.jpg)
This week, host Shivnarayan Rajpurohit is joined by Newslaundry’s Sumedha Mittal, The News Minute’s Sukanya Shaji, and independent journalist Nidhi Suresh.
Nidhi and Sukanya reported on Kerala’s #MeToo storm and the exploitation of female actors in the Kerala film industry. They also reported on the recently published Hema Committee report, which revealed that the industry’s top male actors, directors, and producers were involved or complacent in the matter. They discuss the report’s findings and fallout.
Sumedha reported on the death of a 23-year-old Faizan after alleged police brutality during Delhi riots in February 2020. A viral video of him lying semi-conscious on the road, battered, taunted, and forced to sing the national anthem by cops was widely circulated then. She found out that despite clear duty charts, no police official was held responsible for what the high court termed a hate crime. The probe was eventually transferred to the CBI after the court issued a stinging indictment of the “tardy” police investigation.
Tune in.
Watch it here.
Timecodes
00:00:00 - Introduction
00:02:42 - AMMA and the Malayalam industry
00:08:37 - Hema Committee Report
00:46:15 - Faizan and Delhi cops
00:01:04:45 - Recommendations
Recommendations
Sukanya
Lekhayude Maranam Oru Flashback
Nidhi
Public Secrets of Law: Rape Trials in India
Sumedha
Shivnarayan
‘Take Hema Committee report seriously’: Parvathy to Kerala govt | Dhanya Rajendran | Interview
Produced and edited by Saif Ali Ekram, recorded by Anil Kumar.
RWO 335
Sting: [00:00:00] This is a News Laundry Podcast, and you're listening to Reporters Without Orders.
Shivnarayan: Order, order. Welcome to Reporters Without Orders, where we discuss what made news, what did not, and something that absolutely should not have. Today in our studio, we have two reporters, and one is joining us from Kerala.
Last week, the Kerala film industry was hit by a storm. The Hema committee report was made available to several journalists, including those from the News Minute, under the Right to Information Act. These journalists were given a redacted version of the committee report. The report has highlighted rampant sexual abuse in the film industry.
A series of stories has been published by the News Minute and News Laundry on the findings of the Hema Committee report and what has followed since then. Another story that we'll discuss is related to the 2020 Delhi rights case. If you remember, a video was widely circulated at the time in which a group of five men were assaulted by the police in broad [00:01:00] daylight and forced to chant national anthem.
One of them, Faizan, died in hospital. Now, Sumedha Mittal, my colleague, uh, in News Laundry, tried to trace the identity of the policeman who brought Faizan to a Delhi hospital. The story is titled, No One Killed Faizan, Culprit Cops Invisible in Incomplete Hospital Records. Now, Nidhi, Suresh and Sukanya, who has joined us from Kerala, they have worked on Hema Committee Report.
They published series of stories for News Laundry and News Minute. So we'll [00:02:00] discuss the aftermath of Hema Committee Report and what churn Kerala film industry is going through. Welcome Nidhi. Uh, please. Sumedha and Sukanya.
Sukanya: Hi. Hi, Shiv. Hi. Thank you.
Shivnarayan: To kick things off, I want to know from Sukanya because Sukanya is keeping a close eye on, on what Kerala film industry is going through now.
Today we read that, uh, today is, uh, uh, Wednesday that AMA, which is a Kerala film industry body, the executive committee of AMA has dissolved, has disbanded. So, uh, so if you could tell us what is the significance of dissolution of Amma and how you see it and why the executive committee has resigned.
Sukanya: So, um, like you said, Amma, A MMA, as it is called, it is the artist of Alam.
Um. Association of Malayalam Movie Artists. So it is, uh, an organization, uh, which is, uh, constituted for the benefit of, uh, Malayalam movie artists. And, uh, it had an executive [00:03:00] committee, which was headed by, uh, Mohanlal, who was the president and, uh, after the HEMA committee report was published. There was no, there has been complete silence from the big actors, including Mohanlal and AMMA has been absolutely silent on, on the report.
And a few days ago, there was a press conference where former general secretary, also a big actor named Siddique with some of his other colleagues, office bearers had met the media. And, uh, they were, uh, they were asked about sexual abuse and the findings of the HEMA committee report. And they were in denial.
They said, we do not know No complaints have come to us except and immediately after a sexual assault complaint against Siddiq himself resurfaced, survivor came and spoke to the media, she's filed a complaint, etc. Then he had to resign. And following that, then the situation, um, came, it came to a point where the other Members of Amma would have to meet the media, especially Mr.
Mohanlal, who was the president of the [00:04:00] organization. And now we get to know that the entire executive committee, including Mohanlal, have resigned unanimously and that the committee has been dissolved. So, um, If you ask me how I look at it, I do feel that this is some sort of escape from accountability because it is, it is imperative that the biggest stars who bring in, you know, who drive this business, who are the face of this business, who are also the most powerful men in the scenario have to sort of respond to this because their female colleagues have spoken about not just sexual harassment, but power abuse.
The Hema committee report especially talks about the existence of a power lobby and calls the industry, uh, is functioning very akin to that of a mafia functioning where they say that power has been consolidated in a few, like 10 to 15 top actors, directors, producers who have the power to make or break the careers of their colleagues.
So in that situation, it is important that these actors directors, one of whom Mowhan Lala is also was also the president of AM, AMA [00:05:00] to respond to speak to the media to address it to at least acknowledge that, you know, this has come out. There's a report that's putting on record these findings. And also the report was compiled, not based on hearsay.
That's very important. There were witnesses who deposed before the committee based on which the report has been filed. So the fact that they have been silent about it is quite concerning and now that Things have got, things got to a point where AMMA would have to respond, especially Mohanlal would have to respond because he was the president.
And then we, and then it's gotten to a point where they have unanimously. I mean, I don't know if it's unanimous either, because now. According to what we're seeing, there are a few members who've been saying it's not unanimous, that there's a, that, you know, indicating that there could be a split in decision, uh, that indicating that some members may not be in agreement to this, so we still have to find that out, but as of now, we are under the impression that the entire body has, I mean, an entire executive committee has been dissolved, [00:06:00] and now, Um, I mean, I personally look at it as, like I said, an escape from accountability.
I feel that now it's very easy for them to say, but we are not representatives anymore. So it doesn't obligate us to speak in any way. So that is quite concerning.
Shivnarayan: Hmm. But you're saying Emma was silent, but Emma, did Emma know about the 2017 case of sexual abuse? Nidhi has written a deep dive on this, on the sexual abuse in moving car.
Um, did Emma know? about it. And even then they were silent about
Sukanya: it. There is no question of AMMA not knowing this. There's no question of anybody in
Viral Video: Kerala,
Sukanya: you know, not knowing this because Dilip was a really big star, also a producer, someone who like Nidhi's article mentions has, uh, you know, slid his arms into every facet of the industry.
So it's quite a powerful actor and the arrest of Dilip for the alleged conspiracy of the sexual assault of [00:07:00] his female colleague in a moving car, like you rightly said in 2017. That was quite a watershed moment for the Kerala society and for the Malayalam film industry because it was the trigger for the formation of the Women in Cinema Collective, for the formation of the HEMA committee, for all of this to come out.
