It's a documentary on the pursuit of justice for the gang rape of a 13-year-girl in rural Jharkhand, India in 2017. It follows the efforts of Kiran's (a pseudonym) father, Ranjit, to pursue a criminal conviction of the three local teenagers who raped her, including her first cousin. The family receives considerable support from the Srijan Foundation, a non-profit NGO established in 2001 to work directly with local communities on poverty and gender justice. The Foundation appeared to facilitate the remarkable filming by Nisha Pajuja.
What is most remarkable in the film is the scenes in which village members, both male and female, try to blame the victim and the victim's family and insist that Kiran should marry one of the rapists and that the village conflict should be settled within the village. The society's honor culture insists this is the only way to remove the "stain" on Kiran's family. Ranjit appears to waver under pressure from time to time. Still, Kiran's persistence and Srijan Foundation's encouragement allow what seems to be an apparent victory, though appeals of the verdict were still outstanding in 2022.
"To Kill a Tiger" presents an important issue. I do wonder about some documentary ethics. Did the villagers give informed consent to the filming of their sometimes inflammatory statements? What was the impact of the camera's presence on what people said? The village leader's comments after the conviction seemed made-for-camera. And we don't really know the long-term impact of Kiran's family after the cameras have left. These questions nag at me despite a powerful presentation.
What is most remarkable in the film is the scenes in which village members, both male and female, try to blame the victim and the victim's family and insist that Kiran should marry one of the rapists and that the village conflict should be settled within the village. The society's honor culture insists this is the only way to remove the "stain" on Kiran's family. Ranjit appears to waver under pressure from time to time. Still, Kiran's persistence and Srijan Foundation's encouragement allow what seems to be an apparent victory, though appeals of the verdict were still outstanding in 2022.
"To Kill a Tiger" presents an important issue. I do wonder about some documentary ethics. Did the villagers give informed consent to the filming of their sometimes inflammatory statements? What was the impact of the camera's presence on what people said? The village leader's comments after the conviction seemed made-for-camera. And we don't really know the long-term impact of Kiran's family after the cameras have left. These questions nag at me despite a powerful presentation.