TW: mentions of suicide and domestic violence
The recent death of a Bengaluru man by suicide has sparked vitriolic hate against women online, along with claims that Indian laws and institutions favour women to the detriment of men. Atul Subhash and his estranged wife, Nikita Singhania, were in the midst of a contentious divorce and custody battle when Subhash took his life on December 9, 2024.
An 80-minute video uploaded by Subhash to the video-sharing platform Rumble, along with a suicide note and notes addressed to the President and Indian judges, went viral and drew considerable popular and media attention. Subhash alleged harassment and extortion by his wife and three of her relatives and accused the family court judge hearing the case in UP’s Jaunpur of malfeasance and corruption.
Subhash claimed the cases filed against him by his wife, which included allegations of murder, dowry harassment, domestic violence, and unnatural sex, were false.
Subhash claimed the cases filed against him by his wife, which included allegations of murder, dowry harassment, domestic violence, and unnatural sex, were false. Subhash’s brother alleged that Singhania had demanded three crores to withdraw these cases, along with 30 lakhs to allow Subhash to meet their child. Singhania had filed a case of domestic violence against Subhash and his family in April 2022, claiming physical and mental abuse over dowry.
Days later, the Bengaluru police arrested Nikita Singhania, her mother, and her brother on charges of common intention and abetment to suicide based on the complaint filed by Subhash’s brother. They are currently remanded in judicial custody. The Bengaluru police have said they will investigate all charges made by Subhash, including the allegations of judicial misconduct and corruption against the Jaunpur judge.
Atul Subhash’s suicide has become an excuse to spew vitriolic misogyny
The news of Subhash’s suicide quickly gained traction, with many calling for a thorough investigation into the allegations. However, as with any case that’s co-opted by men’s rights activists and the manosphere, what started as concern over the serious allegations of harassment, abetment, and judicial misconduct quickly devolved into horrific and violent misogyny with calls for allowing khap panchayats (which are notoriously misogynistic) to decide on matters of marriage, encouraging the practice of dowry, justifying domestic violence and coercive control, and defending violence against women.
Subhash’s note addressed to Indian judges, too, is shockingly misogynistic and parrots the sexist and anti-feminist rhetoric peddled by the men’s rights ecosystem. The note titled ‘To milords‘ essentially reads like a misogynistic manifesto. In it, he alleges that the intent behind rape laws is to punish rapists and ‘reward‘ women, stating, ‘Your [the judiciary] good intention was to punish the rapists and reward women (settlements and ego messaging) [sic], now rapists are being invented by women.‘
This in a country where women are still encouraged to marry their rapists by courts, police, and families. Further, justice for victims of sexual violence is not a ‘reward‘ but the bare minimum the state can do, to suggest that the prosecution of sexual crimes is aimed at assuaging the egos of victims is abominable and indicative of a profoundly misogynistic attitude towards women.
In the note Subhash further claims that DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) hiring in the military would lead to personnel losing their lives, adding a link to a news article reporting on the sexist statements made by an army officer in November 2024 about women commanding officers, along with links to videos of American military veterans opposing women being hired in combat roles.
Linking an article featuring updates of the Supreme Court hearing regarding the criminalisation of marital rape, he added, ‘Discussing legality of sex positions between husband and wife with unmarried childless lady lawyer despite opposition from the government on taxpayer money is another one of your colorful legacy [sic].‘ He wrote in another part of the note, ‘May be Milords should get out of our bedrooms and stop discussing about sex positions in bedrooms on tax payers money with childless cat ladies. – pun intended).‘
He went on to oppose reproductive freedom, calling women who have abortions ‘baby killers‘ and that India will see ‘more irresponsible women aborting babies‘.
He went on to oppose reproductive freedom, calling women who have abortions ‘baby killers‘ and that India will see ‘more irresponsible women aborting babies‘. Calling the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the scaling back of reproductive freedoms in America (which has killed several women) as the country ‘course correcting‘, he accuses Indian courts of leading India ‘onto a horrible path‘ for upholding reproductive rights.
He further noted, ‘And the final legacy – Marriage will be seen as a scam, a wife will be seen as very costly prostitute and children will become terrible liabilities and leeches for an alienated father.’ Women who pointed out his misogyny were met with threats of sexual violence and physical assault, with many saying women deserve ‘Nirbhaya treatment‘ (referring to the 2012 Delhi rape and murder case).
