This document contains the following paper, as published (except for page numbering):

John Simister & Parnika S. Mehta (2010), ‘Gender-Based Violence in India: long-term trends’,

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 20(10), pp. 1594 to 1611.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354577

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/25/9/1594

Gender-Based Violence in India: long-term trends

John Simister & Parnika S. Mehta

Introduction

This paper addresses violence between husband and wife, which is a major problem in India

(Martin et al., 2002) and in other countries; GBV is a “largely accepted part of family life in India”

(Satish Kumar, Gupta & Abraham, 2002: 12). It examines long-term trends in such violence in

recent decades, and considers a possible explanation: that Indian men became more violent in

response to Indian women adopting more ‘modern’ (as opposed to ‘traditional’) attitudes and

behaviour.

Domestic violence between husband and wife is often called ‘Intimate Partner Violence’ (Jewkes,

2002) – others use the term ‘Gender-Based Violence’, because some husbands use violence to

control wives (Bott, Morrison & Ellsberg, 2005: 3; IIPS and Macro International, 2007: 505). This

paper uses the term ‘Gender-Based Violence’ (GBV); use of the term GBV implies rejection of the

claim that women are as violent as men (a controversy in domestic violence literature: see

Johnson & Ferraro, 2000: p. 952). This paper uses data from various household surveys in India,

which were carried out between 1990 and 2007, to examine long-term trends in GBV – it considers

attitudes to violence, and prevalence of violence, and uses official statistics on recorded crime.
Key issues addressed here are whether GBV in India increased in recent decades, and possible

explanations of such violence.

Background

This section considers previous research on GBV in India. Most previous research is based on

local studies, based on fairly small samples. In a study of rural women, 37% of women in Tamil

Nadu had been beaten by their husband, as had 45% of women in Uttar Pradesh (Jejeebhoy &

Cook, 1997: sI11). Visaria (1999: 10) reports that two-thirds of women surveyed in rural Gujarat

had experienced some form of psychological, physical, or sexual abuse. Delsol et al. (2003: 637)

claim husband-to-wife aggression is associated with attitudes condoning violence against a

spouse. Rao (1997) studied a southern India community, and found the risk of wife abuse

increases when the cause of the abuse is seen as ‘legitimate’ by the community. Jeffery, Jeffery &

Lyon (1989: 30) report, “in Dharmnagri and Jhakri, wife-beating was regularly mentioned, by

women and men alike. Men regard it as their prerogative, an appropriate way to deal with

insubordination, and an important buttress of a husband’s rule.” The most promising route for

scientific analysis of GBV is the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), discussed below: these

are very large samples, with samples chosen to reflect the population of India as a whole. Two of

the most thorough analyses of GBV in India are by the organisation which collected DHS data

(IIPS and ORC Macro, 2000: section 3.8; IIPS and Macro International, 2007: chapter 15).

Bhattacharya (2000: 22) wrote “Socialization ensures that women accept their subservient roles in

the household and perpetuate the discrimination against their female offspring … ideology stresses

male superiority within the household and places the women under the control of men throughout

her life. On the other hand the ideology of pativrata ordains women to treat their husband like

deities”. Such control of women by men is common: for example, Indian women were asked in

1998-9 who decides if she can obtain health care; about 39% of respondents said the decision is

made by their husband (as opposed to wife, or husband & wife jointly, or other) (IIPS and ORC

2
Macro, 2000: 66). In India, “Not only is wife-beating seen as a normal part of womanhood but also

women are acutely aware of their limited options, and that socio-economic factors provide them

few alternatives to the life of violence” (Jejeebhoy & Cook, 1997: sI11). Krishnan (2005: 766)

wrote “In a number of interviews, women and men noted that beating a wife is justified if she has

not followed her husband’s orders.” Khanna & Varghese (1978: 47) report “In a traditional Indian

home and more so if it is a joint family, the woman knows she cannot always have a say in family

matters. The average woman knows many things would be beyond her understanding because of

her inexperience of worldly matters”.

India’s culture is changing. Khanna & Varghese (1978: 41) wrote “A significant change in the

division of labour is apparent among the urban middle class. More women are going out to work.