So there's no question of AMMA not knowing, because AMMA had immediately also revoked Dilip's membership from the organization, and then they slyly took him back. And then a few of the Women in Cinema Collective members themselves, who are actors, resigned from AMMA and they have not been called back. So this organization has quite, also very explicitly at that point, Siddique, who was again, uh, the General Secretary at that point, if I'm not mistaken, he had come out to the media and he said that, and most other members of AMMA had said that we are with both our members.
We are with both the survivor and the accused. So it is a very, very problematic stance that they took and that's all of that is there for the public to see it's on public domain. So it's not like the organization wasn't aware of it because that's not a possibility at [00:08:00] all. But it is also to be noted that they have sort of sided with with the accused in many cases, they have not been that proactive about, you know, in initiating a probe or anything.
All of this I feel has happened because there was media pressure, there was pressure from the society, they had a face to save, and things got really difficult for them. And they just decided, okay, let's just oust him from membership. And then they immediately took him back.
Shivnarayan: Briefly, you've explained the findings of Hema committee report.
Nidhi, if you could, could you briefly tell us, What were the key findings of the HEMA committee report and how the industry has looked at them?
Nidhi: Yeah. So the HEMA committee report, which was released recently, uh, is a redacted version. So the redacted version means that there is no names of perpetrators or survivors.
Um, But they do say that everything like Sukanya just said, everything that is put into the Hema report is not based on hearsay and it's based on evidence. So it also cannot be ignored. And the Kerala High Court has now asked, uh, [00:09:00] the Hema committee to give the full report with the names and the evidences in a sealed cover to the court, uh, because the Kerala government has now formed an SIT, a special investigation team that's going to look into the allegations.
Now, what is in this particular HEMA committee report is that the committee report clearly says the objective of this entire report was to look into the culture and the systemic abuse that seems to be prevalent in the industry. And this isn't new either. So a lot of the sections, one of the stories that we did, which looks clearly at the sexual harassment section, uh, talks a lot about how women.
would be on. This is one of the only industries where women were forced to take their parents to work, right? Like, because that's how unsafe they would feel. There is no other industry where you take your parents to your office, but because of the way men would react and act, uh, they were forced to take protection along to the set.
There were [00:10:00] instances of men. If it's a shoot, that's if it's an outdoor shoot and they're staying somewhere else, that is not that they're not going back home. Men would come knocking on their doors at night. They would often be drunk. Um, there's the word abu, uh, adjustment and compromise, which every woman has been told repeatedly saying that if you want to be part of this industry, if you want to start in the industry, and more than that, if you want to sustain in the industry, the only way to sustain is To give yourself up for sex on demand.
And the words used for that was adjustment and compromise. So a lot of young actresses would come into the industry and be told that the only way another successful actor, female actor has remained in the industry is because they have agreed to these sort of heuristic terms and conditions. And hence you must as well agree to it.
And that's, so they've explained the way in which power works, right? Because In, in retrospect, a lot of the men, even when I spoke to them said that, [00:11:00] but what's the problem? Women also agreed to this, but this agreement happens on the front end basis of a lot of exploitation of power. That why should a woman have to do this in order to make it in her career?
So the report, essentially, the reason why it's a historical piece of document is because everything that women have been telling each other, warning each other of, cautioning each other, is now in a piece of document. And that is, gives a lot of legitimacy to what the women have been trying to say and fight for.
Now another really important thing that the, uh, report points out is that yes, after the 2017 attack, there was a lot of conversation about how to make a set or a film set a much more safer space. So they were ICs were introduced, sexual harassment committees were introduced. But the report goes a step further and says that the IC itself is not a solution because the IC is also a part of [00:12:00] the system where this power lobby exists.
So no woman wants to complain to the IC because the word will get around to the men, this, this group of power lobby, this mafia, the boys club, the, the report specifically uses the word boys club. They also say that women don't feel safe to go to the police and you can't expect and you can't turn around and ask the question of Why didn't women complain to the police?
Why did this typical questions that are asked when such stories come up of like, why didn't they say it back then? So the report documents it. On the other hand, in its own way, the report is also problematic because there are things like they do hold Western culture responsible. in a way for women's harassment.
Um, one of the committee members has mentioned this sort of Western clothing and culture for being the reason why harassment has increased. So it's got its own problems, but it's still, uh, I think a monumental piece of document in terms of minor. This is [00:13:00] This is the assumption because we have studied the language of the report.
Right, so the language of the report is referring to, when they talk about anecdotes, they say women, but there are sections in the report which say the girl said this. So our assumption is that, assumption is that there have been minors and, and the indication that there have been minors who've testified to the HEMA committee is the usage of the girl in sections where they were talking about harassment.
Um, but that's, that's essentially in a nutshell what the report says.
Shivnarayan: But Sukanya, the report goes beyond sexual harassment, uh, rampant sexual misconduct that the, the committee has found out. It also talks about bare minimum facilities is. Uh, given to, uh, female artists, uh, female actors like they don't have, uh, changing rooms.
They don't have toilet facilities. So if you could throw some light on the, on these issues that report has, uh, uh, [00:14:00] report has mentioned.
Sukanya: Yeah, it's very important. Uh, the point that you raised about how this report is not just about sexual harassment, I think is very important also at this point, because there's a lot of attempt to sensationalize this issue by bringing it to who are the big names, who's, uh, you know, accusing who of sexual harassment.
So sexual harassment is a big part of this report and also the lives of women who work in the Malayalam film industry, from what we know. You know, as this, as the findings of the report indicate, but like you said, there are also other factors like economic exploitation, workplace toxicity, mental harassment, lack of basic facilities, you know, how are we deciding pay parity?
How is a male actor's remuneration being decided? How is, how does this big disparity between his pay and the pay of a female colleague, you know, happen? So sometimes. It also points out the gaps in terms of data, as in what, how are you consolidating? How are you deciding star value? And what does [00:15:00] star value come with?
And, and how hierarchical is this workplace? It's also very fluid workplace. Like the HEMA committee report also very specifically says that you cannot say, Oh, but sexual harassment in the workplace happens in every workplace. There is a specific nature to this workplace, which is that the personal and the professional are, you know, are, there are very thin lines between that because you go, you stay at a different place.
You stay in accommodation that's provided to you. You're working with the crew. It's also creative. space where a lot of ideas are being exchanged. You know, there's self expression involved, there's camaraderie involved. So it's quite difficult to segregate this. So the report is also in the larger context about how do you regulate this workplace?
How do you ensure workers rights at this point? Who are the people who are most affected by this structure? Is there a structure? If so, who has control over there and what are the basic Problems that people are suffering and especially [00:16:00] women, because they are the more marginalized and the more powerless in this situation.
So all these things comprehensively have been mentioned in the report. It's not just about sexual harassment, like you said, but also the kind of intimidation, the price that people are being asked, you know, there's a lot. I spoke to many women over the past few days who have also spoken about, you know, they've been asking me, how do we quantify this, this sort of gaslighting that happens?
Like Nidhi mentioned, you know, there may not be in some instances, there is no, uh, you know, fortunately for them, it doesn't escalate to sexual harassment or assault, but they keep asking, but what about the indignity that we feel? How do we quantify this? How do we, you know, Say this, put this in words. How do we put a structure that this happens?
And of course, there's a structure around this, that allows this kind of behavior to thrive, that allows this kind of exploitation to thrive. So how do we put this in perspective? That is, I think the biggest question that we should be asking at this point, because it has also somewhat [00:17:00] gotten to a point of, you know, victim blaming, you know, when people start coming out in the media and they start saying that somebody sexually harassed me and they take a big.
