The silent scream
Bible study by the Revd Dr Monodeep Daniel focusing on the rape of Tamar
(2 Samuel 13:1-22)
Introduction to a Dalit reading of the Bible
Tamar quintessentially represents women both within the Christian community and in wider
society. What happened to her happens to women all around the world but the sad part of it is
the imposition of silence on the victim to shield the culprit. Our attempt will be to highlight the
plight of Dalit women who suffer twice more than other women. They suffer the domination of
males and also the exploitation of caste.
Tamar was raped and silenced and so are Dalit women who have suffered the brutality of
males both in their families and also in the larger society. Therefore, in this study we will
engage in reading this text from Dalit perspective.
‘Dalit’ in the Indian languages denotes a painful condition of being broken, crushed, split
open and pounded. The pain is further aggravated by two more things. These are firstly their
perpetual rejection and secondly the feeling of revulsion by the so called clean castes.
Consequently Dalits know God from the experience of their pain peeran. By virtue of being born
outside the orbit of the four castes, the Dalits are regarded as untouchables, i.e. unfit for any
human association. The feeling is further accentuated by the addition of hatred for them. As a
result the Dalits in every Indian village are relegated to live in ghettoes outside the village walls.
These areas are variously named as thati, cheri, maharwada and so on.
The trust that independence from the colonial rule and the adoption of the new Indian
Constitution would bring justice to all, has been repeatedly violated. The condition of Dalits has
not changed except for those very few who have taken advantage of the State policies of
positive discrimination by way of reservation of seats in educational and training institutions and
procurement of jobs and political constituencies for Dalit candidates aspiring to context
elections for Legislative Assemblies and the national Parliament. The number of such
beneficiaries is so few in percentage that they do not count.
The story of Tamar is a frequent experience of Dalit women and in this way it represents
their beaten and broken condition across the Indian villages. There are thousands of “Nirbhaya”
among them who are unknown because their stories are not reported in any newspaper; their
scream is unheard.
THE ACT
Amnon raped Tamar. There are three things involved in this act, namely, pretence, violation of
trust and rape. Therefore, let us study each one of them.
Pretence (13:3-6)
The pretence of Amnon to seek sympathy was a cunningly devised scheme to trap the woman.
Amnon was a prince and, therefore, as a member of the royal family he enjoyed a privileged
status in society. But he was also an Israelite and was expected to live under the Law of Moses
i.e. Torah. The legal penalty for raping in the Torah was as below,
“But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married
and rapes her, … the man who has done this shall die’ (Deut 22.25).
This piece of law was to protect a woman’s dignity pledged for marriage. Therefore the
question to ask is this, was Tamar pledged to a man for marriage? The answer is that she was
not. This is obvious from her plea to Amnon “Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from
being married to you.” (2 Sam 13.13.). Nonetheless, this still does not rule out the fact that she
could have been pledged to be married to someone. If this were the case then these were her
disparate words to save herself from this forced situation.
1
Violation (13:-7-13)
Amnon was under an extraordinary mental compulsion. Being brought up in a royal family, he
would have learnt Torah for undertaking governance. He would have been aware of the law that
sexual relationship of half-brothers with half-sisters was forbidden. The laws stated,
“Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your
mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.” (Lev 18.9).
We know that Tamar and her brother Absalom were King David’s children by his wife
Maacah of Geshur (3.3); whereas Amnon his first born was from another wife Ahinoam of Jazreel
(3.2). In this way Amnon and Tamar had the same father. As seen above, according to the law
sexual relationship between the two of them was prohibited. Moreover she was still single and it
was obvious that it was impossible for him to do anything to her (2 Sam 13.2b). But in his strange
state of mind he was prepared go to any extent. As a result he violated his conscience, the Law
and the trust reposed by other on him.
Having sent everyone out of his bedroom he ordered Tamar to serve the meal to him in
bed and when she was in proximity he “grabbed her” (2 Sam 13.11). Tamar was surprised and
shocked as his intention surfaced and pretence faded.
Rape (13:14)
Amnon’s action had now reached a point of no return. He had grabbed her. The news of this
would be as scandalous as having her. So why not go the whole way. Most likely in his obsession
he was not even disposed to follow this line of distorted reasoning. The narrator records that
“he raped her.”
One reason why Amnon dared to do this was due to the widely held belief that women
are disadvantaged because of their sex since the feminine, unlike masculine, has been
associated with weaker physical strength. The narrator records that “since he was stronger than
she was”. The idea of unequal muscular strength enforces the notion of gender based inequality
in society. In principle those who are estimated to have lower social status also suffer from
lesser social dignity.
Although Tamar as a princess was socially privileged, her gender was the disadvantage. It
is clear that her dignity was of no concern to Amnon.
