Harassment: a pervasive menace

Women are seething with anger. Talk to anyone; if they have not suffered sexual harassment personally, someone they know has. HASAN SUROOR on the social menace.

IN AN essay she wrote for Playboy in 1973 on the debilitating effect of male sexual attitudes on women, Germaine Greer pointed out that many women were ``so distressed by male nearness that they can't take a job or get into a crowded bus''. She recounted a personal experience to make the point that male violence need not necessarily be physical, and that sometimes even a ``sinister'' smile - or a leering look - can be as ``terrifying''.

More than than a quarter of a century later, a lot of women in India would perhaps identify with that sentiment as, increasingly, they are facing overt and covert sexual harassment - in the streets, in shopping malls, in buses and at their place of work. Studies show that sexual harassment is far more widespread than is normally known and is also becoming more insidious - and therefore more difficult to check.

``The incidence of sexual harassment of women at work is amazingly widespread and I see this as an extension of how women in our patriarchal society are treated elsewhere - whether at home or outside,'' says Ms. Vibha Parthasarathi, chairperson of the National Commission for Women (NCW) which has its hands full with complaints.

A study commissioned by the NCW in 1998 showed that a ``majority'' of women had at some stage experienced physical harassment at work but few chose to speak about it. ``It is rampant, and it is happening across the board - in educational institutions, factories, multinational companies and Government offices,'' says Ms. Syeda Hameed, an NCW member.

Women are seething with anger. Talk to anyone - school teachers, university academics, students, personal secretaries, executives, militant feminists, liberal socialites - and you hear the same story; if they have not suffered personally, someone they know has. A survey in Delhi University by a gender studies group found that 92 per cent of the girl students complained of some form of harassment either by fellow male students or teachers or other staff members.

What is most ``frustrating'', women say, is that it is not always easy to prove harassment. Invariably, the chances are that it is the ``victim'' who ends up being accused of having ``invited it''. Reports suggest that even in a progressive State such as Kerala, women are reluctant to report cases of harassment.

The Nalini Netto-Neelalohitadasan Nadar case, involving a woman IAS officer and a Kerala Minister, has only highlighted an issue which is threatening to become a ``national shame'', according to Ms. Brinda Karat, general secretary of the All-India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA).

``Show me a boss who doesn't have a roving eye and a roving hand and I will show you ten who do,'' says a Delhi University lecturer who, as a student at the same university, was harassed by her teacher. ``He made it impossible for me to pursue my diploma course,'' she recalls with bitterness.

Her own sense is that things have not changed significantly since then; if anything they look more serious, maybe because there is greater awareness now and more women are talking about it. The fact that the Supreme Court felt compelled to take note of it and laid down a set of very comprehensive guidelines for employers to check it is a measure of the seriousness of the situation, she says.

The guidelines, set in August 1997, put the onus of checking sexual harassment on the employers, making it mandatory for them to set up a complaints committee headed by a woman. The court laid down that not less than half of the committee members should be women, and to ensure impartiality it stressed that the committee should involve an independent party such as an NGO or any other body familiar with the issue of sexual harassment.

The court was unambiguous in stating that the responsibility of ensuring gender equality at the work place was that of the employer, whether in the Government or the private sector. It said: ``It shall be the duty of the employer or other responsible persons in work places or other institutions to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of sexual harassment by taking all steps required.''

The apex court ruling is held as a landmark in the gender equality debate. Ms. Karat points out that by recognising sexual harassment as a violation of basic human rights, the court struck a huge blow for gender equality. ``It has made a big difference and as a result there is much greater awareness among women now,'' she says. But most employers, she complains, have done precious little to implement the court guidelines. The worst culprits are the Government Departments and Ministries, both at the Centre and in the States. Few Government agencies have complaints committees and even where they exist their composition is invariably loaded against the complainant.

Women's organisations, who have been monitoring things, say that generally the tendency among employers is to set up a committee after a complaint has been made and then pack it with persons who are not independent enough to take an objective view. This is contrary to the Supreme Court ruling which prescribes a standing committee and emphasises that there should be no doubt about its impartiality.

According to Dr. Uma Chakravarty, a teacher at Delhi's Miranda House and a member of the Delhi University Forum against Sexual Harassment which has prepared a draft policy on the issue, there have been cases in Delhi University colleges where enquiry committees had members close to the influential people in the governing body. ``This has been our experience outside the university as well, and we have found that most often the committee members are mere extensions of the employers ,'' she says. What is happening, she says, is a ``subversion'' of the Supreme Court guidelines.

In a typical example of how the system works, a case of sexual harassment in the Union Ministry of Surface Transport still remains unresolved though five committees have inquired into it. ``The first three committees comprised officials who were far too junior for the job, and the report of the fourth committee was rejected because it was not favourable to the bosses. So, after we intervened and met the Minister they have agreed to set up another committee,'' Ms. Karat says.

Another problem is that there is no machinery to enforce the recommendations of an enquiry committee with the result that very often these remain unimplemented. ``There must be a machinery to ensure that the reports of the enquiry committees are implemented and the guilty are punished'', suggests Ms. Urvashi Butalia of the feminist publishing house, Kali for Women.

A delegation of several women's organisations is planning to meet the Union Home Minister and impress upon him the need for a statutory body to enforce the apex court guidelines. There is also a move to petition the Supreme Court drawing its attention to the lax implementation of its ruling.

A point repeatedly made by women activists is that laws alone are not enough unless someone ensures that these are enforced. There is no dearth of guidelines and codes of conduct to check sexual harassment - part from the apex court ruling, the NCW has circulated a set of its own guidelines, and the draft policy prepared by Ms. Uma Chakravarty's group for Delhi University is a fairly comprehensive document - but the problem is belling the cat. Who would do it?

``In the case of the apex court guidelines for instance someone has to be given powers to see that these are taken seriously and implemented, otherwise they will end up as a lip courtesy,'' says Ms. Hameed.

One suggestion is to make the guidelines legally binding on all employers, and individual employers can then hold departmental heads responsible for ensuring that their staff behave. In some companies in the West apparently it is the managerial head who is accountable if a case of sexual harassment is reported from his division. The choice before him is stark: either he takes action against the offender or faces the music himself. The system, it is believed, is working and is worth replicating here, even if on an experimental basis to begin with.

Time for ``soft options'', it is stated, is over, and unless the issue is handled more firmly than it has been so far, the scenario in Germaine Greer's essay can become very real.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : 'This is Hindu Rashtra'
Next     : 'The mindset must change'