Wiping away freedom: A gross violation of each woman’s basic rights
24 Nov 2013 6:23 PM IST
One underlying malaise is common to snooping and Tejpal i.e., violation of woman’s basic rights.
Three events, occurring sequentially, have reverted national attention to the treatment of the female in India. US Ambassador Nancy Powell, perhaps coincidently, lamented that many young US women feared coming to India due to India's reputation for sexual harassment or worse.
First was the charge on social media by a law intern that a recently retired Supreme Court judge had made inappropriate sexual advances to her while she was interning with him. Second was the tape-recorded conversations of Amit Shah, hatchet-man of BJP’s prime ministerial nominee Narendra Modi, with a senior police official about what appears like secret surveillance, but the BJP insists was security for the protection of an unnamed female.
While these two episodes were unravelling, suddenly burst into view the alleged sexual attack, not merely harassment, by Tarun Tejpal, the editor-in-chief of Tehelka a magazine reputed for investigative journalism on a female employee during the annual Think festival in Goa.
Tejpal expressed remorse and exited the magazine for six months, trying to contain the damage. The victim's leaked written account and indirect expression of dissatisfaction with the compromise that the magazine was trying to work out, has ignited a full-blown debate on all aspects of the case, including the absurdity of Tejpal's contrition i.e. a perpetrator deciding his own punishment.
While the case of his Lordship and the editor-in-chief can be examined from the angle of sexual harassment at the workplace, the Gujarat case needs separate scrutiny.
Harassment at the workplace is a universal phenomenon, forcing even Western nations to bring legislative protective measures. President John F. Kennedy, whose 50th death anniversary passed earlier this week, had by executive order in 1961 mandated protection to employees from discrimination during recruitment or service. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was set up in 1965 after Kennedy’s death.
In India the guidelines date only from Supreme Court’s Vishaka judgement of 1997, which explained that the definition of Human Rights in S.2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, guaranteeing the life, liberty, equality and dignity of all citizens, includes protection of females at their workplace. These guidelines attempt to explain what constitutes sexual harassment and recommends setting up of a complaint mechanism in all offices, which should include outsiders.
Studies in the West have concluded that gender discrimination is encountered by both sexes. A 2008 study by Louis Harris & Associates further indicates that it is mainly supervisors (43 per cent), senior employees (27 per cent), co-workers (19 per cent), who are perpetrators.
Seniors, according to psychiatrists, feel power over juniors, which can take the shape of sexual harassment. In 1991, Anita Hill charged Clarence Thomas, nominated as US Supreme Court judge, and deposed before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, alleging sexual harassment. The judge still made it by a narrow majority. David Letterman, the famous television talk show host confessed in 2009 to having multiple affairs with employees but managed to survive. The charges by Paula Jones against Bill Clinton, when he was Governor of Arkansas, could not nail him.
A common defence is to show consent or question the character of the victim. But most corporations in the West insist on affairs with employees being immediately reported to the management as there is always potential for sex harassment charges subsequently. Linda Henman in her book The Magnetic Boss talks of the power of a boss over juniors. She concludes that “whether that person abuses the power is irrelevant, the perception is there.”
It is this perception perhaps that may have led Tejpal or the Supreme Court judge to cross the line between professional engagement, or even closeness, and sexual conduct.
Neither the Supreme Court nor Tehelka had a Vishaka Committee. Both are now scampering to examine the conduct of one of their own senior functionaries. In the case of Tejpal, the victim’s purported statement being already in the public domain, a BJP-led government in Goa has shown alacrity in registering a First Information Report.
If the surveillance tapes from the hotel, and there well might have been a camera in the lift, establish a sexual attack and the witnesses corroborate the victim’s statement, particularly as she was complaining to some of them in real time, then criminal prosecution may be in order.
The Gujarat case is different only in the modus operandi but raises questions about gender based violation of dignity and liberty as laid in the Protection of Human Rights Act. If transcripts of the tapes are correct, and so far the Gujarat government has not challenged them, then Amit Shah’s conversation with the police indicates that the woman was perhaps unaware of the surveillance and her movements and meetings with an unknown male were the issue.