THE TRAGEDY
The tragedy lies in what Tamar had to face afterwards. Not only was she the prey of rape but
she became victim of her lover’s hatred, she was banished, while the king maintained his
silence. It resulted in her being relegated to a state of endless misery.
Hatred of the Lover (13:15)
Amnon experienced an extraordinary turn of emotion after raping Tamar. Unexpectedly gripped
with disgust he ordered her expulsion from his presence almost at once. Clearly his desire for
her was nothing but sensual.
This also is the case of commercial sex workers as well as of Dalit women who become
victims of forced sex in their work places. Males have used them but have no love for them as
such. Like a commodity, they are used and discarded.
Banished and Abandoned (13:17-19)
Amnon’s feeling of disgust was so strong that he could not tolerate her presence in the room. He
ordered his servant to “Get her out … and bolt the door after her.” Tamar was raped, banished
and abandoned. It was impossible for Amnon even to consider of having Tamar as his wife.
Faced with the traumatic rejection Tamar expressed her pain openly by placing ashes on
her head, tearing her robe, putting her hand on her head and weeping aloud as she went. Tamar
wanted bring out this incidence to public attention. By naming and shaming the culprit she
sought to deter the dominant from forcing their wishes on others. For this she was prepared to
display her pain in public.
2
Her pain was like a Dalit woman’s pain which is peeran. This pain arises from being
broken and crushed. This is what the Hebrew root “dal” implies. Moreover their pain is unending
because they are perpetually rejected, hated and repulsed as untouchables. Yet this does not
deter the males of dominant castes to rape Dalit women. Ironically Dalit women are untouchable
in day and touchable at night.
Imposed Silence (13:20-21)
Whatever may happen within the royal family, its public reputation had to be shielded and the
honour of the heir to the throne had to be protected. Although Tamar wanted to make this
incidence public, Absalom, her brother told her to keep silent. Absalom had other ideas. He
wanted to take advantage of the situation in a different way. We know that Absalom aspired to
be the king. For this he needed to get rid of Amnon, the first born heir to the throne. Amnon had
to be killed.
The line to justify the act could be this, if his sister was humiliated in private so could he
restore her honour in private. She was subdued in private so could he eliminate the culprit in
private. Had the incidence gained public attention and if the royal heir was awarded a penalty
which was less than being put to death, he could lose his right to the throne. Absalom decided
not to take any chance; he had to ensure that the heir was killed. So the first step was to ask
Tamar to remain silent. He imposed silence on Tamar not for her good but for the sake of his
ambition. Once again Tamar was used. She was not to have her way but her brother.
His strategy got impetus because the King also failed to act justly. The king had to
control the damage done to the reputation of his family. He knew that if he spoke, the news
would carry all over. On the one hand the king had to protect the honour of the family and on
the other to protect the political prospects of Amnon, his first born. In this situation despite his
fury, he decided to keep silent hoping that the storm would pass.
Endless cry (13:20b)
Both, Absalom and David, had their reasons to keep silent. Absalom had a nefarious plan to fulfil
his ambitions whereas David was under compulsion to protect the royal family’s reputation. The
consequence was that justice was not dispensed. In fact Tamar’s life deteriorated. With no one
to restore her dignity and none to give her justice she was reduced to a non-entity to live in her
brother Absalom’s house. Meanwhile Absalom hatched schemes to make best use of this
opportunity to his own advantage.
The helpless condition of Tamar is expressed as this “Tamar lived in her brother
Absalom’s house, a desolate woman.” Her body was broken when she was raped, her dignity was
broken when justice did not come her way but now she lived in an endless misery deprived of
love and motherhood and a home.
THE DILEMMA
We have seen above that Amnon, who was King’s first born (3.2), had abused his power. This was
the beginning of troubles within the royal family. The king was in a dilemma. How was he to
deal with his heir to the throne? If the incidence became public, it would cause scandal resulting
in a loss of confidence in the ruling family.
This also was a dilemma for Tamar’s brother, Absalom. But, he had a clear plan to deal
with this situation. He would kill, so to say, two birds with one stone.
Silence or Shame (13:20)
The dilemma both for David and Absalom was this, if Amnon was punished, the royal family
would be openly disgraced; if Amnon was defended, the confidence of people in the ruling
family would wane. Under these circumstances both David and Absalom decided to remain
silent.
In the Indian joint family system the cases of women being abused by the male members
of the family is well known. But largely these are not reported for the sake of family reputation.
The family connives with the culprit to cover up the case of rape in various ways. Often out-of3
the-court settlements are made and the cases are not reported to the police. In most cases the
victim is silenced.