You know, no name. There's also this tendency for the media and for a lot of people, you know, on social media and everything to say, Oh, but five years ago, somebody said this against you. So now how can you come and claim to be a victim? So in this, there's also this very important exercise of understanding that as individuals, maybe, you know, it's not like, A harasser or an alleged harasser wakes up and harasses every day, everyone.
He may be, or she may be someone who is, you know, nice to a few people, a friend to others and a harasser for somebody else. So it's very important to also not get into that debate of who is an ideal victim or, you know, but five other women said, this man is really nice to them. How can you come and say this?
Is it because you didn't get money? Is it because you didn't get an opportunity to act in that film? Are you now here to, you know, be famous? And, you know, make the most of what is [00:18:00] happening now. So all of these questions and these discussions are coming into the picture, which I feel is really, really, um, it's really pulling, you know, the purpose, taking away the focus from what the report has put forward.
So it's, it's a, it's a larger thing with a lot more issues that need to be looked at, I feel.
Sumedha: Also have a question. Can I ask? Yeah, yeah. So, like, either of you can answer Nidhi or Sukanya. Uh, like, one thing which was coming to my mind as a North Indian, uh, are there any comments being made from popular male actors from Malayalam industry?
Because I am seeing right now is that, uh, there were some actors from the Bollywood, from the Bollywood, or from the Hindi film industry, Whoever they were like, they used to be so vocal about feminist issues and women's issue, but now they have fallen completely silent. So are we seeing that from other actors male big male actors from malayalam industry?
Sukanya: Not from the malayalam film industry. The big actors would be mohanlal and mammootty at this point So they have not spoken anything. Mohanlal, like I said, he was the president of the Artists [00:19:00] Association. He, he has resigned, has not given a press meet, hasn't spoken to the media. Um, so these are also actors who, like you rightly said, you know, post tweets and, you know, for Facebook.
Posts in solidarity with everything that happens around right now, this has happened this happening in their own industry. And there's radio silence from a set of from the set of these popular young actors, directors, producers say, well, very, very countable for you
Nidhi: just want to add to Sumedha's answer also in terms of how have other industries responded, right?
I think yesterday, If I remember right, Swara Bhaskar put out a post, uh, Tanushree Dutta also had something to say a few days ago regarding this whole issue where she, she was one of the pioneers in the Hindi film industry because she went up against Nana Padukar when Me Too had happened. Um, and like you rightly pointed out, there is a lot of silence.
And I think even when we started working on the long form [00:20:00] story that we did for News Minute on the Dilip case, the 2017 assault. The initial idea was to look at Dilip and profile him, but nobody wanted to speak about him because he wields that much power and rightly so. People want their careers and people want to move on in their lives.
They don't want one statement about one case to affect their entire life. So they didn't want to speak. And then it's how you, how do you then do journalism when people don't want to speak because your entire life and work is based on quotes and based on somebody articulating their thought. Right. Right.
So then we. Actually started to look at what the silence means, which I think is a good, and that's like a, it's almost like a forensic exercise that's now required in, in all spaces because Parvati, who is a founding member of WCC, she very rightly pointed this out in an NDTV interview where she said, yes, there is a problem in the Malayalam industry, but we're trying to fix it.
Because there were a
Sumedha: lot of people who were coming like Hindi film industry doesn't have these problems. [00:21:00] And she pointed
Nidhi: out that. you know, the spaces which are actually really dangerous are the ones where this conversation is not happening.
It is happening now in the Malayalam industry, which
Sumedha: is a really good thing.
And I think this is the kind of silence which we saw during the restless protest as well. Like I didn't saw, I didn't see any kind of a solidarity from the big names like Sachin Tendulkar or Virat Kohli or, you know, like, Like the, those popular sports star who people actually look up to and listen to.
And that is what I think makes women really tough to come out because they feel like they'll be abandoned. No one will come in support of them.
Nidhi: But this is also a trend, right? Like today I was speaking to Ashik Abo in the morning and something that he said was cinema artists have always shied away from making statements that are for society or political statements.
They are very concerned about the social validation they get and the money they're making and the films they do. The only industry in which it began happening is in the Kerala industry, that too by the women actors who decided to take a position and they have paid a [00:22:00] price for it. Many of the founding members of the WCC have not had work for a long time.
They're fatigued, they're exhausted. It's taken a toll on their personal and professional lives. And now the men are forced to take a position. The government is forced to respond only because of these women. It is not that most of the men coming out now, this Amma's response, mass resignation, citing moral responsibility has anything to do with their own conscience.
It's a, it's a moment where they've been forced and pushed to do this because a group of women decided to stand up and speak. Right. And that hasn't happened in other industries at the moment.
Sukanya: It's also like Nidhi said, it's not like, Not like any of these actors are unaware of these instances as against what they've been repeatedly telling the media time and again that I don't know, I don't know.
It's never happened to me. It's not like that. I do feel that there's this silence and this denial. It's very conflicting also, at least for me as an observer, as a journalist to look at it, I keep feeling that there is no way that [00:23:00] as a woman or, or, you know, as a man with so much power in this space, there's no way that you don't know of this.
Yeah. So it's really baffling that people come out and take that stand and say that, Oh, but we don't know of any harassment that has happened, but no one has come and told us that can't be, because even the smallest of workplace, you take any workplace, which has even the smallest number of people, there'll be some problems, right?
There'll be some sort of power imbalance. There'll be some issues that'll come up. So as people who have been there in that workplace for long enough, it is not, it Possible at all that for, you know, first for someone to have not heard of anything like this, especially in a place where so many people come together and a place that's also very, you know, based on a little bit of it's, it's show business, business, there's glamor, you know, there are people, creative people, there's energies flowing, they're making art, you know, they're out in the public, there's money coming in.
So it's really, really, it's, it's very fine. I don't know if it's funny. It's funny, but you know, it's very, it's something that really baffles me that a lot of [00:24:00] people come out and when, when asked, you know, when like sort of, uh, when you put a mic to them, they say, Oh, but we don't know, Oh, but we really don't know if this is happening at all.
Sumedha: Or the other favorite answer from usually the popular actors is that, uh, we try to stay away from the issues which we don't know much about. Yeah.
Sukanya: Is that distancing from politics also, I feel this also as a culture, I think, for a long, for a long time, I feel a lot of artists have used this as an impunity, you know, in a sense where they say, but we are creative beings, we live in another realm, you know, we make art and art is so removed from the society, but we create, you know, we're creative.
We do, we don't want to make political comments. That's, that's something only. People with power, that's something only people, you know, people who have never been marginalized to that point can say, if you ask me. That is not something a woman can say. That's not something anyone who's gone through any sort of systemic marginalization, you know, identity based marginalization can ever say.
That is the oppressor's language, if you [00:25:00] ask me.
Nidhi: This separation of politics and gender, right, is something that also happens in newsrooms. I feel like every time once when you start reporting on gender, if it's a newsroom which has men in positions of power, men in editorial positions, there's always the question of, okay, gender stories are fine, but when are we going to do political stories, right?
But there is not an understanding that, you know, The gender stories are political and unless either a politician is involved and we saw this when the Prajwal Rewanna cases happened and I think Danya has pointed this out that Until it became an issue of politics, of opposition, of BJP, of all the other JDU.
