'A Clear Case Of Rape'

Perhaps it was inevitable that the distressing charges of sexual assault and the ordeal of a young journalist would became fodder in the BJP-Congress war of words as well

ARUN JAITLEY

The full text of the statement made by the BJP leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha on hisFacebook page, which was also distributed through the party's website
The ingredients of an offence of rape as amended by Parliament are squarely made out in the victims e-mail. Why was the offence not allowed to be reported forthwith?
The Indian media is on trial. A young intern alleged that a retired Judge had made an improper advance towards her. The media reported it extensively. The Chief Justice of India appointed a three Judge inquiry to examine the issue and report its finding. A section of the media is outraged that the police in Gujarat was protecting or allegedly keeping an eye on a young lady even with her and her family's consent.
The Goa incident involving Tarun Tejpal and a young journalist is in a different league altogether. The victim's complaint makes out a clear case of rape. The definition of rape was amended by the parliament subsequent to the Justice Verma Committees recommendations. The ingredients of an offence of rape as amended by Parliament are squarely made out in the victim's e-mail. Why was the offence not allowed to be reported forthwith? Were any pressures brought on the victim not to lodge a complaint? How can an offence of rape be compromised by an atonement that the guilty will not attend office for six month?
It is unheard of that a private treaty between Tarun Tejpal and Shoma Choudhary wipes out the penal consequence of rape. How can Shoma Choudhary so definitely say that the victim will not depose before the police? Is she not guilty of tampering with evidence in a rape case by pressuring a young employee to conceal the offence?

The grievance of the of the citizens' movement after the gang rape of Nirbhaya in Delhi was that sexual assaults are always under- reported. Is this what is happening in this case? Just because the assailant has connections in the Congress party, the nation is deprived of the sage advice of P Chidambram, the caustic comments of Kapil Sibal and the exaggerated tweets of Manish Tewari.

Manish Tewai was in Goa recently. He discovered Hitler there. What a pity that he could not discover a serial rapist in Goa. Additionally, we will all await if the outrage in the media is proportionate to the offence. Or will journalistic pressures b e brought on the young journalist to conceal the truth?
May be secular philandering is to be dealt with a different standard. We all wait to see if the young lady testifies to the truth or not.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288615

Why women remain silent

MYTHILI SUNDAR
November 26, 2013

Tarun Tejpal resorted to the most common defence against the charge of sexual crime — that it was a ‘consensual’ encounter. This file picture shows him at the launch of his book, “The Valley of Masks”.

The pressure to furnish proof, the fear of fighting a superior, the likely impact on career, and adverse publicity prevent women from reporting sexual harassment

An employee of Tehelka accuses Tarun Tejpal, founder and editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine, of sexually assaulting her during an event organised in Goa, and the police file a first information report. A law intern claims she was sexually harassed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court in 2012. A student of Jawaharlal Nehru University complains to the Director of the International Film Festival of India that a senior government official harassed her ahead of the festival. The three incidents have brought sharply to the fore the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace.

Sexual exploitation of women has existed for ages and cuts across societies, rich and poor. It is only in recent times that modern states have started taking harassment at the workplace seriously, putting in place laws that seek to provide a safer work environment for women.

In India, the Supreme Court recognised the need for a law when it laid down the Vishaka Guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace in 1997. Sixteen years later, Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The law describes sexual harassment as unwelcome acts or behaviour (directly or by implication) which include physical contact and advances; a demand or request for sexual favours; making sexually coloured remarks; showing pornography; or any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.

COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

The law stipulates that employers should, “by an order in writing,” constitute an Internal Complaints Committee, the Presiding Officer of which should be a senior woman employee; the committee should consist of at least two employees “committed to the cause of women” or have legal knowledge and experience in social work; and one member from an NGO or association committed to the cause of women or a “person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment.” At least one-half of the committee should consist of women. Section 6 of the law says Local Complaints Committees should be constituted in districts to receive complaints from women working in establishments that have fewer than 10 employees and cannot constitute an internal committee, or when the complaint is against the employer himself.

