JNU and the culture of silence: Instead of stifling voices, it should be open about gender injustice

A worrying recent development has gone curiously under-reported. At least the implications of it were not discussed threadbare as they should have been. Facing criticism after the highest number of sexual harassment cases were reported from its premises, the Jawaharlal Nehru University has directed its students and faculty to refrain from “publicising” complaints of sexual harassment for political gains and maintain “strict confidentiality”. The issue came to light when Smriti Irani, the Union HRD Minister, quoted data from the UGC while informing the Lok Sabha that 25 cases of sexual harassment had been reported from JNU in 2013-14, the highest among 104 higher educational institutions in India. Not just that, half of the 101 sexual harassment complaints filed in 16 educational institutions in the national capital since 2013 were from JNU, data released last month by the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) has revealed. DCW also noted that the implementation of the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act, 2013 was flawed in many of these institutions. [caption id=“attachment_2567032” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  JNU campus. Image courtesy: JNU website[/caption] While it is a worrying enough trend that one of India’s premier institutions for higher education is seemingly not being able to provide a safe and trustworthy environment for its students, the response from JNU last Monday via an official communiqué is even more interesting. “The entire JNU community is requested to uphold the principles of gender justice, which includes maintaining strict confidentiality about GSCASH (Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment) cases. The committee actively tries to counter any attempt to create a hostile environment, which includes instilling an atmosphere of fear and silence. “Making public the confidential and personal details of any case or individuals adds in creating a hostile environment rather than containing it. This kind of irresponsible behaviour on the part of any member or group on the campus to further narrow political gains is not appreciated,” the statement added. In effect, JNU does not want you or I to know about instances of sexual harassment in its premises and has quoted the law while seeking to put an end to the discussion. It has also accused those who want the cases to be out in the open of acting in the interest of ’narrow political gains’. Here, let us see what the DCW report, which has been mentioned above, goes on to add. The report, which has since been rejected by JNU, records that most of the sexual harassment complaints in these institutions have been resolved through settlement and in cases where punishments have been ordered, they have been lenient. Barring one, of course, where a JNU assistant professor was expelled for sexually abusing a foreign student. Chairperson Swati Maliwal said the Commission has come to a conclusion that guidelines to deal with sexual harassment cases framed by various institutes have no uniformity. It is curious that an institution which is at the vanguard of liberal values and free thinking in India would seek to hide behind a legal provision while attempting to stifle the voices that reveal the rot that has set within its ramparts. Having a central committee to look into complaints of sexual violence isn’t a path-breaking achievement, rather in conformation with Supreme Court’s Vishakha Guidelines. But by seeking to restrict the larger public conversation over gender justice, the entire liberal quotient of JNU is leading the charge against, not for transparency. The statement is also a minefield of misogyny. The university claims that reportage of cases affects the ‘image of victims’ and puts their ‘integrity on public trial’. First, let us consider the bogey of trial by media. No one disputes the notion that media needs to show restraint when a reportage slants public perception in a way that can affect grievance redressal. There exists an important distinction, however, between media trial and media scrutiny. If complainants are browbeaten into silence and media is kept at an arm’s length, it insulates those in position of power from fear of public censure, a basic element of fight against gender injustice. As the Supreme Court itself quoted with approval in the 1966 case of Naresh Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra: “Where there is no publicity, there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity.” This is, as lawyer Mihira Sood points out, not just in the interests of transparency of proceedings, but also to retain people’s faith in the system. Why is there such an abject fear of the law against sexual atrocities being misused if, as the JNU claims, it has a sound and independent redressal system? Second, it is also the university’s contention that reportage of sexual violence adversely affects the image of victims. This is an immensely problematic position. The stigma about sexual violence runs so deep in our society that we must encourage women to not feel victimised when they experience it. The blame must shift from the sufferer to the perpetrator and one of the ways it can be done is to be open about it. When the Park Street rape survivor reclaimed her identity as Suzette Jordan or Nirbhaya’s mother demanded that her daughter be referred to as Jyoti Singh Pandey, they were putting out a statement that the misplaced demand for victims’ privacy is, in effect, a tacit admission of a prevalent societal notion that women who suffer sexual violence are ‘soiled’ for good. In fact, the JNU statement is such a staggering instance of subversion of the principles of gender justice that unless it is called out, it would be a disservice to the millions who have lent their voices for this cause. Through clever semantics, the very principle of gender justice has been turned on its head and an attempt is under way to keep things quiet so that the culture of silence, the dreaded enemy of gender justice, stays firmly in place. Is talking about sexual harassment or sexual violence an act of instilling fear and silence? Is it not the truth that women have historically been denied a voice to express gender-based injustice in private and public spaces? One of the most heartening changes in the discourse about sexual violence has been the willingness of women to come forward and talk about their experiences. Using the new media, more and more women are now telling their stories without feeling stigmatised or ashamed. Shouldn’t we encourage that? Should we be more interested in protecting the “reputation” of those against whom there are charges of sexual misconduct or those who have suffered it? One can imagine how cosy an atmosphere must be festering within JNU’s walls where instead of encouraging a spirit of inquiry, openness and transparency the university, an epicentre of liberalism, is putting a cloak around it so that no one knows what goes on within.