It’s
been close to a decade now that I have directly or indirectly been involved in
managing harassment and / or sexual harassment cases at the workplace. I am not a lawyer and neither do I understand
the intricacies of this role. What I do understand though, is the fact that all
laws in India; or for that matter anywhere in the world, that admits a
democracy in its true sense, will ensure that they emanate from its constitution.
Is that a fact??? That’s the question that
should bother us – trouble anyone who believes in the importance and the
integrity to uphold the law in all forms.
This
isn’t a story that begins with ‘Once upon a time’ and neither has it acquired the
status of a legend! It’s a reality that is now very much woven into our
sensibilities. In the early 90’s, Bhanwari Devi, a social service worker, was
gang raped by a group of influential, upper class men, because she had
attempted to stop the insidious practice of child marriage. She lodged a case
against the offenders. However, the case was dismissed and the accused were
acquitted in a trial court. This appalling injustice compelled women organisations
and NGOs to file a petition in the supreme court under a collective platform of
Vishaka (Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan, 1997). They demanded justice and urged
action against sexual harassment at the workplace. The court, for the first time, leveraged the
international human rights law instrument, the Convention on the Elimination of
all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and drew up guidelines known
as Vishaka guidelines. A few years later, the Supreme Court issued notices to
the state and the central government to furnish the extent of the
implementation of the guidelines. Information was sought from associations like
the Bar Council of India, UGC and Association of CA. In 1998, a code of conduct was developed by
the National Commission of Women (NCW), which expanded the scope and definition
of harassment / sexual harassment. A draft bill was designed in 2001 and then
amended by the Ministry of HRD in 2004 which was finally accepted in the
parliament in 2012. Today, we have an autonomous body (Complaints Committee/Employee
Relations) in India Inc that is constituted to uphold the promise of a safe,
secure and hostile free working environment for ALL its employees!!!!
The
courts of Rajasthan recognized the STATE of Rajasthan as the ‘workplace’ for
Bhanwari Devi (a social service worker) and therefore, was imperative for the
state to ensure that it guarantee her a safe, secure and hostile free working
environment. This inference is now a basic requirement, an expectation, from
any and all employers. In the last decade, there has been a huge awareness that
has swept in on the need to implement this and most organisations have taken
steps to do so. And that is the easy part……
Now,
if the state of Rajasthan is the ‘workplace’ for Bhanwari Devi (and rightfully
so), wouldn’t our country – India- be the workplace for our politicians,
parliamentarians and for that matter anyone who is aligned to the state or the
central government? And hence by inference (which I believe is an educated
guess), shouldn’t any comment, unwelcome gesture, behaviour, words or advances
made by the people elected to these positions be treated as harassment / sexual
harassment.
“Harassment is defined as any
improper conduct by an individual, that is directed at an offensive to another
person or persons in the workplace, and that the individual knew or ought
reasonably to have known would cause offense or harm. It comprises any
objectionable act, comment, or display that demeans, belittles, or causes
personal humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or threat”.
So,
when the deputy CM of Maharashtra responds to a farmer “if there is no water in
the dam, should we urinate in it?” and then moves on to comment on the load
shedding crisis with “I have noticed that more children are being born since
the lights go off at night. There is no other work left then.” - it begs the not so naïve question ‘If THIS
is not harassment, then what is?’ The very norms that have been set by the SC, implemented
by the Govt (Ministry of HRD) and passed by the Parliament are snubbed by ……. the
parliamentarians!!!!
The
comments did not go down well with the farmers and what we have a day later is
a public apology from the deputy CM.
Now, let’s analyze the situation:
a)
The
state of Maharashtra is the ‘workplace’ of the Deputy CM – Ajit Pawar
b)
He
was elected to the parliament by the people of Maharashtra (employers?)
c)
The
comments made were perceived as objectionable by the employers (in this case
the farmers) and now by the nation at large
Given the situation, one fails to understand how a public
apology would suffice!!! So, if the rapists of Bhanwari Devi had issued a
public apology, would they have been acquitted? Now, what does one need to do
to get the legal system and the Ministry of HRD to take appropriate action against
the parliamentarian? Do we need to wait
for another Bhanwari Devi – this time someone from the parliament to be violated,
for someone to take action? As Ajit Pawar's employer, where and to whom do I go to, to file a complaint?
This is clearly harassment that is inflicted on
another, with self-proclaimed latitude, and in a civilized society!!!!! What we witness is a law being defied and a
constitution scoffed at! The preamble
reads,
“We, the people of India, have
solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic
Republic and to SECURE to all its citizens Justice… Liberty…Equality….and
promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and
the unity and Integrity of the Nation”
There is a reason for the use of the verb ‘secure’ – it takes
into gamut safety and safeguard…. ! And I am quite convinced that it wasn’t a
typo!!!! And Mr Pawar, we are not a democracy! We are a Democratic Republic... and it would help if you would take time to understand its essence, importance and the implications!!!!
