by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group
Last week, I wrote in this column on the larger issues involved in the Tarun Tejpal case, concerning "consensus" for sexual favours obtained by the high and mighty in exchange of professional advantage.
The new law against sexual harassment of women in workplace, under which Tejpal is being tried, is severe on punishment but lacks in a nuanced approach to the subject of consensus.
The new law against sexual harassment of women in workplace, under which Tejpal is being tried, is severe on punishment but lacks in a nuanced approach to the subject of consensus.
Tejpal's alleged overtures to the lady in question may not be his first, nor is he the only Lothario of the profession. Yet it was Tejpal's turn to hit the fan because the victim did muster the courage, or the will, to complain. The probability of such 'misfire' is low, despite the apparently tough anti-rape law in force, which, again, has got armed with so much teeth and claws after the gruesome rape and murder of a woman physiotherapy trainee in Delhi last December.
The amendment carries the imprimatur of the frenzied masses that protested outside the Rashtrapati Bhawan in the wake of the rape for weeks on end. In the newly amended IPC, punishment for "sexual harassment" has been diluted, from imprisonment for five years in the ordinance following the Delhi rape to three years in the final law. But the very definition of the offence, that it involves "physical advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures", indicates that it can be the first step in a sleazy negotiation between a powerful male employer and his female subordinate.
If she welcomes his physical advances, for self-aggrandisement or anything, then no law can stand in the way of their relationship moving further on. It reminds one of the centuries-old folk proverb: mian bibi razee, to kya karega kazee ("If the man and the woman agree, what can the judge do?) But if the woman is steely enough to defend the sanctity of her body at any cost, she can take her boss with glad eye to court.
The dilution of punishment will weaken the proposed legal safeguards for workplace ethics. However, the real deformity of the law is in the unwarranted emphasis it has laid on things that are quite peripheral, and are easy to complain about but difficult to prove. For example, a man may be sent to the slammer for up to a year for making a "sexually coloured" remark about a lady.
The phrase is so nebulous that anyone used to making even casual remarks, bawdy to an unfamiliar ear but okay in a different stratum of society, stands the grave risk of facing a sex-offence trial, and the consequent loss of reputation, if not career.
Even staring at a woman for more than 13 seconds is a criminal offence under the rules. Equally vague is the criminalisation of the so-called "e-stalking", which includes acts like monitoring of a woman's activities online by browsing or checking on her e-mail. It is a mindless construction, as it may prevent a man from having a woman "friend" on Facebook as he can then 'keep an eye' on her posts, both on her own wall or as comments on others' posts. On the other hand, the GPS appliance that comes free with most smartphones nowadays enables a corporate organization, if it has issued the phones to its employees, to keep a tab on their movements. Will it amount to e-stalking?
Commenting on such slapdash provisions of the amended law, a lawyer friend of mine, who does not like to be named, says that it is like critics of Romeo and Juliet ordering that in future no buildings with balconies are to be allowed.
The law, inspired though by the laudable intention to giving women more gender security, has actually harmed their cause in professional life. While many IT firms and media houses are in a great hurry to set up in-house committees in accordance with the Vishakha guidelines, a silent consensus among employers and professional services is emerging that, rather than fostering a constant source of worry, why not allow fewer women in workplaces from now on? If employments show a gender-wise skew in future, it will deal a body blow to gender equity in the country's economic life. Female participation in work force in the manufacturing sector has remained generally stymied. Girls outnumber boys in the mass communication or media studies departments of most universities, IT and services. Justice Ganguly's case has left many noted solicitor firms to re-think on hiring female intern who may surface after more than a year.
The anti-rape law, as I have mentioned earlier, is a product of usurpation by politicians of mass hysteria. The pre-2012 law allowed courts to hand down a sentence in rape cases of less than seven years "for adequate and special reasons". Even the cop has no option as any delay on his part to register the complaint may land him in jail from six months to two years.
The consequence for making the law "draconian" (as some well-meaning people say) may be dangerous as no rapist with criminal intent will like to see his victim alive ever again. That will bind rape and murder in an everlasting binary. It is nobody's case that there should be mercy for rapist.
The society has been unkind to women for thousands of years. The disparity needs to be reduced. But the bigger challenge is to let men and women live an equals, with the same law armed to defend every citizen against attack on his or her body or property, regardless of gender.
The society has been unkind to women for thousands of years. The disparity needs to be reduced. But the bigger challenge is to let men and women live an equals, with the same law armed to defend every citizen against attack on his or her body or property, regardless of gender.
(The author is national
editor of Lokmat Group
of newspapers at Delhi