Whenever there is a highly public case of a woman being accused by a man, men’s rights activists and the manosphere use it as an excuse to voice their most violently misogynistic thoughts with impunity. How an opportunity to spew misogyny without accountability unites the manosphere, real issues rarely do.
Biased popular and media narratives around the Atul Subhash case
Popular and media narratives surrounding the case have conveniently left out the deeply problematic and misogynistic things said by Subhash. Media reports about his suicide note are exclusively focused on parts addressed to his son and the remaining is either not covered at all or condensed to a line or two. Not only did media houses choose to completely disregard the blatant misogyny and violent undertones, they were quick to jump on the false cases bandwagon.
This sort of misogyny displayed by the media and the public is not an isolated incident. In 2020, when actor Sushant Singh Rajput died by suicide, media houses were quick to blame his partner Rhea Chakraborty for his death, with little compelling evidence. This led to Chakraborty being hounded, vilified, and harassed; and afforded support and legitimacy to an institutional witch hunt premised on popular outrage as opposed to concrete evidence (and here and here). The Supreme Court, in criticising the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Bureau of Immigration, and the Maharashtra government for opposing the Bombay High Court’s decision to withdraw a look-out-circular against Chakraborty, said the petition by these agencies was solely motivated by Chakraborty being a ‘prominent figure‘ and dismissed it as frivolous.
Misogynistic media coverage and public misogyny create an unfortunate feedback loop, where one feeds the other and vice versa. However, this phenomenon is symptomatic of the larger cultural problems of how women are viewed within the patriarchal system and the lack of awareness surrounding suicide and mental health. The manosphere’s complicity in fuelling and pushing a false narrative of men’s relentless societal and institutional persecution (which is completely divorced from the realities of a patriarchal society and the institutions operating within it) shouldn’t be ignored either.
Sexism informs which accusers are believed
While Subhash’s claims are being regarded as gospel truth by both the public and the media, Singhania’s accusations have swiftly been dismissed as false. Just as Subhash’s claims deserve to be investigated, so do Singhania’s. Her allegations are being disregarded, even in the face of the disturbing misogyny and violence of Subhash’s note, where he defends the September 2024 killing and dismemberment of a Bengaluru woman by her partner as men ‘rightfully‘ taking ‘things in their own hands‘. He also defended the murder of a judge in Maryland by a man whose wife was given custody of their three children by the judge.
Adding links to three news reports where women beat men in public spaces, he wrote, ‘Women will forget how badly a man can beat them black and blue before being physically abusive to men in public. Maybe men should take matters into their own hands.‘ Legal action was taken by the police in all three cases (here, here, and here).
Subhash also claimed Indian citizens should have the right to bear arms to ‘protect their freedom‘ and alluded to violence against judges to teach them to ‘act within their boundaries‘. This portion of his note read ‘After understanding the judiciary in last 3 years, l also feel that Indian public should own guns as per 2nd Amendment of American Constitution to protect their freedom. So many milords will learn to act within their boundaries if public had guns legally. Judges would stop stretching their own boundaries and litigants unnecessarily if they are aware of the existence of higher powers like god & gun.’
Women’s claims of violence and harassment are routinely disbelieved and dismissed. And even when accusations made by women are believed, the manosphere is always quick to point out that the justice system works on the presumption of innocence.
Women’s claims of violence and harassment are routinely disbelieved and dismissed. And even when accusations made by women are believed, the manosphere is always quick to point out that the justice system works on the presumption of innocence. However, the legal tenet the manosphere holds so dear is promptly discarded whenever the accused is a woman. Not only do they presume guilt from the outset, but take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner and use these cases to lend credence to the false rhetoric of men’s systemic persecution, justify misogyny, and herald the patriarchy.
Allegations made by Subhash must certainly be probed, but the same level of seriousness should be afforded to the allegations made by Singhania. The accusations made by Subhash against Singhania could potentially be true, but it’s not a stretch to think a man who espoused such hateful and violent views against women could have been violent towards his wife.
The manosphere’s interest in cases like these has little to do with addressing gaps in law or policy but is rather focused on demanding that provisions made to safeguard women be scaled back, advocating for the upholding of patriarchal structures, and perpetuating misogyny.