People, especially the privileged classes, are anxious to protect their reputation. They
prefer silence rather than shame or disgrace in public. Clearly in the dilemma to preserve
reputation, the victims of rape quietly suffer trauma, insecurity and injustice.\
Absalom, not only had to make strategy to gain the throne, but also prove his worth to
his sister Tamar and his mother Maacah. Not only the honour of his blood-relatives within the
circle of the royal family circle had to be restored but his own honour as a brother and a son
before his mother and sister had to be established. Honour was more important than justice and
aspiration more than righteousness.
Strategy or Action (13:22)
Insensitivity to Tamar’s pain is evident both in David’s inaction and Absalom’s stealth. Their
interest lay took precedence over the interest of redressing Tamar. David being the king was
interested to maintain the norm of the royal families of those times. He wanted to smoothly
pass the kingship to the first born, Amnon. But, Absalom was a man of aspiration. Could he
become the king of Israel? If, Amnon was put out of the way, the possibilities were bright.
If on the larger scale the reputation of the royal family was at stake, then within the
family the shame of Absalom was also an issue. Absalom had to prove himself to be worthy of
the throne. How could he protect the glory of Israel if he could not restore the dignity of this
sister, Tamar? The issue was entangled with complex emotions of honour and shame, dignity and
humiliation, and aspiration and worth.
Tamar, like a Dalit woman, was twice victim, firstly of rape and secondly of shame. It is
always the case that the victim, not the culprit, has to bear shame. The time had come for
dignity to be restored, honour to be established and aspiration to be satisfied. Absalom did not
allow himself to be weighed down by the dilemma of conflict between him and his half-brother
and between him and his father. Tamar’s rape offered a situation where conflict for aspiration
could be camouflaged as a conflict for justice.
Therefore, justice was to be seen as being done because the one who could do it would
prove his worth. If the king had failed to do this, Absalom would do it and so prove himself as
worthy of the throne.
The incidence of Tamar’s rape which until now was covered up and hidden from public
eye could be brought out in public at an appropriate time. But Absalom was too impatient to
wait for the time to come his way. He had to create it and so he did.
Justice or Revenge (13:32)
Absalom planned to have Amnon killed. This would eliminate the heir to the throne, restore the
honour of his blood-relatives and if the strategy was revealed it could be concealed as
vengeance to restore honour. It could be portrayed as an act for the love of his sister Tamar. It
must be accepted that as a human being Absalom must have also harboured these feelings for his
sister within him. He was clever enough to get others to kill Amnon so that he would be innocent
of the act.
Had his motive been purely for justice he could have resorted to the court, but could he
expect impartiality by David? For it was clear the Amnon was sheltered by king’s silence. Under
these circumstances murder under the guise of just-revenge could work which would pave way
for Absalom to his father’s throne.
LET THE GOSPEL SHOW THE WAY (John 8:1-11)
Every time we read this dreadful story the question of women’s right confronts us in the deep
recesses of our beings. Should a woman’s right take precedence over the family reputation and
personal ambition of the male members? Should women be denied justice for the sake of others
even if it was a shrewd strategy? Should a woman depend on the males members of her family
for security and reputation? And how would God want us to act in situations like this? It is clear
from our study that in cases of injustice silence is not right and revenge is not justice. It must be
stated that justice and righteousness have nothing to do with silence and revenge.
4
Tamar’s case is a living story of many women all around world who suffer silently in
shame for no fault of theirs. Close to the case of Tamar in the gospel is the case of the womancaught-in-adultery. She was nameless, faceless and helpless. When we read the story in John’s
gospel Chapter 8.1-11 we learn three things firstly to act justly and to love mercy.
Act justly
The scribes and the Pharisees alleged that the accused was caught in the act. According to the
Law of Moses she deserved to be put to death. The question was raised by the legal experts
namely the scribes and the Pharisees. Their plan was not so much to obey the Law but to corner
Jesus. Not only did our Lord figure out their intentions but he made this an opportunity to teach
the meaning of God’s Law.
The basis of Law was not to be judgemental but to do justice. The difference between
the two must always be held with clarity. Those who aim at perfection by keeping the statues
often become judgemental about those who fail to keep it. In fact it is impossible to keep the
whole law at whole times. Everyone falters and so everyone needs to be penalized.
But penal justice cannot be one sided. All culprits need to be penalized alike. Could this
woman be adulterous without the agreement of a man? It was not the woman who was the
culprit but men associated with her.
CONCLUSION
One issue of singular importance is about the safety of women. The question is this are the
women safe in their family and are they safe in the society. To make family and society safe for
all should be of prime importance to the government and the church. In a situation of distress
the church is first place where the victims may seek help and consolation. We, therefore, as a
church have to play a major role to strengthen the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Role
Role
Role
Role
of
of
of
of
education in society.
media in society.
judiciary in society.
legislative bodies in society.
The role of Christians is crucial in these four areas. The question is this, how do we make this
contribution?
5