Thus, women working in both the organised and unorganised sectors are safer now at the workplace, at least on paper. Why, then, did the law intern not muster the courage to complain when she was allegedly harassed by a judge? Why do many women like her suffer in silence, most of them forever? Surely, for every case reported there must be hundreds of cases that go unreported. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To answer the question, it is important to understand how society perceives a working woman. Women employed in the unorganised sector and single women are economically vulnerable. Many of them are not aware of the law. Their male colleagues and employers know that they cannot risk their livelihood. The plight of women employed in shops, supermarkets, private schools, hospitals, and as sales girls is no different. If and when the situation becomes intolerable, they leave their jobs. Those who cannot do so try to remove themselves from the situation by opting for a transfer, or learn to live with the harassment. Ironically, the threshold of tolerance increases with need and many women cope by suggesting to themselves that these are the ways of the world and they have no choice.

In rare instances when women do complain, they find support from co-workers hard to come by. Employers are not comfortable with a ‘difficult’ woman. They encourage her to leave as the perception that a man needs the job more than a woman is deep-rooted.

The belief that a man works to earn his livelihood whereas a woman does so to supplement the family income is widespread. Since a majority of workers in most corporate offices are men, they protect their turf zealously. Even if they know that a fellow worker’s behaviour towards his woman colleague is inappropriate, they hesitate to say so openly. They close ranks, isolating the woman.

In a society where a woman’s safety is her own responsibility — she has been ‘taught’ that she must dress modestly so that men are not ‘provoked’ and ‘ignore’ lewd comments — sexually coloured remarks or verbal sexual advances are hardly seen as acts of harassment. A woman who complains is accused of making a mountain out of a molehill. No surprise, then, that Mr. Tejpal alleged that his colleague had taken amiss a “drunken banter” — as though somehow it is all right for a man to misbehave when he is drunk.

Obviously, nothing has changed much since 1988 when an IAS officer took police officer K.P.S. Gill to court for misbehaving with her. Mr. Gill was convicted under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 509 (word, gesture or act insulting a woman) of the IPC but his sentence was reduced to probation and a fine. The woman, on the other hand, was criticised by sections of the media for being in the “wrong place at the wrong time.”

When a woman complains of sexual harassment, the first thing most employers do is to try and settle the issue amicably, by transferring out one of the employees or getting the man to apologise. The IFFI incident, in which the officer was moved back to Delhi after he tendered an “unconditional apology,” reinforces this. In most instances, it is difficult for women to prove the charges, which is the reason many do not go to the police and are “satisfied” with the decision of the Internal Committee.

According to the Act, it is the duty of the employer to help the woman if she chooses to file a complaint for an offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law and “cause to initiate action under the law against the perpetrator.” Tehelka Managing Editor Shoma Chaudhury’s argument that she had to respect the privacy of the victim is nothing but escapism typical of an employer who wants to avoid adverse publicity for her organisation.

SOCIAL STIGMA

The pressure to furnish proof, the fear of the consequences of fighting a superior, pressure from colleagues to “forgive,” uncertainty over future prospects in the office, possible impact of the move on their career (employers prefer not to hire women who have created ‘trouble’ in their previous jobs), and adverse publicity among colleagues prevent women from complaining. This perhaps explains why the law intern spoke up a year after she was harassed and is reluctant to press charges.

A common accusation against a victim of sexual harassment is that she consented to the alleged acts. Mr. Tejpal has claimed it was an “incredibly fleeting, consensual encounter of less than a minute.” The law clearly says that an implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in employment (“it is the easiest way to keep your job”), a threat of detrimental treatment or creating a hostile environment amount to sexual harassment.

The social stigma a woman faces when she complains of sexual harassment is immense. Suddenly, her attire, behaviour and interpersonal relationships come under the scanner. She becomes a topic of discussion both inside and outside office. The Tejpal episode has already become a talking point in drawing rooms. The victim undergoes immense trauma as she lives the harrowing experience every time TV panellists debate the ‘genuineness’ of the complaint, colleagues whisper behind her back and ‘well-wishers’ tell her she would have saved herself a lot of trouble had she kept quiet and left at the earliest opportunity.

Section 14 of the Act says the Internal Committee or the Local Committee can recommend punishment for a woman who makes a false or malicious complaint. It is very easy to accuse a woman belonging to the lower or middle income group of making false charges and get rid of her. Members on the Internal Committee are appointed by the employer and they are well aware of the culture that prevails in their office.

