The Me Too movement can trace its origins to 2006. At that
time, Tarana Burke, an American social activist began to use the phrase
‘me too’ on the MySpace social network to highlight the occurrence
of sexual harassment, particularly targeting women of colour. The Me Too Movement is an effort to effect social change, organized primarily
through social media, where it is often expressed as #Me-too. The
movement has provided a source of solidarity for women from all backgrounds who
have experienced sexual harassment
However, the #Me-too movement took a very different
turn within the Indian academia when Raya Sarkar, a dalit student
from the University of California posted a list of names on her Facebook
handle. The list included names of alleged sexual harassers within the academic
circle of India, UK and the US. The list included names of male professors from
nearly twenty-one to twenty-three universities all over India.
With this as the context of
our further discussion, let us understand the matter of concern and debate
here. The list put up by Raya Sarkar according to her supporters was an
act of assertion and bravery. She had put up the list after she heard a lot of
first-person accounts from multiple people from miscellaneous locations when
they named the same professors, and after they provided her with evidence.
However, once this list was public there was a spur of heated debate among many
feminists within the academia. Few popular names include Nivedita Menon, Kavita
Krishnan, Vrinda Grover, and many of their like-minded colleagues.
They centered their dismay on
many critical arguments while they questioned the basis of the act done by the
female student. To this, they argued that the list which alleged few men or male
professors within the universities did not mention the nature, context, or
explanation of the sexual offense done by them. This leads to ambiguity and a lack of answerability. Secondly, the list included the names of men who have been
convicted by the court of law. However, putting up these names in an
unsubstantiated list dilutes the gravity of actual court convictions and gives
such criminals an easy alibi. They further pointed out that such an act was a
violation of the principle of ‘natural justice’ which they deemed to be
fair and just. They argued that abiding by the due process is the right way to
seek justice and publication of such a list only delegitimizes the long
struggle undertaken by feminists in their fight against sexual harassment.
However, this was just one side of the argument. Many Dalit
feminists and others on literary platforms like The Round Table India expressed
their dissent by calling out the baseless nature of the arguments made by
alleged Savarna feminists. They pointed out that the list was primarily for
students to be wary of their professors because knowing how college
administrations function, harassers will continue to hold their positions of
power. The questions of the accusations being unsubstantial or unreasonable
concerns around the trajectory of feminist movements which challenged the
putting of the onus of proof on the survivors and asking them to go through the
excruciating and triggering ‘due process’. This Movement further challenged the
traditional approach of women coming up with the narrative of victimhood
instead of assertion and courage of being able to openly name their
perpetrators.
Further
the move made by the Dalit feminist was alleged as a representation of justice systems like ‘khap panchayat’ or ‘kangaroo courts’. But here it is
necessary to point out that Khap Panchayat or the Kangaroo court are in fact
hyper-masculine, patriarchal structures that emanate from a position of power
with the intention to shame or intimidate. This list, on the other hand, came
from victims of the said masculinity and patriarchy which to date remains
unchanged within the academia. Hence, when survivors of such sexual harassment
or offences come forward to name their perpetrator it is assertion and not
oppression.
| ||
| The supporters of the list also quoted Nivedita Menon where she once argued that “feminism must reconsider its engagement with the language of rights and the law. The experience of the last decade not only raises questions about the capacity of the law to act as a transformative instrument, but more fundamentally it points to the possibility that functioning in a manner compatible with legal discourse can radically refract from the ethical and emancipatory impulse of feminism itself. “Hence, here even though her argument in context with the list issue seems to be logical, where she pointed out that publication of such lists undermines the discourse feminism has taken since the very beginning, it also puts us in a position to question whether undertaking such a discourse guarantee justice in a country with a riddled judiciary. |
Nivedita Menon in one of her
argument’s counters questioned in her defense – “how is our caste identity
relevant in this instance?” She argued that they had no knowledge of Raya
Sarkar being a Dalit and even if they did so, they would not consider it
important unless all or majority of the complainants were Dalit. However, here
it is necessary to also dwell on a nuanced argument made by Drishadwati
Bargi, a scholar from the University of Minnesota.
Bargi argues that rendering caste irrelevant feeds
into everyday casteism that makes the Savarna an anonymous/casteless subject
and the Dalit, a bearer of caste. Bargi further argues that Dalit Bahujan
students are marked illegitimate students in a casteist culture. Their
experiences of humiliation do not necessitate an interrogation of the casteist
nature of the academic space. As long as Dalit students are the inhabitants of the
same place their presence is too real to be objectified in one’s writings and
study. This contributes to a regime of recognition that makes the death of the
Dalit student, a condition for its response. Anything short of death is
not considered worthy of attention or criticism.
Nivedita Menon defends her interpretation of ‘due
process’ as a transparent process of adjudication that are established at
institutional levels and can be carried out regularly and in accordance with
established rules and principles set up in any institutional context. She
argues that the possibility of justice is greater when a community of this sort
works out acceptable norms of behaviour and punishment that are appropriate to
it. Such a self-constituting community is more likely to be active and continue
to constitute itself anew constantly.
Hence on understanding
the above dilemma or dichotomy within feminism, it becomes necessary to
question or investigate the morality of the discourses one undertakes the pursuit of seeking justice and to further attempt to critically engage with the
learned the theory of the ideology and to unlearn our previous notion, ways and
acts of responding to any issues concerning the spectrum of problems feminism
tries to challenge.
REFERENCES:
Drishadwati Bargi, On Misreading the Dalit Critique of
University Spaces, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 52, Issue No. 50, 16
Dec 2017
https://kafila.online/2017/10/28/from-feminazi-to-savarna-rape-apologist-in-24-hours/
https://kafila.online/2017/10/24/statement-by-feminists-on-facebook-campaign-to-name-and-shame
Comments
Post a Comment