When “No” Is Not Heard: Contextualizing the Siya Goel Case and the Tragic Murder of Ketan Agarwal

In recent weeks, the dominant discourse in mainstream news, digital media and social platforms has been the murder of Ketan Agarwal, the son of a wealthy real estate family in Pune. The alleged murder of 26-year-old Ketan at Lohagad Fort near Pune is deeply disturbing and rightly demands condemnation from all quarters.

According to media reports and police, Ketan’s fiancée, 20-year-old Siya Goyal, and her alleged partner, 22-year-old Chetan Chaudhary, pushed him out of the fort on June 18. Since the case is currently under judicial review, the allegation must be resolved through due process. However, if the defendants are found guilty, they must be punished as violence in any form should not be tolerated. The Maharashtra government has taken immediate action and has already appointed senior advocate Ujjwal Nikam as special public prosecutor and ordered that the case be dealt with on a fast-track basis.

The government’s actions show that when the state decides to act, it can do so quickly. The bigger question is why such speed in the administration of justice does not occur when the victims are women, gender minorities or those with less economic power.

The government’s actions show that when the state decides to act, it can do so quickly. The bigger question is why such speed in the administration of justice does not occur when the victims are women, gender minorities or those with less economic power.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2024 As per the data, Maharashtra recorded 47,954 cases of violence against women, the second highest number after Uttar Pradesh. The NCRB report of 2023 paints a more worrying picture where the conviction rate in dowry death cases in Maharashtra was just 4.5 per cent. Furthermore, violence related to inter-caste relationships (e.g. honor killings) and interfaith relationships (often referred to as “love jihad”) is not recorded as a separate category by the NCRB, meaning that the true extent of coercion affecting marginalized groups, particularly women, remains under-reported.

These incidents are often exploited by a patriarchal society to stage misogynistic spectacles that stereotype women as evil through memes and jokes, while simultaneously downplaying the larger history of violence against women by relying on select examples.

The aim of this article is not to downplay the alleged brutal murder of Ketan or to create a gender binary in social justice discourse. Instead, it emphasizes that the government and media must be more sensitive in such cases. These incidents are often exploited by a patriarchal society to stage misogynistic spectacles that stereotype women as evil through memes and jokes, while simultaneously downplaying the larger history of violence against women by relying on select examples.

A more responsible way to contextualize the Ketan-Siya case is to view it as a reflection of India’s patriarchal, caste-based and class-conscious society, in which women struggle to exercise their agency because families and institutions do not provide a safe psychological and sociological space in which to say “no.”

Why “No” is not an assertive lexicon for women in Indian society

After the murder of Ketan Agarwal and even after the year 2025 Raja Raghuvanshi caseA populist discourse arose around a recurring question: Why kill their husbands when these women could have said “no” to the marriage proposal? This question may seem significant at first. However, in India’s patriarchal, caste-based and class-conscious social structure, saying “no” has never been a safe option for women.

In a society divided by caste and class, the word “no” remains a privilege and does not carry the same weight for subaltern groups such as women.

The history of violence against women in India shows that their “no” has never been truly acknowledged. Jesica Lal said no, but her refusal led to her murder. Phoolan Devis No was oppressed through caste- and gender-based violence, making her body a symbol of upper-caste dominance. Jyoti Singh Pandey’s no vote in the 2012 Delhi rape and murder case was ignored and she was brutally attacked in public spaces in Delhi. Furthermore, women face a similar pattern of violence in honor killings and dowry abuse when they refuse to conform to patriarchal norms. In a society divided by caste and class, the word “no” remains a privilege and does not carry the same weight for subaltern groups such as women.

Arundhati Roy analyzed the legitimacy of “No” in an interview, stating that Mahatma Gandhi was able to resist British imperialism because his caste and social status justified his opposition during the civil disobedience movement. On the other hand, when Adivasi and Dalit communities oppose land grabbing and forest expropriation, their resistance is often viewed through the radicalized lens of Naxalism. This shows how caste and class determine which forms of resistance are considered legitimate. And such institutional biases silence marginalized communities and deprive them of agency.

For this reason, as long as women’s “no” is not recognized as a substantive right and protected by institutional trust and family support, the marginalization of women – as observed in other radical movements – will occasionally lead to violence and collateral damage, as these problems stem from structural failures rooted in patriarchy and caste/class consciousness.

Making “no” part of women’s vocabulary

To make “no” an accepted term, psychologically safe conditions must be created in which women can refuse without fear. Institutions such as the judiciary play an important role: low conviction rates in cases of violence against women promote hopelessness, while timely trials and higher conviction rates can restore trust in the system. Only then can women’s agency move from theory to lived experience.

To make “no” an accepted term, psychologically safe conditions must be created in which women can refuse without fear.

This must be supported by families and through education. The Netherlands, for example, is striving for this Promote understanding both children and parents about early boundaries, consent and choice. Indian parents need to adapt to a culture where women’s refusal is not viewed as shameful or immoral. If this change does not come soon, the oppression of women will lead to such violence and collateral damage from time to time. Finally, society often ignores the individual until they are pushed to the brink of rebellion.

Dr. Satkirti Sinha is a Graduate Teaching Assistant and Research Scientist in the Department of Performing Arts at DMU University, Leicester. His areas of expertise include performance theory, popular culture, Dalit theology, performance politics, feminist theory, postcolonial theory and sexual politics.