Comparative Cross-National Analyses of Domestic Violence: Insights from South Asia

Abstract

Domestic violence is a global phenomenon impacting countless lives. However, most research on the topic is anchored in the Global North. Using South Asia as a case study, we encourage further development of intersectional, comparative research. Such work brings us closer to understanding shared and divergent causes, patterns, and impacts of domestic violence within and across societies. The tendency to treat South Asia monolithically erases nuanced understandings of domestic violence and reduces South Asian women to victims. Our context-specific explorations highlight how marriage, religion and global processes reveal theoretically meaningful variations in women’s experiences of domestic violence.

Keywords

cross-national comparative domestic violence South Asia global perspectives gender inequality

Globally, one in three women are estimated to have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetimes (World Health Organization [WHO], 2013). Over the last decades, scholars, international bodies and private foundations have dedicated considerable resources to understand and ameliorate this global problem (Fulu et al., 2013; Pande et al., 2017). This is critically important work. Yet, in considering the global dimensions of IPV, we are reminded of the vital insights Chandra Talpade Mohanty’s (1984) “Under Western Eyes” still holds for feminist scholars and activists.

Mohanty provides three critiques of scholarship produced in the West/Global North concerning the East/Global South: assumptions of uniformity in women’s experiences in such contexts, an implicit ahistoricism that treats gender inequalities in such settings as static, and the related tendency to view women as victims of backwards cultures. The resulting characterization is of an “average third world woman [who] leads an essentially truncated life. . .in contrast to the (implicit) self-representation of Western women” who are privileged “as the norm or referent” (p. 337). Mohanty calls, instead, for a non-hegemonic scholarly approach that explicitly engages “material and ideological specificities” (p. 338) to recognize variations in women’s experiences and highlight unequal global processes in “a world system dominated by the West” (p. 335).

In this review, we engage Mohanty’s insights to offer a contextual examination of domestic violence in South Asia and argue for future work to follow this approach. South Asia is useful for our effort as its seven countries—Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka—have distinct histories, cultures, and relations to the global. Yet, they are routinely characterized by scholars and global policy actors in precisely the monolithic ways referenced by Mohanty (1984): as a uniformly patriarchal “South Asian” culture that is decontextualized from its diversities, historical contexts, and global processes.

By providing comparative analyses of gender inequalities and their relation to domestic violence that emphasize meaningful variations in women’s experiences, we seek to complicate the monolithic story of “South Asia” and propose a nuanced model for comparative scholarship on IPV. Such an approach, oriented toward eschewing hegemonic frameworks, has additional benefits. It provides locally grounded insights for theory and intervention; brings us closer to identifying shared causes, patterns, and consequences of IPV; and highlights facets of social change that can ameliorate or exacerbate the problem.

Gender Inequality and Domestic Violence

Scholars and activists agree that there are critical connections between women’s status in society and their risks for domestic violence (Willie & Kershaw, 2019). Gender inequalities are reflected in political representation, legal systems, access to educational and economic resources, and men’s “direct authority—sanctioned by law, religion, and custom—over women in their family or household” (Cameron, 2018, p. 15). Heise’s (1998) seminal ecological model of violence against women “conceptualizes violence as a multifaceted phenomenon grounded in an interplay among personal, situational, and sociocultural factors” (p. 262), including family, community, and societal factors contributing to IPV. It has recently been expanded to include gendered processes associated with globalization, which impacts violence against women around the world in complex ways (Fulu & Miedema, 2015).

A global ecological framework is responsive to Mohanty’s (1984) concerns and guides our analytic approach to South Asia. In addition, our comparative analyses are well-aligned with Sanday’s (1981) seminal work comparing societies with high and low tolerance for violence against women. We provide a comparative overview, including sketches designed to highlight shared features across countries but also illuminate the region’s diversity. These offer a brief but meaningful starting point for the contextual analyses necessary for comparative understandings of IPV.

Table 1 provides key measures relevant for our assessment and will inform the discussion that follows. We begin by reviewing baseline rates of intimate partner violence for each country, as shown in the table’s first two rows. Admittedly, making such comparisons is challenging, due to uneven data availability; variations in sampling, instruments, and procedures; and context-specific stigma associated with disclosure (Follingstad, 2017). Nonetheless, these represent the most systematic data available from the UN Women’s Global Database on Violence Against Women, compiled from the most reliable figures from member countries’ reports.¹

Table 1.

Intimate Partner Violence, Demographics, and Gender Inequality, South Asia.

