New Zealand’s ‘hijab’ campaign as part of solidarity for its Muslim community has been viewed differently across the globe. Many liberal feminist friends from across South Asia critiqued the move as ‘patronising’ and ‘stereo-typing Muslim women’ on the social media.

 
The argument was based on the assumption that hijab is oppressive. I am afraid that by bracketing a piece of cloth and its user into neat black and white categories, we are endorsing the very stereo-types we claim to fight. Should clothes be an indicator of who an individual is in terms of religion, region, beliefs and opinions? If the stereo-types of Muslims with beards, skull-caps and burqa or hijab have painted a radicalized image of the community the world over, by appropriating the right to be liberal only by discarding these apparently Islamic symbols, one is creating a stereo-type of another kind.

 
Hijab’s popularity across the world has increased in recent years. Kashmir is no exception where the young girls have picked up the hijab that their older generation had discarded. Does it signal a sexist bias, religious assertion and eagerness of young to wear their religion on their sleeve? The reasons for wearing hijab vary from person to person. While some wear it as part of religious faith irrespective of the patriarchy that it symbolizes, for some it’s a popular fad where as many other women link it to the conflict and use it as an assertion of their religious and Kashmiri identity in the face of constant demonization and vilification of the Muslim, particularly Kashmiri Muslim. The hijab, for them, becomes a symbol of defiance rather than being oppressive.

 
While hijab is often a subject matter of discussion and debate in the name of liberalism and gender rights, one wonders whether a similar debate would revolve around bindis or other sundry symbols that in some cultures are used and worn as a compulsion rather than for their physical appeal. Like the hijab, the bindi can be worn for its fashionable appeal, for its religious symbolism peppered with its patriarchal quotient. That unlike the hijab, the bindi is less likely to be bracketed as gender oppressive and a matter of religious display, or have the potential of sparking an intellectual debate, is proof of the selective stereo-typing of some dress codes even by the liberals, of perpetuating stereo-types while endeavouring to fight them.

 
Some tend to draw parallels between the ‘hijab’ and the ‘ghoonghat’. The latter is more akin to the burqa – both denoting the exclusion of women from public space. The ‘ghoonghats’ and ‘burqas’ are more regressive, not only because they come from sexist positions but also because they tend to ghettoise women into isolation. But such generalisations could be misleading as well. Women in ‘ghoonghats’ and ‘burqas’ are known to have broken their shackles and barriers too in some ways. In Rajasthan, many self-help groups are being run with the active involvement of women in ‘ghoonghat’. Kashmir’s famous feminist poetess Rumuz dons a burqa. Her poetry nonetheless remains just as soulful and liberating.

 
The hijab narrative is even more nuanced. Many women donning the hijab are known for their liberal views as compared to some who do not wear it. Noted feminist and liberal writer, Kamla Das, began wearing the hijab after she converted to Islam at the age of 65. Her political and feminist views remained the same. I have known women who discarded the hijab at some point in time in their life, and those who adopted it as a way of life after years of not wearing it. None of them ceased to be the persons they were. They remained the same in terms of their faith, beliefs and views.

 
It is difficult, even erroneous, to create categories on basis of dress and dress-codes. Being judgmental on this count is to rob an individual of an agency that is as much being exercised while wearing or not wearing a hijab or any other thing that is symbolic from a gender or religious perspective. What’s in a hijab, afterall? Nothing that matters, but the person beneath. If hijabs are seen as regressive, the discourse that outrightly looks at hijabs in a condescending way is no less oppressive and militates against the liberalism that is being espoused by failing to recognize individual choice.

 
It was this right to choice that France denied by imposing a ban on hijabs. The ban has not helped the French nation from seeing Muslims as the ‘other’. During the reign of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, a militant brand of secularism, imposed by the state invoked a similar ban which gave women no choice. If women wished to fall into the category of being liberal and secular, which the Turkish state wanted them to be, they had to discard their hijabs. The move didn’t make Turkey any more secular – the increasing might of right-wing Erdogan in present times serves a reminder. In Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, women cannot move outside without a hijab or burqa.
It is not the hijab that is essentially oppressive. The forced imposition of hijabs or the forced bans on it are what are far more oppressive. The problem is less in the ‘parda’ that is adopted as an attire, the problem is more in the ‘parda’ on the minds that create stereo-types.

