The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Seeking street justice
Lawyers too have to respect law

A head constable regulating entry at the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been assaulted by advocates after he allegedly slapped one of them. The policeman was suspended and an inquiry ordered. As for the lawyers, an FIR was registered against them for the assault. The action, however, infuriated the fraternity so much that they decided to go on strike to demand cancellation of the FIR. A procession taken out by them to meet the Governor attempted to barge through police barricades in violation of prohibitory orders. While claims regarding the incident can only be settled in an inquiry, it is clear the lawyers have tried to scuttle the process of law to settle the issue in their favour.

Right from the outset, the men of law in this feud tried to have their way by force, when at each step there were constitutional means available; all this because a head constable perhaps did not behave with due deference. First, the altercation: The senior advocates should have been able to better handle a standoff with a ‘mere policeman’. Next, once an FIR was registered — prima facie not without reason — they should have in no way expected to have it cancelled just on their demand, without a due process. Failing to achieve that, they gave a call for lawyers across Punjab and Haryana to go on strike, which was further evidence of the arbitrary powers they seem to arrogate to themselves.

Being an intrinsic part of the justice system, lawyers are called upon to provide their services in the most urgent matters of rights, liberties and even safety. Besides, in regular cases in courts, there are innumerable litigants whose interests, money and time are at stake, and lawyers have been paid by them to take their brief. Apart from it being morally wrong for lawyers to go on strike, it has also been declared illegal by a Supreme Court ruling. The high court has taken suo motu notice of the instant case, and upon its intervention, the strike has been called off. The irony, however, remains that to get justice, lawyers should have thought it right to thwart the very system of justice and take to the streets.

Charismatic, tough leader
Chavez did much, had many detractors

Son of schoolteacher parents, Hugo Chavez was the man who became the President of Venezuela for a record four terms. His reforms had a major impact on the lives of the poor of his nation, although his socialistic ideals did nothing to endear him to the capitalists. His criticism of the US administration earned him the wrath of the most powerful nation in the world, and brought him acclaim from many in developing countries.

It was a failed military coup that brought Chavez into the limelight, even though he got thrown into prison for his efforts. However, upon his release, he successfully donned a political avatar and challenged the political elite of the oil-rich nation. He won the elections and as President used oil as a weapon to build bridges abroad, especially with Cuba, the land of his mentor, Fidel Castro. His television and radio shows gave him a platform with the help of which he remained in touch with the common people. As often happens with strong leaders, Chavez leaves behind a mixed legacy. He has left his mark on Venezuelan society. He could not eradicate poverty as much as he wanted to, but he spent much on education and health sectors, thereby improving the lot of most sections of society. However, infrastructure needs more focus, as does industry. He also came in for criticism for trying to control the media and interfere in judicial processes. There is no denying the improvement in the overall lifestyle of common people during his tenure.

Even as Venezuela mourns the death of its charismatic leader, the challenge before Nicolas Maduro, his hand-picked successor, would be to tap into the undeniable public adoration of his processor while trying to improve the law and order situation and the rise in inflation which is affecting common people in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez has ensured that his presence will loom large over his people long after his demise.

Thought for the Day

We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. —Anais Nin

ARTICLE

Dhaka needs focussed approach
India can’t afford to ignore it
by Harsh V. Pant

EXTERNAL Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid’s recent visit to Bangladesh laid the groundwork for the visit of the President, Pranab Mukherjee, to Dhaka. New Delhi has not been a great partner to Dhaka so far and by not signing the deals that matter most to Bangladesh is alienating pro-India forces in that country. Yet both visits have underscored the importance that India attaches to its relations with Bangladesh.

Mukherjee had visited Dhaka in 2010 as the then Finance Minister to mark the signing of a $1 billion loan deal, the largest line of credit received by Bangladesh under a single agreement. India’s Exim Bank had signed this line of credit agreement with Bangladesh’s economic relations division and the loan was be used to develop railways and communications infrastructure there. This deal carried 1.75 per cent annual interest and would be repayable in 20 years, including a five-year grace period. It was offered during Sheikh Hasina’s visit to India in January 2010. This was followed by the two countries signing a 35-year electricity transmission deal under which India will be exporting up to 500 mw of power to Bangladesh.

