India now stands at the cusp of becoming one of the global powerhouses, especially in South-East Asia. The real heroes behind this remarkable achievement are the working class, operating the country. However, can we only consider economic metrics as the real indicators of development or are there other factors too? With growing cases of sodomy and workplace harassment, there is a much bigger story to unfold before we truly consider ourselves as a developed nation.
The three-member Justice Hema Committee, established in 2017, unveiled its report on August 19, 2024, exposing harrowing accounts of discrimination, exploitation, and sexual harassment faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The committee was tasked with examining issues of sexual harassment and gender inequality within the Malayalam film industry. The WCC itself was formed after a Malayalam actress publicly alleged abduction and sexual assault in Kochi. The subsequent investigation by the Kerala Police pointed to Malayalam actor Dileep as a key suspect. Following the release of the report, the spotlight has shifted, and major movie stars are now under fire this time not from film critics, but from the public. Pay scale disparity has always been one of the leading contentions of debate in Bollywood. Still, the Hema Committee Reports narrate a bigger story of the regional production houses behind the glitz and glamour of the movie screens. One of the long-lasting concerns the reports have showcased is that even after celebrating 75 years of independence and painting a distorted narration of a “Free India”, our country is actually not safe for women to work at their workplaces. In the modern-day world, the term,’ workplace’, is not confined to only flashy office buildings rather its interpretation has widened significantly and now covers a bigger ambit wherein under any circumstances, whether it is in-house official work (within the boundaries of the official office), or off-campus work, an employee who is employed to complete their designated task, at the required position deserves all the necessary amount of security they are entitled to. The POSH Act 2013 (Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women At Workplaces), brought forth the Vishaka guidelines, which proved to be a colossal breakthrough when we talk about workplace safety for women. But the underlying question here, even after 2013, is why there is an unprecedented increase in sexual offences against women at their workplaces, especially in metropolitan cities.
The report uncovers a troubling reality where sexual favours have long been regarded as a gateway into the Malayalam film industry. It also sheds light on the alleged presence of a powerful clique, capable of wielding control over the entire industry, and the pervasive influence of the notorious ‘casting couch’ culture.These affect a range of women across the industry — actors, technicians, make-up artists, dancers and support staff. The report also deals with other inequities that disadvantage women in the industry, including the lack of essential facilities such as toilets, changing rooms, safe transportation, and accommodation at the shooting spots which are violative of the right to privacy; and discrimination in remuneration, and a lack of binding contractual agreements. This puts a major amount of spotlight on our existing statutory provisions and the extent of their applicability. After the introduction of the new criminal laws like BNS 2023 (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), many jurists and policymakers appreciated that the new laws provide many liberal interpretations to multiple sections mentioned in the erstwhile IPC (Indian Penal Code), but at the same time, the many have also critiqued that the language of these provisions is still very short-sighted, in the sense that they still recognised major offences in binary gender terms. The Hema Committee reports shedding light on a larger narrative, revealing a dual reality: while offences against women in workplaces are on the rise, offences against men also occur but often remain hidden in the shadows, overshadowed by silence. This makes the inclusion of gender-neutral provisions more urgent at present. Project 39 A, a research think tank operating under the aegis of National Law University Delhi, provided an in-depth analysis of how the language used under BNS 2023 provisions was very much orthodox. We can infer the same, through the language of the statutory provisions, given in BNS (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita):-
Section 63 Illustrates: A man is said to commit “rape” if he—
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of the body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, or urethra of a woman or makes her do so with him or any other person,
Like many other sections dealing with the offence of sexual harassment in BNS, under section 63 Also, words like, ‘A man is said to commit “rape” if he…’ clearly showcases that the act has portrayed the capacity of committing such offence being confined to one gender only. Similarly, the POSH Act (Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace), is a much-appreciated move to diminish and alleviate sexual harassment in workplaces. But at the same time, the entire act restricts harassment towards only one gender and that is females, whereas it is a very common occurrence in many corporate spaces that a lot of new male freshers employees face harassment from their senior male counterparts. This is something which needs to be worked on urgently. It is massively disappointing when premier research think tanks like Niti Aayog, don’t have a single standalone report or any official record of harassment cases against men or the queer population. On one end, these policymakers contest for the upliftment of these marginalised communities by providing them reservations in the government sectors and conducting seminars for private companies motivating them to strengthen their DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) policies but on the other end, when these policies are drafted they are restricted to only a few people, so how does it fulfil its expansive criteria of covering maximum number of people? If people are not safe at their workplaces, where else will they be then?
This is one of the most infamous fables being narrated in the corporate spaces. We all live in a digital era and that is why the dissemination of information happens faster now, and that’s why more stories are now being narrated: –
“I’m a 22-year-old (male) employee, working at EY. I had just completed my first 6 months here and for the first time, I had felt this much awkward and uncomfortable, especially at my office. During our orientation week, I remember my team leader, who is a 45-year-old male employee, caressing me inappropriately on my upper thighs. At the moment, I couldn’t understand what was happening, later when I did I couldn’t do anything about it because I had two options, either I could lose my Jon because I’m just a fresher here or I could visit the ICC members (Internal Complaints Committee), but it is again futile.”
This is again, a story of a lot of people out there who either are unaware whether their company has an ICC (Internal Complaints Committee), or either they are not protected under its ambit. We need to have more constructive legislation in this domain if we want to bring in some change because abuse has no gender.
Samvardhan Tiwari
Gmail: [email protected]
Featured image credits: hrmasia
Read also: Where are you ICC?