 
At one superficial level, New Zealand, which has shown exemplary courage, morality and true spirit of liberalism and secularism after the shocking terror attack on Muslims, may have endorsed the stereo-typed image of the Muslim women with its ‘Hijab Day’ observation. But in a world of Islamophobia, that allows countries like France to crackdown on its Muslim population through a hijab-ban, New Zealand has also made a significant political statement.

source: Kashmir Times

Chennai: Since Monday morning, Tamil Nadu has been coming to terms with the awful facts of the Pollachi extortion racket – in which young women were allegedly lured to secluded spots and molested, filmed in the process, and later blackmailed for money.

Information about the racket has been circulating for a few weeks, and following a complaint by a college student, police have arrested four men. The student accused the men of sexually assaulting her in a car, taking videos of the assault and threatening to share them if they were not paid.

According to her police complaint, the gang threatened to share the video online if she refused their demands of sexual favours and money. She confided in her parents on February 24, after which the family went to the police.

Soon after, the woman’s brother was assaulted, allegedly by friends of the accused, and threatened about lodging a complaint. On February 27, the police arrested three of the accused. Thirunavukkarasu, allegedly the leader of the racket, was arrested on March 6.

According to informed sources, this network has harassed numerous women over a period of seven years. “One of the men would befriend a woman on social media and lure her to some secluded place, where he would be joined by other friends,” a police official told The Wire. “But only one woman has come forward with a complaint so far.”

Possible political connection

After widespread appeals on social media,  the four will be charged under the Goondas Act.

Coimbatore superintendent of police, R. Pandiyarajan, also spoke to journalists to rule out another matter of speculation on social media – that the racket flourished with political protection. Pandiyarajan himself was caught in a controversy a few years ago, after he slapped a woman protester who was protesting against TASMAC in Tiruppur.

V. Jayaraman, deputy speaker and the MLA from Pollachi, met the press to deny that either he or his family was connected to the racket, as had been alleged on social media. Accusing the DMK of spreading lies against him, Jayaraman claimed that he had first brought the issue to light and asked the police to act on it.

However, on the same day, the AIADMK expelled A. Nagaraj – a cadre who was indeed allegedly involved. He reportedly led the group that assaulted the complainant’s brother.

More than meets the eye

The state chapter of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), which held a protest in Pollachi last week, says there is more to the case than meets the eye.

“We have come to know that one Karuppasamy, who is allegedly the main culprit, is still at large. The police show no interest in arresting him,” said P. Suganthi, secretary, AIDWA.

“There could be others too in the network,” she said. “The government may say otherwise, but we believe the gang could operate for the last seven or eight years only if it had some kind of political influence. This should be thoroughly investigated. It is surprising that the SP rules out any political involvement even before an enquiry.”

The women’s rights group has asked for a CB-CID investigation into the issue.

The district unit of AIDWA had also demanded that cases of suicide by young women in Pollachi since 2012 be re-examined. Speculation is rife that there were as many as 20 such suicide cases, but A. Radhika, AIDWA’s district president, does not want to make guesses.

“There have been many suicides that we have been hearing of for many years now,” she said. “We realise that at least a few of them could be connected to this issue.”

Political escalation

Meanwhile, the DMK has criticised the ruling party for shielding the “perpetrators of the horrific crime”.

DMK president M.K. Stalin declared that his party will continue to protest legally and in public forums. DMK MP Kanimozhi demanded that the government set up a special court “for the exclusive trial of these violent crimes against women”. She said the incident revealed how women in Tamil Nadu continued to be unsafe.

Kongu Eshwaran, leader of the Kongunaadu Desiya Munnetra Kazhagam (KMDK), part of the DMK front, says the network is larger than it appears: “This is unprecedented in terms of scale and depth, across the country. Hundreds of women have been affected, but the police are only trying to shield the culprits.”

The Pollachi case may be unprecedented in scale, but this is not the first network found to have been targeting women in the state. In Cuddalore, the police busted a racket of at least 16 men trafficking minors for sex. The men, including a church priest, were found guilty by a mahila court and given sentences of four to 30 years.

“Even that took enormous struggle,”AIDWA’s Suganthi told The Wire. “The police and the government think it is best to shield such crimes since it bring a bad name to the administration. If only they would spend those energies on getting the culprits punished, the state could be a much better place for women.”

