In several regions of India, village communities still serve a major function of settling disputes. Village elders, community leaders, and informal panchayats often endeavour to settle conflicts without bringing in any police intervention or formal courts into the picture. Although community-driven conflict resolution may at times work well when individuals wish to sort out small disagreements, this system tends to become completely unacceptable when it comes to addressing cases of sexual violence and other grave crimes. Such systems can actually end up victimising the very individual who seeks justice.
An incident that recently happened in the Begusarai district of the state of Bihar in India brings out this alarming truth. As per reports, a woman who had complained that a man from their neighbourhood had raped her was humiliated by some people from the panchayat of that village. Instead of going straight away to the police station and lodging a complaint for investigation, a meeting was arranged at the village level, and the woman was made to lick saliva from the floor. Even the man who had allegedly committed this crime was punished by the villagers.
There is one thing that should be asked when considering such cases: why is it so that the person reporting a crime becomes the person to be prosecuted? The reason for this lies in the imbalance of power relations in the rural areas.
In village courts or the informal panchayat, the power of social connections, status of one's family, caste, gender, economic standing, and political influence in the community comes into play. This can influence the way the case will be considered even prior to the start of the investigation. The allegation made by a woman against a man in her own community becomes more than just a criminal case.
It places the survivors of sexual assault in a dangerous position. A woman who files a charge of sexual assault is already under stress, fear, and emotional trauma. If her community decides to attack her character, humiliate and subject her to degrading treatment, it only shows other women that they can have a hard time if they report such incidents.
It gets even more problematic if the community decides to assess the facts about the sexual assault without proper evidence or investigation. In the case of Begusarai, some members of the local community doubted the victim’s allegation and said that she had not been sexually assaulted because she and the accused were engaged in a consensual sexual relationship and the villagers had found the two together. Owing to this dispute, it remains uncertain how the incident took place. It is for this reason that serious charges need to be looked into by competent investigators and judges, and not the community through humiliation or punishment.
There must be proof, investigations, and proper procedure for an act to be considered a crime. The accused and complainant cannot be viewed as guilty just by virtue of the decision of the community meeting because informal justice is detrimental not only to the rights of the accused but to those of the complainant as well. In sexual assault cases, social stigma may particularly hurt the latter since she is a woman.
The use of humiliation as punishment also reflects a more general problem regarding gender and power dynamics. In conservative societies, women may be required to preserve family honour and not to expose their private issues in public life. Thus, when a woman discloses her experience of sexual violence, this action can be interpreted as damage to the reputation of the family or even the village in question. In this case, one should not question why there was violence, but why she talked about it.
The change in emphasis is counterproductive. The important issue should be whether a crime has been committed and whether there is any evidence, rather than whether the victim has shamed the community. Community shaming cannot take the place of law.
There is another danger in the fact that local leaders think they have the power to punish those who have not been tried by any legal process. The panchayat or village elders have significant social clout even though they lack legal standing. A person who does not agree with them might fear exclusion from society or intimidation.
The case of Begusarai, however, is particularly noteworthy because of both the alleged violence and the events that transpired afterwards. This is because it illustrates the potential dangers of informal powers in situations where there are no proper checks. Rather than making sure that the complainant had protection from the law, she was made to undergo more torture at the hands of the panchayat.
In addition to the recently reported case of a woman being asked to clean spit and urine due to her report of rape in the district of Khagaria, such incidents cannot be simply written off as an isolated incident. Such incidents reflect the wider problem of the reaction of certain communities towards women who report sexual abuse. When women are publicly embarrassed, or their reports are ignored, it will lead other women to refrain from reporting the crime in the future.
However, what must be noted at the same time is the fact that we must not view every rural panchayat as being unjust. The local communities do have their own value when it comes to solving disputes regularly. But the trouble starts when informal power is exercised for dealing with criminal cases.
Therefore, the answer lies in increasing awareness about legal rights, improved access to the police and courts, and improved security for complainants and witnesses. Rural societies need to know that any claims about sexual assault cannot be resolved in public shame and communal punishment. The police should handle cases fairly and conduct proper investigations. In addition, women should have access to legal assistance and counselling so that they do not have to fear any backlash for speaking up.
Educational awareness is yet another key aspect of the solution to the problem. The difference between popular opinion of the community and judicial justice should be clear in people's minds. A person's good name, his/her social status, or gender should have nothing to do with the credibility of the claim and the right of the person to justice. Likewise, a mere village meeting does not make the accused person guilty.
However, the case in Begusarai raises the issue of who is responsible for deciding the concept of justice in the community. If the local authorities in the community have the power to determine whose reputation is worth humiliating and protecting, then justice in such an environment depends on social hierarchy and not law. The weakest person ends up being the easiest to punish.
Justice in society requires the opposite trend. In reporting sexual violence against them, a woman should not be worried about being subjected to more humiliation. While allegations are investigated, all parties need to be treated with justice. Justice can be facilitated in a village, but it can never take its place.
The true test of any society is not its ability to punish an individual. It is its capacity to provide protection to vulnerable individuals, preserve their dignity, search for the truth, and give way to the course of justice. This is illustrated by the incidents in Bihar where the use of informal power to override an individual’s right leads to punishment for the already vulnerable individual. Justice should not be dependent upon how powerful the voice of an individual is in the village.
References:
- NDTV: Bihar Panchayat Says Woman At Fault For Her Rape, Makes Her Lick Spit
- India Today: Bihar rape survivor humiliated by panchayat, forced to lick spit
- Times of India, August 2026