What is the way forward? As a first step, follow the law in letter and in spirit. Employers should display the provisions of the Act conspicuously; appoint an Internal Committee; conduct awareness programmes; treat sexual harassment as misconduct under their service rules and assist women who file a complaint. They should be alive to the reality that in an office where men and women work, sexual harassment is a possibility and put in place formal and informal mechanisms to deal with it.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-women-remain-silent/article5390636.ece?homepage=true

'This is Rape Number Two'

The rape of the values and the politics that Tehelka claims it stands for, and an affront to those who work there and who have supported it in the past. It is the hollowing out of the last vestiges of integrity, political as well as personal'

ARUNDHATI ROY

Tarun Tejpal was one of the partners in India Ink, the publishing house that initially published my novel The God of Small Things. I have been asked by a number of journalists for my reaction to the recent events. I have been hesitant to say anything because of the howling media circus. It seemed vile to kick a man when he was down, especially when it seemed pretty clear that he would not get off lightly and that punishment for what he had done was coming his way. But now I am not so sure. The lawyers have moved in, and the big political wheels have begun to spin. My silence is liable to be vested with all sorts of absurd meaning.

Tarun was a friend for many years. With me he was always generous and always supportive. I have been an admirer of Tehelka too, albeit on an issue to issue basis. To me Tehelka’s great moments were when it published Ashish Khetan’s sting operation on some of the perpetrators of the 2002 Gujarat pogrom and Ajit Sahi’s work on the SIMI trials. However, Tarun and I inhabited very different worlds and our views (on politics as well as literature) far from bringing us together, caused us to drift apart. What has happened now has not shocked me, but it has broken my heart.

The evidence against Tarun suggests that he has grievously sexually assaulted a young colleague of his during the 'ThinkFest', an 'intellectual' carnival run by him in Goa. The ThinkFest was sponsored by a consortium of Mining Corporations, some who are themselves accused of misdeeds on a gargantuan scale. Ironically, in other parts of the country the sponsors of ThinkFest have contributed to creating a climate in which scores of adivasi women have been raped and murdered, and thousands of people have been imprisoned as well as killed. Several lawyers have said that according to the new law, the nature of Tarun’s sexual assault amounts to rape. Tarun himself has admitted to his crime in his own emails and text messages to the woman he assaulted. From his position of uncontested power as her boss, he then loftily apologized to her, and then in an act that can only be described as delusionary, announced his own punishment—six months of leave in order to "lacerate" himself. Now that it has become a police matter, on the advice of fat cat lawyers whose services only the very rich can afford, Tarun begun to do what many men accused of rape do—vilify the woman he preyed on and call her a liar. Outrageously, it is being suggested that Tarun is being 'framed' for political reasons—presumably by the Right-wing Hindutva brigade. So now a young woman who he very recently saw fit to employ, is not just a loose woman, but an agent of the fascists? This is Rape Number Two: the rape of the values and the politics that Tehelka claims it stands for, and an affront to those who work there and who have supported it in the past.

It is the hollowing out of the last vestiges of integrity, political as well as personal.

Free, fair, fearless. That is Tehelka’s definition of itself. Where is courage now?
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?288640

women empowerment and women banks

http://epaper.jansatta.com/187972/Jansatta.com/Jansatta-Hindi-21112013#page/6/2

Open letter to the Chief Justice of India

Indira Jaising | Nov 22, 2013

While you have constituted a committee of three judges to look into the allegation that a former judge of the Supreme Court sexually harassed an intern, we have not been made aware of the terms of reference to the committee. 

As you may know, she may not be the only one to be harassed. 

Transparency in the functioning of such committees must be assured. Failure to do so has led to motivated rumours that the intern has not named the judge in question. It has also done a great disservice to the committee by giving rise to the suggestion that the judges threatened her to withdraw from the case. 

All this has led to vitiating the atmosphere for a fair enquiry into her allegations. 