They earn part of the family income”. Such changes in behaviour affect attitudes: Khanna &

Varghese (1978: 46; 39) claimed “A woman is no longer content with domestic chores alone,

functioning mechanically as the caretaker of the house”; and “some working women become

bossy and authoritative because they earn as much as their husbands do”. Sharan (1988: 304)

suggests an index of ‘modernity’ in India – a woman should be called ‘modern’ if she asserts

herself against male authority, such as father or husband or brother; if she is employed; if she

propagates ideas via mass media; if she takes an interest in the environment outside her home &

work; and if she doesn’t believe in traditional roles and practices. However, a precise definition of

‘modern’ values is beyond the scope of this paper.

If Indian women are becoming empowered, there may be problems of adjustment. Mathur (1996:

48) wrote, “According to the theory of patriarchal control, husbands develop standards of

gratification for completely dominating their wives and children. When this domination is

threatened they feel deprived, suffer psychic distress and in their uncontrollable rage they beat

their wives for domestic domination.”

In summary, there is considerable evidence that India has been changing in recent decades.

Many writers have also reported problems of violence against women in India. This paper

3
examines evidence on how GBV prevalence has changed in recent decades, and suggests some

possible explanations for the high prevalence of violence against women in India today.

Data and methods

This paper uses a range of data sources: three sets of household surveys, and government crime

statistics. For each household survey studied in this paper, respondents are limited to respondents

married at the time of interview. All data are used unweighted for this paper.

The ‘Work, Attitudes and Spending’ (WAS) surveys are a series of surveys among urban

households carried out by IMRB International. The first survey in the series was in 1992; similar

questions were asked in subsequent surveys in 1997, 2002, and 2007 – but there were some

changes to the questionnaire during this 15-year period. The first WAS survey in India to ask if the

respondent had been beaten was in 2002. The sample sizes, and number of cities covered, varied

between years – as shown in Table 1 below. For comparability over time, Tables 3, 5 and 6 only

use data for some cities surveyed by WAS; this also applies to Chart 2.

Table 1: Sample Sizes in WAS Surveys Source: WAS.

The ‘World Values Survey’ (WVS) is a series of attitude surveys, carried out in many countries

(WVS, 2006a). In India, WVS surveys based on stratified sampling were carried out in 14 Indian

states in 1990 & 1995, increasing to 18 states in 2001 & 2006. These four sample sizes are 2,500;

2,040; 2,002; and 2,001 households (one respondent per household in each survey); each

survey includes urban and rural households. For these four samples, respondents were age 18 or

older; between 43% and 47% of respondents were women. Each WVS sample is a mixture of

married, single, widowed, and separated or divorced people. Describing the 1990 survey, WVS

(2006b) claim “samples do provide representative coverage of the various regions, cultural groups,

4
age and gender groups”. This paper uses WVS data, assuming that each of the four WVS surveys

is a nationally representative sample of India.

The ‘Demographic & Health Surveys’ are a series of a large, nationally-representative, household

surveys; this paper uses three of their India surveys. In the earliest of these surveys, which we

call DHS (1993), fieldwork was carried out between April 1992 and September 1993; the sample

consists of 88,562 households in 25 states, of which 67% were rural (IIPS, 1995: p. 33). The

sample consists of ever-married women, aged 13 to 49; it used two-stage stratified sampling in

rural areas, and three-stage stratified sampling in urban areas (IIPS, 1995: pp. 26-7). A later DHS

survey was carried out between 1998 and 2000; we refer to it as DHS 1999. Respondents were

women aged 15 to 49, who (when interviewed) were married or formerly had been married. DHS

1999 covers rural and urban households, in 26 Indian states; 89,199 women were interviewed