Nobody was interested in it. And even in that conversation, the stories of women got lost. It became a conversation about politics, election and all of that. But the women's issues itself was not taken up. So even in this particular case, News Minute as a feminist organization has taken this up and followed it up in the way that it should have been followed by other [00:26:00] news organizations.
If you look at Otherwise, it's only still a conversation of, Oh, these are the powerful men who are accused. They are affiliated to these parties. Now what's going to happen to them? The question of women's safety is still not discussed as a political issue. And
Sumedha: I think that has happened very much in the Kolkata rape and murder case as well.
Like, you know, we were more concerned about, you know, what is Mamata Banerjee's reaction? What is like now? What will the BJP will do? And as Sukanya had also pointed out, it's bigger than, you know, like, who's the perpetrator and who's the accuser and who's the victim? Like in that also, we were, we just, you know, it was like.
At some point it was irritating to me that, you know, we were not talking about infrastructure lapses at the hospital industry because the global data shows that, you know, like women in the health sector are most vulnerable to these kind of abuses. Right.
Sukanya: Also, um, I do feel that it is, it is very important, I think, to look at accountability fixing at this point, like you said.
Now, there is a lot of politicization of this issue as well, like Nidhi also said, uh, uh, because, uh, see, we have to also understand that this report was [00:27:00] submitted four and a half years ago and it remained with the government unpublished, but the government has been sitting on this information. We did not know until now, but the government knew.
And it's a committee that was formed by the Kerala government on the insistence of the women in cinema collective in the aftermath of the 2017 actor assault case using taxpayers money. Yeah, they spent money and you know, they they've formed a committee which worked for over a year and collected inputs and put this report together and it remained unpublished until journalists and RTI activists, you know, really pushed for it.
So it has also to be understood that there is a clear inaction, there's a clear lack of political will also because a lot of these, uh, depositions, the committee report itself says that a lot of these depositions amount to crimes. under Indian laws, whether it's a Posh Act or the criminal laws. So a lot of them are [00:28:00] cognizable offenses to sort of investigate, which the police doesn't need a court order or a warrant.
They can initiate Suomoto investigations against these allegations. So now we don't know what kind of information the government, I mean, has been withheld. We only have the redacted version of it, but I'm sure the government has more information about it. So why they have been sitting on it is a very pertinent question to ask.
And that itself has also led to the politicization of it. Like, for example, recently, Kerala Film Academy Chairman Ranjith, who's a very, very well known senior director in the Malayalam film industry, who has worked with and sort of made Mohanlal, you know, created the stardom and the star power that they have, this director, was accused of sexual misbehavior by a Bengali actor.
Who he had auditioned for one of his films in which Mammootty was the lead. And he had to step down. And even when he stepped down, he said, I'm only doing this because I don't want the government's name to be tainted in my name. Because I'm the Kerala Film [00:29:00] Academy chairman, it's a political appointment.
So now I don't want people to taint the government. If because I continue, even then there's no accountability. There's no acknowledgement of the fact that this is harassment, that this is wrong. There's no admission. There's not even an apology. But then the immediate thing is to say this is politically motivated.
This is targeted. So I'm stepping down. It's not like I feel guilty about it. So that really derails the conversation. And like Nidhi also said, the core issue of workplace rights, of women's rights, that, you know, how this workplace has been so exploitative and what we can do about it and who we are holding accountable for it, that really gets lost in the process.
Shivnarayan: Sukanya, you, uh, interviewed, uh, Dieter producer, Ashik Abu on the HEMA committee reports findings. So could you tell us what he said in that interview and what was the key takeaway from, from it?
Sukanya: He spoke about the lack of democratization in this entire workspace. For example, if you take the, um, [00:30:00] AMMA, which is, which I, like I said, is the, uh, only association for film artists, for Malayalam actors who in the, from the Malayalam film industry, he was talking about how until recently they have not had elections.
So it's a very non democratic space where people are nominated and there's no opposition, which means there is no engagement. There is no, uh, you know, debate. So obviously, when you look at an org, see, I don't think we even need to go to, you know, such a big organizational space. Let's like, I think, um, one of WCC's founding members, Reema Kaligan, was also talking about this recently.
She was talking about how, you know, let's look at our houses. Let's look at how families function, who has power and what does non democratization of that space mean for other, other members of the family, especially women, children, you know, what, what, what does the lack of a healthy debate, what does the lack of democracy in that space do to us?
How does that make us feel? How does it affect our agency as [00:31:00] individuals? You know, it's the same thing that has been happening in AMMA as well, because it's not, it has not been a democratic space. So, we had a lot of people in the platform space until now. And even now there are elections, but then it's, you know, when so much power is consolidated in specific people, it's very difficult to engage in that sort of conversation.
So, Ashik's point was that this is the organization that has been representing a workplace in all government negotiations, in all forums, etc. So how can a power centric, non democratic organization represent a huge workforce? And speak for workers welfare. So he's been talking about the fact that we need to examine the functioning of these organizations.
Like there's a producer's organization, you know, whether it's the chamber or whether it's the organization for, you know, technicians. So he's been talking about how we need to first examine whether organizations that are already there, are they cognizant of workers rights? Are they democratic? Are they speaking for the welfare of the workplace?
If not, then [00:32:00] we will have to make sure that such the overseeing of such a big workplace with complex problems, which accommodates people from so many different identities, the government will have to ensure that that has been that has not been handed over to organizations that are not equipped to take it up, then we'll have to look at what sort of up?
Where can they complain? What, what is going to be the efficiency of it? Who is going to constitute, you know, uh, such overseeing forum? So that was basically the, that was the most core takeaway from my conversation with Ashika Boo.
Shivnarayan: When the discussions start happening around Kerala film industry. So in the past couple of weeks, you've seen a lot of women have also come out.
So could you tell us, What has been situation, what they have revealed or their experience that they've shared has, has the report, has the discussion given a lot of courage to female actors to come out?
Sukanya: Definitely. Though the report has and the responses to the report, you know, how intently it has been followed also by the media, the kind of, [00:33:00] the kind of, um, you know, There is a, there's a sense of, um, we have to say something, you know, that, that people have, I, from what I understand, I also understand that the government has also been fairly shaken because they did not expect the findings of the report to be so grave and to be so intense.
And to be worded in, in the kind of words that we see in the report. So everyone is a little shaken is what I understand. And the government has also gone into a little bit of defense. I feel because they, they think, okay, this is an industry that employs so many people. It brings so much money. Is it going to tarnish our cultural face?
What is going to happen? Is it going to, you know, really take the goodwill away from our entire cultural spectrum, et cetera. So, uh, this. has also prompted women, a lot of women to think that maybe this is the time for us to push for action. Maybe this is the, I mean, this is the same thing that happened in the aftermath of the Leib's arrest also when WCC was [00:34:00] formed.
This movement really gained momentum because a lot of women felt, okay, the powerful are falling, looks like it. Maybe this is the time for us to come forth and speak. So there have been a few women who have come forth and who have made grave allegations against, uh, um, like I said, Siddiq who had to step down as AMMA's general secretary, then there's also actor Mukesh who is a sitting MLA.
of the, uh, Left Democratic Front government in Kerala. There have been sexual harassment allegations against him, but he has maintained and the government has maintained that he doesn't have to step down or resign. There have been allegations against actors, against directors, against production controllers.