Pointing to the Nirmala Devi case, Suganthi said no major arrests were made except for Nirmala Devi herself, despite alleged “high-profile involvement”.

The risks of complaining

The Pollachi case is a telling reminder of a larger social problem: the dangers to women of even making a complaint.

“The body-shaming, the concept of purity and honour, play a major role in dissuading women from lodging a complaint,” said Kavitha Gajendran, an activist in Chennai.

“The stigma is unimaginable,” she said. “I came across a post on social media in which a man says he will not marry someone from Pollachi. I was shocked. This is a deep-rooted malaise and requires a strong will to be removed.”

About the racket, she observed: “That they believed they could earn handsome money by using women this way is itself a sign that something is deeply flawed in our society.”

“Children have to be able to open up to their parents without fear of the stigma, or of being forced out of schools or colleges. We also need sex education in schools,” Gajendran said. “We have to change the narratives around victimisation,”

Kavitha Muralidharan is an independent journalist.

source: The Wire

If we study the history of woman and her contributions to the human society, we will realise that the role of woman in the evolution of society has been far bigger than that of the man. But this struggle has largely been ignored. However, the struggle and movements of women for their basic rights in the west have encouraged the women around the world to stand up for their rights and equality.

As a German feminist put it: The history and books of history are wrong about me and they have conveyed a wrong image of woman because this image in the books of history has been portrayed by men and there is no space for women in this framework of history.

https://youtu.be/izTi6J27ftI

The exploitation of women goes back to the era when there was no concept of society and agriculture and people used to move from place to place for their survival. At that time, whenever two or more tribes developed a conflict with each other over some issue they would resolve it by exchanging women with each other.

If we study the era of Mughal dynasty, we come across some stunning facts about the exploitation of women.

For example, Zaheeruddin Babur was in Samarqand and his arch rival Shebaani Khan had deployed his army around the city so that Babur couldn’t find a way out. When Babur realised that there was no way out, he handed his sister Khanzada Begum over to Shebaani Khan and escaped from Samarqand.

Rajput clans in India had the tradition that their women would burn themselves alive when their husbands lost the war, in order to save their ‘honour’.

History has seen women like Razia Sultana and Chand BiBi in India, “Elizabeth” in England, and Teresa in Austria who played a very important role in the histories of their respective countries but they were always criticised by their contemporaries who held them responsible for all the flaws in the political system.

Pakistani historian Mubarak Ali says, “It was woman who put this animal in the shape of man on the right track”.

When the church was extremely powerful in Europe and had control over all the administrative activities of the state, the status of woman was completely subservient.

According to a Bishop “woman should serve the man silently and she does not need to read or write, the main duty of woman is to produce more and more children”. St. Paul, the spiritual leader of Christianity, had advised women not to speak among men and always keep their heads and faces covered. History reveals that no other institution has exploited the woman more than the church.

Like all the other religions and communities, the woman in Muslim community was also never allowed to get education, equal rights and take part in the mainstream politics. Woman was forced for early age marriage, which is not only her exploitation but also a sin, even according to Islam.

But the things are changing now with urbanization expanding and women demanding their due rights.

In early 1960s Feminism took root in the US and under this movement women stood up for equal rights in society. This was the movement which gave women the courage to speak for their rights. Beside many other demands, this movement asked the governments around the world to provide voting rights to women and equal chances in every field of life.

As these movements grew in momentum, in 1975 UN announced 8 March to be celebrated every year as International Women’s Day.

Like any other country, the women of Pakistan have struggled a lot demanding equal rights. Feminism in Pakistan took root during Zia era when in 1981 women for the first time in the history of Pakistan launched protests against the anti-women Zia regime.

We have come a long way since the anti-Zia protests and women are coming forward now in all walks of life. The impact of this movement can be seen in the progressive policymaking as well as legislation enacted through the years, specifically in Sindh where “Child Marriage Restrain Act” was passed in 2014, increasing the minimum age for marriage to 18 years. “Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act” was passed in Sindh and Blochistan in 2010. Punjab assembly passed the “Protection of Women against Violence Act” in 2016.

Despite these legislations, the number of acid attacks and honor killings has increased over the years. There are huge loopholes still in the law as well in the implementation of the law and unless all the forms of misogyny are rooted out, and until all the women, men and transgender people can enjoy compete equality before law, this struggle for equal rights will continue.