(IIPS and ORC Macro, 2000). This paper also uses data from the DHS 2006 survey, in which the

sample included 124,385 women and 74,389 men. DHS 2006 is especially helpful, because of its

very large sample size (even larger than DHS 1999), and because DHS 2006 interviewed men as

well as women (DHS 1999 only interviewed women). The DHS 1999 and DHS 2006 surveys

include several questions on GBV, including: “Since you completed 15 years of age, have you

been beaten or mistreated physically by any person?”, and respondents who answered ‘yes’ were

then asked “Who has beaten you or mistreated you physically?”; this paper treats respondents as

victims of GBV if they replied ‘boyfriend’ or ‘husband’ or ‘ex-husband’. For WAS 2007, the

question wording was “Have you ever used violence against your partner?” and “Has your partner

ever used violence against you?” Hence WAS and DHS surveys use the respondent’s

interpretation of which acts count as ‘violence’ (later DHS surveys ask more detailed questions on

violent actions respondents experienced: see Kishor & Johnson, 2004: 5). Different DHS

respondents may have different interpretations of what ‘beaten or physically mistreated’ means:

“there may be women who do not report their experience of domestic violence because they do not

view it as violence or physical mistreatment” (IIPS and ORC Macro, 2000: 74).

5
This paper also investigates attitudes to GBV. Accepting such violence is defined as agreeing with

the DHS question: “Sometimes a wife can do things that bother her husband. Please tell me if you

think that a husband is justified in beating his wife in each of the following situations: … If she

doesn’t cook food properly?” (IIPS and ORC Macro, 2000: 420-1). For the WAS surveys,

responses to the question ‘Do you think that being violent is sufficient for divorce?’ are used.

Chart 1 in this paper uses data on recorded crimes reported by the Indian government: all

prevalence rates in this paper are the number of crimes per million people, per year, from ‘Crime in

India’ (NCRB, 2008a), supplemented by NCRB (2008b) and population data from the UN (2007).

Limitations

It is sometimes claimed that crime statistics are unreliable, and tend to underestimate GBV:

perpetrators of GBV can be prosecuted under section 498a of the India Penal Code – but violence

is defined narrowly (Burton et al., 1999: 5), and conviction rates low (ICRW, 2001: 2). Prevalence

rates should “be viewed with caution, as a sizable number of crimes against women go unreported

due to social stigma attached to them” (NCRB, 2001 chapter 5: 3). Similar problems can occur in

households surveys, such as DHS or WAS: Jejeebhoy & Cook (1997: sI10) comment that “women

are liable to under-report actual experiences of violence”; IIPS and ORC Macro (2000: 74) state

“there is a culture of silence around the topic of domestic violence that makes the collection of data

on this sensitive topic particularly difficult. Even women who want to speak about their experience

with domestic violence may find it difficult because of feelings of shame or fear”.

One of the earliest sources of attitude data in India is WAS surveys, from 1992. It may be possible

to learn more about trends in attitudes to violence against women by considering related topics,

such as views on women’s autonomy or roles; however, such evidence is complicated and hard to

interpret. For example, WAS surveys asked if domestic violence is sufficient reason for divorce;

6
but changes in such attitudes could reflect changing opinions on divorce, as well as changing

attitudes to violence.

Comparing the WAS, WVS, and DHS surveys, DHS surveys have the most impressive sample

sizes. DHS and WVS interviewed urban and rural households, whereas WAS surveys include only

urban households. As shown in Table 1, WAS 2007 might be described as a nationally

representative sample of urban India; but this assumption is less justified for earlier WAS surveys

(especially 1992).

Analysis of data reported in this paper does not prove causality. If an increase in GBV prevalence

coincided with an increase in ‘modern’ attitudes and behaviour regarding gender roles, we cannot

be certain that GBV is men’s response to women becoming more ‘modern’: perhaps both trends

are the result of other changes in Indian society.

Changing prevalence of GBV

This section reports empirical evidence of changes in India in recent decades. It begins by

investigating GBV, using summary data on crime statistics and analysis of household surveys.

Chart 1: Prevalence of Some Types of Crime Against Women

Source: calculated from NCRB (2008a), NCRB (2008b), and UN (2007)

Chart 1 focuses on three types of crime against women: ‘Cruelty by husband or relatives’; rape;

and ‘sexual harassment’. This Chart indicates increasing prevalence of cruelty against women

from 1995 (the first year such data are reported) to 2007: this prevalence rate, shown in Chart 1,

doubled from 1995 to 2007. Between 1995 and 2007, the prevalence of ‘sexual harassment’ (often

called Eve-teasing) rose from 4.9 to 9.6 incidents per million people per year (shown in Chart 1).

