Following the release of the Hema Committee report, which revealed the abysmal working conditions and rampant sexual harassment faced by women in the Malayalam film industry, prominent personalities from across India have written to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan demanding a “360-degree approach” to fulfil the purpose of the committee.
The letter acknowledged the efforts of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) and the initial support of Kerala government, which led to the setting up of the JUstice Hema Committee. However, merely forming a “Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the allegations being made by women who have come forward since then to publicly speak of their experiences of sexual harassment and violence in the industry” is insufficient. They highlighted that “for survivors of sexual harassment and violence, the process of seeking justice adds to their trauma”. Hence, no woman who makes her experiences public should be “bullied into filing police complaints if they do not wish to do so”.
According to them, “the government must offer counselling to all women who speak out, irrespective of the path they choose. “ It should also address the other important issues highlighted by the Hema Committee, “including the absence of written contracts, wage discrimination and poor working conditions, such as non-provision of secure, private toilets and dressing rooms as well as safe accommodation and transportation.”
The letter demanded that the Kerala government “draft a policy and/or law/s that will address the multiple issues identified by the Hema Committee”.
The appeal was signed by 72 persons including authors Arundhati Roy, Sarah Joseph, KR Meera, NS Madhavan; lawyers Indira Jaisingh, Vrinda Grover; actors Prakash Raj, Swara Bhasker’ musicians Chinmayi Sripaada, T M Krishna; journalists Josy Joseph, Vinod K Jose, Faye D’Souza, Dhanya Rajendran, Shahin KK, and others. Read the full letter here:
An appeal to Kerala Chief Minister Shri Pinarayi Vijayan in the Aftermath of the Release of the Hema Committee Report
We are all witness to a pivotal moment in the history of Kerala and Malayalam cinema. As civil society members, we welcome the publication of the Justice K. Hema Committee Report detailing the unfair power structures as well as the hostile and exploitative environment in which women in the Malayalam film industry operate. We wish to acknowledge the actor whose immense courage after an assault in 2017 inspired the formation of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC). We also wish to acknowledge the courage and hard work of WCC, whose activism, initially supported by the Government of Kerala, resulted in the establishment of the Hema Committee that year.
It is unfortunate that the same government delayed publishing the committee’s report for five years after it was submitted in December 2019. The release last week is again a result of persistent follow-ups by WCC and the media. The days since the publication of the report have been a time of reflection for many of us who have been closely following this women’s movement in Kerala.
The response of the public and media in the state to the Hema Committee Report has by and large been supportive. Solidarity with women working in Malayalam cinema is crucial if the report is to yield concrete results. However, we wish to highlight certain areas of concern that have caught our attention.
The state government’s reaction to the Hema Committee's findings, as well as media coverage, have both placed an inordinate focus on the sexual misdemeanours and crimes described in the report, to the virtual exclusion of the considerable space devoted in its pages to discussing working conditions in the industry, lack of contracts, pay disparities and so on.
The only government action that has followed the release of the report on August 19 is the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the allegations being made by women who have come forward since then to publicly speak of their experiences of sexual harassment and violence in the industry. This move has given a further impetus to the media’s selective coverage.
The inevitable implication of such selectiveness is that addressing the underlying causes of violence – namely, inequality and discrimination – is less important than the violence itself.
Further, the government has made no effort to sensitise the media and public to the possibility that women with legitimate complaints of crimes may not necessarily wish to explore legal options for multiple, completely acceptable reasons. In the absence of such sensitisation, we believe the present atmosphere in the state is veering towards doubting the allegations of any woman who opts not to file a police complaint after going public with her grievances.
Worse, it has been brought to our attention that some women in the industry who have shared their stories with the public and media are facing extreme pressure from the police to lodge official complaints. This is a deeply disturbing development. In all cases of sexual crimes, a survivor’s agency and mental health must be prioritised above all else. The government must strictly instruct the police and the SIT to not bulldoze women, to treat them with consideration, and to act in their best interests.
