How long Anti-Sexual Harassment Cells work like this???

I attempt to expose the working of an anti-sexual harassment committee (ASHC) in a 'five star' Central University. The Committee constituted in the University mirrored the same prejudices and tradition-bound analysis that predominates the rest of the University. Due to the patriarchal response system of the Committee, the initial enthusiasm generated by the establishment of Anti-Sexual Harassment Committee [ASHC] disappeared and gradually women stopped believing that it could be an effective grievance redressal mechanism and moved away from it.

 

Though it was mandatory, the University never had an active Anti-Sexual Harassment Cell (ASHC). The fight for a sexual harassment cell has a long history. There were many petitions, pamphlets, representation and one national colloquium was organized to pressurise the university to set this up. The national colloquium organized along with NGO's was instrumental in the document UGC gave shape to deal with sexual harassment in academic spaces.

 

The highest form of desecration of the female body happened when some students put up a poster on the day of holi describing the body parts of certain women in the campus. ASHC was created for after the furore it created in the campus. The success of this case brought in its wake many similar cases into the otherwise peaceful setting of the campus like e-mail harassment [sending e-mails full of obscene and sexual comments] sexual harassment cases against research guides etc.

 

However, the success was very much short-lived. One prominent reason for this was that ASHC made punishments a mockery. University in fact maintained a double standard regarding punishments. An University which took a tough stand of rusticating 10 Dalit students for two years for a small commotion like man-handling the warden for his casteist remarks, suspended the accused in one of the sexual harassment cases during the two months vacation time and dismissed one after he finished his course in the university. When University insisted that none of the rusticated Dalit students should be seen within campus an upper caste fellow involved in a sexual harassment case was seen in public inside the campus for the next one more year as an illegal occupant. This discrepancy in punishments has in a way accentuated the already existing caste division in the campus.

 

Once the initial enthusiasm got over, out-of- the-committee settlements became the norm especially when the victim and the accused were from the same community or department. Out -of -the -committee settlements are done, most of the time putting the victim and the accused round the same table as if it is a counselling session. This method has never been practiced in any of the previous cases involving violence [i.e. hostel fights, dalit-upper caste fight etc.] Only in sexual harassment cases the administration is forcing for such 'amicable' settlements. When such methods are practiced the accused finds it easy to get away with a 'secret apology" made inside the committee meeting room. No real punishments are involved in this. Here the accused has the freedom to keep his "gentleman status" and spreads numerous false things about the victim once he is outside the meeting room. On the other hand "something is better than none" attitude prevents victims from proceeding further or standing firm on their cases with the catastrophic result that the number of cases actually taken to the committee reduced over time. The discontent with the proceedings went to such an extreme that a recent incidence of rape, which happened very much within the campus, did not even reach the committee.

 

Many a girls who had to go through the proceedings of the committee felt that the esteemed faculty members should be taught what the word sexual harassment means. The frivolous comments or observations made by the members of the committee often irked the sensitive population. Attempts to lighten the cases as 'eve teasings' were commonly made allegations. The members seem to be waiting for a rape case to handle it as the sexual harassment case. To add to this, in some of the cases the victims finally got the status of the accused. In one of the sittings, one member commented that threatening made by the victim's would-be to the accused will be considered as goondaism and will be dealt with seriously, because it is an act of indiscipline. Victims had to face many insensitive questions from the committee members including allegations like "provocation by the victims". The committee members were not qualitatively different from those who sat outside and made comments like "the girls asked for it". If it was a case happened at wee hours the immediate question would be "why you girls go to the department at this time?" In a 2000 acre residential campus, where researchers toil in day and night in their laboratories, this question could not be well-meaning.

 

On more than one occasion, members of the committee stated that these women and the supporting feminists are "over sensitive" or "over react to things" and are worsening the situation and hence declined to take up many cases. Why would a woman file a case when it simultaneously puts her own time and dignity at stake? Only when she feels that she is powerless in effectively tackling the repeated attacks. If members of the committee had understood this they would not have made comments on "over sensitiveness". Committee does not have the right to dub a person's sensitiveness to harassments as "over sensitiveness". While doing this, the members of ASHC are also behaving like ordinary folks who always ask for hushed dealings.

 

Also, committee never had clear guidelines regarding the kind of cases to be taken up in the committee. During an election campaign one of the political parties circulated a pamphlet through which it attacked and assassinated the character of one of the most politically active female of another party. The committee declined to take up the case with the justification that it was a part of election campaign. The case against a research guide got dangled because of the faculty fraternity. We realised how difficult it was to raise a sexual harassment case against a faculty member in a committee consisting mostly of faculty members. Even though the committee found him guilty the administration never bothered to implement its recommendation and ordered for an "independent judicial enquiry" by a retired judge. Interestingly, complaints submitted by non-teaching staffs and female faculty members were never taken up by the committee. Also in some cases continuous harassments had made some victims paranoiac, weakening their cases. Unless the ASHC perceive these cases with some sensitivity to the nature of psychological impacts such cases can create in victims, justice would be a far cry.

