Male Suicide Due to Domestic Violence? A Multidimensional Analysis

The suicide of a 34-year-old techie Atul Subhash in Bangalore at his home has alarmed and angered the entire country. It is shocking that a man would feel so persecuted, tormented, and hopeless due to the actions of his ex-spouse, which, if allegations are to be believed, involve domestic violence. However, without delving into specifics or blaming anyone prematurely without a proper investigation, let us examine this incident from four perspectives to better understand what happened and how such tragedies can be prevented. These perspectives are psychological, historical, legal, and philosophical.

From a psychological perspective, what stands out about this suicide is the meticulous planning that went into it. Suicide, in general, is an act that stems from feelings of despair and defeat. Such emotions are often impulsive and overwhelming, leading to a rash decision to end one’s life. However, in this case, there was considerable contemplation and preparation, as evidenced by the elaborate checklists, a 24-page suicide note, and an hour long video uploaded by the individual.

It appears that he viewed his act not just as a means to escape personal torment but also as a way to free his family from the distress they were enduring. Believing that justice could not be achieved through the current legal framework, he saw his actions as a form of sacrifice to highlight his cause. Although his act was steeped in hopelessness, he seemed to ascribe to it a higher purpose.

This can be analyzed through the lens of the three modes of material nature described in philosophical traditions: sattvic (goodness), rajasic (passion), and tamasic (ignorance). The motivations and consciousness behind an action determine its nature. For example, even an activity like performing austerities, generally seen as positive, can become tamasic if done with a destructive intent. Conversely, an act like fasting to death, under certain circumstances, may be considered a graceful and purposeful way to end one’s life.

Through this incident, and the calm, calculated contemplation that preceded it, we can see that the suicide was not merely an act of impulsive frustration. Instead, it seems to have been a deliberate sacrifice for what the individual perceived as a failed cause for himself but a potentially meaningful cause for others in the future.

From a historical perspective, the prevailing narrative in the West—and increasingly adopted in India—is that the history of humanity is largely a history of patriarchy, where men systematically dominated, exploited, and abused women. This narrative asserts that with the rise of feminism and successive waves of feminist movements, these historical wrongs are now being corrected, granting women their rights and enabling them to assert themselves. However, this understanding of history is a significant oversimplification.

If we examine history, particularly in pre-modern times, life was extremely challenging. Without the technological supports we have today, mere survival required immense effort. Men and women collaborated as families to confront life’s challenges, build a home, and pass on the legacy of life to future generations. Life was too harsh for one gender to systematically exploit the other. Exploitation, when it occurred, was more often by those with power—such as royalty, aristocracy, or landlords—over those without power, regardless of gender.

For example, men were often the victims of exploitation by other men. Historical accounts reveal the harsh conditions faced by farmers, miners, and factory workers, where men were subjected to grueling labor. This observation does not diminish the reality of domestic violence or other gender-based issues but challenges the overly simplistic narrative of historical male exploitation of women.

Moreover, in the past, it was not the case that men had autonomy while women lacked it. Societies were far more rigidly structured than today, and the concept of upward mobility was almost non-existent. A person’s birth determined their role in life. Women were often confined to domestic roles, while men had professional roles, but even those roles were usually dictated by birth.

For example, a person born into aristocracy remained an aristocrat, regardless of their abilities, while a person born a peasant was confined to that role, no matter their potential. Men, too, lacked autonomy in many aspects of life, including marriage. Most marriages were arranged, and men had little choice but to accept their partners due to practical necessities, political alliances, or other considerations.

It was only after the Industrial Revolution, with the subsequent migration and restructuring of society, that men began to gain significant autonomy. Within two or three centuries, women also started experiencing greater autonomy. The key point here is that, historically, life has been tough for everyone. The notion that women have always been exploited by men is itself a historical misconception that requires correction. Unfortunately, this very idea is being perpetuated in the name of addressing a historical wrong.

Reducing history to a simplistic power struggle between men and women, without considering the complex dynamics of society, reflects what the Bhagavad Gita describes as knowledge in the mode of ignorance. Such reductionism, where one aspect is taken as the whole, not only misrepresents the past but can also lead to harmful or even toxic consequences in the present, as seen in the structure of modern laws.

Such a reductionistic vision of history is not merely an idle or harmless misconception about the past; it can have harmful, even toxic, consequences today. This is evident in the structure of laws increasingly enacted in modern times. This brings us to the third point: the legal dimension.

In the past, society was structured in ways that reflected existing patriarchal norms. Women subjected to problems or violence at home often lacked legal recourse. The reality of domestic violence, both past and present, should neither be denied nor downplayed. However, two things can simultaneously be true: addressing historical injustices and redressing power imbalances should not lead to a new imbalance in the legal framework. Unfortunately, this has occurred in some cases.