7
Data on rapes in India are available for a longer time-period; Chart 1 shows an increase in

prevalence from 11.7 rapes per million people in 1990, to 18.2 per million in 2007. As explained in

the ‘Limitations’ section above, it is likely that the prevalence of GBV is much higher than that

suggested by Chart 1.

Table 2: Prevalence of Gender-Based Violence

Source: DHS data.

Table 2 uses data from two DHS surveys, and indicates an increase in GBV from about 9% to

about 16%. This increase between 1998 and 2006 in Table 2 seems broadly consistent with the

increase in crimes against women, shown in Chart 1. In particular, the trend in Table 2 (from 1998

to 2006) is similar to the trend in ‘Cruelty by husbands’ in Chart 1: both data sources suggest GBV

rose rapidly from 1998 to 2006.

Changing attitudes to ‘appropriate’ behaviour for women and men

This section considers the possibility that Indian society and culture are changing, as discussed in

the above ’Background’ section. Table 3 considers changing attitudes to GBV (and divorce) since

1992.

Table 3: Changing Attitudes to Divorce and GBV Source: WAS (Bombay & Madras

only)

Table 3 reports the percentage of respondents who replied ‘yes’ to the question ‘Is being violent

sufficient reason for divorce?’ Table 3 indicates a dramatic change in attitudes to divorce since

1992. Among men, the proportion who think a person should not stay married to a violent spouse

rose steadily from 33% in 1992, to 78% in 2007; a similar pattern can be seen among women

respondents in Table 3, rising from 35% to 75%. Table 3 refers to just 2 cities; but if we include all

8
11 cities in WAS 2007, the 75% figure only changes to 72% (1,216 cases), so the trend is resilient

to changes in methodology. To some extent, this change from 1992 to 2007 seems to reflect wider

acceptance of divorce, as seen from affirmative responses to whether heavy drinking justifies

divorce (the bottom two rows of Table 3). But Table 3 indicates a much more dramatic increase in

rejection of violence, compared to rejection of heavy drinking, suggesting an increasing tendency

from 1992 to 2007 to view GBV as unacceptable.

The above evidence suggests that Indian women now feel less pressure to stay in a violent

marriage, compared to women in previous decades. This may be part of a rejection of marriage as

a whole. The fraction of female WVS respondents agreeing with the statement ‘Marriage is an

outdated institution’ rose from 3% in 1990, to 21% in 2006.

Table 4: Changing Attitudes to GBV

Source: DHS

Table 4 suggests that there has been a small decline in the acceptance of GBV among women

respondents, from 22% in 1999 to 19% in 2006. This change seems consistent with the evidence

reported in Table 3. No men were interviewed in DHS 1999, so it is not clear how male attitudes

are changing from these DHS surveys.

Table 5: Attitudes Towards Wives Obeying Husbands

Source: WAS (Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi & Kolkata only).

Table 5 suggests that there has been a small but noticeable tendency for attitudes to become more

‘modern’ among the population of the biggest four Indian cities (our analysis of the other cities in

later WAS surveys suggests that Table 5 is representative of urban India generally). In Table 5,

there is an increase in the proportion of people who disagree that a wife should obey her husband

(from 13% to 17% for men; from 9% to 18% among women); this change is especially noticeable

9
from 1997 to 2002 – this trend was partially reversed from 2002 to 2007. A Pearson chi-square

test on Table 5 indicates that differences between 1997, 2002, and 2007 are statistically significant

at the 1% level, for women and for men. However, even in 2007, a clear majority of men and

women still think a wife should obey her husband.

In some respects, India is a modern country: Indira Gandhi was one of the first female prime

ministers in the world, and in 2007 India chose a woman president. Are such changes in national

politics accompanied by changes in personal politics? It is beyond the scope of this paper to

define feminism, but Table 6 offers some insights, focusing on respondents’ attitudes to the

women’s movement.

Table 6: Confidence in the Women’s Movement, by Gender and Year

Source: WVS

Table 6 indicates a clear trend: more women (and men) had confidence in the women’s movement

by 2006, compared to 2001 and 1995 (this question was not asked in WVS 1990). In particular,

the fraction of women who said they had ‘a great deal’ of confidence in the women’s movement

rose from 16% in 1995 to 38% in 2006. A man whose wife believes in the values of the women’s

movement might consider his power over domestic decisions is under threat, and he might

respond by GBV to retain his power.