Measures	Bangladesh	Bhutan	India	Maldives	Nepal	Pakistan	Sri Lanka
Lifetime physical and/or sexual IPV^a,b	54.2%	15.1%	28.8%	16.3%	25.0%	24.5%	20.4%
Physical and/or sexual IPV in last 12 months^a,b	26.9%	6.1%	22.0%	5.6%	11.2%	14.5%	6.0%
Child Marriage^a,c	58.6%	25.8%	27.3%	3.9%	39.5%	21%	12%
Population^d	162.7 million	782,300	1.3 billion	391,900	30.3 million	233.5 million	22.9 million
Urban^d	38.2%	42.3%	34.9%	40.7%	20.6%	37.2%	18.7%
Ethnicity^d	98% Bengali; 1.1% Indigenous	50% Ngalop; 35% Nepali; 15% Indigenous	72% Indo-Aryan; 25% Dravidian; 3% Other	n/a; homogenous multi-ethnic	125 caste/ethnic groups; include: 16.6% Chhettri; 12.2% Brahman-Hill; 4.4% Muslim	44.7% Punjabi; 15.4% Pashtun; 14.1% Sindhi; Others > 10% each	74.5% Sinhalese; 11.2% Sri Lankan Tamil; 9.2% Moors; 4.2% Indian Tamil
Religion^d	89.1% Muslim; 10% Hindu; 0.9% Other	75.3% Buddhist; 22.1% Hindu; 2.6% Other	79.8% Hindu; 14.2% Muslim; 2.3% Christian; 1.7% Sikh	Sunni Muslim	81.3% Hindu; 9% Buddhist; 4.4% Muslim; 5.2% Other	96.4% Muslim; 85%–90% Sunni; 10%–15% Shia	70.2% Buddhist; 12.6% Hindu; 9.7% Muslim; 7.4% Christian
History of colonization	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Mean years of schooling^e	F 5.3; M 6.8	F 2.1; M 4.2	F 4.7; M 8.2	F 6.7; M 6.8	F 3.6; M 6.4	F 3.8; M 6.5	F 10.5; M 11.6
Population with some secondary education^f	F 45.3%; M 49.2%	F 7.6%. M 17.5%	F 39.0%; M 63.5%	F 44.9%; M 49.3%	F 29.0%; M 44.2%	F 26.7%; M 47.3%	F 82.6%; M 83.1%
Labor force participation^f	F 36.0%; M 81.3%	F 58.2%; M 74.5%	F 23.6%; M 78.6%	F 41.9%; M 82.0%	F 81.7%; M 84.4%	F 23.9%; M 81.5%	F 34.9%; M 72.2%
Estimated per capita income^e	F $2,373; M $5,701	F $6,388; M $10,579	F $2,625; M $10,712	F $7,454; M $15,576	F $2,113; M $3,510	F $1,570; M $8,605	F $6,766; M $16,852
Adolescent birthrate^f	83%	20.2%	13.2%	7.8%	65.1%	38.8%	20.9%

Note. ^a https://evaw-global-database.unwomen.org/en (accessed 9/11/2020).

Official statistics for IPV in Sri Lanka are not available from UN Women; estimates here are from Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka (2020, p. 29).

Defined as the percentage of women aged 20–24 years who were first married or in a union before age 18.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/one_page_summaries.html (accessed 9/12/2020).

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdro_statistical_data_table4.pdf (accessed 8/19/2020).

http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/GII (accessed 8/19/2020).

Bangladesh has the highest rates of IPV, with an alarming lifetime prevalence of 54.2%. India, Nepal, and Pakistan report around half of Bangladesh’s rate, with their estimates in range of the WHO’s (2013) global averages. Sri Lanka’s recently released rates, not from UN Women but based on a nationwide representative sample, are lower (Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka, 2020), though a recent scoping review estimates that between 25% and 30% of women have experienced IPV in their lifetime, with a 12-month incidence of around 17% (WHO, 2018). The Maldives and Bhutan report dramatically lower rates, offering insights about low-IPV prevalence societies. Incidence of IPV in the last 12 months shows similar patterns, while comparing lifetime prevalence with 12-month incidence suggests that IPV is more chronic in some countries than others. Finally, child marriage rates are likely related to IPV, and thus are reported by UN Women along with IPV. Bangladesh has the highest rates of child marriage, with Nepal also high relative to the region. Their adolescent birthrates are also high, corresponding with rates of child marriage.

Table 1 also provides an overview of additional relevant measures, revealing marked variations in geographic and population size, urbanization, ethnicity, religion, history, and gender inequality indicators. While not complete, it offers sufficient evidence to begin teasing out patterns and concerns more relevant in some contexts than others. Measures of gender inequality come from the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Gender Inequality (GII) and Gender Development (GDI) Indexes, and include education, labor market participation, and standard of living (UNDP, 2010). Such resources may be critical protections against IPV.

Sri Lanka has the most educated population, with marked gender parity, but larger gender gaps in labor and economic indicators. Bangladesh and the Maldives show similar patterns. In Bhutan and Nepal, this pattern is reversed, with large educational gaps but greater labor force and economic parities. In contrast, India and Pakistan have the largest gender gaps in education, paid labor and economic measures. The GII also ranks 162 nations from least to most gender inequality. The Maldives (81st) is in the second quartile; Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal in the third quartile (86th, 99^th, and 115th, respectively); and India, Bangladesh and Pakistan in the bottom quartile (122nd, 129th, and 136th, respectively) with the most gender inequality in the region. These rankings largely align with rates of IPV reported in Table 1.

