- >>
- GENDER
A 26 year old woman was out on a Friday night in Delhi -- like many other 26 year old women in the capital. As the night came to an end, she turned to her smartphone and called a cab home -- as did many other women in the capital. Safely in the cab, tired and drowsy, the woman fell asleep -- as did many other women in the capital. She woke up to find herself in a secluded spot, where the driver gagged and raped her, threatening her with dire consequences if she reported the incident.
Undeterred, the woman went straight to the police station once home. Her story, has since, dominated headlines, with Indians divided over what happened. “It could have happened to anyone,” many said. “We too take a cab home at the end of the night. How else are we to get around?” “She fell asleep? That’s asking for trouble,” said some less sensitive folk.
The government decided to ban Uber -- the cab-for-hire company involved, on the grounds that it had failed to conduct a background check on the driver, who, it turns out, is a repeat offender with a criminal past.
While many welcome the decision, I have a few questions about the ban and the incident itself.
Isn’t banning Uber is a knee-jerk reaction? What’s it going to solve? It’s the same as suggesting the banning of transport buses after the Nirbhaya incident, or trains after a woman was raped aboard the Ajmer-Dadar Express. Or hey, just ban men -- that should solve the problem!
Don’t get me wrong. Of course Uber should be penalised for not following basic security checks. But a ban is not the solution. Further, isn’t it the responsibility of the government (transport department, in this case, I presume) to ensure that companies operating within the country follow such rules/guidelines? How was Uber allowed to function without doing so?
The accused was a serial rapist! What was he doing free to roam (rather drive) the streets of Delhi in the first place? Do we need repeat incidents to occur before we know criminals are criminals? In fact, the accused has had at least 8 FIRs against him -- including molestation, theft, chain snatching and two cases under the Uttar Pradesh Goonda Act, all of which are pending trial.
Did the government/police need Uber to conduct a police verification for it to know that this man needed rehabilitation/monitoring?
What about the “fake” character certificate? Was a cop bribed to sign it? It wouldn’t be surprising give the fact that the Delhi police is notorious for corruption. Reports have since surfaced that such character certificates can be bought from the police for Rs. 8000.
Isn’t the point of all this “women’s safety”? Wouldn’t that be better achieved by ensuring that there are plenty of safe and reliable taxi companies, as opposed to banning “internet cab companies” in general? Shouldn’t the solution be an insistence to follow the regulations, as opposed to letting companies ply without doing so, till such and such incident occurs?
In short. Yes, Uber is to be blamed, in part, for not following security checks. But let’s stop looking for band-aid solutions such as banning the whole damn company. The problem is deep rooted. India, and particularly Delhi, is witness to rising violence against women -- whether she’s taking public transport or is in the safety of her own home. Let’s not make this about “what Uber could have done differently” but instead, about “What India should be doing differently.”