The trends in Tables 5 and 6, of more ‘feminist’ values among women, could be related to the

increasing prevalence of GBV in Chart 1 and Table 2. This trend may be linked to previous

evidence that if more women refuse to obey their husbands, some men respond by using GBV;

this issue is examined further in Table 9, and in the Discussion section below.

Chart 2: Time Spent on Housework by Men and Women, 1992 to 2007.

Source: WAS (Mumbai and Chennai only)

10
There was a clear upward trend in the amount of time spent on housework (cooking, cleaning the

home, and laundry) between 1992 and 2007, in Chart 2; the trend applies to both women and

men. This trend is consistent with time-use evidence (not reported here) from other cities in the

1997 to 2007 WAS surveys: for example, Chart 2 shows the average man in Mumbai & Channai

did 9.1 hours per week in 2007, but if we consider all 11 cities in WAS 2007, the average man did

9.4 hours. It is not clear why this happened (for example, families tended to get smaller rather than

larger, according to WAS data). Chart 2 suggests Indian families became more ‘modern’ between

1992 and 2007, in that men did more housework in 2007 than in 1992. This could explain why

there has been an increase in the prevalence of GBV – it is possible that men may resent doing

housework (even though their commitment is generally much less than that of women, as shown in

Chart 2).

Table 7: Who Has the Final Say over Household Decision-making

Source: WAS and DHS (Mumbai & Chennai only)

Table 7 focuses on answers to the question ‘Who makes the important financial decisions in your

household like children’s schooling, family outing, purchase of durable goods like fridge, TV etc.?’

in WAS 2007 (and similar question wording in earlier surveys). Table 7 focuses on three answers

(‘husband’, ‘wife’, or ‘husband and wife together’); the few cases where another answer was given,

such as “son”, are excluded from Table 7. The fraction of men who had sole control over

household decision-making fell from 54% in 1992, to 34% in 2007.

Chart 3: Female-headed Households, by Year

Source: DHS (married female respondents only)

For Chart 3, we divide DHS households into three social classes: farm workers; manual workers

(including clerical /sales staff); non-manual workers (e.g. managers). We follow convention in

11
basing a household’s social class on the husband’s job, rather than the wife’s job; where the

husband was retired, unemployed, or a student, the wife’s job was used.

Chart 3 indicates that more women are becoming ‘head of household’, a role traditionally occupied

by men; it is clear that this trend is not simply a middle-class urban phenomenon. It appears that

an Indian man can no longer rely on being the decision-maker in his own home. This confirms the

impression from Table 7, of a fall in male control of household decisions. It is possible that a man

who feels he has lost control over household decisions may respond by becoming violent against

his wife. So the trends in Chart 3 and Table 7 might explain the apparent increase in violence

against women, shown in Chart 1.

Table 8: Violence Against Women, by Employment Status of Husband & Wife

Source: DHS and WAS

Table 8 indicates that a woman was more likely to be hit by her husband, if she was earning; this

pattern applies to all three surveys in Table 8. Women were even more likely to suffer violence if

she was employed but her husband was not: it suggests that some men who have no economic

power over their wife, resort to using violence against her; or that having to share economic power

with his wife can make a husband abusive. Note that we cannot directly compare WAS with DHS

responses in Table 8 (question wording differs; WAS is only an urban sample; and DHS

respondents are only ages 15 to 49, whereas WAS respondents are all adult ages).

Table 9: GBV and Family Decision-making

Source: WAS 2007

Table 9 indicates that a woman who disagrees with the statement ‘I choose to let my spouse make

decisions for the family’ (i.e. does not let her husband decide) is more likely to be hit: a risk of

21%, compared with a much lower risk of 7% for women who do let their husband decide.  A

12
different interpretation may be appropriate for male respondents:  20% of men who ‘disagree’ (he

does not let his wife decide) have hit their wife, which confirms the picture from women

respondents in Table 9: a woman who stands up to her husband is more likely to be a victim of

GBV. The sample sizes in Table 9 may also be informative: only 19 women (out of 1227 women)

disagreed, i.e. refused to defer to their husband; this may be because most women choose to

defer to her husband rather than face GBV.

