The evening of 20th March,
2013 saw the presidential debate for the Gender Sensitization
Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) in JNU. I will try to
put up an account of what the candidates spoke about, what questions
they were asked, what they replied, and how did it feel like being in
the audience. At the outset I would want to eliminate a few
misconceptions: even though most parties, by general consent, claim
that the GSCASH candidate is “independent,” “neutral,” and so
on – which basically means that most of them refrain from
contesting under their party's name – in reality the affair is much
more openly political. The publicity campaign is run by the parties.
The floor of the debate is divided into clearly demarcated areas
where each of the party's cadre sit, and loyalty votes are freely
asked by the parties from those who they think sympathize with them.
There are consequences of the results too: a party would look at it
as a matter of pride generally if its candidate wins the election, to
speak nothing of the prestige that can be used in the coming
elections of the students' union or GSCASH in the next term. The
other problem of this deliberate de-politicization of GSCASH
elections is that this is what the right-wing powers in campus and
outside want: you are students, you shouldn't be allowed to talk
about politics, do not make gender a political agenda, let us do the
talking for you, and so on. Why, then, should progressive left
parties want to speak the same language? The second misconception
that needs to be cleared is regarding the relationship between the
candidates and the audience; this is an unequal relationship, since
the candidates make many claims about what their party has done in
the past, and what they will once again do when given a chance. Some
candidates went to the extent of saying that every vote given to her
would be a blow to patriarchy! Usually the “how” questions are
avoided, and when pushed, evaded. Hence, even if the debate seems
democratic in its format, it lacks a very crucial aspect: there is no
way the audience can verify the lofty claims made by the candidates.
While there did exist a procedure earlier to discuss the annual
faring of the GSCASH before elections, this has become defunct. But
it is clear that GSCASH autonomy rests in dis-balance until such
mechanisms for review are reinstated.
Around 5 30 pm, the proceedings for the
election began. There was a show of strength going on, meanwhile, in
the audience, which comprised mostly of political parties by now. As
the debate began and carried on, more and more people filled in. A
liberal estimate would be that perhaps a thousand – out of the
seven thousand students enrolled in JNU – students were witness to
the whole debate.
Abhiruchi Ranjan (All India Students
Association) She began with a couplet about the freedom of women.
Her manner of speaking was rather affected, and spontaneity was clear
in its absence. She began by saluting the spirit of women's
resistance in various contexts – against the AFSPA, against feudal
caste relations, against the state war against tribals (there are
some obvious omissions in this list, as we will see later; these
omissions, in fact, were spoken of by none). Apart from this, there
were no threads running through her speech, except these: firstly,
she seemed to be in favor of increasing official, administrative
mechanisms dealing with gender (gender orientation programmes and
modules in courses). Secondly, she spoke in favor of everyone's right
over their own sexual choices and the integrity of their bodies.
Thirdly, she constantly reminded the audience of the recent protests
in Delhi after a gangrape that caught high media attention, more
than hinting that its leadership came from the “Freedom without
Fear” campaign headed by her parent party. She was asked what was
done regarding the issue of the LGBT community in the previous GSCASH
term, when a student of her party was the representative. She replied
that it was talked about during the gender orientation session held
at the beginning of the previous semester, to which many in the
audience shouted back that these sessions hadn't much to do with
alternative sexualities. The second question she was asked was that
having spoken about sexual crimes all over the country and the world,
why was she or her party silent over the failure of the GSCASH to
support a girl from outside who was molested within the campus by a
student? Her reply was that she doesn't distinguish between the
outside and the inside, and that the crimes committed in other parts
of the country are more gruesome. Many in the audience did not
consider this a proper reply to the question asked.
