The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) claims to campaign on an ideology-free, "power to the people" sort of platform to protect the

interests of the "common man". But the thing that struck me most about the AAP is that its workers explicitly came out in protest against a rape. In May this year, it forced police in east Delhi to arrest a driver accused of raping a 13-year-old girl. AAP protesters staged a protest outside the local station till an apathetic police was compelled to take action. Interestingly, the website that reported this incident described AAP party workers as "activists", even though it had registered with the Election Commission as a party in March. The incident and description of AAP workers are noteworthy because it was a rare occasion when a political party actively lobbied for women's safety and tougher action against rape. In that guise, they became "activists". And as we await the sentencing of the four surviving rapists in last December's horrific incident, it is a point worth pondering. Women account for nearly half India's population but a sensible, rhetoric-free discussion on women's rights and safety is conspicuously absent from the political discourse. No political party explicitly makes women's issues, especially more stringent anti-rape laws, part of its governance agenda (nor, in fact, does the AAP) and as the rape trial made its depressing progress, it was amply clear that nobody really cared. This was already abundantly evident in the days following the rape. Parliament was in session and Jaya Bachchan made a dramatic and tearful statement in Parliament. No doubt, she was sincere in her sentiments; but clearly not enough to lend her support to the protesters on Raisina Hill. The reaction from Sonia Gandhi, who effectively heads the government, was even stranger. She said nothing of any significance (which is normal) and then she and her son selectively met some protesters in the dead of night. For what purpose nobody knows. None of the Bharatiya Janata Party's vociferous women politicians put in an appearance either. Fourteen per cent of those elected to the current Lok Sabha are under 40 years of age. Were any of these MPs, some of them trendy torchbearers of India's so-called demographic dividend, there? This Lok Sabha also has the highest proportion of women MPs (11 per cent) - people like Supriya Sule, Agatha Sangma or Kumari Selja, who are fairly media-friendly when it suits them. Nope, none of them chose to brave the water cannons on those cold December days or argue with cops who threatened to do to the women protesters what the rapists had done to the young girl in whose name they were protesting. Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dixit gave a silly, self-serving interview to a TV channel and then wondered why she was nearly lynched when she tried to talk to protesters. In any case, she had told us some years before that women should not be "adventurous", so we know what she thinks. As columnist Nilanjana Roy pointed out in a TV discussion at the time, if these same women could make the time to come to TV studios to talk about the issue, they could have come to India Gate too. And the doughty Kiran Bedi, with whom I disagree on almost everything, pertinently asked why no one came and spoke to the protesters. The short answer is that despite two decades of economic liberalisation, India remains a paternalistic society. As a result, even those women who have participated in and gained from its opportunities don't want to think too far out of the box. So, it does not occur to men to do so either. The cynical tokenism of reserving seats for women in Parliament, a law that has mercifully not seen the light of day, is about the only idea political parties can muster up on women's rights. Let there be no illusion that the fast-track court, which has moved at Formula 1 speed by Indian standards, was set up because of public and media pressure - and not least because the incident was widely reported globally. The amendments to the rape laws were similarly motivated. They are unlikely to act as deterrents to the shameful amount of harassment and violence to which Indian women are subjected every day.

The government thought nothing of changing tax laws with retrospective effect and promulgating an ordinance for an expensive (and presumably vote-catching) food law. How come no senior minister from the United Progressive Alliance thought of introducing an amendment to make it possible to try juveniles guilty of rape under adult laws, with retrospective effect for good measure?