Author: Ali Mansoor

source: Naya Daur

IT was International Women’s Day on Friday. But it was hard for the other half of the country to stay silent for a mere 24 hours. They just couldn’t because the posters/slogans during the countrywide march were just so out there and unacceptable. Even two days later, the ‘tsk tsk-ing’ and the outrage hadn’t stopped.

What were these women thinking? How could they abuse their position by making outrageous demands? And why didn’t they understand their culture and tradition? Where were the serious issues such as rape? Why didn’t they speak for the women from the less-privileged classes? Why did they speak of silly and irrelevant issues (when there are serious issues such as ‘honour’ killings)? Of course, there was great horror for unacceptable and/or frivolous issues such as manspreading; unwanted and unsolicited pictures (as many consider this a staid family paper, I will spare the feelings of all readers by not providing more details); divorce and the price of sanitary napkins.

These were hardly rights issues, it was said.

Many Pakistani men (and even some women) are all for equal rights for women but as long as it does not translate into support for ‘behayai’ (remember the unsolicited pictures), or even slogans asking for men to heat their own food, or find their own socks, or women who want to sit like men.

It seems as if they were arguing for women to have waited — for ‘honour’ killings to end, for inheritance laws to be made equitable, for equal pay to be a reality before bringing up ‘frivolous’ issues such as taboos around divorce or judging women for their clothing choices.

In creating a hierarchy of issues, where would we begin to ask for no harassment on the street or in cyberspace?

After all, in a society where violence against women takes such heinous forms such as wani and ‘honour’ killings, it does perhaps seem out of place to start demanding that men heat their own food.

But this argument is based on the assumption that women’s rights can be listed in terms of priority, and that one can only move down the list once the item above has been marked ‘complete’.

Hence, once ‘honour’ killings are eliminated, only then can one move on to wani, and once there is a ‘check’ in front of this can one perhaps move on to domestic violence. And only after all the acts of physical violence against women are eliminated should we move on to asking for more equitable inheritance laws and equal pay.

But in creating this hierarchy of issues, where would we begin to ask for no harassment on the street (eve-teasing as it is sometimes called in our subcontinental English); would it come before or after harassment in cyberspace? And what about allowing women to decide on birth control measures for themselves? Where would this be placed on the list? And it seems that with such serious issues to contend with, asking for equal representation on corporate boards or more women in cabinets should simply be shelved for the time being.

Second, there is an argument prevalent in the privileged parts of society that if women are not being killed or beaten or stopped from studying or working, they really should not be complaining about other issues. In other words, agitating about mansplaining, sexist swear words, and social views on clothes are not ‘real’ issues when women are being killed or maimed.

But Pakistan is a society where modernity and tradition jostle for space. It’s a place where Mukhtaran Mai is still struggling for justice; where the Muslim world’s first woman prime minister was elected 30 years ago; where women (and men) were apparently killed just seven years ago because a video revealed that they were enjoying music in the presence of men; where we also have laws outlawing sexual harassment at the workplace.

There are parts of the country (and society) where women struggle to marry of their own free will or get an education but in others, women struggle with getting their male colleagues to treat them with respect. And the rights movement will and should talk about all kinds of issues.

To argue that one is more real than the other is to argue that while extrajudicial killings happen, Pakistanis should not crib about the ridiculously high prices the automobile sector charges, because the latter only concerns a more privileged section of society. It’s possible to talk about both the issues and agitate for both at the same time.

Or to use another example, there are some who say that criticism of civilian governments or questions about accountability can endanger democracy in Pakistan. It will not. We can and must work for a stronger democracy and better governance from our political parties at the same time.

Similarly, working women can talk about sexual harassment and about not being heard in work meetings; others can discuss the social taboos surrounding those who have walked out of marriages; and all of them can talk about rape and ‘honour’ killings as well as the burden of juggling work and housework, as in many households, men are not expected to lift a finger at home. These issues need not wait till what is deemed more ‘serious’ and ‘legitimate’ (by some or many) has been addressed.

As we jostle tradition and modernity in our politics and society, half of this country also has the right to talk about all the problems they face whether in the rural areas or in corporate offices.