Dipti Tamang (Democratic Students' Federation)
She began by pointing out towards the momentum built around gender
issues in the wake of the famous Delhi-gangrape. She said that while
on the one hand people are questioning patriarchy and asserting their
rights over their body, the parliament is still living in its
patriarchal mindset. It is necessary to question the ideas regarding
gender that we grow up with, as well as do away with the draconian
powers given to the police and the military. She pointed out how the
state is ignoring the JVC and instead pushing forth laws that are to
the detriment of women, which needs to be fought on the streets. She
is not against the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Bill, but wants
it to keep gender bodies representative rather than nominated in
their elections. She believes that the administration should grant
support to maintain the autonomy of GSCASH, and that GSCASH should
keep a regular counselor in the health centre to provide
psychological support to complainants.
Lovey Srivastava (Akhil
Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad)
She began by narrating a string of developments world over where
women achieved, recently, their equal rights with men, in terms of
wages, right to work, right to social access, etc. But this
enumeration ended abruptly, and she came to issues closer home. The
most important part of her agenda was that GSCASH must be
de-politicized, since it is a “neutral” body in the first place.
It should not become a site for political clash, and must be
impartial in its functioning as a court is. She has been in the
campus since her BA days (now ten years), and she has consistently
seen how the neutral character of the body has been watered down by
political parties, and that GSCASH is often a tool for retribution.
Hence, there should also be steps to curb false cases registered in
GSCASH. Apart from these, she was in favor of demands for sanitary
napkin dispensers in campus, speedy disposal of cases, and so on. She
also spoke in favor of the students' protest that took place in Delhi
of late, and against physical violence against women. She was asked
what her idea of gender sensitization is. She replied that many
students in campus watch porn in their rooms, and that should stop.
She also believes that the administrative class that the girl faces
exploitation from includes professors on one hand, and workers –
mess, sanitation, etc. - on the other. She was asked how she could
speak against rape when her parent party – the BJP – perpetrated
these very crimes against minorities in state-sponsored pogroms. She
replied that if these allegations are true, she condemns them. She
was asked if she was in favor of condom-vending-machines in campus.
To which she replied yes, and not only in campus but otherwise also.
She was then asked how could she ask for stopping pornography given
that MLAs from the BJP indulge in it in the parliament? She replied
it is a detestable habit, and hence should stop everywhere, accepting
the MLAs folly too. Lastly, she was asked what is her opinion about
the LGBT group. She said she accepted them, but did not endorse them.
Sandhya Das (UDSF, SFR, New Materialists, Independent support)
Her election agenda was based on the idea that patriarchy not only
identifies the woman as its target, but also different kinds of
women, based on lines of caste, nationality, and so on. She asked
those who supported the protests against the famous Delhi gangrape
why they remain silent about the Soni Soris and Asiyas and Nilofars.
She pointed out that the Justice Verma Committee report – and law
in general – would remain useless until and unless society steps up
to uphold that, for which a patriarchal mindset will have to be
questioned. In this regard, she criticized the dominant left for
sacrificing work amidst people to media-centric attention. (What
would be the nature of this work, however, she did not clarify.) She
also exposed the image-centric notion of activism – the jholas,
unruly
beard, glasses of the standard activist – against allegations
(these allegations have been made, but there is exageration also)
that she is elite in her appearance and diction and so on. She upheld
the right to sexuality also, openly raising the issue of the right to
safe and free sex. She was asked what she thought wrong with the JVC
report, and she clarified that nothing was wrong with it, but it was
wrong to assume it will somehow work by itself, given the state's
continuous disregard for reports of this kind. She was then asked why
she was against protesting at Jantar Mantar, to which she replied
that the kind of media-centric protest that JNUSU and the left in
campus believe they are leading is actually just a “hang-over”
from their Anna Hazare obsession.
Srirupa Bhattacharya
(Democratic Students' Union)
Srirupa was the only candidate who admitted to fighting from her
party. She pointed out that we do not recognize that what the gender
movement is up against is not simply misbehaviour, but entrenched
patriarchy. In the context of the gang-rape protests in Delhi, she
said that those of the campus left who claim to have led the protests
had nothing to say when the demands for death penalty and chemical
castration were raised, and they couldn't do anything when demands
for increased surveillance and policing came about. She accused them
of failing to recognize that it is this police that is the agent of
patriarchal forces in our society. It will take a popular struggle to
even uphold the autonomy of GSCASH. She also raised concerns about
women of the marginal sections of society – SC/ST women, women of
oppressed nationalities, and so on. She also put forth the suggestion
that the results of GSCASH inquiry be binding for the administration
to act upon. She was questioned about this point, as to what exactly
she meant by it. Her reply was rather unclear, but suggested that as
things stand presently, the GSCASH gives out its conclusions to the
administration, which then acts on these. It should be GSCASH which
decides how to act upon the findings they have.