Dhaka has also signed a $1.7 billion pact with the National Thermal Power Corporation for the construction of two coal-fired plants in southern Bangladesh. Despite these initiatives India failed to build on the momentum provided by Hasina’s visit with its failure to implement two major bilateral agreemebnts — finalisation of land boundary demarcation and the sharing of the waters of the Teesta river.

Bangladesh is rightly upset at the slow pace in the implementation of these. Hasina has taken great political risk to put momentum back into bilateral ties. But there has been no serious attempt on India’s part to settle outstanding issues.

Bureaucratic inertia and lack of political will has prevented many of the deals from getting followed through. Dhaka is seeking response to its demand for the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers on Bangladeshi products. India has failed to reciprocate Hasina’s overtures. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has used the India-Bangladesh bonhomie under Hasina to attack the government for toeing India’s line. India-Bangladesh ties had reached their lowest ebb during the 2001-2006 tenure of the BNP government.

India has failed to capitalise on the propitious political circumstances in Bangladesh, damaging its credibility even further. New Delhi’s window of opportunity will not exist forever. Anti-Indian sentiments can be marginalised if India allows Bangladesh to harness its economic growth and present it with greater opportunities. Yet India remains obsessed with “AfPak” and has failed to give due attention to Bangladesh.

Begum Khaleda Zia’s first visit to India came in March 2006, at the end of her term as Prime Minister. In contrast, Hasina visited India in January 2010, just a year into her term as the premier. New Delhi rolled out the red carpet to welcome Hasina as its first state guest of this decade. Overcoming formidable hurdles, Hasina’s Awami League had swept to a decisive electoral victory in December 2008.

This tale of two visits is a reflection of how India’s relationship with Bangladesh seems to have become hostage to domestic political imperatives in Dhaka. It is ironic that this should happen given India’s central role in helping establish an independent Bangladesh and the cultural affinities and ethnic linkages they share. But friends are as temporary as enemies in international politics. Instead, it is a state’s national interests that determine its foreign policy. In the case of India and Bangladesh, these interests have been diverging for some years now, making this bilateral relationship susceptible to the domestic political narratives in New Delhi and Dhaka.

India is the central issue around which Bangladeshi political parties define their foreign policy agenda. This shouldn’t be a surprise given India’s size and geographic linkages. Over the years political parties opposing the Awami League have tended to define themselves in opposition to India, in effect portraying Awami League as India's “stooge”. Moreover, radical Islamic groups have tried to buttress their own “Islamic identities” by attacking India.

Ever since she has come to power in December 2008, Sheikh Hasina has faced challenges from right-wing parties as well as the fundamentalist organisations such as the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen which enjoy Pakistan's support. These groups are united in undermining efforts to improve ties with New Delhi. The greatest challenge that Hasina overcame in her first year was the mutiny by the paramilitary Bangladesh Rifles, which erupted in February, 2009. It soon became clear that the mutineers were being instigated by supporters of the Opposition led by the BNP and others connected to the Jamaat-e-Islami. India supported Hasina’s crackdown on the mutineers by sealing its borders with Bangladesh and forcing back mutineers attempting to cross over.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Dhaka in September 2011 and was all set to sign the Teesta pact. But West Bengal Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee made sure that his plan got derailed at the last minute, damaging India’s credibility significantly. The Prime Minister ultimately managed to sign the land boundary agreement that demarcates territorial sovereignty along the 4,000-kilometre Indo-Bangladesh frontier. But even in this case, where Bangladesh has ratified this pact, India has failed to move forward because of the need for a constitutional amendment which requires support from the main opposition party, the BJP. India has finally signed a liberalised visa agreement and a landmark extradition treaty with Bangladesh that is likely to pave the way for the deportation of insurgents and criminals from Bangladesh.