Discussion

This paper attempts to analyse trends in violence against women, and in attitudes to such violence.

Some sources allow us to look at a fairly long period of time: Chart 1 shows evidence of an

increasing trend in violence against women since 1990. This trend is confirmed by survey data in

Table 2, although Table 2 covers a shorter time period. WAS surveys are of limited help in this

respect, because early WAS surveys did not ask about respondents’ experience of GBV.

This paper considers a possible explanation of increasing GBV prevalence in India: the

increasingly modern attitudes – in general, Indian women appear less likely to accept a

subordinate status to her husband. Evidence from WAS surveys suggest attitudes to gender roles,

and some types of behaviour, have changed since 1992: as a country, India is becoming more

‘modern’. This tendency is apparent in Tables 3 and 6.

It is often claimed that adjusting to ‘modern’ values is associated with a period of increased

violence. For example, Khanna & Varghese (1978: 99) wrote “The independent outlook fostered

by better education, improved status and greater opportunities brings about a change in women,

and leads to conflicts with family members”. This claim seems generally consistent with the

evidence in this paper, which shows a trend of women’s increasing economic control in the

household and increasingly modern attitudes to gender roles, coinciding with an increase in

Gender-Based Violence. Such violence may be increasing because women reject the traditional

ideas that men have about their roles in their relationships. The 21 st century Indian woman is often

13
financially independent and well educated, sometimes even better off than her husband; this might

create insecurity in the mind of her spouse. Women are increasingly “equal” and refuse to be

submissive, leading to a tug of war; “Such conflict is likely to increase as their freedom increases”

(Mittal, 2008). Perhaps the increased prevalence of violence against women is temporary – a sign

of India becoming a modern, relatively affluent, country. If so, this ‘temporary’ problem has lasted

for decades already (from 1990, according to Chart 1), and there is no sign of a reduction in GBV

so far: GBV is a major problem, which the Government of India and other agencies should

address urgently. IIPS and ORC Macro (2000: 79) wrote “The experience of violence and the

silent acceptance of violence by women undermines attempts to empower women and will

continue to be a barrier to the achievement of demographic, health, and socioeconomic

development goals”. More research on causes of GBV is needed, in India and elsewhere. 

Perhaps the best way to understand GBV better is by a collaboration between researchers in many

different disciplines – including, among others, economists;  sociologists;  psychologists;  and

behavioural scientists.

References

Bhattacharya, M. (2000). Iron bangles to iron shackles: a study of women’s marriage and

subordination within poor households in Calcutta. Man in India, 80, 1-29.

Bott S., Morrison A. & Ellsberg M. (2005). ‘Preventing and responding to gender-based violence in

middle and low-income countries: a global review and analysis’, World Bank policy research

working paper 3618. www-

wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2005/06/28/000112742_2005062

8084339/Rendered/PDF/wps3618.pdf downloaded 31st October 2007.

14
Burton, B., Duwury N., Rajan A. & Varia N. (1999). ‘Introduction’, in ICRC, Domestic violence in

India: a summary report of three studies, International Center for Research on Women,

Washington, www.icrw.org/docs/DomesticViolence3.pdf downloaded 13th March 2002.

Delsol, C., Margolin, G. & John, R.S. (2003). A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of

violence in a community sample. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 635-51.

ICRW (2001). Domestic violence in India II: exploring strategies, promoting dialogue. International

Center for Research on Women, Washington DC. www.icrw.org/docs/indiainfobulletin.pdf

downloaded 15th August 2006.

IIPS (1995). National Family Health Survey (MCH and Family Planning), India 1992-93.

International Institute for Population Sciences: Bombay,

www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pub_details.cfm?ID=609&ctry_id=57&SrchTp=type downloaded 23rd

November 2008.

IIPS and ORC Macro (2000). National Family Health Survey (NFHS - 2), 1998-99: India.

International Institute for Population Sciences: Mumbai,

www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pub_details.cfm?ID=297downloaded 27th October 2004.