The Impacts of Colonization

Four countries—Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka—bear the scars of colonization and its subversion of women’s rights. All but Sri Lanka have high regional rates of IPV. Prior to colonization, each was “characterized by a pluralistic and fragmented” legal and political structure, upon which British models of law and governance were imposed (Chitnis & Wright, 2007, p. 1316). British rule imposed Victorian family law systems detrimental to the rights of women, introducing rigid marriage and divorce laws, stripping women of the right to own and inherit property, and increasing their dependence on men (Risseeuw, 1991). Many of the structural barriers that women face today in accessing economic resources are residual effects of this history (Mani, 1989).

Anti-colonial resistance and post-colonial nationalism have shaped women’s positions across former colonies, including through oppressive religious authorities (Chitnis & Wright, 2007). For example, in Sri Lanka, the rise of a rigid sexual double standard was critical to the Buddhist nationalist project resisting British oppression. Premised on then-Ceylon’s greater morality, the result was constricted definitions of “good” womanhood, enhancing women’s marginalization (de Alwis, 1996). In Pakistan, “colonialism created the conditions in which an oppositional, identity-preserving view of Islam could. . .flourish,” resulting in conservative resistance to a “progressive interpretation of Islam with respect to women’s rights” (Naz et al., 2013, pp. 21, 22). While these processes were not uniform, British rule and the nationalist agendas that followed buttressed cultural affinities for patriarchal values in post-colonial South Asia, setting the contexts within which domestic violence should be understood.

In addition, while Nepal was not colonized, its gender inequality and IPV rates are comparable to former colonies. One likely contributor is the centuries-long tradition of hegemonic masculinity encouraging war-readiness and violence. This began with the nation’s founding, accomplished through violent territorial expansion, but was enhanced when Nepali men—recognized for their fierceness—were recruited to fight for the colonial British Indian Army (Gellner, 2019). Sanday (1981) highlights the connections between the valorization of violence and violence against women, suggesting that violent norms likely contribute to Nepal’s relatively high rates of IPV.

Ongoing conflicts in former colonies also contribute to violent cultures, creating additional hardships for women. For example, scholars trace the violent dimensions of Sri Lanka’s Sinhala Buddhist nationalism to its colonial history (Kapferer, 2011). Its decades-long civil war and ongoing ethnic strife have been especially harmful for women. The civil war branded Sri Lanka the most militarized state in South Asia (Human Rights Watch, 2013). It shored up some facets of gender inequality while complicating others: leading to “patriotic mothering” (Hewamanne, 2009) that further valorized traditional gender expectations; heightening sexual violence (Minority Rights Group International, 2013); but also increasing women’s employment (Ruwanpura & Humphries, 2008). The latter change led to pushback, including the sexual stigma of women workers whose economic activities challenged the ideal of the good Sinhala Buddhist woman (Lynch, 2007). These examples illustrate the need for nuanced ground-level understandings of contexts impacting IPV.

The Interplay of Family Practices, Culture, Religion, and Law

The harmful family law systems imposed by the British continue to interact with cultural and religious practices defining women’s role in family life to their detriment. This includes cultural definitions of womanhood rigidly tied to marriage and motherhood, prominent across South Asia; patrilineal and patrilocal practices, prominent in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Nepal (Khalil & Mookerjee, 2019); and women’s curtailed inheritance rights and access to divorce, which are varied. Dowry and arranged marriage may also contribute to violence against women, but their organization and impacts also are quite varied.

In Bangladesh, which reports the highest rates of IPV and child marriage in South Asia, women’s position is tied to their marital status, with a strong push to prioritize the husband’s needs. This, coupled with Islamic laws that limit women’s rights while giving men control over personal matters such as divorce, polygamy, and inheritance, create the setting within which domestic violence occurs (Ashrafun, 2018). Rates of child marriage for girls are exceedingly high in urban slums and rural communities, where nearly four in five marry prior to age 18 (p. 54). Girls are expected to be virgins at marriage, thus early marriages are encouraged to prevent their premarital sex (Kamal et al., 2014). Grooms, however, are expected to be adults who can financially support their families. This age gap “lays a solid base for establishing a husband’s superior status in the family, as age is recognized as a status indicator in Bangladeshi society” (Ashrafun, 2018, p. 55), and likely contributes to high rates of IPV.

Gender inequality is also marked in India, which has the second highest rates of IPV in the region. As in Bangladesh, marriage and the family are critical to understanding domestic violence in India. Cherukuri et al. (2009) explain: “A women’s place in India is, in large part, defined by her relationship to the family” (p. 255). A majority of women marry into patrilocal families, where decision-making power rests with the adult men. This often limits women’s contact with their natal families and lowers their autonomy and decision-making power (Khalil & Mookerjee, 2019).