Some women have taken names, some have not taken names. So those accounts are still coming in. And I feel like you rightly said, this has given women a lot of courage to speak, but. It is also important that police cases are filed. More women have to speak, more complaints have to happen so that this doesn't fizzle out at this point because it's very easy for, see, [00:35:00] also we have to understand that we're asking survivors to, you know, putting the onus on them to come show their faces on TV or to relieve their trauma, to, you know, keep talking about it, to keep, keep thinking that, okay, maybe this is the right time, maybe now I should speak.
So all of this is very taxing on these women too. So it's, I feel that it's great that a lot more women are coming and talking about this, but I do feel that the primary question is still about what the government is going to do about
Shivnarayan: this.
Sukanya: Because it's really not fair to put this on these women anymore.
Shivnarayan: Yeah. As, as, as you mentioned that, uh, the HEMA committee report was submitted the government in 2019 and the government sat on it for four and a half years. Now, is there any attempt from the government to shield or protect, uh, few people in the industry? Maybe some of them are also in politics.
Sukanya: So that is also something, I mean, Everything that has transpired makes us, you know, feel that that is also happening.
We feel like that is also part of the [00:36:00] problem. The fact that the report has remained unpublished, the fact that, uh, you know, there is, uh, despite allegations against the sitting MLA, he has been asked not to step down. Even when, uh, Ranjith was, uh, there were allegations against Ranjith came up, the minister for culture, Sajeesh Aryan's response was that he's a renowned person.
He's a renowned talent and we cannot ask him to step down on the basis of mere allegations where they're reducing the gravity of the, you know, complaint. They're trying to discredit the victim. They're trying to blow up, you know, sort of project the talent or the filmography of the person who's been accused and say, say that, you know, see, this is an important person.
We can't just ask him to step down. So when you see all of this, and when you read it, together. It definitely looks like the government's trying to protect harrassers. It definitely looks like they don't take this seriously enough. And the, uh, culture minister is also maintained in the, you know, initially his stand was let women come in and file complaints individually.
We are not going to act otherwise. So [00:37:00] that sort of puts the onus back on these survivors who, like Nidi mentioned, are so exhausted. Even members of the WCC, they're so exhausted. And now you have a report which really put these findings into, you know, into paper and they say this is happening. So now, again, when the, when the system asking women to, you know, sort of complain, they're asking women to corroborate, they're asking women to do all the work.
I mean that really, it really looks like they don't really care as much.
Nidhi: And these men have filed, uh, FIRs against the women also, right? Like Siddique, if I'm right, has filed an FIR against the woman who came out.
Shivnarayan: Defamation cases have been filed, I think. Yeah,
Sukanya: there have been defamation cases, you know, like I said, the character or the conduct or some sort of, uh, uh, allegation from the past where the woman might have done something, you know, maybe she's, you know, embroiled in something controversial, or maybe there's something, some incident that's happened at a place where they study.
Right. Or, you know, all of these things have been brought in and all of these things have been put into context in these, uh, counter, I [00:38:00] mean, these, uh, counter cases sort of, uh, that actors have been filing to discredit the victim to say that, you know, you're not. It's that whole tactic of, uh, men just saying, um, Oh, but you're also not that righteous.
You know, that's a very common response to say that, Oh, but you're also not that clean for you to come and act. this way now. So they're trying to equate, you know, they're trying to shift that. They're trying to say we're both not really, you know, if I did this to you, you're also not that clean. So now what makes you feel like you, so all of this also takes a mental toll because as women, we live amidst so much gaslighting.
We're told we have to be prim, proper, good girls or whatever. Suddenly a lot of women also feel a little shaken. They start, they're in self doubt, you know, that, that sort of triggers all these feelings. You start feeling, you know, Oh, did I invite them? Oh, but what did I do this? So very easy to sort of mentally also break women who are speaking when you make these counter allegations.
So that is something that's happening. And I think that will [00:39:00] happen in the coming days. I do think there will be pushback.
Nidhi: Can I just add one point to that? Because. I think the question like the conversation at this point could get very derailed in this because what the WCC essentially has always said is that this isn't a question of like a lot of men have said, Oh, on the basis of mere allegations, you can't remove somebody, you can't cancel somebody and all of that.
But the question here is of due process. For example, when Dilip had been accused. Now, when the women in went to the AMMA and said that, how can you have him still as treasurer. I think that point he was treasurer of the association. How can you still have him? The men said, you can't just because there's been a accusation, you can't say that he's convicted and don't conduct a sort of media trial and all of that.
But that wasn't the point. The point was of due process. If there's an organization where someone who's been accused of conspiring to rape or conspiring to sexually harass someone or even sexually harass someone, you can't have the same person in the same platform as a survivor. [00:40:00] The organization has a responsibility to follow due process and make it a safe space.
And ultimately, what happened in that particular incident, the survivor entirely moved out from the Malayalam film industry. She, thankfully, had also worked in other industries, but the toll it took on her to know that these, senior members of an association where she worked and she has, you know, made a living off has had to, she had to take a step back.
Whereas Dilip continued, he continued to make public appearances. There's a very famous sort of, well, infamous meeting, which Amma had held at that point where all these men were sitting on the stage, Mohanlal and Mammootty, the biggest stars. Don't say one word in that. Dilip is also on stage and they have this sort of very, it's literally like sitting at a, at, at home at a dinner table where a father is saying what he thinks should happen.
It's a very patriarchal sort of press conference where they stood up and they said, no, these are both our children. They use that language also. [00:41:00] They use that patriarchal language where they say, these are both our children, the survivor and the, uh, the one who's accused and we cannot let go of both of them.
Now, nobody's asking you to say the accused is convicted, but one is asking you to, to take a step and make it a safe space for somebody who's you know, gone through so much. There is no doubt about what she already went through. She was put in a car. She was assaulted by six. I mean, it was a, it was a crime that happened, which included six criminals.
There is no doubt. And you have that moral responsibility to make it a safe space for her and other women, which they didn't do. And even here, that's the conversation. It's a conversation of due process. So if someone holds a position of power, they have to be suspended at least until, you know, the case takes its own turn.
And that responsibility men in positions of power have.
Right.
Sukanya: Also, like Nidhi said, I feel the whole usage of both of them are, uh, Amma's children. Our children. You know, that usage in itself is very indicative of, [00:42:00] of the fact that this, after all, there's a culture of not looking at it as a workplace. They try to, you know, sort of, uh, sort, uh, or settle instances of harassment and abuse by saying, Oh, but we're all a family.
And a lot of these actors, you know, main actors who are senior people now, they come, they appear on these interviews and say, Oh, but you know, when we used to work before in the 80s and in the 70s or in the 90s and all, there was more camaraderie. We were all like a family. Women never complained, you know, uh, women didn't had much, much, you know, much fewer facilities at that point.
They were very, very cooperative. We all functioned like we traveled together. We ate together. We slept, you know, in, in whatever little, uh, uh, facilities that we would get. And so they would, they'll talk about, you know, they, they speak in a way as to sort of villainize the younger women, villainize those who raise complaints by saying, but we're all a family.
So they're trying to, it's, [00:43:00] it's just like a family, you know. It's quite telling what happens
Nidhi: in a family then. So,
Sukanya: uh, so I think the HEMA committee report and the WCC are trying to say that it is high time that you look at it as an, as a workplace. So the whole problem, I feel, is that even the women who participate in the, in, you know, in in, who work in the film industry are not looked at as professionals.