Salman Khurshid has been able to mollify some concerns in Dhaka about Indian intentions by making it clear that New Delhi will be taking the two pacts on the Teesta waters and land boundary to their logical conclusion soon. But the political dispensation in New Delhi should recognise the dangers of playing party politics with India's foreign and security policy. India is witnessing rising turmoil all around its borders and, therefore, a stable, moderate Bangladesh is in its long-term interests. Constructive Indo-Bangladesh ties can be a major stabilising factor for the South Asian region as a whole. It can’t afford to ignore Dhaka.

The writer teaches at King's College, London.

MIDDLE

Silence of the lambs!
by Gurvinder Kaur

They say the mother of two sons never ages! Well the saying never ceases to amaze me. Every time I come out of my teenaged boys' bedroom, born two years apart, I come out red in the face, harsh words having being exchanged, fists having been shook in their faces, all my breath emptied by issuing dark sounding threats! By the time I reach my room, I need large airfuls of breath to steady my nerves and perhaps my BP.

Is this the antidote against aging? I head for the mirror. Oh where are the fresh couple of white hai? Surely a few must have spouted after this escapade! In most of these last 16 years since my first born graced the planet, mewling like a lamb fresh delivered, peace and quiet have been the biggest fatalities of our lives. I remember the one occasion, the only one, when I was able to turn their squabbling, snarling cacophony into total silence. It was a total surrender — the silence of the lambs!

Years ago, when they (read the lambs) were aged about eight and six respectively, we were travelling in our car, taking a rare vacation, cruising on the road to Hampi from Bangalore. We had left the city behind. The rear seat was loaded with the two lambs — chips, cookies and games of all varieties.

I sighed in pleasure taking in the picturesque surroundings. Not for long! A battle erupted in the rear seat for the ownership and use of the single portable Gameboy we owned. Try as we might, we could not settle it and the lambs took to heavy duty wrestling on the car floor!

It was then I decided to pit my cool cunning against their arrogant confidence. We stopped at the first shack we came across and bought… that elixir, that ambrosia from heaven itself! We bought a couple of cold drinks, the most beloved of their gulpable delights! These were always bought for them exclusively as we both are not fond of the brew. The fight ended immediately and the lambs extended their hands eagerly forward to grasp the bottles their parents would place in their hands lovingly.

I can never forget their shell-shocked faces, watching them from the rear-view mirror while hubby and I coolly lifted the bottles to our mouths. A collective gasp came from the rear! They rubbed their eyes and looked again and then stared as the cool contents disappeared down our throats.

When we returned the bottles and started the car, both sat back reflectively, not a sound from them! The next two hours of the journey were heavenly, utter peace and quiet at the back.

Strangely, those drinks weighed heavily not only in our bellies but on our minds too! The sense of triumph was short-lived; it never felt good, this acting petty with our lambs! The guilt quickly eroded the sheen from the victory and we decided, wordlessly, never to resort to this stratagem again. Ever after we let them squeal and snort and beat their hooves upon the ground. Everything we decided, the white hair, the fits of rage, the raised BP, the lack of quietude. Everything was preferable to their silence — the silence of the lambs!

OPED WOMEN

Treating women as equal requires a cultural shift, not laws. Very often this shift filters down from the top, but women do not have a presence there. As the world observes Women’s Day today, a close look at the issues of safety and equality.
Legislation alone is not enough
Rajesh Gill

In the next few days, a new Statute will be in place, meant to grant protection to women at the workplace. This legislation has been long overdue, since the Supreme Court issued guidelines in Visakha versus State of Rajasthan (1997) pertaining to sexual harassment of women at the workplace. For women, going out to work has become a necessity. It automatically leads to a greater vulnerability in terms of their safety. In a society which has failed to provide safety to its women within the four walls of their homes, how can they be safe outside, particularly at workplaces, which for ages have been dominated by men? Now since women have invaded the public spaces, the number game has changed drastically. The man-woman ratio has been transformed in favor of the latter but that in no way implies that women have been accepted in their new avatar by men, who have been used to having only men around in places like offices, banks, factories, educational institutions, buses, trains, restaurants and hotels etc.