The Hema Committee was tasked with investigating gender inequality and sexual harassment in the Malayalam film industry. Among the problematic issues exposed by the report is the extent of sexual exploitation in the industry. Although the prevalence of such abuse was known internally, and disseminated through whisper networks and insider jokes that film stars sometimes even publicly aired during stage shows and on television, the documentation of such malpractices by a government-authorised study has been received with expected shock by the wider society in the state.
It is not surprising that, after the release of the report, some women working in cinema have chosen to make public statements about their experiences of sexual harassment and abuse, naming several prominent men in the industry. The question cynics ask is: why now? The answer is quite straightforward. It is likely that long-suppressed memories have been brought to the fore by the revelations in the report. It is likely that this moment, which has brought women together, has given them strength to speak while circumstances in the past did not.
We wish to remind these cynics that some of the women who are speaking out now had done so earlier, too, but were ignored back then. This, more than anything else, illustrates the evolution in social attitudes between that time and now, which in turn explains why some women who were silent before might feel comfortable breaking their silence today.
Now for another question that is frequently asked in these contexts: why is she not going to the police? This answer is multi-pronged.
It is an established fact that for survivors of sexual harassment and violence, the process of seeking justice adds to their trauma – even with all the protections that the law guarantees, and often because of the insensitivity of officials involved.
Also, sometimes a woman may recount an experience because the very act of doing so is cathartic. Such accounts may not necessarily lend themselves to successful court procedures. Most of the reported incidents are at least a few years old, some even decades old. It is bound to be difficult to produce evidence, witnesses and other such legal requirements after this passage of time.
Under these circumstances, we believe the women concerned should be left to decide how they wish to proceed with their individual experiences in the aftermath of the report’s release. For those who want to go through the process of initiating justice through the courts, the government should instruct the SIT to give them the guidance required to secure an effective investigation and trial.
Speaking their truth is also a form of justice and there should be no retaliation for it. The state should assist women who face retaliation.
The government should also invest in an awareness-building programme to sensitise the public and media, so that the testimonies of women who have suffered sexual exploitation are not doubted and/or their voices do not go unheard simply because they cannot or do not wish to fight long-drawn-out cases. The aim of such a programme should be to make certain that women who decide not to explore legal options are not discredited in public or humiliated, which is the direction that we worry the discourse in the state will take in the absence of a well-thought-out intervention.
The government must offer counselling to all women who speak out, irrespective of the path they choose. Such counselling would help them to deal with the mental health issues that result from sexual harassment and violence.
The government must also take cognisance of the many other important issues highlighted by the Hema Committee, including the absence of written contracts, wage discrimination and poor working conditions, such as non-provision of secure, private toilets and dressing rooms as well as safe accommodation and transportation. It must take steps to remedy the situation through systemic reform of the industry in keeping with the many detailed recommendations of the committee.
The government must also ensure the safety of women who have spoken to the committee and in public about their experiences. This must include – we repeat, because it cannot be emphasised enough – an assurance that they will not be bullied into filing police complaints if they do not wish to do so.
There is an urgent need for the Government of Kerala to draft a policy and/or law/s that will address the multiple issues identified by the Hema Committee and the related representations made by WCC over the years. Among the legitimate asks are zero tolerance for harassment, a guarantee of basic facilities like toilets on sets, introduction and/or enforcement of contracts specifying salaries and terms of employment, improvement in pay scales, and reduction in wage disparities.
This is the 360-degree approach required if the Hema Committee Report is to fulfil the purpose for which the committee was set up in the first place.