Tintumol Joseph (Students
Federation of India)
She saluted the spirit of the people who took to the streets after
the Delhi-gangrape and condemned the govt.'s passing the ordinance
rather than accept the recommendations of Justice Verma. While she
condemned the upper hand of the state with its draconian laws in
Kashmir and North East, her party's position in Tripura still
remained unclear. Tintumol argued towards preserving the autonomy of
the GSCASH from administrative interference as well as from being
made nominative under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill. She
spoke against the vulnerability that a student has to face in lodging
and carrying through a complaint against a professor, and promised to
balance out these inequalities if given a chance. She also said that
there needs to be a more timely dispensing of justice in GSCASH
cases, and was ready to brace all these challenges as a GSCASH
student representative.
We
must also ask ourselves a few questions after having heard what the
candidates have to say. Firstly, amidst all the slogans for Bhanwari
Devi, Nilofar-Asiya, Manorama Devi, Irom Sharmila, nobody
mentioned
Shah Bano. That is the Achilles' Heel of the left (even the
“independent” left/caste-based/tribe-based parties) on campus.
The progressives here rarely talk about Shah Bano. And we know this
belongs to the votebank strategies in campus. There is nobody asking
the question if patriarchy also further marginalizes women and
children within the marginalized. Secondly, nobody raised the
question of the moral-policing that hostel rules allow. There are
huge fines levied upon students if guests (of either gender) are
found during warden checks. Mostly, hosting men is easy for men,
since it only requires putting a letter requesting permission, which
then costs Rs 10. There is no way a woman guest can stay over. Why
does this never figure into the discourse on moral-policing in
campus? Thirdly, there are considerable gaps between the agenda put
on the parchas
and those spoken of in speech. For example, nobody spoke of
sanitary-napkin-dispensers, even though it was part of the agenda.
Nobody spoke of condom-vending-machines. The former was promised last
time too, but not given, hence it was better not to mention it. The
latter was an attempt to sound progressive, but as it turned out,
repression got the better of most left candidates, while it was an
ABVP candidate who agreed to it! Likewise, nothing substantial was
said about the issue of alternative sexualities. What is to be done
with token support? How about speaking against the stereotypes and
misconceptions that many in campus hold regarding the LGBT?
The
most important thread running across all these concerns is the
disappearance of the “how” questions. A friend who witnessed the
election remarked that nobody seemed to be interested in really doing
something, it was just a power-game that one plays in the interest of
one's party. What will be required now isn't simply voting for one or
the other candidate, who seems to us most radical or most
progressive, but rather a strong pressure on GSCASH from outside to
deliver sincerely and deliver on the correct issues. We
need to have quarterly report discussions in which all the
developments in GSCASH are publicly read out and discussed. We must
demand and help ensure that complainants are not threatened by
professors or political parties to take back their complaints, and
that they are helped against psychological torment by insensitive and
crooked elements. We must demand that gender sensitization should
include students and professors,
and must be regular. GSCASH elections need to be organized with
the JNUSU elections. There must
be provisions that if a student's representative has resigned, there
must be by-elections so that the student representation is not
weakened. More time must be given for the candidates to be
questioned: it is seen that they talk nonsense for this limited time
and simply get away without answering important questions. The
effects of the Sexual Harassment Bill on GSCASH autonomy and our plan
of action must be made more clear.
And these are only preliminary demands. The list must definitely
grow. Meanwhile, we must not take the elections lightly and must cast
our vote having thoroughly judged the agenda of each candidate. We
must not
think of voting as a favor for somebody whom we know or who has
helped us. We don't want privileges, we want what is rightfully ours.