Last but not least, if some demands seem offensive or ill-suited to our ‘culture’, we need to remember that in some parts of the country, ‘culture’ allows women to be killed. Yet we expect the men from those parts to understand that their ‘culture’ is not acceptable. So why can’t our more urbane, educated compatriots be challenged and questioned about what they deem acceptable?

Let’s not put a limit on what women can dream and aspire to. Even if it makes some of us uncomfortable, at least it’s forcing us to debate and engage on what women rights are.

The writer is a journalist.

Published in Dawn, March 12th, 2019

source: Dawn

South Asian Women in Media (SAWM) India is deeply concerned by the order of the Meghalaya High Court in a suo moto contempt proceeding initiated against “The Shillong Times” Editor Ms. Patricia Mukhim and its Publisher Ms. Shobha Chaudhury. The Court vide its order dated 08-03-2019 has held them guilty of contempt of court for publishing two stories in December 2018 relating to a court order which sought better facilities for retired judges, their spouses and children. The High Court refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by Ms Mukhim and Ms Chaudhury and held them guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs.2 lacs to be deposited within a week and also directed them to “sit in the corner of the courtroom” till the rising of the Court. The High Court further directed that “in default of payment of fine, both the contemnors will have to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and paper so called “Shillong Times” will automatically come to an end (banned)”.

A series of events led to Anjum Zamarud Habib becoming the only woman leader in the Hurriyat Conference in Kashmir when it was formed. Anjum, in Calcutta to attend the People’s Literary Festival held recently, is part of a panel on the first day of the event with two other activist-writers. It is the day after the Pulwama terror strike.

The literary festival is organised thoughtfully and efficiently by a group of young persons belonging to the Calcutta chapter of the NGO, Bastar Solidarity Network. What inevitably comes up is the phrase “state repression”. But the words need disambiguation, says Monalisa Changkija, a panelist from Nagaland; non-state actors are as good as the state at executing it. Sometimes, she says, it is difficult to point out which is the biggest force to contend with — the state, religion or patriarchy. And resistance movements often reproduce the same structures of control.

This could have been the perfect cue for Anjum. While working with the Hurriyat Conference on behalf of her own organisation, Kashmir Tehreek-e-Khawateen, she was convicted and spent four years in Tihar jail. She wrote the bookPrisoner No. 100: An Account of My Nights and Days in an Indian Prison (originally written in Urdu, published in 2011) on her prison days. Anjum felt let down by the Hurriyat leadership during her trial and her stay at Tihar. She wrote about it. The lists of names of other jailed persons that were being forwarded to authorities with requests for release did not include her name. She felt overlooked because she was a woman.

Yet Anjum does not say much on the subject on stage. One day later, however, at the interview, she opens up. Over our conversation I also learn that her silences are important.

Anjum is a tall, handsome woman in her late fifties. Her head is covered with a dupatta. She looks piercingly at her interlocutor, and with some scepticism, it seems, but before it becomes unnerving, her face breaks into a broad smile and her eyes sparkle. It is clear from the beginning that whatever she says often goes against the grain of the resistance movement she is part of.

“They are discussing censorship here. But what about the censorship we use on ourselves,” she asks, as if thinking aloud, as we walk out of the small auditorium in Phoolbagan in east Calcutta, where the festival is being hosted. We stroll into the foyer crowded with book stalls and grab two empty chairs.

Prisoner No. 100 is her most celebrated book, but she talks about her latest, Nigah-e-Anjum. It is an account of her life, written in Urdu, which she says will be translated into English as well. It means what the stars are seeing, but it is also, quite clearly, a play on her name.

Anjum is also the author of two other “data-based” studies that she documented. One is on Kashmir’s war widows and the other on the forgotten prisoners of Kashmir. Both were published in 2009 in English.

So does she regard herself as a writer? Anjum looks stunned. “Writer? I am not a writer at all,” she asserts. Then what about these books about her own life? “They are about what happened,” she says. Writing is an act of imagination, she implies. She has only transcribed her own life. Unlike in other kinds of writing, there is no gap here between what happened and what was expressed, because all of it is completely political. But it is also her life. Can her autobiography then be called “personal documentation”? She loves the phrase.