It is therefore necessary that the Supreme Court as an institution and in full court take a decision on the procedure to be adopted while dealing with such complaints or enquiries. After all, there are two incumbent chief justices on this committee and the procedure they follow, matters for how they would approach the issue judicially when called upon to do so

A full court decision would enhance the credibility of the decision-making process and the profile of the court as an institution which is interested in addressing the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace not only of interns but also of lawyers and staff. An outside member on the committee would remove the impression that a bias was in operation when judging one of your own. 

Junior women lawyers face sexual harassment by senior lawyers and thanks to the conspiracy of silence around the issue among peers, senior lawyers enjoy impunity. This issue needs to be dealt with by treating such behaviour as an interference with the course of justice and dealt with as contempt of court. Senior lawyers who sexually harass women juniors or any lawyer at the bar must be stripped of their seniority. The message must go that the institution does not tolerate sexual harassment of women. 

To be honest, the architecture of the court is not women friendly. The corridors are breeding places for sexual harassment, the courtrooms too small to ensure the dignity of women who have to navigate their way through a human wall of male lawyers. The atmosphere is sexualized. Perhaps we need a new Supreme Court with spaces where we can interact with each other as equal human beings, not as sexual beings. 

Women have to face sexist remarks from male lawyers and the patronizing attitudes of judges. 

Sexist remarks in petitions, judgments and statements of judges on public platforms are not considered with the seriousness they deserve by the Court as an institution. There is no standing committee on gender justice of judges, as there is in most important constitutional courts around the world, to look at the use of sexist language and practices or laws and judgments that need systemic elimination and correction and not just in individual cases by the appeal process. 

The suggested solution -- not to take women interns --- is worse than the disease. The court must affirmatively demonstrate equal opportunity for women to make progress in the profession by guaranteeing them a safe working environment. Those who do not sexually harass have nothing to fear from women interns and lawyers. 

Unless the Court as an institution rises to the occasion and takes corrective action, it is in danger of losing its moral legitimacy, a fate too terrible to imagine. It is, after all, the only institution we have to seek justice in the true sense of the word. 

As a first step, the report of the committee of three judges must be made public as soon as possible so that the impression is not created that the Supreme Court is shielding the brotherhood of judges. After all, unless that is done, all judges will be suspect, those who are gender sensitive and those who are not, and that is not in anyone's interest. We as women lawyers respect judges who are respectful of us but disrespect judges who disrespect us and other women in words or action. It is our constitutional duty, under Article 51A of the Constitution of India, to renounce practices derogatory of women. 

At this point of time, the Supreme Court must play a leadership role. To remain silent is to be complicit. 

(The writer is Additional Solicitor General and the views expressed are her own) 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Open-letter-to-the-Chief-Justice-of-India/articleshow/26170500.cms

http://epaper.jagran.com/epaper/14-nov-2013-261-Chandigarh-Page-1.html

Separate law against honour killings sought

NEW DELHI: A UNFPA study on gender laws has recommended a separate law against honour killings to ensure that khap panchayats and families victimizing couples are brought to book. The move has been supported by Planning Commission member Sayeeda Hameed who said it should be made an election issue.

The UNFPA report — 'Laws and Son Preference in India: A Reality Check' — has evaluated gender laws to find that legislations meant to protect women may be doing the opposite. Authored by senior advocate Kirti Singh, the report also recommended a new anti-discrimination legal framework to guide laws and policies for women and girls.

The study found that some legal provisions were not just inadequate in checking son preference, but also promoted the practice and ended up being discriminatory for women, such as the Goa law on polygamy that permits second marriage for the husband where there is no son from the first marriage. The study strongly recommended removing such blatantly discriminatory provisions.

"A deeply entrenched preference for sons exists for various reasons including that a son inherits property, whereas a daughter is perceived as more of a burden due to factors such as dowry — a practice that continues to prevail despite being illegal. Laws and their implementation are the backbone of social change. They hold the potential to change mindsets and stem generations of gender discrimination,'' Frederika Meijer, UNFPA representative for India and Bhutan, said.

Advocating a strong law against honour killings, author Kirti Singh said, "Violent, abusive, barbaric acts occur even before killing. There is no law to address this. It is urgently required."

Agreeing to this, Hameed said, "This should be made an election issue. There has to be a separate law to address honour killings."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Separate-law-against-honour-killings-sought/articleshow/25785687.cms