"The Cry of the Hour: Tribute or tone-deaf gesture?"

The Kolkata rape case, more widely known as the RG Kar case after the medical college and hospital that housed this horrific crime, concerns a young doctor who was subjected to alleged gang rape. After a tumultuous two months entailing cover-ups and protests, the first charge sheet has recently been filed by the CBI naming Sanjay Roy as the sole perpetrator.

While the case made the rounds of courtrooms, a statue was unveiled outside the Platinum Jubilee building of the R.G. Kar Medical College titled ‘Abhaya: The Cry of the Hour’ on 2nd October 2024 in an attempt to honor the victim. This statue depicted the fiberglass bust of the victim in her final moments, encapsulating her agony and distress. With her head thrown back, wide-eyed, and gaping at the horror unfolding before her, the statue leaves a lasting impression on the observer, compelling them only to imagine what the horrified eyes of the statue beheld. The opinion of this being a tribute is shared by a few who derive their sentiments from the sculptor, Asit Sain's graspable intentions and what the statue symbolizes. The doctors at RG Kar defending this installation have reiterated that it is not a depiction of the victim but rather an emblem of the suffering and torture she endured. Their argument includes creating an unforgettable image that serves as a reminder to authorities of her struggle and their perseverance in the fight for justice.

However, many others view this statue as a tone-deaf gesture, calling out the irresponsibility of those endorsing it. Public declarations of discontent, particularly on social media, emphasize the disrespectful nature of the sculpture towards the very person it aims to honor. Critics argue that such a depiction reduces the victim to an image of perpetual suffering, forcing her anguish to be publicly consumed rather than offering a respectful tribute to her life and dignity. The backlash against the statue has been significant, with activists, students, and feminist groups voicing their opposition to the installation. On social media, many have called the statue “grotesque” and “exploitative,” arguing that it immortalizes the victim's agony in a way that is neither respectful nor necessary. Critics claim the statue acts as a constant reminder of the victim’s trauma, rather than honoring her resilience or the progress made in the pursuit of justice.

Some protesters outside the college argued that such a visual representation of the victim's last moments should never have been made public, as it strips away her dignity. Others highlighted how this statue stands in stark contrast to more traditional forms of memorialization like vigils, rallies, or symbolic gestures that respect a victim's memory without displaying their suffering for all to see. This form of representation leads to a larger question about how society should honor victims of heinous crimes. Memorials are typically intended to commemorate an individual's life or the event that affected them. However, when the focus shifts entirely to the trauma and suffering, it can overshadow the victim's personhood and reduce them to a symbol of pain.

The ethical dilemma posed by the ‘Abhaya’ statue raises important questions about the way we memorialize victims of violence. Is it appropriate to display a victim’s pain in such a vivid and public manner? Or does it do more harm than good, reopening wounds for those connected to the victim and for the larger community? Statues, traditionally erected to commemorate individuals or significant events, are symbols of remembrance. They dictate the narrative of the stories they are connected to for as long as they stand. In this case, the narrative focuses on the victim's suffering rather than her life or the fight for justice. For many, this is a troubling representation, one that reduces her identity to a single moment of horror, stripping her of her dignity in the process. Activists have voiced concerns that such depictions do not honor the victim but instead exploit her suffering for public display. In this context, the statue becomes a form of "grief tourism," where the audience is invited to witness and consume the victim’s pain without any deeper reflection on the social issues that led to the crime or the need for systemic change.

This form of public memorialization raises broader cultural and ethical issues. How do we, as a society, choose to remember victims of sexual violence? Does creating a visual representation of their suffering help or hinder the cause of justice? Should we focus on their pain, or should we instead highlight their humanity and the need for reforms to prevent future incidents? These questions remain at the heart of the controversy surrounding ‘Abhaya.’

This case also touches on the legal aspects of how victims of sexual violence are represented in public discourse. The Supreme Court has issued mandates to conceal the identities of rape victims to protect their privacy and dignity. This ruling has led to strict censorship on public platforms, including the Wikimedia Foundation, ensuring that the victim’s name and personal details are kept out of the public eye. However, despite these legal protections, the statue stands as one of the few links to the victim’s identity. Although the sculpture does not bear her name, it is closely tied to her story, making it impossible to dissociate the two. Critics argue that the statue violates the victim’s right to privacy and perpetuates the same violence she endured by denying her the basic dignity of control over her persona. Statues are intended to grant immortality to the stories they depict. But in this case, what narrative is being immortalized? The focus on her suffering rather than her life, her dignity, or her humanity raises questions about whose story is being told and for what purpose. This narrative, critics argue, is undeserving of its muse.

As this controversy continues, there have been calls to remove or alter the statue, replacing it with something that better reflects the victim's resilience and the broader societal struggle for justice. Others have suggested that the college or city establish a memorial scholarship or charity in the victim's name, which could provide a more meaningful and constructive tribute to her memory. The RG Kar case has sparked vital conversations about the ethics of memorializing victims of sexual violence. It highlights the need for more thoughtful and sensitive approaches to public tributes, ones that honor the victim’s life and fight for justice rather than reducing them to a symbol of suffering. While the intentions behind ‘Abhaya’ may have been sincere, the execution of this tribute has reignited debates about how best to represent victims without stripping them of their dignity.

The ongoing legal battle, coupled with the public outcry over the statue, serves as a stark reminder that the conversation surrounding sexual violence and its victims is far from over. Moving forward, it is essential for public institutions, activists, and communities to consider more respectful, empowering ways to honor victims of violence—ways that preserve their humanity and advance the fight for justice, without reducing them to mere symbols of their trauma.

---