There is this, you know, tribulation of abuse. There is this downplaying of issues by bringing in this whole, uh, idea that you are supposed to adjust. You're supposed to be nice to everyone. This is a family. Who's benefiting from a family? We all know, we all know who makes decisions in a family. We all know who doesn't get agency in a family.
So that narrative has been there for a long time. And this is just the continuation of that. So I think it's most important to look at this as an industry, look at this as a workplace and to look at the issues that are raised by the committee and by survivors and the WCC as workplace issues. [00:44:00] as issues of parity, as questions of, you know, labor's rights.
So that the fact that these women are not looked at as professionals is why I think it's easy for people to cross boundaries and to say, it's okay.
Shivnarayan: I think in, in, in, in, in the interview, uh, uh, to Dhanya Rajendran, uh, actor Parvati also talked about. Same, same issue that the women, women are not looked at as professionals.
So in the Kerala film industry, any film industry, they are seeing somebody, somebody who has come for fame and money.
Sukanya: Yeah. So fame and money also, like that's what, that's what I said. I feel that, you know, we as a society, we're so patriarchal that we look at fame and money as something bad when it's aspired by women.
All of us work for money. All of us aspire for money. for better living standards and fame. And what is wrong with women wanting? I mean, I'm not even saying, um, you know, it's a very complicated argument because when, when we try to say that, Oh, but women are, women are here to work, but [00:45:00] what is wrong with women wanting fame and money?
Is that, is that, you know, a prerogative of men in the society? No, it's not right. They're putting the effort. They're talented. Like poverty said, they're here to work. So why not? Why should they not have stardom? Why should they not have the kind of pay that men get? Why should they not have the benefits that, you know, come out of sustained, you know, like, Pavati herself has built herself up as a brand.
And she's gone through a lot to get there. Despite that, Despite isolation, despite sidelining, despite social media trolling, harassment, cyber harassment. So when a woman has put that much effort, when a woman has, you know, displayed that kind of talent, when she's been that consistent, then why cannot she have that stardom?
Why is it not okay? So my problem is with that whole idea that, you know, let's not, even before we go into this whole conversation of a woman is a professional, et cetera. Why is it not okay when a woman aspires for money? It's nice to have money, right? If you're working for it, you get money, you get the fame out [00:46:00] of it.
You're happy. You have your fans, you connect with them. That's the whole profession, right?
Shivnarayan: So Medha, you have written an exclusive story on Delhi rights case. It was talked about a lot at the time and still is being talked about. So could you tell us what you've written and what is the story?
Sumedha: This is from a very popular case, uh, from Delhi riots, which shook everyone.
That was Fezzan's case, who was a 23 year old guy and Fezzan and four other Muslim boys on 24th of February, 2020, on 2020, they were literally beaten, assaulted by police officers. They were being forced to sing National Anthem. I think that, video is still like very fresh in our memory. I think nobody has forgotten it.
And so like I tried to like, now the case has been, um, uh, given to the CBI, like the Delhi high court has recently said that, you know, like the Delhi police has done a tardy and or like a shoddy investigation in trying to find out the culprit, like. And therefore they have passed this investigation to the CBI.
So I was, I, like, so our Aide in [00:47:00] Chief Raman Kirpal said that, you know, like, it might be a good idea if you could go back in time and look at, uh, look at, you know, like, who were the people who had taken them to the hospital? Can you try and trace, you know, like, uh, who were the police officers? Uh, so We just thought of, you know, like going back in time.
And then, um, then I found that, that the police officers who had beaten those five Muslim men, the same or those string, those string of police officers had also taken them to the hospital, uh, GTB hospital. And then, uh, and then, uh, Out of five of these men, two were discharged immediately and three, the police had taken them to the police custody saying that, you know, these men were not comfortable going home to back to their home because they felt unsafe because it was like, you know, like violence going on in that area.
So to ensure their safety, we took them to the police custody, which was like an illegal police custody. That's the statement which the Delhi police had submitted before the Delhi High Court. And then. Great. Like, you know, like if you took them for their [00:48:00] safety. So then after like two days, uh, one out of three of those boys died and that his name was Fezan.
And so I, you know, I was going through his post mortem report. What does it say? You know, like what kind of injuries he had? Was he given like any, you know, like special treatment, which was his necessity. Therefore, uh, and then I was also looking at his age. MLC. MLC is like a, for a reader, for our viewers, this is a medical legal, uh, medical legal document, which is like the first, uh, medical document prepared by the doctor while he's examining the patient.
Like this comes much, much before. Postmortem postmortem is after like, you know, you have died and but MLC is for all the cases, you know, if there is a if there is a case which requires a police investigation, the hospital will ensure that the MLC is made and then all MLCs like there are some 10 types of MLCs and all of those MLCs have a very compulsory information.
who had brought [00:49:00] them to the hospital, that patient. So for example, if, you know, like if you find a person who's, uh, who has met with an accident on a road, and if you take him to the. to the hospital, your name will be written in the MLC so that you know, like, or if you know, like, or if you know, like a PCR call, like a call to the police station was made and saying, you know, like, we have found this so and so person who's murdered or who's or what this woman has been raped or was, It's someone who's met with an accident.
So then the PC, then the PCR comes into play and they take that person to the hospital. Then in that case brought in the column for the brought by we write PCR. So it's one column which is never left blank because this is what the hospital staff and the police officers have told us that this is one column which we cannot leave blank because it is very important for the patient.
For the later investigation, because it tells, you know, like, uh, it is like that person will give you the first person account, like who, what had happened to that person. So, uh, so coming back to the Delhi riots case, uh, the four, [00:50:00] five Muslim boys who were beaten by, who were assaulted by the police, uh, all of them had been taken to the hospital by the police.
And two, we have been able to get access to two of their, two of those MLCs. One is of Faizan and the other is of, um, Courser, Courser Ali, and in both of their MLCs, the brought by column is blank. And this particular information would have helped, you know, like the CBI or any investigating authority to trace back who.
You know, who are those police officer who had like first beaten them and had also taken them to the hospital and had also taken them to the Jyoti Nagar police station. And this is not just allegations of, you know, the family members or those survivors who are saying that, you know, they were taken to the hospital by the police.
But the Delhi police itself has submitted before the Delhi high court that it was the police officers from Jyoti Nagar police station who had taken them to the hospital. So the question is why that information was missing. And that is what the story is about. [00:51:00]
Shivnarayan: So you have quoted one of the lawyers saying that the Rebecca Jones saying that the blank was was left, right?
I mean, the column, the column was left. So it's very suspicious that maybe the police was trying to hide the identity of those Kausar to the hospital.
Sumedha: Right. Right. Yeah. She, she said that, you know, like, it's not, it is, it, it raises more suspicion on the police about like, about the police conduct of the case that, you know, like, why have you left this information blank?
And then, uh, so all these government hospitals also have their duty constables, like a police, uh, police station, which is like very near to that hospital will send a constable who will be deployed at the police station throughout the day to, to Uh, to, to, you know, to register all the cases, all the MLC cases which are coming to the hospital.
Then I spoke to two of the, I, I went to the, uh, GTB hospital like four to five days every day. And then I spoke to all the duty constables who were present there. And I would [00:52:00] ask them, sir, like, you know, like, can the doctors file an MLC, uh, leaving this column blank? And they said, no, it's just not, it's just not possible because Then the document won't be submitted, won't be accepted.
