Quiz: Reading Comprehension

The banality of evil
India’s Daughter, by
telling us how particular rapists think, forces us to confront that this is
what many men, from every demographic across the country, say
One of the strongest feminist voices comes
from the girl’s father, while a patriarchal voice comes from the wife of one of
the accused

Author: Vasundhara Sirnate

Hannah Arendt wrote
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil in 1963, a report on
the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi officer charged with carrying out the
Reich’s “Final Solution.” She wrote of Eichmann, “Despite all the efforts of
the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a “monster,” but it
was difficult indeed not to suspect that he was a clown.” She found him
quotidian, almost unremarkable. She, controversially, did not believe him to be
a fanatic or a sociopath, but described him as someone who had made stupid
choices for professional advancement.
India’s Daughter, a
reconstructive documentary by Leslee Udwin on the Nirbhaya gang rape, that has
now been banned by the Bharatiya Janata Party government, essentially presents
the “monsters” that raped the woman as everyday men, like Arendt presented
Eichmann. In doing so, the film offers a damning portrayal of Indian patriarchy
and misogyny.

Some years ago, a friend
confided in me that in a fit of rage her husband had shouted that he wished she
would be gang raped because she deserved it. Then he paused and said, “No, I
think I want something worse than that to happen to you. I want you to die.”

I watched India’s Daughter
before the government banned it. As I listened to the rapist explain how he and
the others thought about women, I realised there was little difference between
them and this husband. But that’s where the similarity ended. He was an upper
caste male, an IIT aristocrat living in Silicon Valley, studying at a top
business school. The only other difference was that he never acted on his

Problematic documentary
India’s Daughter is
problematic on many counts. First, the appeals process of the rapists,
sentenced to death in 2013, is still on. There is good reason to fear that the
release of the documentary could hurt the appeal. However, while the trial was
ongoing, no one raised the argument that the mobs outside the Delhi court,
which were baying for the blood of the rapists, were hurting the actual trial
and sentencing.

The second problem comes
from those who say that the film is orientalist and colonial. Yes, a non-Indian
person made the film, and her gaze on Indian society is not as nuanced as an
Indian’s would be, especially an Indian steeped in critical and social theory.
But none of these is a ground for dismissing the film or banning it.

Third, the film is said to
glorify the rapists and promote voyeurism. However, believing that is to
misread the film. The film is not focussed on rape victims. Udwin is trying to
understand why rapists rape. This is not unlike the work of Mahmood Mamdani
(When Victims Become Killers) and Scott Strauss, who have tried to understand
the Rwandan genocide also from the point of view of those who killed. It is not
unlike what the Behavioural Sciences Unit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation does in the United States. Also, if there is a charge of
voyeurism, should depictions of Auschwitz cease completely, because they may
prompt people to become neo-Nazis?

The film gives the rapists
a voice and in doing so shows them as ordinary boys capable of unspeakable
horror. Bollywood has done far more to propagate rape culture through its
Chikni Chamelis and Munnis than Udwin’s film does (which has a very limited
reach since the average Indian does not watch BBC documentaries). Even
“Raanjhanaa,” a film released after the anti-rape agitation, glorifies
stalking, thus bearing testimony to how little the movement changed mindsets,
even while it achieved far-reaching legal reforms. Heroines in Bollywood films
are constantly scripted to reward the attentions of a stalker, a sexual
harasser and a male who steals their dupattas. Fathers are scripted like Rapunzel’s
abductor; they lock their daughters in the house, who then has to wait for

Udwin’s voice is
conspicuous by its absence in the film. She does not judge what the men say.
The men range from the rapists to the defence lawyers for the rapists. They say
things like, “Ours is a great culture. There is no place for women in it.” A
lawyer says that he would burn his daughter in front of his whole family if she
engaged in premarital intercourse. Another likens a woman to a flower and later
to a piece of jewellery. One of the strongest feminist voices comes from the
girl’s father, while a decidedly patriarchal voice comes from the wife of one
of the accused, who asks why no one is bothered about her protection. A
husband, she says, has to protect his wife. If her husband is sentenced to
death, who will protect her?

The film tells us how these
particular rapists think. In doing so, however, we are forced to confront that
this is what we have heard men from every demographic say, across the country.
This is why it has become a political problem. It is frankly embarrassing for a
political class that talks about ‘India Shining’ and ‘Make in India’ and
emptily parrots the words “women’s empowerment” to have this seen
internationally. Meenakshi Lekhi said that the film would deter tourism, while
Venkaiah Naidu stated that the film was part of an anti-India conspiracy.

What is the similarity between Eichmann and Nirbhya’s rapist?

Do you agree with the perspective of Hananah Arexdit that “did not believe him
to be fanatic or a sociopath, but described him as someone who had made stupid
choices for professional advancement”?

Which is worse – raped or died? Elaborate

What is the difference and similarity in the husband and the rapist?

How glorifying and allowing this documentary would deter tourism?

What is a difference between feminist and patriarchal?

What could be the reason of such patriarchal thoughts of the wife?

Are politicians neutral? Please elaborate

Directions:  Which of the following words is most opposite in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage?

9. Banality
(a) sharp
(b) ordinary
(c) stereotyped
(d) conventional
(e) mundane

10. Quotidian
(a) familiar
(b) rare
(c) usual
(d) routine
(e)  household

11.  Misogyny
(a) chauvinist
(b) prejudice
(c) philogyny
(d) discrimination
(e)  objectification

Download Upcoming Government Exam Calendar 2021


Download success!

Thanks for downloading the guide. For similar guides, free study material, quizzes, videos and job alerts you can download the Adda247 app from play store.

Thank You, Your details have been submitted we will get back to you.

Forgot Password?

Sign Up
Forgot Password
Enter the email address associated with your account, and we'll email you an OTP to verify it's you.

Reset Password
Please enter the OTP sent to