With patterns similar to India, Nepal’s gender relations are rooted in an orthodox form of Hinduism, despite its ethnic diversity. It was a Hindu monarchy until 2008, with the “hegemonic Hindu ideology, including gender ideology, of the ruling high-caste” providing “the framework for Nepali civil law” and cultural practices (Birkenholtz, 2019, p. 435). The imposition of this hierarchical form of Hindu patriarchy on the country’s diverse population has circumscribed women’s lives. Patrilineal marriage has “obligated [young women] to marry at a young age, move and live in their husband’s home, fulfill the duties of a ‘good wife,’ and remain economically and socially dependent on the husband and his family” (Mikkonen et al., 2017, p. 522). Patriarchal notions of male superiority and residence in patrilocal families may contribute to IPV (Jayachandran, 2014; Kimuna et al., 2012).

Pakistan has the highest rates of patrilocal residence patterns in South Asia (Khalil & Mookerjee, 2019). Though violence against women is understood as going against Islamic teachings, it tends to be treated as a private matter, with male violence acceptable within marriage (Hadi, 2017). In addition, though Pakistani civil law gives women the right to own and sell property, these rights are curtailed for married women, who are precluded from property acquired during marriage as the law does not permit co-ownership of marital property. Women are only eligible to inherit half of what men can in Islamic personal laws as well. Women’s lack of access or control of assets can increase husbands’ controlling behavior, preserve gender inequality, and perpetuate IPV (Murshid & Critelli, 2020).

Sri Lanka is an apparent outlier compared to other former colonies, with less rigid family practices and seemingly lower IPV rates. Sri Lankan women are expected to prioritize the family (Abeyasekera, 2016), and evidence suggests the prominence of cultural norms supporting IPV, particularly when women violate traditional gender expectations (Jayatilleke et al., 2011; Kodikara, 2015). But the country does not have a history of many of the patriarchal practices historically documented in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, or Nepal (Jayawardena, 1998). In addition, arranged and child marriages are less widespread than elsewhere in South Asia, and the practice of dowry has not been a documented cause for violence against women (Jayasuriya et al., 2011). While more research is needed, Buddhism may play some role in shielding women from the historic subversion of rights seen more prominently in the Hindu or Islamic states of India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

India, Pakistan, and Extreme Forms of Domestic Violence

India and Pakistan have both received significant attention for extreme forms of domestic violence. In India, dowry remains an entrenched practice and is a source of considerable violence against women, despite being outlawed in 1961. Dowry-related abuse, harassment, and death are high, and included in definitions of domestic violence. For example, the National Crime Records Bureau (2017) recorded 7,621 dowry-related deaths in 2016. Dowry has been identified as a key factor underpinning domestic violence across families of all socioeconomic backgrounds (Jeyaseelan et al., 2015). Patrilineal family dynamics mean perpetrators of such violence often include the husband’s family (MN, 2013). In fact, a large proportion of incarcerated women in India are imprisoned for dowry-related violence (Bhardwaj, 2019; Cherukuri et al., 2009).

In Pakistan, honor killings, acid attacks and stove burnings by family members are included under the definition of domestic violence, signifying locally relevant concerns (Ali et al., 2020). Pakistan has a gendered honor-based culture, most strongly evident in its tribal regions, which emphasizes that family honor be upheld over everything else. Such contexts have high rates of violence against women (Mayeda & Vijaykumer, 2016). It is estimated that Pakistan has the highest rate of honor killings in the world (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, 2015). The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan identified 1,096 women victims of “honor” killings over the previous 3 years (Human Rights Commission of Pakistan [HRCP], 2015), and other sources suggest this may be dramatically higher (Kirti et al., 2011). While progressive laws supporting women’s empowerment have been passed in the last decade, their implementation continues to be a struggle against resurgent religious conservativism (Shah, 2016). That said, it is worth noting that rates of intimate partner homicide in India and Pakistan are comparable those in the United States² (Stöckl et al., 2013).

The Maldives and Bhutan: Low Prevalence Contrasts

Having compared the South Asian countries with average-to-high IPV, the Maldives and Bhutan offer striking yet distinct contrasts that highlight ecological protective factors. Both have rates of IPV considerably lower than global averages. The Maldives is a small Sunni Islamic state characterized by “small and close-knit” community life, with a “strong cultural emphasis on maintaining harmony and unity” (Fulu, 2013, pp. 50, 57). Interpersonal violence is rare and stigmatized, reflected in masculinity norms that emphasize “calmness and rationality, rather than. . .aggression or violence” (p. 61). It has not experienced colonial domination or recent civil war, forms of systemic oppression that impact gender inequality and violence against women.

Bhutan is a Buddhist kingdom with a constitutional monarchy and no history of colonial oppression. It was a closed society through the mid-twentieth century, and its socioeconomic policies remain carefully designed to uphold its cultural heritage and limit exposure to global influences (Lorway et al., 2011). Bhutan is guided by an alternative development philosophy known as Gross National Happiness (GNH), which rejects a materialist approach and—drawing from Buddhist philosophy—emphasizes “equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of national culture, conservation of environment, and promotion of good governance” (Dayaram & Pick, 2011, p. 135). This holistic approach to wellbeing likely contributes to Bhutan’s low prevalence of IPV.

