The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) recently covered a 4,500-year-old statue, sparking debate about the colonial concept of 'modesty of a woman' that still lingers in India's criminal law. According to Sumit Baudh, this act exposes a colonial fiction that the Indian legal system has refused to abandon.
The Statue and the Fiction
The statue in question, dating back to the Indus Valley Civilization, was draped by NCERT to avoid 'offending sensibilities.' Baudh argues that this reflects a deeper issue: the legal notion of 'modesty of a woman' is a colonial import, not an indigenous value. The Indian Penal Code, drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860, includes Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). These sections use 'modesty' as a legal standard, but Baudh contends that the term is vague and patriarchal.
Colonial Roots and Legal Consequences
Baudh traces the concept to Victorian morality, which sought to regulate women's bodies and sexuality. In colonial India, this was used to justify British rule as 'civilizing' natives. Post-independence, Indian courts have interpreted 'modesty' subjectively, often relying on the woman's conduct or clothing. This has led to problematic judgments where victims are blamed for not being 'modest enough.' For instance, in 2013, a Delhi court acquitted a man accused of molestation, stating that the woman's 'loose character' made the act less serious.
Statistics show that cases under Section 354 have risen by 300% in the last decade, yet conviction rates remain low. Legal experts argue that the vague definition of 'modesty' hampers justice. The Law Commission of India, in its 2015 report, recommended replacing 'modesty' with 'sexual assault' to focus on the perpetrator's actions rather than the victim's perceived modesty.
The NCERT Incident as a Metaphor
By covering the statue, NCERT inadvertently highlighted how society continues to 'clothe' women's bodies with legal and moral expectations. Baudh notes that the statue was not originally intended to be covered; it was a representation of a human form. The act of covering it imposes modern sensibilities on ancient artifacts, much like the law imposes colonial morality on contemporary women.
This incident has reignited calls for legal reform. Women's rights groups have long demanded the removal of 'modesty' from statutes. The Supreme Court, in a 2017 judgment, observed that 'modesty' is not defined in the IPC and should be understood from the woman's perspective. However, lower courts often ignore this guidance.
Moving Forward: Clothe the Law, Not the Statue
Baudh concludes that the solution is not to cover statues but to reform the law. He advocates for a gender-neutral definition of sexual assault that does not rely on 'modesty.' Several countries, including Canada and the UK, have already moved away from such terms. India's proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which aims to replace the IPC, retains 'modesty' in its draft, drawing criticism.
The NCERT's action, though well-intentioned, reveals the persistence of colonial thinking. As Baudh writes, 'We must clothe the law, not the statue.' Only by shedding the colonial fiction of 'modesty' can Indian law truly protect women's autonomy and dignity.