What is still more important is that though women are today found in great numbers at all these places, they continue to be dominated by men who generally happen to be occupying superior places, dominating them as their bosses, teachers and so on. Men have been placed in public spaces for ages, as a consequence of which they feel quite comfortable there, joking around with each other, gossiping, spending time together and staying back at workplaces late hours without any hassles. For women however being at public spaces is a relatively novel experience. Most of the times, there is a “chilly climate” at the workplace, with men cracking dirty jokes, commenting on the dress of the women, indulging into a gendered talk, completely oblivious of the embarrassment caused by their so called ‘natural’ behavior towards women around them. Being a part of patriarchal social structure, women in such situation fail to make out whether the behavior is intentional or not. Men too fail to understand when a ‘friendly’ behavior turns into an act of ‘sexual harassment’.

It is in this context that the new legislation assumes immense significance in that it clearly defines sexual harassment by including not only an overt behavior amounting to sexual harassment, but even gestures and suggestive behavior and language that cause humiliation to a woman and makes her feel uncomfortable. More importantly, it puts the whole responsibility of protecting women from such situations on the ‘employer’, giving a very broad definition of ‘workplace’, including even a dwelling place or household employing domestic help. Workplace includes any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation provided by the employer for undertaking such journey. The legal provision covers both organized as well as the unorganized sectors of employment. It has mandated an Internal Committee for the redressal of complaints of sexual harassment by employees as also for preventing such acts. It also mandates the inclusion of a ‘third party’ in the Committee, which provides teeth to the redressal mechanism.

The question however remains as to whether such a Statute is sufficient to protect women from sexual harassment at workplace? I am sure it can’t be! Suppose an organization constitutes an Internal Committee to register complaints, investigate these and do justice. The mere existence of a Committee is meaningless unless it consists of members who are gender sensitive and have the courage to call a spade a spade. It is foolish to assume that victims will automatically approach the Committee with their complaint. In a society with a ‘culture of silence’ is it easy for a woman to come forward and register a formal complaint especially at the workplace? For that to happen, she must have faith in the system.

Most unfortunately, as a member of such a Committee, I have come across people, most educated and sophisticated, calling it a “Sex Committee” and ridiculing it. The question is, are we mature enough to understand the utility and import of such a legal provision? The proposed Bill is based upon certain assumptions, i.e. women are more gender sensitive than men; cases of sexual harassment shall be reported to this Committee and justice shall be delivered as per law. But actually, none of these assumptions is correct in itself. Even if it is mandatory to have this Committees headed by a woman, it is most important for the employer to ensure that this woman is gender sensitive. The Committee must not exist just as a decorative entity. It must function with commitment, clarity and courage, without any interference of authorities or political interests. I apprehend that out of the fear of law, most of the organizations shall constitute Internal Committees on paper, to show a compliance with law, whereas it is ensured that no case of sexual harassment is reported and if reported, it is made to fizzle out without any intention of justice delivery. Actually, for the full potential of women to be realized, it is extremely important to provide them a work environment where they feel absolutely comfortable and safe. The well meaning organizations will ensure that an Internal Committee as per law is not only in place, but it functions, where victims of sexual abuse can approach it fearlessly, with a trust that justice shall be delivered to them. In the absence of these sureties, this legal provision shall just be another piece of law, to be twisted and manipulated by those in power. Let the institutions of higher learning be the leaders in this case!

The writer is Chairperson, Department of Sociology and Dean, Faculty of Arts, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

Moving beyond fear factor
Vandana Shukla

We may celebrate that the Bill on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace was passed last Tuesday by Parliament, only sixteen years later since the Supreme Court had issued Guidelines in the much talked about Vishakha case(1997) for the same. If we look at the number of women who joined the work force, especially in knowledge based industry in the last two decades and found a way to grow purely on merit, contributing to a burgeoning economy, we will find several disturbing questions about the relevance of such bills and acts pressed into the system long after their need was felt.