Both countries’ emphases on communal values, promotion of interpersonal harmony, and Bhutan’s respect for nature reflect cultural features that Sanday (1981) identified as undermining violence against women. Contemporary Bhutanese practices of Buddhism offer a contrast with the violent nationalism found in Sri Lanka. Likewise, cultural emphases on honor, shame, and women’s sexual purity, which maintain inequality and justify IPV, are not prominent in either country. In the Maldives, these “do not dominate gender relations and are not used as a patriarchal tool to control women” (Fulu, 2013, p. 56). While honor killings are found in Bangladesh and Pakistan, the Maldives provides an important contrast that belies the conflation of the practice with Islam. Similarly, the harmful gendered cultural ideals found in post-colonial Sri Lanka appear absent in Bhutan: there is no evidence of a rigid sexual double standard, nor stigma related to divorce or out-of-wedlock childbearing (Priyadarshini, 2014), and courting rituals encourage interactions across gender (Lorway et al., 2011). This lack of gender separation reflects Sanday’s (1981) low-risk societies.

Marriage and family practices also reveal protective features. In the Maldives, arranged marriages—linked to higher risks for IPV—are uncommon and unpopular (Fulu, 2013). Moreover, non-patrilineal residence patterns; dowry paid to the bride; women’s retention of property, assets and wealth upon marriage and divorce; and divorce as “common and acceptable” contribute to low IPV rates (p. 51). In Bhutan, gender roles are seen as complementary, with women responsible for domestic caregiving. This caregiving is secured through matrilineal inheritance practices, which ensure women’s property retention and strong ties to their natal families (National Commission for Women and Children, Royal Government of Bhutan, 2013). Finally, while rates of child marriage in Bhutan are high, unlike in Bangladesh and other higher-incidence countries, such marriages take place among similarly-aged youth, rather than a child bride and adult man, as they are tied to subsistence farming (Priyadarshini, 2014).

Diversity and Change

Our brief sketches highlight the need for comparative work that is carefully contextually grounded. They also suggest the need for greater attention to diversity and change. For example, as the world’s second most populous country, it is difficult to consider IPV in India without considering its vast ethnic, caste, socioeconomic, and regional diversity (Kothari, 2014). Comparative research is limited, but one recent study in Uttar Pradesh found that tolerance of abuse was a contextual determinant of IPV risk that varied across villages. Those in which women could leave home without permission had lower rates, while women pushed to wage labor by economic conditions enjoyed greater autonomy than those in higher socioeconomic families (Mogford & Lyons, 2014).

Likewise, there are striking regional variations in Pakistan, whose four provinces have unique customs and traditions, including expectations for marriage and the treatment of women. Women’s movements’ successes are strongest in cosmopolitan areas, such as the provincial homes of Lahore and Karachi, where a “more. . .liberal atmosphere” prevails, including a less conservative culture regarding gender and marriage (Naz et al., 2013, p. 21). In the tribal regions, women’s roles are especially circumscribed, with regional comparisons reflective of these variations: IPV rates are double in the tribal regions compared to other parts of the country (Levesque, 2013).

Nepal, despite its history as a Hindu kingdom, includes “an astounding diversity of cultures, religions, ethnicities and languages” (Grossman-Thompson & Dennis, 2017, p. 799), requiring intersectional approaches to understand IPV, patriarchy, and empowerment (Birkenholtz, 2019). Sri Lanka is perhaps the least researched regarding IPV; we need a deeper understanding of variations across ethnic/religious communities and rural versus urban settings.

In addition, research is needed that examines how social change can both improve and worsen women’s risks for IPV. Nepal is a study in positive change. The Maoist People’s Movement, with women’s active participation and a commitment to gender equality, succeeded in creating a multi-party democracy in 2008 (Lohani-Chase, 2014). As a consequence:

Within the span of a single lifetime, Nepal has moved from a deeply hierarchical society, where caste differences were utterly taken for granted by the vast majority and supported by custom, law, and the state, to one where the invocation of universal human rights is pervasive (Gellner, 2019, p. 267).

While the successes of these revolutionary changes have been mixed for securing women’s rights (Grossman-Thompson & Dennis, 2017), societal commitments to do so are notable. Moreover, Nepal’s commitment to studying and ameliorating domestic violence is a model for other nations. Since 2011, its Demographic and Health Survey has assessed gender inequality, with systematic attention to violence against women (Ministry of Health and Population, 2012). Just recently, Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka (2020) followed suite with its “first dedicated national survey on violence against women and girls” (p. 1).