 

The caste bias of the committee members gets reflected in the handling of the cases also. Some members of the ASHC itself revealed that caste angle is sidelined in many cases. It is notable that firm decisions were taken only when the issue was not muddled with caste angle. When lower caste women are involved as victims, knowingly or unknowingly the opinion sprouts, "she was also not quite right". Thus as Dalit women say, ASHC also ended up as an upper caste extravaganza.

 

ASHC also felt powerless when it came to atrocities committed by outsiders within the campus precincts. In another incident an upper caste woman was abused in a sexually toned vulgar language by a leading lawyer on the platform of a Dalit organisation working inside the campus. Since it contained many baseless arguments, the issue evoked much protest inside the campus. Efforts to publish a written apology by the lawyer or by the organisation failed because both took a firm stand that criticism against an upper-caste woman can be done in such a language, given the history of atrocities committed by the upper caste groups. The ASHC declined to file the complaint saying that issue did not come under its purview. Though an outside lawyer cannot be called in to produce an apology the ASHC could have at least made the organisation under whose banner he spoke, to make a public apology. Such an act should have made organisations more responsible and sensitive. This was an incident, which revealed the limitation of ASHC to some extent.

 

For long, women's organisations working inside the campus had been asking the ASHC to conduct awareness programmes for female students either directly or indirectly through the platforms provided by other organisations in the campus. However, ASHC has limited itself to the court functions. This happened after one of its members was targeted by the chauvinistic groups for conducting classes for the first year girls. She was accused of promoting lesbianism in the campus through a pamphlet widely circulated inside the campus. For some unknown reason the case was not taken up and many felt that if a member of ASHC is not protected then what kind of protection does this committee guarantees for students. It is disheartening to see that ASHC is taking up such a baseless accusation as an excuse for not conducting awareness programmes.

 

The very constitution of ASHC has evoked much protest within the campus. Its independence and impartiality were never assured. It never had an outside, independent member from NGO's in it, as laid down in Supreme Court guidelines. Curiously, only married women faculty members- a majority of whose husbands are faculty members in the same University- found a place in the committee. Those women faculty members who have openly raised their voices against harassments within the campus were conveniently excluded from the committee. There was no election for the student representative to be inducted into the committee. It was always a nomination of favourites by the administration. The Dean of Students Welfare and the Chief Warden, [who are also members of the discipline committee] were always members of ASHC irrespective of their level of sensitiveness. Apart from all these, the members of the Dalit community were either underrepresented or not represented at all.

 

Conclusion

University campuses are also witnessing the ever-deepening tension between the gendered forces. More and more girls will come up and ask for their rights and negotiate for equal space. Unless such expressions for justice and feelings of hurt are properly taken into account, a peaceful family or society will be a mirage, as is proved by the increasing number of divorces and sexual crimes. Hence there is no option left for the society except entering into dialogues and a proper redressal of her grievances. There lies the need for revamping bodies like ASHC. It is the duty of ASHC to make these women feel empowered. At the same time it should ensure that in course of time the "scare phenomenon" it has created would wane away for a friendly discourse.

 

The present performance of the ASHC is dismal because the committee reflects the same attitudinal bias of the ordinary folks in the university. Unless the committee becomes more sensitive victims would only shy away from it. Along with it measures should be taken to correct its structural deformities. Some steps suggested to strengthen the Committee are as follows:-

 

1. The ASHC should be vested with more powers and its decisions should be binding on every individual in the University.
   
2. Independence and impartiality of the committee should be ensured by laying down rules regarding the intake of members.
   
3. The ASHC should be empowered to handle atrocities done by outsiders within the campus.
   
4. Students need to elect their representatives along with students union representatives. Faculty representatives should be judiciously appointed by the Vice-Chancellor following certain broad criteria like participation in gender issues / human rights issues, their area of research, and on the level of their sensitivity to the issue concerned.
   
5. Committee members should change or rotate every year. Appointment and Retirement of Committee should be made public. It should not be handled as a family affair of the administration
   
6. No member of the committee should be in other committees of the university like grievance, or disciplinary committee etc. at the same time
   
7. At present the ASHC limits itself to complaints and cases. It needs to have a broader agenda in the University. Its members should undertake a "guardianship scheme" where members interact with the female members in the campus at regular intervals even without receiving complaints. This can enhance the trust and confidence on the Committee.