In the early 90s, during the last gasps of terrorism in Punjab, terrorists in a desperate bid to penetrate the social fabric passed a diktat that women will only dress in salwar kameez and saffron dupattas.  The argument was that jeans and other visible symbols of modernity were against tradition and culture. The fear of what may happen, hung heavy in the air.  Some of us defied the diktat. Others did not. But we knew, we were up against something dangerous. This shiver up the spine is bred gene deep in women. No matter which part of the world, which era and demographic they belong to. They also know, if something terrible happens to them, it is somehow their fault. So when  Karnataka’s Women and Child Welfare Minister CC Patil said that he does not ‘favour’ women wearing ‘provocative’ clothes and “always feels that they need to be dignified in whatever they wear,” it did not sound surprising.  What else could he have said? That men must not confuse a pair of low cut jeans with a sexual invitation? That our cities must become safer for women who want to work, commute and dress as they want?  And that potential rapists and molesters must learn to check their impulses and  to respect rather than objectify women? That would be asking for too much, no?

Oh yes, we have heard this one before. A man plays no role at all in feeling ‘provoked’ to eve tease or commit rape. In a country where 69 per cent chil­dren are vic­tims of phys­i­cal, emo­tional, or sex­ual abuse. Yes, every two out of three. In a country where 89 per cent of the abusers are family members or people known to the victims. So who ‘provokes,’  titillates and tempts these rapists and abusers to do what they do?

I remember writing somewhere  that rape is the national sport of India and the victims belong to every age group, every social strata, every dress code from modern to traditional. Rape is about power and vulnerability. It is about who is helpless at a given point of time and who can get away with rape or murder even.

Who provokes men to brush against women in trains and buses regardless of what they are wearing or to move around in packs in the national capital, force random victims into cars with tinted windows and then violate them? In any war, genocide and riot, women are the first targets and though in normal circumstances, women should be able to move around freely and commute or socialise without fear, every woman knows that she is a soft target because though rape has become an intrinsic part of our culture, words like self-defense, choice and volition are not. A majority of women  cannot go where they want, when they want or wear what they want to wear. Most do not have the right to say ‘No’  to sexual suppression or choose the partners they want. The dirty word in our cultural lexicon is not ‘rape’ but ‘freedom’ especially when women exercise it. How dare they? Young girls being pushed into prostitution? Women being disfigured with acid for saying ‘No’ to what the press routinely describes not as psychopaths but lovelorn suitors? AIDS infected kids? Dowry deaths? Foeticide? Now, why should our Women and Child  Welfare ministers discuss such pointless issues? These things happen, routinely. Women must learn to deal with them.

But wearing low cut jeans? Now that is unacceptable! Against all norms of dignified behaviour because you see, that proclaims the one thing that any uncivilised man, anywhere in the world is afraid to hear.  “I will not conform and I am not responsible for your behaviour. YOU are.”   A woman wearing what she wants, (be it a saree, a pair of jeans or a salwar kameez) and God forbid, with an education, a point-of-view and unwilling to play a stereotype is the most dangerous weapon of change in the world and as a man said on a TV show a few years ago, “if all women decide to go to work, who will take care of their families?” A woman is not an independent, individual entity in institutionalised, regimented culture. She must play the roles assigned to her, conform to behavioural and dress codes assigned to her and act in a way that does not attract ‘unwanted’ attention.

All women know these codes. Never make eye contact with strangers. Do not talk or laugh loudly in a public place or at night. Do not walk alone in lonely places after dark. Cross your legs. Never ‘give’ the wrong idea to a man. And what is the gender etiquette inculcated in young boys in most Indian  families? Do they have dress and behaviour codes? Are they taught to keep their eyes and hands to themselves? What role do they play in lowering rape, molestation, eve teasing statistics? Are they taught to be responsible with their sexuality?

A few years ago, when a housewife was murdered at her home in Bangalore, a national daily commented on the fact that she was wearing a pair of shorts when the attack happened. The sub-text was that if she had not been wearing the shorts in front of the electrician, he would not have been ‘provoked’ to attack her. Her death was her fault and the man in question was just being a man though he was arrested, thank God. It is never about morality, is it? Or right and wrong. As a story in a leading daily today outlined. An Afghan teen bride was tortured by her mother-in-law who locked her in a toilet for six months because she defied an attempt to push her into prostitution. The meaning of this story as of every story where a woman is forced to do something she does not want to do or is punished if she resists is simply that her mind and her body do not belong to her. The honour killings in India and many other countries are about this. As is rape.

Whether a woman is killed for exercising her right to love freely or raped because she is too bold or too timid, the one thing that is being established through these acts is that she is the second gender and must be shown her place. At a time when rape is the fastest growing crime in India and dozens of women are assaulted in some form or the other every hour, it is sad that a minister, far from thinking about women’s welfare,  empowerment,  security and  well-being is indirectly advocating their subjugation and shrugging off all social and personal accountability in curbing gender violence.  What is being implied openly is that men will do what  they have always been doing. Hunt. And it is upto women to not come in their line of vision. The victim you see is the indirect perpetrator of  the crime against her. And she is also the only one responsible for her security. So then, we don’t really need a minister for our welfare, do we? He can possibly helm another ministry. That of Fashion Policing and Hemline Measurement.

Reema Moudgil is the author of Perfect Eight (http://www.flipkart.com/b/books/perfect-eight-reema-moudgil-book-9380032870?affid=unboxedwri )