IIPS and Macro International (2007). National Family Health Survey (NFHS - 3), 2005-06: India.

International Institute for Population Sciences: Mumbai,

www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pub_details.cfm?ID=723 downloaded 23rd February 2008.

Jeffery, P., Jeffery, R. & Lyon, A. (1989). Labour pains and labour power: women and childbearing

in India. London: Zed books.

Jejeebhoy, S. J. & Cook, R. J. (1997). State accountability for wife-beating: the India challenge.

The Lancet, 349, SI10-2.

15
Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359, 1423-9.

Johnson, M. P. & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: making

distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62, 948-63.

Khanna, G. & Varghese, M. A. (1978). Indian women today. New Delhi, Vikas.

Kishor, S. & Johnson, K. (2004). Profiling domestic violence: a multi-country study. Calverton,

Maryland: ORC Macro.

Krishnan, S. (2005). Do structural inequalities contribute to marital violence? Ethnographic

evidence from rural south India. Violence Against Women, 11: 759-75.

Martin, S. L., Moracco, K. E., Garro, J., Tsui, A. O., Kupper, L. L., Chase, J. L. & Campbell, J. C.

(2002). Domestic violence across generations: findings from northern India. International Journal

of Epidemiology, 31, 560-72.

Mathur, K. M. (1996). Crime, human rights and national security. New Delhi, Gyan Publishing

House.

Mittal, T. (2008). ‘Professionals, technocrats, housewives, students … anyone could be a

murderer’, Tehelka, 5 (23), www.tehelka.com/story_main39.asp?

filename=Ne140608anyonecouldbemurdered.asp downloaded 21st June 2008.

NCRB (2001). Crime in India: 1998. Government of India (National Crime Records Bureau), New

Delhi, www.ncrbindia.org/bound.htm downloaded 16th November 2001.

16
NCRB (2008a). Crime in India: 2006. Government of India (National Crime Records Bureau), New

Delhi, http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2006/cii-2006/1953-2006.pdf downloaded 12th January 2008.

NCRB (2008b). Crime in India: 2007. Government of India (National Crime Records Bureau), New

Delhi, http://ncrb.nic.in/CII2007/cii-2007/Table%205.2.pdf downloaded 30th November 2008.

Rao, V. (1997). Wife-beating in rural south India: a qualitative and econometric analysis. Social

Science & Medicine, 44, 1169-80.

Satish Kumar, C., Gupta, S.D. & Abraham, G. (2002). Masculinity and violence against women in

marriage: an exploratory study in Rajasthan. In Men, masculinity and domestic violence in India:

summary report of four studies, International Center for Research on Women.

www.icrw.org/docs/DV_India_Report4_52002.pdf downloaded 12th August 2006.

Sharan, R. (1988). ‘From tradition to modernity: a case of Indian women workers and non-workers’,

pages 301-13 in Dak T.M. (ed.), Women and work in Indian society. Delhi, Discovery Publishing

House.

Skinner T., Hester M. & Malos E. (2005). ‘Methodology, feminism and gender violence’, in Skinner

T., Hester M. & Malos E. (eds.), Researching gender violence: feminist methodology in action,

Willan: Cullompton.

UN (2007). National accounts main aggregates main database: population. United Nations

Statistics Division, unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama downloaded 20th November 2007.

Visaria, L. (1999). Violence against women in India: evidence from rural Gujarat. In ICRW (ed.),

Domestic violence in India: a summary report of three studies, International Center for Research

on Women, Washington, www.icrw.org/docs/DomesticViolence3.pdf downloaded 13th March 2002.

17
Vlassoff C. (1994). From rags to riches: the impact of rural development on women’s status in an

Indian village. World Development, 22, 707-19.

WVS (2006a), ‘World and European Values Surveys four wave integrated data file, 1981-2004’.

The World Values Survey Association (www.worldvaluessurvey.org) and European Values Study

Foundation (www.europeanvalues.nl), downloaded 15th November 2008 from

www.worldvaluessurvey.org/.

