session 6: RESPONSES OF THE JURY - DAUGHTERS OF DREAMTIME

A Prologue: Lauwrence Liang, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore (video clip)

THE JURY RESPONDS

This session will hear voices of wisdom drawn from the world of activism, art and academia; women and men who have engaged deeply with issues of violence and discrimination at different levels. They will help the Court to redraw the framework of dominant jurisprudence dislocating it from the sterile world of law and relocating it in the vibrant politic of human diversity. Helping us to find and stengthen ways to justice that are not only retributive but also deeply transformative and reformative, ways therefore that will not only ensure that dowry and violence against women becomes a crime that needs to be punished; but also in themselves prove to be acts of humanity that will truly make violence against women unthinkable.

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Former Justice, Supreme Court of India
Kamla Bhasin, Poet, Women's Activist, Sangat, New Delhi
Veena Talwar-Oldenburg, Activist/Academic, Professor of History
Shiv Vishwanathan, Social Scientist, Dhirubhai Ambani Institue of Information and Communication Technology, Ahmedabad
Vandana Shiva, Environmental scholar, Activist, Navadanya, Dehradun
Mallika Sarabhai, Artist, Activist, Darpana Academy of Performing Arts, Ahmedabad


Each member of the Jury responded to the poignant testimonies of the women from her and his own unique perspective.
They all agreed that dowry was only a syptom of the systemic and structural violence found in our patriarchal societies; a violence that is only deepening with the commercialization of every aspect of our existence in the context of the present globalization. Violence against women they said is driven by the pitiless logic of growth, profit and commodification of human transactions such as dowry. All the institutions of justice, police and the media are pervaded by this logic. Women have remained voiceless and the Court of Women gave them a public and political space in which to articulate this very personal form of violence.
Listening they said was crucial. The questions of how a community listens may be the beginning of change. A change that they said should emerge from a deep reflection of the personal choices that we all make. They felt that one needs the stories of resistance just as much as the testimonies of victims to create a new world. The role of the Jury they emphasized was not only an act of listening, but a statement of solidarity, an affirmation of hope.