Remedial, institutional or radical? Explaining community responses to violence against women in an NGO programme to prevent violence in Mumbai, India

Abstract

Despite ambitions in development and global health policy to transform communities into supportive environments for women facing risks of violence, our understanding of how to best engage communities remains incomplete. In particular, there is little evidence on the types of strategies that communities employ to address violence against women (VAW). We aimed to describe and analyse the processes involved in community responses to incidents of VAW in a non-governmental organisation (NGO) violence prevention programme in Mumbai, India. We conducted a grounded theory study involving 30 focus group discussions and 36 semi-structured interviews with 113 community members and 9 NGO staff, as well as over 170 h of field observation. Informed by comparative case study methods, we compared community actions across six informal settlement neighbourhoods. We found considerable variation in the type of action taken across neighbourhoods. This variation was not arbitrary, but reflected systematic cost-benefit considerations in heterogeneous environments, accounting for factors such as trust in neighbours, violent (armed or gang-related) crime, and corruption in state institutions. We found that institutional action was only favoured in neighbourhoods with strong state capacity and high social capital, whilst remedial action—resolving violence through ‘private’ talks in the family and community—and radical action involving extra-judicial violence—became favourable under conditions of weak social capital or low state capacity. Institutional action was, however, sometimes as violent as radical action, as police were reported, sometimes even relied upon, by residents to use force against perpetrators of VAW. We argue that these contextual features oblige policymakers and prevention researchers to grapple with contentious issues such as the legitimate use of force by the state. We caution against maximising community action without a clear vision of the type of action hoped for.