Signed by
1. Arundhati Roy, Delhi (Author)
2. Indira Jaisingh, Delhi (Advocate, Supreme Court of India)
3. Vrinda Grover, Delhi (Advocate, Supreme Court of India)
4. Sarah Joseph, Kerala (Author)
5. KR Meera, Kerala (Author)
6. NS Madhavan, Kerala (Author)
7. TJS George, Bangalore (Journalist)
8. K Ajitha, Kerala (Activist)
9. Aleyamma Vijayan, Kerala (Gender Consultant)
10. K Satchidanandan, Kerala (Author)
11. Aparna Sen, West Bengal (Actor)
12. Prakash Raj, Chennai (Actor)
13. Chinmayi Sripaada, Chennai (Singer)
14. Swara Bhasker, Mumbai (Actor)
15. Sushant Singh, Mumbai (Actor)
16. T M Krishna, Chennai (Artist/activist)
17. Nivedita Menon, Delhi (Feminist Scholar)
18. Professor Ira Bhaskar, Delhi (Retd Professor of Cinema Studies, JNU)
19. Jeet Thayil, Bengaluru (Poet)
20. Manu Pillai, Delhi (Author)
21. Anita Nair, Bengaluru (Author)
22. Sobha Nambisan, Bengaluru, (Retd IAS officer)
23. Sandhya J, Kerala (Lawyer)
24. Sandhya Raju, Kerala (Lawyer)
25. Viji Penkoott, Kerala (Activist)
26. Dr Binitha Thampi, Chennai (Professor)
27. Onir, Mumbai (Filmmaker)
28. Kavita Krishnan, Delhi (Activist)
29. Soya Thomas, Thiruvananthapuram (Gender Consultant)
30. Dr Rekha Raj, Kerala (Activist)
31. Sudha Menon, Gujarat (writer)
32. Aswathy Nair, Kerala (Dancer)
33. Bindhu Ammini, Kerala (Activist)
34. Vinta Nanda, Mumbai (Film and TV producer-director)
35. Leena Manimekalai, Chennai (Poet)
36. Radhika Menon, Chennai (Publisher)
37. Janaki Nair, Bengaluru (Historian)
38. Janaki Abraham, Delhi (Professor)
39. Miriam Chandy Menachery, Mumbai (Filmmaker)
40. Deepa Dhanraj, Bangalore (Documentary Filmmaker)
41. Anjali Gopalan, Delhi (Activist)
42. TR Raghunandan, Bangalore (IAS, retd)
43. Ammu Joseph, Bengaluru (Journalist)
44. R Rajagopal, Kerala (Journalist)
45. Gita Aravumudan, Bengaluru (Journalist)
46. Josy Joseph, Delhi (Journalist)
47. Vinod K Jose, Kerala (Journalist)
48. Pramod Raman, Kerala (Journalist)
49. RK Radhakrishnan, Chennai (Journalist)
50. Ullekh NP, Delhi (Journalist)
51. Laxmi Murthy, Bengaluru (Journalist)
52. Meenakshi Shedde, Mumbai (Journalist and Film Festival Curator)
53. Anna M.M. Vetticad, Delhi (Journalist and Writer)
54. Vaishna Roy, Chennai (Journalist)
55. Faye D’Souza, Mumbai (Journalist)
56. Ramya Kannan, Chennai (Journalist)
57. Sharda Ugra, Bengaluru (Journalist)
58. Saraswathy Nagarajan, Kerala (Journalist)
59. Sarita Mohanan Bhama, Kerala (Journalist)
60. Shahina KK, Kerala (Journalist)
61. Leena Gita Reghunath, Bengaluru (Journalist)
62. Saritha S Balan, Kerala (Journalist)
63. Dhanya Rajendran, Bengaluru (Journalist)
64. Jisha Surya, Kerala (Journalist)
65. Anupama Venkitesh, Bengaluru, (Journalist)
66. Sandhya KP, Kerala (Journalist)
67. Revati Laul, Uttar Pradesh (Journalist)
68. Nileena Atholi, Kerala (Journalist)
69. Jisha Elizabeth, Kerala (Journalist)
70. Sindhu Napolean, Kerala (Journalist)
71. Nisha Susan, Canada (Journalist)
72. Sudipto Mondal, Bengaluru (Journalist)