In Bhutan, recent policy efforts have targeted a happiness gender gap, promoting women’s educational and employment opportunities, developing daycare and flexible working conditions for parents, and encouraging men’s participation in childcare and household labor (Dayaram & Pick, 2011). Bangladesh, with the highest rates of IPV and child marriage in South Asia, has reported rapid improvements on several empowerment indicators over the last several decades, including significant progress in narrowing educational and economic gaps (Ashrafun, 2018). In the last 30 years, the proportion of women in the labor force has increased from 8% to over a third (Raihan & Bidisha, 2018). Recent studies assessing the impact of financial empowerment on IPV report mixed results: Murshid et al. (2015) found that women’s participation in microfinance programs could increase IPV for more affluent women, while Naved et al.’s (2018) study with women garment workers found that their ability to mobilize resources during dire situations reduced IPV, while their savings beyond a certain threshold increased its likelihood.

These mixed findings on financial empowerment’s ability to lower IPV point to the need for further research. Feminist scholars have argued that increased gender equality can lead to both “ameliorative and backlash processes” (Whaley et al., 2013, p. 732). Bangladesh offers a case study on these processes. Women’s empowerment allows increased decision-making and autonomy but can result in heightened risks for IPV as their changing roles can threaten male dominance at home.

Finally, Fulu (2013) warns of global processes, including the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, that threaten to undermine the Maldives’ status as an especially low prevalence country, further highlighting the complexities of social change. Recent growth of more conservative forms of Islam in the Maldives is both “a backlash against globalization. . .[and] an expression of resistance against western politico-cultural domination” (Fulu, 2013, p. 72). Ironically, part of its growth emerged from international pressure by the U.S. and United Nations for democratization. The resulting multi-party system has consolidated political power for Islamic conservatives, with religious ideals “co-opted to serve ideals of gender inequality” (p. 97), including interventions on the protective features described.

Discussion

We began this review by highlighting the challenges for comparative, cross-national research: the tendency to treat women outside the Global North as monolithic in their experiences; a tendency toward ahistoricism that does not sufficiently account for global processes; and the characterization of the Global South as underdeveloped and regressive. Utilizing South Asia as a case study, our goal was to highlight the important variations in gender inequality and IPV across the subcontinent. Inspired by Mohanty’s (1984) call for scholarship that is grounded in the local but attentive to the global, we briefly sketched key processes within and across countries that speak to distinct patterns.

Our comparisons of low (Maldives, Bhutan), high (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan), and mid-level (Sri Lanka, Nepal) prevalence countries illustrate the importance of not treating South Asia as a monolith. Indeed, any effort to understand global patterns of IPV requires a commitment to contextual meanings, historical context, and social change. Our comparisons suggest that more work is needed to understand how class, ethnicity, caste, and place can heighten or lessen women’s risks, and we highlight the importance of global processes such as colonialism, nationalism, and democratization, including the roles of actors in the Global North. Processes associated with neoliberal capitalism also require further investigation (Bhattacharya, 2013-2014).

Our look at South Asia suggests that a nuanced approach to comparative research improves our understanding of shared causes, patterns and impacts of IPV within and across societies, providing insights on root causes in high and low prevalence contexts. Our investigation supports Sanday’s (1981) seminal work, suggesting that social organizational features of societies are key for understanding violence against women. The Maldives and Bhutan reflect that cultural commitments to non-violence and harmony with nature, along with flexibility concerning marriage, divorce, and women’s sexuality, result in less societal acceptance of IPV. Alternatively, stronger patriarchal values, the valorization of violent masculinity, and nationalist movements in opposition to the colonial and post-colonial agendas of the Global North tend to translate into greater harms, reinforcing women’s subordination in the family as pillars of the “nation.” In the end, we hope our effort to sketch out the complex embeddedness of IPV within the local encourages additional nuanced comparative investigations of violence in women’s lives.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Ntasha Bhardwaj is a doctoral candidate at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University and founder of South Asian Institute of Crime and Justice Studies. Her research interests are concerned with the impact of gender and gender inequality on crime and fear of crime in South Asia.

Jody Miller is a distinguished professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University. Her research investigates how inequalities of gender, race, sexuality and place shape participation and crime and risks for victimization, with concentrations in the U.S. and South Asia.

References

Abeyasekera

A. L.

(2016). Narratives of choice: Marriage choosing right and the responsibility of agency in urban middle-class Sri Lanka. Feminist Review, 113, 1–16.

Ali

Farhan

Ayub

(2020). Intimate partner violence against women in Pakistan: A review of qualitative research. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 70(5), 892–903.

Ashrafun

(2018). Women and domestic violence in Bangladesh: Seeking a way out of the cage. Routledge.

Bhardwaj

(2019, November 16). Exploring pathways to incarceration among Indian and Sri Lankan women. Paper presented at the 2019 Annual American Society of Criminology Meeting, San Francisco, CA, United States.

Bhattacharya

(2013-2014, Winter). Explaining gender violence in the neoliberal era. International Socialist Review, 91. https://isreview.org/issue/91/explaining-gender-violence-neoliberal-era

Birkenholtz

J. V.

(2019). On becoming a woman: Shakti, storytelling, and women’s roles and rights in Nepal. Signs, 44(2), 433–464.