Numbers may tell a different story here, in a survey conducted in 2011 by research firm IMRB (Indian Market Research Bureau) it was found that the income level of urban Indian women doubled in the last decade, reinforcing the growing financial success of women in India. All this happened in the absence of this Bill. What contributed to their new empowerment were various new openings where not brawn but skills mattered. Will the new law enable more women to join the workforce, or perform better, or break the glass ceiling?

When we talk of offering security to women under several new laws, it is assumed that women have a lurking danger from their male counterparts, with whom they are supposed to work 24x7 and that they are unable to defend themselves. Which, in a way is an admittance of the fact that women are not yet equal to men, even at the workplaces where they perform with equal efficiency. This not only negates the evolutionary journey they have made thus far, the over burdening of laws also sends a message to their male counterparts that they are not worthy of women’s trust. Hence, women need to be protected against men at all times and in all situations, including at the work place. That their place will always remain a step lower than men because they need to be protected. We are already suffering from the consequences of old dated mind sets that have kept the two genders segregated in schools, in buses, trains and at every possible forum. Gender difference has grown out of proportion, resulting in gender phobia of sorts.

If the government is concerned about women’s participation in the work force and their social evolution, the issue that needs to be addressed first should be about their equality because if women are treated as an equal, there cannot be a threat to their security. Men and women are products of the same social milieu, the need is to bring about a difference at different levels of our social structure. More and more laws with over- emphasis on the protection of one gender against the other will further widen the chasm psychological plane. If we like to make a claim to be a modern society, this outdated mind set should be changed that continues to treat women as Alices and men as different versions of demons. The discourse should now shift to a healthy competition among the equals at workplace.

In schemes after schemes promoted in the name of protecting the girl child, financial dole is offered by our government to young couples who would let a girl child come into this world. A girl who grows up with the knowledge that her parents were compensated with money for letting her survive can never feel like an equal. Any number of laws will fail to instill a feeling of self -worth in her. For how long will we allow women’s issues to be treated in a lopsided manner where every bill and act will reinforce the obsolete patriarchal message that they are somewhat weak and vulnerable, and hence need to be patronized. And, who will offer them security and protection, the same very men against whose demonic intentions they are supposed to be protected? Or, as the Bill on sexual harassment suggests, a board should be constituted headed by a woman. How many organizations have empowered women to have a voice strong enough to protest against something that may not be in favour of their bosses? How many organizations are headed by women?

Safety for women at work places will come by their greater relevance at the executive levels. Sexual harassment is not the only issue that needs to be addressed at workplaces, though it is made out to be the issue. Role of unconscious bias against women’s promotion, lower salaries for them because they are still not considered as the “bread winners” and lack of gender diversity at the board level contribute to a work culture that continues to treat them as unequal and somewhat deficient. Treating women with equality requires a cultural shift that comes by creating systems based on fairness. Laws alone cannot deliver it.

The differences can be very subtle and make us feel less resilient and gung ho. Look at body language. We don’t puff out our chests for obvious reasons, are often round shouldered and introverted. Men are more likely to be upright and military looking and that’s what many people are looking for in leadership.

— Fiona O’Hara, Managing Director, Accenture

What can it do for women?

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2012. It was approved by the lower house in September 2012.

The bill also offers protection to millions of unorganised workers like the domestic help.

Sexual remarks, demand for sexual favour, or any act of physical advance or an unwelcome touch are treated as acts of sexual offence.

The bill mandates an internal complaint committee for any organisation with 10 or more employees.

The penalty for non compliances will be Rs.50,000. Repeated violations may lead to higher penalties and cancellation of licence or registration to conduct business.

In the case of false or malicious complaint, the bill provides for action against the complainant in accordance with service rules.

The provisions of the Bill will also apply to private sector organisation, societies, trusts, educational institutions, NGOs, service providers of commercial, professional or entertainment activities.