WVS (2006b), ‘Survey notes’, downloaded 30th November 2008 from

margaux.grandvinum.se/SebTest/wvs/articles/folder_published/survey_1019

18
 Table 1: Sample Sizes in WAS Surveys

Year when the survey data was obtained

City where respondent lives 1992 1997 2002 2007
Vijayawada 151
Patna 275 200
Delhi 255 273 303
Ahmadabad 204
Cochin/Kochi 275 198
Greater Bombay/Mumbai 1335 251 275 304
Bhubaneswar 152
Ludhiana 151
Madras/Chennai 1319 249 278 304
Lucknow 204
Calcutta/Kolkota 248 275 304

Total 2654 1003 1651 2475

19
 Chart 1: Prevalence of Some Types of Crime Against Women

65

60

55

50
Prevalence rate (per million people)

45

40

cruelty by husbands
35
rape
30
sexual harassment

25

20

15

10

0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year

Table 2: Prevalence of Gender-Based Violence

Wife experienced violence

from her husband in the DHS DHS

last 12 months 1999 2006

No 91% 84%
Yes 9% 16%
Total 100% 100%

20
 Table 3: Changing Attitudes to Divorce and GBV

Gender of

respondent 1992 1997 2002 2007

Percentage agreeing that ‘Domestic Male 33% 59% 62% 78%
Female 35% 53% 62% 75%
violence is sufficient for divorce’
Percentage agreeing that ‘Heavy Male 41% 47% 38% 52%
Female 44% 45% 33% 48%
drinking is sufficient for divorce’

Table 4: Changing Attitudes to GBV

Agree with statement:

‘It is justified for a man to hit his

Gender of
wife, if she burns the food’
respondent

1999 2006

Male NA 11%

Female 22% 19%

21
 Table 5: Attitudes Towards Wives Obeying Husbands

Dis/agree with

Gender of ‘A wife should always 1997 2002 2007

respondent obey her husband’

Male Agree 75% 73% 78%
Neither agree/disagree 12% 7% 5%
Disagree 13% 20% 17%
Total 100% 100% 100%

Female Agree 82% 70% 76%

Neither agree/disagree 9% 11% 7%
Disagree 9% 20% 18%
Total 100% 100% 100%

Table 6: Confidence in the Women’s Movement, by Gender and Year

Confidence in Year of survey

Gender of the women's
respondent movement 1995 2001 2006
male a great deal 15% 19% 27%
quite a lot 41% 29% 33%
not very much 29% 31% 31%
none at all 15% 21% 10%

Total 100% 100% 100%

female a great deal 16% 24% 38%
quite a lot 48% 37% 35%
not very much 26% 24% 20%
none at all 10% 15% 7%

Total 100% 100% 100%

22
 Chart 2: Time Spent on Housework by Men and Women, 1992 to 2007.

60
h ours s pe nt
cooking/cle a ning/la u ndry
(pe r we e k): s e lf/hus ba nd

h ours s pe nt
cooking/cle a ning/la u ndry
50 (pe r we e k): s e lf/wife

40
Me an

30

20

10

1992 1997 2002 2007

Ye ar

Table 7: Who Has the Final Say over Household Decision-making

Final say over WAS WAS WAS DHS WAS

decisions: 1992 1997 2002 2006 2007

Husband 54% 60% 27% 22% 34%

Wife 10% 12% 9% 17% 15%
Husband & wife 36% 28% 64% 61% 52%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

23
 Chart 3: Female-headed Households, by Year

6
female-headed households (% of all households)

1 non-manual workers

manual workers
farm workers
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
year

24
Table 8: Violence Against Women, by Employment Status of Husband & Wife

Who is Fraction of women who Number of

employed experienced violence households

WAS 2007 husband only 7% 2045
neither 6% 71
both 9% 324
wife only 11% 18

DHS 1999 husband only 13% 54577

neither 11% 1649
both 22% 27732
wife only 22% 737

DHS 2006 husband only 27% 41642

neither 24% 652
both 36% 22551
wife only 42% 493

25
 Table 9: GBV and Family Decision-making

Gender Attitude to ‘I choose to let my spouse Fraction of women Number of

make decisions for the family’ hit by husband households

Agree 7% 1102
Neither agree or disagree 8% 86
Male
Disagree 20 % 40

Agree 7% 1132
Neither agree or disagree 9% 76
Female Disagree 21 % 19

26