So it's first of
Shivnarayan: its kind.
Sumedha: It's first of its kind. And they were literally very shocked, like, you know, when I showed them that this column has been left blank. So I also tried to think that, you know, maybe during the Delhi riots, uh, there were a lot of, you know, people rushing to the hospital. They were police constables who were injured.
There's like, It was, it was a lot of chaos and then, you know, maybe in that chaos, they, you know, like the doctors might not have had the time to fill a particular column. So, you know, like, and then, uh, and then the duty constable said that, you know, this again, this is not possible because, uh, Because, um, because even during COVID, you know, like COVID was much, much bigger than Delhi riots, you know, the number of patients who would be coming to the hospital, even then we have not left this column blank.
So it's that important. And if the doctor leaves that column blank, we call him up and we ask him to, you know, to make sure that, you know, [00:53:00] he doesn't leave it back either he likes like self or PCR or the name of the person who has brought him but this is rarest of rare instance.
Shivnarayan: But did you also reach out to, uh, the senior officials in Delhi police?
Sumedha: I tried to, but nobody's silence. Now,
Shivnarayan: Sukanya, uh, uh, as you mentioned that, uh, I mean, in our conversation last night, you said that, uh, I mean, there are parallels drawn in Kerala film industry case with the, with the Harvey Weinstein case. Sexual abuse case. So you said that it's unique, Kerala film industry movement is unique in its documentation.
That was not there in Harvey Weinstein case. So could you tell us what separates what separates these two cases or what are similarities in these two cases?
Sukanya: One of the biggest, uh, factors and like one of the most important distinguishing factors of cause is that this is the report itself is the HEMA committee report itself, [00:54:00] which with the findings of which, like you also said, documents these problems.
So now nobody can dismiss it as hearsay. So far, what we've seen is every time you ask a powerful actor or, you know, a producer or somebody else, even an actress for that matter, they're compelled to say that, Oh, but these things don't happen or, or that it has not happened to me. I don't know. I think the casting couch, which is a new, which is a euphemism for workplace sexual harassment.
I think it exists, but people have been nice to me. I have been extremely fortunate to work with, uh, you know, Mohanlal or Mammootty or, you know, in, with them. With other big actors and producers. And I have been safe, I think. And some of them have said that this is one of the safest workplaces because you can in fact, take your family to work without mentioning the compulsions of it.
So those kind of responses are what we see, but now here is a report. Not based on hearsay, which is saying, Hey, but see a significant number of women who work here have said that this has happened to them. So that itself is the [00:55:00] biggest distinguishing factor because it's a government appointed committee and that committee has found out.
That there is a problem here and that problem is not one of, you know, it's not, it cannot be dismissed as an exceptional case. It is a rampant, it is pervasive and it's structural. That is the finding. So that itself is, you know, it's putting it in paper. Now you can't deny this anymore. So that I think is, and also with respect to Harvey Weinstein and Miramax, it was here.
We're not talking just about one producer, one production house. We're talking about the industry. We're talking about people who are accused, who come from all facets of the industry, like from, you know, Production controllers to directors, to assistant directors, you know, to actors, big, small producers to, you know, all of these costs, people who do casting work and people, all of these cinematographers.
So people are talking about all sorts of, uh, people who work in the industry and they're talking about all sorts of harassment here. [00:56:00] So that way, this is not just sexual harassment, like I said, so I think it's very different, but it's also very similar in the sense that, you know, the, the sidelining, the compulsion to be silent, the fear, the loss of work, the mental toll it takes, that's definitely the same.
And also the, you know, how power works. Right. That is how we contextualize abuse in a workplace. Why it is important to look at abuse through the lens of the power structure that surrounds it. What is, how is power capable of silencing victims? How does that make women, you know, how does that compel women to sort of also collude into this, to, you know, be quiet about what is being meted out to their colleagues, to, to say that the WCC is, irrelevant.
There are a lot of women who take that stand as well. But I think it's important for us to not pit these women against each other and see how these women are also part of this really powerful system. They're terrified. They're [00:57:00] terrified, but they don't want to lose work. Not everyone has the privilege to say no.
And also now you cannot individualize this problem by saying, but you should have, you should have said, no, you should have not worked with that director. Why did you continue working there? So, We need to understand that it's a system where women are unfortunately forced to be pally with their harassers because these are the people with power.
These are the people who are giving jobs. Where are, where are these women going to work otherwise? So it's no more, so it's a report that's also trying to say it's no more an individual question. It's not about individualizing sexual harassment. This is systemic. This is structural. This is pervasive. Now, what do we do about it?
Now, who do we hold accountable? So that is what really distinguishes this, You know, from the Harvey Weinstein thing, you know, I do feel that the magnitude of it about the pervasive nature of it and about the documentation of it. I think that is really what sets both of these, you know, instances apart, though the fundamentals remain with [00:58:00] respect to workplace sexual harassment, with respect to gender.
I think Nidhi might also be able to back me up there.
Nidhi: Yeah, I mean, I agree with, like for Weinstein also, what did it take for him to get convicted? It took almost a hundred women testifying. And what it did. And what here also what the HEMA committee report actually goes one step further because it did not require even it to get to that point, right, like with the Weinstein incident, it took these many women to actually come out and Jody and Megan who did the NYT stories and Ronan Farrow, they always said that the only reason they were able to report on Weinstein case the way they did is because women were collectively coming forward.
And that happened here. In many ways, where women came forward, but not looking at one person alone, and the Khema committee report says the same thing. And, uh, even with Weinstein case, what the commonality, I would say, like Sukanya was saying, is that, like in the Weinstein case, there were many instances where women had [00:59:00] been assaulted.
They had, in fact, gone back to work with him. Some of them had even been his girlfriend after they got assaulted. Years later said that, you know, I faced assault. But yes, I went back and worked with him. Even I even spent time as his lover. But what does, what does it mean? What does this power structure mean?
And, and what position does it put women in? What does consent even mean in a power structure, right? Um, and that is, that is Similar to what the Hema committee is looking at, that it's not just, okay, sexual harassment has happened. It's not just about did you go to the hospital, did you get a rape examination?
What do these, because that's, that's what our conversation becomes like. For example, even when we report on incidents of rape or harassment, what do we as journalists, go and ask questions? We ask them, did you file a police complaint? What does the FIR say? What are the sections? Did you get a rape examination done?
Who is your doctor? Uh, what did the court say? Did you give a statement for a magistrate? But here is a, is a report saying that before all of that, there are many things that lead [01:00:00] to this, which we actually don't ask. And I think even for journalists, it's a good exercise in reading this report to learn to understand and ask the right questions of what led to this ecosystem.
And that's also what the Harvey Weinstein case kind of tells us, that it's an entire ecosystem in which we are all consciously or subconsciously. have been enablers, have witnessed, have kept quiet, and for our own reasons, have had to sort of make our way in this ecosystem. Um, and now it's time to sort of ask ourselves whether we have an opportunity to change that ecosystem because, but that only starts with changing the conversation.
And this, um, and this I was, I was saying somewhere else also that this is a This can easily become a conversation Sukanya also said about who is a, who is the perpetrator, who is the survivor, but the conversation really needs to be about what does it mean for a woman to feel safe. And only from there can you actually start having a conversation of how do we prevent this from [01:01:00] happening.
