Recently, a prominent national Hindi daily published a powerful editorial drawing attention to a sensitive and much-debated issue concerning women’s safety. The editorial sharply criticised governments and concerned institutions for their failure in ensuring women’s security.
The focal point of this discussion was a safety awareness campaign run in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, where the traffic police had put up posters in public places. These posters advised women not to attend late-night parties or to avoid being alone with a friend in dark or isolated areas. These messages sparked considerable controversy. The editorial expressed concern that such warnings, if not outright curtailing women’s rights, at least seem to indirectly hold them responsible for crimes committed against them.
The traffic police and the associated organisation responsible for putting up the posters were described as insensitive, ignorant, or even complicit in perpetuating a criminal mindset. The article labelled this attitude towards heinous crimes against women as regressive, narrow-minded, and deeply disappointing.
While debate around women’s safety is undoubtedly essential, it is equally important to interpret and understand the initiatives in this domain with impartiality and critical insight. The controversy surrounding the posters by the Ahmedabad traffic police and a so-called non-governmental organisation reflects the irony of our social discourse – where even well-intentioned precautions are viewed as signs of narrowness or implicit support for criminal behaviour.
In fact, the intention behind these posters was not to blame women, but to alert them to potential dangers. If a poster states “Don’t go to late-night parties” or “Avoid isolated places with a friend,” the message is not that a woman who does so is to be blamed for any crime, nor does it legitimise any wrongdoing by offenders. It is merely a precaution – much like saying “Look both ways before crossing the street,” “Passengers are responsible for their own luggage,” or “Do not talk to strangers.”
Caution can’t be Equated with Narrow-Mindedness
Dismissing such messages as products of a regressive mentality is itself an excessive response. It must be understood that women’s safety is ensured not only through legal punishments but also through social awareness and personal vigilance. Just as young people are advised worldwide in the realm of cyber security not to share passwords or to avoid phishing links, offering practical suggestions for women’s physical safety should not be labelled as criminal thinking.
The Purpose of Such Messages is Awareness, Not Fear
Advising women to avoid going out alone late at night does not mean depriving them of their rights. It is a realistic suggestion – neither a legal restriction nor a social condemnation. In a country like India, where many regions still lack adequate street lighting, regular police patrolling, and reliable transport systems, alerting women to unsafe areas is a responsible act.
Is This Really Shielding Criminals?
The editorial accuses such warnings of defending “a criminal mindset.” This is a serious charge and must be tested against facts. Is advising women to remain vigilant equivalent to protecting perpetrators? No. If a doctor advises people to wear full sleeves to avoid mosquito bites, it doesn’t mean he’s absolving the government of its duty to control mosquitoes.
Similarly, if an organisation warns women about practical safety risks, it reflects responsibility and sensitivity – not sympathy for criminals.
Every Safety Effort should be Welcomed, Not Condemned
Problems arise when every warning is viewed through the lens of victim blaming. Social science teaches us that multifaceted approaches are essential to solving any social problem. Prevention of crime doesn’t rest solely on punitive measures – it requires social awareness, individual caution, and collective cooperation.
The content of the posters was not moralistic preaching, but practical guidance. Saying that women should avoid dark areas at night is akin to advising a mountaineer to avoid climbing during a snowstorm. Is that an insult to the climber’s ability? No – it’s a responsible recommendation.
If such posters were put up by the traffic police or a non-governmental organisation, it was necessary to assess their intent and purpose – not judge them solely based on superficial language.
What we need today is a balanced discourse on women’s safety – one that distinguishes between rights and responsibilities. On one hand, we must ensure that victims are never blamed for crimes committed against them; on the other, we must also acknowledge the need to educate women about real-life challenges and potential threats.
If any organisation is engaged in such efforts, calling them symbols of backwardness is not only unfair, but also undermines the broader work being done for women’s safety.
The truth is that safety does not come from slogans and promises alone – it is built on awareness, understanding, and cooperation. If any organisation contributes to this process, its work should be recognised as a part of social collaboration – not viewed with suspicion.