A protectee is normally asked for the day's programme and not secretly tailed to determine it. Second is the mystery about how the surveillance was mounted. Was it on verbal instructions of Amit Shah and his “Saheb” or after due process? It is true, unfortunately, that most Indian state governments use their police as a personal army, with Chief/Home Ministers issuing direct orders to hand-picked district police heads or even officers in charge of police stations, circumventing chains of command and thus accountability.
Finally is the more troubling question whether the Gujarat government was, at best, functioning as a Khap Panchayat to intervene in the affairs of a woman at her father’s behest or, worse, had some other interest in the girl’s surveillance.
The underlying malaise is common to all three episodes i.e., a gross violation of each woman’s basic human rights entitling her to dignity and freedom. An opportunity is available now to redraw red-lines forcefully and unmindful of the status of the perpetrators.
NEXT: Politicians on the latest women harrasment cases
Politicians on the latest women harrasment cases
MEENAKSHI LEKHI, Spokesperson, BJP
The BJP labels Snoopgate as a case of political vendetta. It questions the locus standi of the Congress in raising the issue when neither the girl in question nor her father has complained. The BJP says there is nothing illegal in putting the girl under surveillance; her father had requested the state government for security as she was being harassed.
The BJP questions the “link”?between the Congress, CBI and the news portals which broke the story, and the source of “unauthenticated” information. It asks who authorised the snooping on Shah, and the broadcast of the tapes. “The Congress has stooped to such a level that it is violating the girl’s right to privacy for political gains,” BJP national spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi says. If the request was for her security, why was the girl put under surveillance? Why was she not provided with a personal security officer? The party says if the girl was being harassed over phone, how could a PSO have helped.
The BJP also questions the credentials of then Pradeep Sharma and his brother Kuldeep Sharma, retired IPS officer, currently with the Union home minister and alleges an attempt to fix Narendra Modi. -- AS told to Yojna Gusai
Shaktisinh Gohil, Former Leader of Opposition, Gujarat
The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in case of a crime anyone can become a complainant. If it comes to the knowledge of the government, then the government must become the complainant and register the offence. The other principle of criminal jurisprudence is that even if the victim is not willing to lodge a complaint against the tormentor, action must be initiated against the accused. The Criminal Procedure Code clearly lists the type of cases which are compoundable and which are not.
Telephone tapping, stalking by police without written permission, misuse of government machinery, a conspiracy to illegally confine someone in jail for a long time can never be compounded. Hence, it is wrong to say that the affected person does not want to lodge a complaint or have an investigation does not make the offence of the Chief Minister compoundable.
Shobha Oza, President, All India Mahila Congress
This incident should be taken with great seriousness because if it sets a precedent, the life of the average citizen will become very difficult.
People will start using state machinery to settle personal scores and democracy and civil liberties would be grossly compromised, as has been happening in Gujarat. The defence given by the BJP the woman was being provided security on the basis of a request by her father does not stand ground as it is very clear from the taped audio conversations (nearly 276) between Mr Shah and police officials that he was giving directions to follow, trap and stop the girl from escaping.
Issues relating to violation of law are also involved; this is a clear case of a an offence under Section 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 120-B as also Section 166 of the IPC. Since both Mr Modi and Mr Shah are maintaining a stoic silence, it seems that they have nothing to offer in their defence.
RASHID ALVI, Senior Congress Leader
The excuses which are being offered by the BJP are baseless. My question is whether the Chief Minister or the then home minister of Gujarat provided the same kind of security to other citizens of the state, or she was an exceptional case. This reminds me of the horrific riots which took place in Gujarat in 2002.
If the Gujarat government is so competent in providing close-knit meticulous security to an ordinary girl, why did the state fail in providing security to thousands of people in 2002? The Gujarat Chief Minister has not once admitted the responsibility for the worst massacre ever in the country. Thus I find it curious that he is offering such security cover to a young girl. -- As told to Mukesh Ranjan
Dr Ranjana Kumari, Director, Centre for Social Research
No one has the right to control anyone’s freedom, autonomy and independence. This is a constitutional guarantee. Of course, the government’s organisations, including the Intelligence Bureau and the CBI, are known to maintain surveillance on some people but we need to know why a young girl was being snooped upon in this fashion.
