In Hathras, we are told the "rapists" wr "high caste men", while in Balarampur the "accused/alleged" are either casteless, or religionless. This is why in Indian and global media, Jyoti Singh Pandey's name had to be erased - as her "high caste" Hinduness wd be revealed.

For media, the story must be made that only "high caste Hindus" rape "low caste women" - hence all "high caste Hindu" women who get raped or murdered, or rapes committed by non-Hindus, non-high-castes are erased from public discourse.

If rape is caste driven, and a religion specific phenomenon, lets have it out fully - lets have the data of both victims and perpetrators - by caste and religion. Do not suppress the caste of victim if "high caste" and attacker not a Hindu or not a "high caste".

If reporting responsibility in crimes by identity grps is to be suppressed to protect hate crimes against them, why exclude any subgrp frm that benefit? If media doesnt agree, then we shd openly identify their agenda as being driven to promote hatred of Hindus/castes.

There r aspects of caste that r most unfair, primarily in allocation of resources or exclusion - and no, here exclusion not just of "low castes" but also can be of "high castes". But to connect it to rape, must be supported by data that includes other communities as reference.

This agitprop that insidiously suppresses all details in rape cases that wd indicate a "high caste" victim, or a non-high caste or non-Hindu rapist - but openly identifies for other cases - must be challenged now to prevent the jihadi/EJ narrative that is being established.