain the context a little, because a bill like this can appear draconian if you don't understand the forms of abuse that Indian women face, much of which is culturally specific.

For example, I know of a number of cases where a husband, in-law, or partner "insults" the women in question--often by accusing her of infidelity--and has her sent back to her parents. The parents, ashamed of her now-libertine reputation, reject her in turn, and then she has nowhere to go. Like lecastor noted, in a place where your word is not as meaningful as that of a man's, "insults" are more than just symbolically powerful--they carry actual, real-world consequences for the recipient.

Similarly, with regards to "not providing income", what usually happens is that the abuser in question keeps control of every paisa in the house, so that even if the woman is earning she has no access whatsoever to any money. We've seen cases where a husband is earning a huge salary and the wife and children at home are literally on the verge of starvation because they are not being given money for food. I kid you not. Economic abuse is one of the most common and least understood of the issues that Indian women face.

And the way things are now, finding any kind of legal redress is close impossible: one, because many police officers (even the women) are unaware of the laws that do currently exist to protect women, even outside of the Domestic Violence bill; two, because cops are incredibly easy to bribe into ignoring any charges that women bring; three, many law enforcement officers are themselves at a loss as to how to address the problem of gender-based violence. A lot of them think that if the couple just works out the differences, everything will be okay. It's hard for them to conceive of a situation where it truly would be better for the woman to be independent of her abuser. One of my colleagues was telling me that just the other day she was at one of the police stations where we do outreach and counselling, and she saw a woman who had been beaten so badly that she was literally sitting there black and blue. Her husand was in the station trying to convince her to drop the charges she wanted to bring, and the *woman* police chief actually told her, "Come now, why are you sitting so far away from your man? Move closer! Where is the love? How can he be kind to you if you don't show him tenderness?" Also, India has one of the worst backlogs of legal cases going through the courts, so getting a divorce legally typically takes more than four years.

And even if a woman tries to leave an abusive domestic sitation, there are huge obstacles to overcome. For example, it is very difficult to rent a place if you are alone without a partner or a parent to live with you. Or if you have children but no partner. Many employers are the same way. I know this from experience: when I first moved to India and was looking for a place, a lot flat owners point-blank refused to rent to me because I was on my own--they thought I would get into "trouble" with men with no one to watch over me. (I was lucky to have extended family members to vouch for me, but not everyone is so fortunate.) Imagine how much harder it is if you've never had any independent income, you're not educated past high school, you have no work experience, your family members refuse to help you out, and you have to explain to landlords and employers and neighbors why you have children but no husband. Can you start to see the necessity of having at least some form of legislation that protects and advocates for these women, that offers them some avenue for economic and legal redress, imperfect and slow-acting though it may be?

But I want to be clear: Indian women are not these "oppressed Third-World sufferers" who are victims of a "barbaric" culture or religious tradition. Many of the women we work with are empowered and determined to protect themselves and their children, even if they have decided to stay with their partners. They have a deep and sophisticated understanding of the structuralized nature of the inequalities that they face. Also, a number of women activists in India are themselves survivors of violence, and they walk a deep sense of social and political responsibility.

I didn't mean for this letter to be so long, but I'm really passionate about this issue, and I really do feel that the only way to have a meaningful discussion about the ramifications of the Domestic Violence Bill is to actually understand the context in which it was passed and why it is so exhaustive. It is true that women do abuse men, but the truth is that legal, economic, and socio-cultural institution are structured against women in way that they simply are not against men, which it makes it that much harder for a women to survive a situation of domestic violence. I hope this helps the discussion along!