It seems, she had not set out to be in politics, or in the “resistance” — her word — in Kashmir. After finishing her postgraduate studies, Anjum had joined Hanfia College in Anantnag city, about 50 kilometres south of Srinagar, as a teacher of Education. Soon after she joined, a dowry death occurred in the area. It disturbed her tremendously. Though dowry is not practised extensively among Muslims, Anjum realised that she needed to act. She says, “From my childhood I had wanted to do something for women. We decided to form a pressure group. Within 15 days, 200 to 300 women had joined us.” So began the Women’s Welfare Association, Islamabad — the local name for Anantnag.

In two or three years, what Kashmir calls its resistance movement and authorities in India call militancy would erupt in the Valley. By that time, the women’s association had taken root and become stronger. Anjum’s sympathies were with the resistance. So when the United Hurriyat Conference was formed in 1993 as a political outfit to advocate Kashmiri independence, her association, Kashmir Tehreek-e-Khawateen, also signed up. This was the only women’s association in the group of 26 and Anjum was the only woman leader in the Hurriyat.

It was not easy, from the start. “We were not given a place in the executive body or in the decision-making process.” This is the way, she says, women are left out from the big decisions, “individually, collectively, formally, informally.” She adds, “We, the women of Kashmir, want to live, we want to exist.”

Being alive and yet not feeling as if they exist is not a feeling that is peculiar to women in Kashmir. In Tagore’s story Jibita o Mrita, the female protagonist, Kadambini, had to commit suicide by jumping into a well to prove that she was indeed alive.

In the Hurriyat, Anjum was put in charge of the human rights cell. She looked at women’s issues. At the same time, she stresses that no issue can be separated from the political uncertainty and nothing is more important than the lives being lost in Kashmir every day. “We raised slogans of azadi. We want better political change. We are against the killing of innocent lives,” she says.

Everything else takes a backseat, she feels, when “our boys are disappearing every day. We don’t know when the men leave in the morning if we are going to see them again.” Kashmir, she says, is being denied the beauty and promise of life. “Women are singing wedding songs at the funerals of their unwed sons. War has destroyed not only the physiques of our young men, but also their psyches, their souls.”

By the late Nineties, Anjum was very much in the public eye, wanting a peaceful negotiation towards separation for Kashmir. “I was always very bold,” she says, and smiles. “I was active, I was courageous. I was visible, vibrant and vocal,” she says, still smiling, as if savouring the alliteration. “And don’t forget, I was young, and beautiful. Very beautiful,” she says with emphasis.

In 2003, she was arrested and charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), and thrown into Tihar jail in Delhi till end of 2007. This is something she has written and spoken about a lot, and perhaps that is why she does not want to talk about it much.

“I lived in misery,” she says, a cloud passing over her face. She does not mind repeating that the Hurriyat leadership had not stood beside her, but it seems she would rather not dwell on the subject. She remains quiet for a while. “I was born for resistance,” she says, when she looks up again. “I have great respect for (Syed Ali) Geelani [chairman of the Hurriyat Conference],” she adds. Back in Srinagar, after Tihar, she returned to her political work and writing. “The youth love me. I discuss with them everything without politicising issues because I am not a politician. Politics makes tricky and negative things strike your mind.”

In Calcutta, Anjum was also supposed to address a meeting the following week organised by the human rights organisation, Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights, but could not because there were apprehensions that miscreants would try to attack her.

What does she make of Pulwama? She is silent again for a few minutes. “We are against the killing of innocents,” she says, and continues, “India and Pakistan should come forward peacefully to negotiate the Kashmir problem.”

“No one can portray the right perspective. No one can portray your perspective other than you. My writing is my resistance,” she says, as if going back to the conversation about writing. And what does an incident like Pulwama point at? “We will go where our politicians will take us,” says Anjum. Getting up briskly, she says it is time for tea in a bhaanr from a roadside stall. She sips on it quietly and then declares — “Wonderful.”

source: The Telegraph

SC hearing on BCCI will include appointment of ombudsman who is expected to look into sexist comments made by Hardik Pandya and K.L. Rahul.

New Delhi: Two days before the Supreme Court hears several key issues related to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), including the appointment of an ombudsman who is expected to look into the sexist comments made by cricketers Hardik Pandya and K.L. Rahul last month, BCCI CEO Rahul Johri will undergo gender sensitisation classes in Mumbai Tuesday.

