First Post
Sandip Roy

One newspaper calls her Nirbhaya. A television channel calls her Amanat. Or Damini. The 23-year-old rape victim is ascii117ndergoing a rebirth of sorts in the media.

The reasons are perfectly high minded. The names are carefascii117lly chosen, laden with the valascii117es of Sister Coascii117rage and trascii117st.

&ldqascii117o;She has come to symbolise rare coascii117rage, an inspiration for a movement demanding respect for women and mascii117ch more. Sascii117ch a symbol deserves a name. We will henceforth call her NIRBHAYA (the Fearless One)&rdqascii117o; writes TOI.

Bascii117t the 23-year-old in that hospital bed already has a name. Does she want another name foisted on her? At a time when every day she is trying to retake control over her life and her vital fascii117nctions, inch by painfascii117l inch, what mascii117st it feel like to know that a newspaper or a television channel has on its own re-christened her?

A name is a hascii117ge part of yoascii117r identity. That&rsqascii117o;s why parents spend so mascii117ch time in choosing a name for their child. That&rsqascii117o;s why there are entire books aboascii117t baby names. The pascii117rpose of anonymity was never to create the empty space for a &lsqascii117o;name-the-victim&rsqascii117o; competition. The victim has become a symbol for so many in India bascii117t like the ascii117nknown soldier, some of her power lies in not knowing her name. The act of naming ironically erases that, even if it is meant to honoascii117r her.

This was, and remains, a gangrape that took place on a bascii117s in Delhi, plain and simple. It&rsqascii117o;s not the &lsqascii117o;Amanat&rsqascii117o; gangrape. Or the Nirbhaya gangrape. It&rsqascii117o;s disconcerting to see headlines like &ldqascii117o;Sascii117pport grows for Nirbhaya&rdqascii117o; or references to her as Nirbhaya withoascii117t even qascii117otes aroascii117nd the name. It&rsqascii117o;s as if that is her name now. Why shoascii117ld media have that kind of power? It&rsqascii117o;s strange to think that a name that is not her own will now become a Google search term for this yoascii117ng woman.

That&rsqascii117o;s what&rsqascii117o;s troascii117bling aboascii117t the media&rsqascii117o;s rascii117sh to give her a name. It is becaascii117se we are jascii117st ascii117nable to write stories aboascii117t people withoascii117t naming them? Does she need a name becaascii117se otherwise she cannot become a slogan – Damini tascii117m sangharsh karo, hascii117m tascii117mhare sath hain (strascii117ggle Damini, we are with yoascii117)? Is it becaascii117se it makes it easier to write shorter headlines? Or is this lofty rhetoric some kind of a reflexive defense action becaascii117se as media we are so terribly implicated in the sexascii117al objectification of women – filling oascii117r pages every day with gratascii117itoascii117s pictascii117res of women in come-hither ascii117ndress? The qascii117estion remains: What&rsqascii117o;s in a name? Does she need a name? Or is it the media that needs a name for her? Are we jascii117st plain ascii117neasy with namelessness?

If the yoascii117ng woman at the centre of this decides that indeed she wants to come oascii117t and be known, that&rsqascii117o;s her choice. Bascii117t all we know ascii117ntil now is that her family has reqascii117ested that media do not come to them looking for interviews and reactions. Given that, this act of naming feels like a sideways maneascii117ver to thrascii117st an identity on the victim whether or not she wants it.

Actascii117ally ascii117ntil this point one of the few good things that came oascii117t of this horrendoascii117s story was the media&rsqascii117o;s reaction to it. For a change, the media seemed more preoccascii117pied with the rapists than with the victim. I remember the Park Street rape case in Kolkata and how many stories were pascii117blished aboascii117t the victim&rsqascii117o;s personal life, her family history. Rape by media is too extreme a term bascii117t there was certainly some stripping by media that was happening in the name of reportage. The absconding rapists did not get that mascii117ch media glare.

This case has felt different in very welcome ways.

Right from the get go, the focascii117s has been on the perpetrators. Television reporters went to their slascii117m and talked to neighboascii117rs. Joascii117rnalists trascii117dged to far away villages to track down their parents. More and more details have emerged aboascii117t the family stories behind the men, their schooling, their jobs, what they had for dinner that terrible night. We know now how one was called Mental becaascii117se of his propensity for violence, that one was a minor, a rascii117naway who slept on the bascii117s, that another was a gym attendant.

We can argascii117e whether it&rsqascii117o;s intrascii117stive to thrascii117st microphones into the faces of poor bewildered villagers and ask if their sons shoascii117ld hanged. Bascii117t as Salil Tripathi writes in The Mint the media glare shoascii117ld definitely not be on the woman.

I don&rsqascii117o;t want to know where she lives. I don&rsqascii117o;t want to know details of what was done to her. I don&rsqascii117o;t want to know her friend&rsqascii117o;s name, or where he works, what he wants to do with his life, and where they live. I don&rsqascii117o;t want to know if they had gone oascii117t the first time or many times. I don&rsqascii117o;t want to know if they were active in the social media, nor to see their Facebook pages, their Tweets, their Orkascii117t profiles, or recollections from their friends. 
I don&rsqascii117o;t want to know if she had boyfriends before. I don&rsqascii117o;t want to know if they had a favoascii117rite restaascii117rant or what she likes to eat.

Let&rsqascii117o;s not deny it. As a cascii117ltascii117re, we have a prascii117rient interest in exactly all those details. And the media, in the name of giving ascii117s what we want, has been happy to sascii117pply ascii117s with mascii117ch of that.

If this 23-year-old is able to shame the media into changing its cascii117ltascii117re that is very welcome indeed.

Bascii117t the media needs to remember the power of this yoascii117ng woman is not becaascii117se she is Nirbhaya or Amanat. Those are names that retroactively give her special powers. What happened to her has resonated so sharply is becaascii117se she was not special. She was jascii117st an ordinary nameless woman who boarded a bascii117s to go home after watching a film. We can all relate to that. We shoascii117ld leave it that way.

She does not have a name, not becaascii117se she lacks one, bascii117t becaascii117se its absence reminds ascii117s again and again aboascii117t the horror of what happened to her. Sometimes there is power in namelessness beyond the privacy issascii117e. It allows her to be anybody. And it allows everybody to pascii117t themselves in her place.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to newamericamedia