The major issue that has got lost is the question of woman’s privacy that must be respected. Everyone has a right to privacy and a woman can certainly not be tailed by cops like this, even if it is on someone’s request. It is shocking to see how the state ATS could be used to stalk a woman without her permission or even at the behest of her father. The act is unacceptable and unpardonable. The question of why the state machinery was used for someone’s whims, also arises. This is a clear violation, a case of stalking and a violation of Indian Telegraph Act.
There is a need to speak to the woman who has been stalked. The letter of a so-called father is also questionable. The woman is an adult, why should her father be speaking on her behalf? The letter sent to the women’s rights panel clearly saying that he does not need a probe by them needs to be examined thoroughly. All women’s organisations have spoken in one voice, demanding an explanation as to which process of law was followed for using state machinery to snoop on a woman.
Next: Cops are caught in the crossfire
Cops are caught in the crossfire
Misuse of police. That certainly appears to be, in the case of Guja-rat Chief Minis-ter Narendra Modi’s close aide Amit Shah, accused of snooping on a woman architect. During my 37 years of service in the IPS,?I have not come across such misuse of police officials.
From what has appeared in the media, the following seem to be the facts, though not admitted specifically. A?certain gentleman was unhappy or didn’t like the relationship that his daughter was having with a man he did not approve of. He met the Gujarat Chief Minis-ter with a request to intervene, and ensure that no harm befalls his daughter.
Moved by the request of the father, the Chief Minister entrusted the job of protecting the woman to his home minister Amit Shah. The minister then ordered the SP?of the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) of Gujarat to keep surveillance/ snoop/ eavesdrop on the woman ostensibly so that no damage/ harm would befall her. Cobrapost and some investigative journalists have secured tapes of the alleged conversations between the home minister and the ATS superintendent of police.
These facts raise interesting questions in the minds of all thinking people.
Q1. Even though the provisions of The Indian Telegraph Act do empower the state to eavesdrop on/ tap the conversations of its citizens, it is required to be done only where the security of the state is at stake. Is the security of our country, and more specifically that of Gujarat, threatened by the relationship between the young lady and her friend?
Q2. Is it proper for the state/Chief Minister or home minister to use public servants, paid for by the tax payer, to allegedly protect a woman from her “friend’, though requested by her father?
Q3. Should ‘stalking’ of a young lady by the security personnel be permitted by civil society when she has not consented to such stalking/surveillance ?
Q4. Is a father permitted under Indian law to request such ‘protection’ merely because he does not approve of his daughter’s choice in the matter of with whom she should be friendly with?
To all of us, who are neither politicians nor anxious fathers, the answers to these questions afford a good view of the direction in which Indian democracy is evolving.
Do police officers routinely do such favours for their political masters? I would straightaway say no, because unlike the ones in Gujarat or any other state for that matter, the politicians in AP do have a sense of proportion. Nor do they waste the resources of the state in such common matters. Snooping/tapping or surveillance does not interest them.
A?question arises: How vulnerable is the police in terms of transfers, punishment postings, or, perhaps, even being framed? For me, such transfers and punishment postings are common. These are never resorted to unless there is a political “loss” caused to the ruling party / the head of government or the home minister. In a case of difference of opinion between a father and his daughter, such transfers/punishments are never resorted to.
It is a very general question to ask why some police officials act the way they do. While the exact?reasons would be known only to the officer concerned and his bosses, in general such decisions are not taken by a single police officer. They are invariably taken collectively, after due deliberations and weighing the pros and cons. However, it is to be kept in mind that the police is required to intervene between two warring parties. Whatever decision the police takes, not withstanding its legal validity, is bound to displease one of the affected parties. No police action would be able to please both the parties.
— As told to Coreena Suares
( Source : dc )
Next Story