For example, in India, the law for protection against domestic violence explicitly defines domestic violence as violence against women. Within the legal framework, there is no provision for men to seek redress when they are victims of domestic violence. While it may be argued that men are generally stronger and more likely to threaten or harm women, this does not mean that men cannot be victims of abuse.

The Bhagavad Gita explains in its 16th chapter that all humans have both divine and demonic qualities, existing on a spectrum within each individual. The chapter emphasizes that no one is immune to corruption. Whoever gains power also gains the temptation and opportunity to abuse it.

In the current legal framework, the pendulum has swung to an extreme where, practically speaking, men are often presumed guilty unless proven innocent. While the presumption of innocence is upheld legally, the mere accusation can have severe and sometimes devastating consequences for a man. Individuals with exploitative, manipulative, or abusive tendencies—regardless of their gender—are likely to cynically exploit these imbalances for personal gain.

The same patriarchal norms that once inhibited women or subjected them to domestic violence now also make it difficult for men to come forward as victims. Men are socially conditioned to be perceived as tough, and admitting to being victims of abuse might lead to their being seen as weak or inadequate. This stigma compounds the challenges faced by male victims in reporting violence against them.

As the patriarchal structures of society loosen in some parts of the world, statistics about male victims of domestic violence are becoming increasingly documented. These figures are concerning, if not alarming. For instance, in the United States, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (2016–2017) reported that nearly 44% of men had been victims of intimate partner violence at least once in their lifetime. Of those, 1 in 13 reported sexual violence, 2 in 5 reported physical violence, and 1 in 20 reported being stalked by an intimate partner.

Even in Finland, a country regularly ranked as the happiest country in the world, significant instances of male victimization are documented. A survey conducted from 2010 to 2022 found 11,819 cases of domestic violence, of which 3,669—roughly 31%—involved male victims. This is far from an insignificant percentage.

Given these realities, the law must be balanced. Both male-to-female violence and female-to-male violence are significant issues. Measures to address female-to-male violence should not be viewed as diminishing the rights or protections of women. Instead, we must understand that this is not a gendered conflict but a human struggle against our lower nature.

Society must support everyone by helping individuals rise above their lower nature through culture and discipline and by protecting them from the harmful actions of others through laws and appropriate legal structures.

This brings us to the legal perspective. In the past, society was structured in ways that reflected existing patriarchal norms. Women who faced problems or violence at home often lacked legal recourse. This reality of domestic violence, both past and present, should neither be denied nor downplayed. However, two things can be true simultaneously: efforts to address female-to-male violence do not inherently undermine the importance of protecting women’s rights.

The issue is not about a gendered battle between men and women. It is about humanity’s collective struggle against our lower nature. Society must support everyone in two ways: first, by helping individuals rise above their lower nature through culture and discipline, and second, by protecting individuals from the harmful actions of others through laws and an appropriate legal framework.

Finally, from a philosophical perspective, wisdom is not measured by the amount of information we accumulate or the number of practical skills we possess. As explained in Bhagavad Gita 13.8–12, true wisdom is recognized through the virtues we cultivate in our lives.

In the case of the legal system, legal wisdom cannot be achieved merely by implementing laws. There is a need to cultivate an ethos that prioritizes justice. This means moving beyond framing issues as gender battles or ideological conflicts between liberal (left) and conservative (right) perspectives. Instead, if we collectively value justice, we can recognize that unnecessary and unfair violence and pain inflicted on anyone should be avoided.

For this to happen, our legal professionals—lawyers, judges, and individuals—must develop a culture of valuing justice rather than relying solely on the protective power of laws. Laws are indeed important, but it is virtuous individuals who enforce them in ways that are constructive and just. Without this ethos, opportunistic and malicious individuals will continue to exploit the very laws designed to ensure fairness, thereby defying justice and perpetuating unfairness.

The Bhagavad Gita offers a comprehensive vision of life where knowledge and wisdom are rooted in virtues. By adopting a virtue-based approach to life, wisdom, and law, we can hope to effectively counter tragic incidents of domestic violence—whether perpetrated by males against females or females against males.

To summarize:

1. From a psychological perspective, this tragic incident seems to have stemmed not from impulsive frustration but from a mood of sacrifice aimed at highlighting a perceived injustice.

2. From a historical perspective, interpreting the entire history of humanity as a narrative of men exploiting women is reductionistic to the point of being erroneous.

3. From a legal perspective, the current legal structure has gone too far in protecting women, often leaving men vulnerable, and this imbalance needs to be addressed.

4. From a philosophical perspective, solutions require more than just new laws. They demand the infusion of virtues and the cultivation of an ethos of justice, ensuring that the exploitative, regardless of gender, are held accountable.