Cameron

(2018). Feminism. University of Chicago Press.

Cherukuri

Britton

D. M.

Subramaniam

(2009). Between life and death: Women in an Indian state prison. Feminist Criminology, 4(3), 252–274.

Chitnis

Wright

D. C.

(2007). The legacy of colonialism: Law and women’s rights in India. Washington & Lee Law Review, 64, 1315–48.

10.

Dayaram

Pick

(2011). Entangled between tradition and modernity: The experiences of Bhutanese working women. Society and Business Review, 7(2), 134–148.

11.

de Alwis

(1996). The production and embodiment of respectability: Gendered demeanours in colonial ceylon. In Roberts

(Ed.), Sri Lanka: Collective identities revisited (pp. 105–143). Marga Institute.

12.

Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka. (2020). Women’s wellbeing survey – 2019. http://www.statistics.gov.lk/Resource/refference/WWS_2019_Final_Report

13.

Follingstad

D. R.

(2017). The challenges of measuring violence against women. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edelson

J. L.

Bergen

Y. R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 57–78). Sage Publications.

14.

Fulu

(2013). Domestic violence in Asia: Globalization, gender and Islam in the Maldives. Routledge.

15.

Fulu

Miedema

(2015). Violence against women: Globalizing the integrated ecological model. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1431–1455.

16.

Fulu

Warner

Miedema

Jewkes

Roselli

Lang

(2013). Why do some men use violence against women and how can we prevent it? quantitative findings from the United Nations Multi-Country Study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. UNDP, UNFPA, UN Women and UNV.

17.

Gellner

D. N.

(2019). Masters of hybridity: How activists reconstructed Nepali society. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 25, 265–284.

18.

Grossman-Thompson

Dennis

(2017). Citizenship in the name of the mother: Nationalism, social exclusion, and gender in contemporary Nepal. Positions, 25(4), 795–820.

19.

Hadi

(2017). Patriarch and gender-based violence in Pakistan. European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research, 4(4), 297–304.

20.

Heise

L. L.

(1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290.

21.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. (2015). The depths of dishonour: Hidden voices and shameful crimes. An inspection of the police response to honour-based violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/the-depths-of-dishonour.pdf

22.

Hewamanne

(2009). Duty bound? militarization, romances and new forms of violence among Sri Lanka’s free trade zone factory workers. Cultural Dynamics, 21(2), 153–184.

23.

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. (2015). The state of human rights. http://hrcp-web.org/hrcpweb/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Women_12.pdf

24.

Human Rights Watch. (2013). “We will teach you a lesson” Sexual violence against Tamils by Sri Lankan Security Forces. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/srilanka0213webwcover_0.pdf

25.

Jayachandran

(2014). The roots of gender inequality in developing countries (NBER Working Paper no. 20380). National Bureau of Economic Research.

26.

Jayasuriya

Wijewardena

Axemo

(2011) Intimate partner violence against women in the capital province of Sri Lanka. Violence Against Women, 17(8), 1086–1102.

27.

Jayatilleke

Poudel

K. C

Sakisaka

Yasuoka

Jayatilleke

A. U.

Jimba

(2011). Wives’ attitudes toward gender roles and their experience of intimate partner violence by husbands in central province, Sri Lanka. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(3), 414–432.

28.

Jayawardena

(1998). The women’s movement in Sri Lanka 1985-95: A glance back over ten years. Options, 2–7.

29.

Jeyaseelan

Kumar

Jeyaseelan

Shankar

Yadav

B. K.

Bandiwala

S. I.

(2015). Dowry demand and harassment prevalence and risk factors in India. Journal of Biosocial Sciences, 2015(47), 727–745.

30.

Kamal

S. M. M.

Hassan

C. H.

Alam

G. M.

Ying

(2014). Child marriage in Bangladesh: Trends and determinants. Journal of Biosocial Sciences, 2015(47), 120–139.

31.

Kapferer

(2011). Legends of people, myths of state. Berghahn Books.

32.

Kimuna

S. R.

Djamba

Y. K.

Ciciurkaite

Cherukuri

(2012). Domestic violence in India: Insights from the 2005-2006 national family health survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(4), 773–807.

33.

Kirti

Kumar

Yadav

(2011). The face of honour based crimes: Global concerns and solutions. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 6(1–2), 343–357.

34.

Khalil

Mookerjee

(2019). Patrilocal residence and women’s social status: Evidence from South Asia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 67(2), 401–438.

35.

Kodikara

(2015). Domestic violence in Sri Lanka: The power of alternative discourse. Open Democracy.

36.

Kothari

(2014). Empowering women in India: Need for a feminist agenda. Journal of Health Management, 16(2), 233–243.

37.

Levesque

(2013). Managing diversity in Pakistan: Nationalism, ethnic politics and cultural resistance. South Asia, Multidisciplinary Academic Journal. http://journals.openedition.org/samaj/3551

38.

Lohani-Chase

R. S.

(2014). Protesting women in the people’s war movement in Nepal. Signs, 40(1), 29–36.

