The Hema Committee report on gender discrimination in the Malayalam film industry has unleashed a veritable media storm in regional news channels. But amidst the cacophony of opinions, debates, and enraged questions is a loud silence regarding an entire section of the report that talks about the ways in which the Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA) has been implementing illegal bans and applying arbitrary rules on women film workers.
While the horrors narrated by the woman witnesses about the pressures to ‘adjust’ and provide sexual favours need to be addressed, it is also the sensationalism in these stories and the lurid fascination with trying to guess who the people involved are, that has captured the attention of several media outlets. The main point of discussion seems to be whether the Kerala government will file suo motu cases against the perpetrators, whose identities have been redacted from the report, or whether the privacy and agency of the survivors need to be respected, leaving it to the women to decide on taking a legal route for redressal.
The Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), which has been working for over four years to bring this report to light, has been consistent in their stand that the purpose of the report is to have an official documentation of the malignant practices in the film industry. Despite several efforts to delegitimise the report because it does not name anyone and belittle the women involved for not being courageous enough to reveal identities, WCC has staunchly backed the prerogative of the survivor to decide on how to deal with their trauma. It remains to be seen in the coming days how the state government acts, especially since the Kerala High Court on Thursday sought a copy of the full report to decide on taking criminal action against sexual harassers.
But there still remains an area where the government can, and must, take action based on the evidence collected by the three-member committee without any risk to the privacy of survivors. And that is the findings of Justice Hema recorded in paragraphs 280 to 299 that deal with the ways in which FEFKA has been following the illegal practice of denying work to anyone who is not part of the union.
At first sight, this seems to be a practice aimed at having a strong union that can represent the film industry’s workforce in matters of fair compensation. And indeed, FEFKA has played an instrumental role in supporting workers when their rightful remuneration is denied and in settling disputes on film sets.
But this has largely helped its male members. For women, FEFKA acts more like a hurdle to be crossed and any woman who questions unfair practices is easily denied union membership and thus kept out of work.
This practice has been around for so long that most film workers accept it as law. Justice Hema writes, “It is needless to say that no union can prohibit a person from working in cinema if he or she is not a member of a union. The membership would be relevant for other purposes but absence of a membership card cannot be made a reason to deny work for a hairstylist or any other [person]. A producer also cannot be asked not to allow a non-member of the union to work in his cinema. But, practically, all these illegalities are recognised as legal in the film industry.”
Does this clear record of statement not suffice for the government to look into the actions of FEFKA?
As part of my research on the production cultures of the Malayalam film industry, several women respondents had revealed how they faced immense difficulties in becoming members of FEFKA despite having the eligibility and qualifications. The Hema Committee report mentions that women are being denied make-up artist cards on account of gender and age and categorically marks it an illegal practice.
But this practice is prevalent in other unions under FEFKA as well. A respondent had revealed to me how FEFKA refuses to issue costume assistant cards to women and then forces them to pay a share of their earnings from each film in lieu of not having a card. This is at a time when male costume assistants are allowed to work with a membership card from any union such as the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh.
During my research interviews, I had also got contradictory data from participants regarding payment for FEFKA membership. Women had been asked to pay varying amounts to gain permanent membership or for temporary membership to work in each film project. The Hema Committee report corroborates my finding of differential payments to gain FEFKA membership.
“Different amounts are taken from different persons and no account is maintained. The witnesses produced receipts showing that the amounts are different with a lot of disparity. Huge amounts are received such as Rs 35,000 and Rs 75,000 but no accounts maintained by the union, it is stated,” the report says. It also says that even though Rs 500 is the yearly subscription for membership in the union, amounts ranging from Rs 1000 to Rs 5000 were collected from different persons.
The report goes on to state that even though an official complaint regarding this was filed by certain make-up artists and hairstylists with the District Labour Officer (DLO), no action followed. “The DLO also understood that though the byelaw shows that annual subscription is Rs 500, Rs5OO is taken for membership and Rs 75,000 is being realised from the members in installments. This fact is admitted by the union secretary.”
To back these allegations, the Hema committee has also submitted copies of receipts as evidence to the state government. Is this not hard evidence that clearly shows that FEFKA has been following discriminatory practices that has directly led to financial loss and denial of work opportunities to scores of women film technicians? Is this evidence not enough for the Kerala government to audit the records of FEFKA and train its lens on the way the union has been conducting its business? At the very least, is this not enough for the media to question the office-bearers of the trade union who have been completely silent ever since the report was released on August 19?
There is enough evidence, both oral and documentary, about the illegal practices being followed by FEFKA, and some of it has already been submitted to the government. How long will the ‘sex’ in sexual harassment hog the limelight, keeping hidden the structural inequalities that are the foundational flaw in the Malayalam film industry?
Deepti Komalam is a doctoral researcher at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. Her research looks into gender, caste, and class in the production cultures of the Malayalam film industry.