The Delhi High Court has just absolved an abusive man, his mother and his brother — who colluded to set his wife on fire while she was pregnant, because of dowry demands — on the basis that the survivor has forgiven him. In the years since the attack, which took place in 2000, she had more children with him and reconciled with the family. Delivering the verdict that the sentences of previously-convicted family members were upheld but have been commuted to time already served, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav made this remark: “Indeed, women have very large heart (sic).”
The woman in this case may indeed be large-hearted, or not, but the fact that she has remained within a family that attempted to murder her indicates nothing about her character. If this result says anything at all, it reiterates how much harder living on her own or trying to, especially as a single parent, was for her. Again, that she did not manage to do it says nothing about her moral fibre, bravery, or intelligence — and least of all her desire to succeed. It only reminds us that the world, or at least this country, is not designed for individual independence. It is not even designed for interdependence. It is designed, deliberately, to retain power within guarded paradigms and hierarchies, relying on conditioning and complicity as much as on mandates and oppression.
Escaping an abusive household or relationship is an excruciating, multi-pronged, and often prolonged process. It is far more dependent on external circumstances than on inner resources or willpower. A person operates with agency whenever they weigh their options, assesses them realistically and stays honest with themselves — regardless of the outcome. Not being able to leave is not an indication of weakness, but nobody “chooses” to stay. Returning after leaving is also not a revelation of character.
Neither are these markers of large-heartedness, and the Delhi High Court’s statement is shocking because it valourises suffering. It upholds the patriarchal and misogynistic trope that women’s resilience is to be celebrated, rather than demanding that the structural causes of their suffering be dismantled.
People witnessing or opining on abuse and harm liberally use the F-word when it comes to survivorship, both when it comes to rebuilding life after leaving the abuser(s) or to coming to the acceptance that one will continue to stay with them. The F-word here is “forgiveness”. It is an ugly, and ironically merciless, word. The concept of forgiveness is merely another place where survivors are failed.
Lip service also often stops at claiming the idea is “misunderstood”, or that it’s “for oneself”. The truth is that a survivor’s grief, rage, bitterness, fear, or other forms of anguish are often deeply inconvenient to those around them, and once again the onus is spun back onto the survivor themself to make a change. On their own, and in silence.
No survivor on earth has to forgive those who acted against them, and doing so or not doing so has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they are good, strong, wise, or healing well. Why not turn the gaze onto the perpetrator and examine their nature instead?