Sources said Rainmaker, a Mumbai-based company which specialises in conducting workshops on prevention of sexual harassment, was picked to conduct the classes after much disagreement between the two remaining members of the Committee of Administrators running BCCI — former women’s cricketer Diana Edulji and retired bureaucrat Vinod Rai.

The BCCI CEO will undergo the classes in accordance with the recommendations of a panel that probed him for allegations of sexual harassment in 2018.

Controversy

Johri has been at the centre of a raging controversy since October 2018, when two women complained of sexual harassment and deposed against him in front of a three-member external committee.

ThePrint reached Rai and Johri for comment but there was no response till the time of publishing this report.

Edulji refused to comment on the matter.

One of the three persons in the external committee, women’s lawyer Veena Gowda stopped short of upholding charges of sexual harassment against Johri, but recommended that he undergo gender sensitisation classes.

The other two members of the committee, Barkha Singh, the former head of the Delhi Commission for Women, and Rakesh Sharma, a retired judge of the Allahabad high court, exonerated Johri.

All three submitted their report to the CoA in November 2018.

CoA disagreements

The Johri matter is only one of several disagreements between Edulji and Rai, appointed two years ago to the four-member CoA mandated by the Supreme Court to oversee cricket reforms.

However, the resignations of historian Ramachandra Guha and NSE CEO Vikram Limaye, the other two CoA members, have meant that a number of BCCI issues have remained deadlocked between Edulji and Rai. These issues include the compliance by various state cricket boards to the new BCCI constitution — Tamil Nadu is said to remain defiant.

A new amicus curiae, senior advocate P.S. Narasimha, was appointed recently after Gopal Subramanium resigned in January.

The Johri case got a new lease of life when Pandya and Rahul were temporarily suspended by BCCI because of sexist comments they made on the TV show, Koffee with Karan in January.

The Edulji-Rai CoA was then forced to address criticism regarding Johri, especially in light of the gender sensitisation classes that he never took, but which Rai announced on 25 January that he would, “within ten days.”

Allegations against Johri

Johri is the son of former BJP leader Dinesh Johri, a minister in the UP state cabinet in Kalyan Singh’s government in the 1990s.

Barkha Singh, who left the Congress party after nine years to join the BJP in 2017, and Sharma wrote in the executive summary of their report that they found the charges against Johri to be “false, baseless and (had) been fabricated and manufactured with an ulterior motive to harm Mr. Rahul Johri and throw him out of BCCI…”

Gowda, however, said that Johri’s conduct in Birmingham, UK, where one complainant said the incident of sexual harassment took place, was “unprofessional and inappropriate” and would “adversely affect (BCCI’s) reputation.”

It is also believed that one of the two women who deposed against Johri has not been given the full, unedited report, even though she has asked for it.

A third woman, who worked with Johri at BCCI, is also said to have privately complained about Johri harassing her sexually, but never took those charges to the external complaints committee out of “shame and fear”.

BCCI treasurer Anirudh Chaudhary, who also deposed on this matter in front of the external inquiry committee, has talked of this unnamed woman in his deposition, a copy of which is available with ThePrint.

Chaudhary said that the unnamed woman in BCCI wanted to resign, but her resignation was not accepted. Instead, her husband was brought to BCCI and some discussions took place with Johri, who is said to have apologised.

The woman continues to work in BCCI, but in another department.

ThePrint called Chaudhary but he refused to comment on the matter.

source: The Print

Please find here a communication dated 11 December 2018 issued to the Government of India jointly by the UN Special Rapporteurs on cultural rights; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; violence against women; and the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice. The communication draws the government’s attention to threats, including death threats, against Ms. Swati Chaturvedi,  a journalist and columnist at NDTV and TheWire.in.

UN Communication – Swati Chaturvedi

Even today, a majority of Indian women cannot walk out of unhappy, incompatible or abusive marriages because they don’t have the social and economic capital to do so

An interesting statistic was bouncing around the Internet the other day. According to a 2017 report by Unified Lawyers, a Sydney-based law firm, India has the lowest incidence of divorce in the world — a mere 1 per cent. Luxembourg tops the chart with 87 per cent and Spain comes up second with 65 per cent.

While developing countries do exhibit lower divorce rates, Indians seem to have the toughest, the most iron-clad, bonds of matrimony in the world. It’s enough to make the sanskaari amongst us cut capers and rub their hands in glee. Of course, Twitter wits were soon …

source: Business Standard