39.

Lorway

Dorji

Bradley

Ramesh

B. M.

Isaac

Blanchard

(2011). The Drayang girls of Thimphu: Sexual network formation, transnational sex and emerging modernities in Bhutan. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 13(S2), S293–S308.

40.

Lynch

(2007). Juki girls, good girls: Gender and cultural politics in Sri Lanka’s global garment industry. Cornell University Press.

41.

Mani

(1989). Contentious traditions: The debate on sati in colonial India. In Sangari

Vaid

(eds), Recasting women: Essays in colonial history (pp. 88–126). Kali for Women.

42.

Mayeda

D. T.

Vijaykumer

(2016). A review of the literature on honor-based violence. Sociology Compass, 10(5), 353–363.

43.

Mikkonen

Laitinen

HIll

(2017). Hierarchies of knowledge: Analyzing inequalities. Quaitative Social Work, 16(4), 515–532.

44.

Ministry of Health and Population. (2012). Nepal demographic and health survey 2011. Government of Nepal. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR257/FR257%5B13April2012%5D.pdf

45.

Minority Rights Group International. (2013). Living with insecurity: Marginalization and sexual violence against women in north and east Sri Lanka. https://minorityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/old-site-downloads/download-1297-Living-with-insecurity-Marginalization-and-sexual-violence-against-women-in-north-and-east-Sri-Lanka.pdf

46.

(2013). Exploring domestic violence in an Indian setting. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 20(1), 135–146.

47.

Mogford

Lyons

(2014). Village tolerance of abuse, women’s status, and the ecology of intimate partner violence in rural Uttar Pradesh, India. The Sociological Quarterly, 55(4), 705–731.

48.

Mohanty

C. T.

(1984). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Boundary, 2(3), 333–358.

49.

Murshid

N. S.

Akincigil

Zippay

(2015). Microfinance participation and domestic violence in Bangladesh. Results from a nationally representative survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(9), 1579–1596.

50.

Murshid

N. S.

Critelli

F. M.

(2020). Empowerment and intimate partner violence in Pakistan: Results from a nationally representative sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(3–4), 854–875.

51.

National Commission for Women and Children, Royal Government of Bhutan. (2017). National survey on women’s health and life experiences 2017: A study on violence against women and girls in Bhutan. United Nations Development Programme.

52.

National Crime Records Bureau. (2017). Crime in India 2016. New Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs.

53.

Naved

R. T.

Mamun

M. A.

Parvin

Willan

Gibbs

Jewkes

(2018). Magnitude and correlates of intimate partner violence against female garment workers from selected factories in Bangladesh. Plos One, 13(11), 1–22.

54.

Naz

Hussain

Daraz

Khan

Salman

Khan

M. A.

(2013). A paradigm shift in women’s movement and gender reforms in Pakistan (A historical overview). Global Journal of Human Social Science, 13(1), 21–26.

55.

Pande

R. P.

Nanda

Bopanna

Kashyap

(2017). Addressing intimate partner violence in South Asia: Evidence for interventions in the health sector, women’s collectives, and local governance mechanisms. International Center for Research on Women.

56.

Priyadarshini

(2014). Women in Bhutan: Exploring their socio-cultural status in the late 20^th century. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 75, 920–927.

57.

Raihan

Bidisha

S. H.

(2018). A research paper on economic dialogue on inclusive growth in Bangladesh. The Asia Foundation. https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/EDIG-Female-employment-stagnation-in-Bangladesh_report.pdf

58.

Risseeuw

(1991). Gender transformation, power and resistance among women in Sri Lanka. Manohar.

59.

Ruwanpura

K. N.

Humphries

(2008). Mundane heroines: Conflict, ethnicity, gender, and female headship in Eastern Sri Lanka. Feminist Economics, 10(2), 173–205.

60.

Sanday

P. R.

(1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 5–27.

61.

Shah

(2016). View from the courtroom: KP the only province lacking law to deal with domestic violence. DAWN. http://www.dawn.com/news/1242614

62.

Stöckl

Devries

Rotstein

Abrahams

Campbell

Watts

Moreno

C. G.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. Lancet, 382, 859–865.

63.

United Nations Development Programme. (2010) The real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development. (Human development report, 20th anniversary edition). Palgrave Macmillan.

64.

Whaley

R. B.

Messner

S. F.

Veysey

B. M.

(2013). The relationship between gender equality and rates of inter- and intra-sexual lethal violence: An exploration of functional form. Justice Quarterly, 30(4), 732–754.

65.

Willie

T. C.

Kershaw

T. S.

(2019). An ecological analysis of gender inequality and intimate partner violence in the United States. Preventative Medicine, 118, 257–263.

66.

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. WHO.

67.

World Health Organization. (2018). Country profile on gender-based violence in Sri Lanka. World Health Organization, Country Office for Sri Lanka. http://origin.searo.who.int/srilanka/documents/country_profile_on_gender-based_violence_in_sl.pdf