Shivnarayan: Right. It's also a template for journalists as you mentioned that how to report such cases.
Nidhi: See, essentially for me, when I look at it, the Hema committee report, the Weinstein case, Is an invitation for men to listen and to be a little okay with being uncomfortable, because, for example, even in our personal equations with men, uh, and I think the thing is journalism also because it has for a very long time being led and newsrooms have been dominated by men are approached to journalism also is very male.
Shivnarayan: They are still being led by men.
Nidhi: Yeah. And. I think that this, this thing of like, like I was saying, right, the questions we ask is, if I are being filed, all of that is a very thing of, okay, what can we do now? So I have felt this when I speak to male friends about something that's happened, that's, that's uncomfortable.
I get overwhelmed by how uncomfortable they get. And then the only conversation they want to have is how do we solve this? Right. But when you don't know the scale, when you don't [01:02:00] understand the lay of land, when you don't have the lived experience, you don't even know what is the question to ask, which most men, when you talk about sexual assault, when you talk about sexual harassment are extremely uncomfortable.
Right. And their response is usually that, you know, this, I, I am, I have children. I am a father. I am an any look at all how male politicians respond. I want to speak up because I have a daughter. No, you want to speak up because what's happening is wrong. And that, but to understand that, even now, even even in a newsroom, how do we report on this is still a question that we need to ask ourselves, which is why I think the HEMA committee report the Weinstein case.
Should actually be forcing us to reflect on our own ecosystems. And that I still feel like isn't happening, even with how it's being covered in Kerala, how it's being covered by other newsrooms. That's my next question. How
Shivnarayan: the Kerala media has covered this movement?
Sukanya: Um, I do think that there's been, there's been a lot of interest.
There's [01:03:00] been a lot of follow up. There were 16 or 17 journalists who, including those from TNM, who actually pushed for this report to be released through an RTI. So, uh, I do think that there's a lot of documentation that is being done and also, like Nidhi said, even for journalists, this is a huge task.
This is a huge learning process for us also, you know, about the language, how do you document, how do you corroborate, how do you publish this, all of that. So I do feel that, uh, A lot of those efforts are coming through and I do, but then the language, and I think that's not just, that's not just with respect to the Hema committee report, any kind of sexual abuse, how do we report it?
What is the media's language around it? Even in the Prajwal Rewanna case, for example, we saw a lot of this, you know, it was, it was called a scandal. In the beginning, if you look at thumbnails, if you look at, you know, a lot of headlines that came out, especially with on TV, television reportage and everything, you know, a lot of them called it a scandal, but it's not right.
So the kind of terms that we use, [01:04:00] who do we put at the center of it? What are the details that we're focusing on it? I think all of that. really needs to have more sensitivity. It has to have a gender lens. We need to focus on, on fixing accountability. I wouldn't say that, uh, you know, that it, that the media has been lousy about it, but I do feel, and I don't, but I do feel the language around it is a problematic.
I do feel sometimes the focus on it is problematic, but that's not, I'm saying that's not exclusive to this. That is the case with covering sexual harassment in any context.
Shivnarayan: Now we're coming close to the conclusion of this podcast. And before I let you go, uh, I have to ask you the recommendation, any book that you've read this week or last week, or any movie that you've watched that you can recommend to our viewers.
Sukanya: I want to recommend this 1983 Malayalam movie, a film that came out in 1983 called Lekhai Uda Maranam Oru Flashback, which will loosely translate into a flashback into Lekha's death. So this is a film that is [01:05:00] directed by K. G. George, who is a very acclaimed filmmaker in Malayalam. And this is about a A young girl called Lekha, who gets, comes into the film industry and gets, you know, and really makes it big.
And while she's at the peak of her success at 17 or 18 years of age, um, dies by suicide. And she has a relationship with the much married film director who's way senior to her and how this whole incident. So it's, it's, you know, it's in a very, it's, um, it's like you're in the beginning, you see. Scenes from a funeral.
And then the question that is asked is why did a 19 year old? I don't know. I mean, I'm unsure of the age of the character in the film, but it's somewhere there. They begin with a question of why did a woman who was an actor, who's at that age, who's so young, who's just won a national award for her work, what made her, um, you know, sort of, um, think of [01:06:00] taking this drastic step from there, we go into what happens in her life and.
KG George, it's a, it's a very sensitive film in the sense that he's tried to document what happens to a woman who joins the film industry. So yeah, so I do feel it's a great watch. And this is a movie that is quite familiar to most Malayalees, but I would like to recommend this. I think it's available on YouTube.
I don't know Subtitles are there, but it's, um, quite, um, I mean, it's, it's accessible that way. So I would like to recommend this film because I myself have gone and rewatched it after all of this. So, yeah.
Nidhi: Right. I want to recommend something a bit more academic. Uh, it's not the most interesting read, but, uh, it's a very, very good, uh, compilation.
It's a book called, uh, public secrets of law, the rape trials in India by Pratik Shah Bach. Pratik Shah Bach. Pratik Shah Bach. Um, it's basically she had spent time in, in, in couple of courts, [01:07:00] just looking at how rape trials are heard, how lawyers, uh, function within the court, the kind of conversations, the jokes, the things that she was told as a young female researcher, uh, moving around these courtrooms, which, and she even comments about how the architecture of a courtroom, Masculine, uh, but a very interesting read.
She's also been writing columns at the express, uh, periodically, uh, I think which are worth looking at. My second recommendation is something we spoke earlier. I would just really recommend men to listen to women for a change.
Shivnarayan: Sumida,
Sumedha: what's your recommendation? My recommendation is the movie, like, which I'm like really late to watch.
She said it was released in 2022 and I've watched it like a couple of days back and like, though I'd read the book at that time, but this is one movie where I felt that the book is maybe like the movie is actually as good as the book. So, and this is, this movie is based on those two journalists. Megan and Jodi, who had [01:08:00] broken the story on Harvey Weinstein case.
And I think like, um, like that, like I, when I read that book, I was like really, really young reporter was just like being fascinated by all of that. But this time when I watched the movie, I had like, I felt that, you know, like though, like, um, like how, um, how as Indian reporters, uh, we have failed to do.
Stories on me too, like how the Western media had report, how, how they, how the NYT had broken that story. Like though, like, like there's a conversation about like, yes, we have to, you know, we should not be doubting women who are coming out and sharing their stories. But as a reporter, it's also important to come up with evidence.
And in that case, in the Weinstein case, like there was like no evidence, like there were no evidence as such sort, like the woman, like you can't expect the woman to record a video while she's being molested or, you know, like, and in that case, like the women were not even. You know, like they were stopped from even registering police complaints, but still those two journalists, how did they get, got the documents, how they, you know, made all the women [01:09:00] jump together to come out, you know, come on record to speak on Weinstein.
That is something I think, which, you know, as sometimes as Indian reporters, we do lack and fail.
Shivnarayan: Um, my recommendation is Dhanya Rajendran's interview of actor Pavati. I think actor Pavati was very articulate in that interview and everybody should watch it. Do read our stories on Hema committee report.
And what has happened in, in its aftermath and Sum metal's exclusive story on Feans case. Uh, these stories, we've been able to do these stories because of your support, your subscription. So keep contributing to News, laundry, and the News Minute. With this, this podcast is adjourned.
Sting: News Laundry is possible because of our paying subscribers.
We don't run on corporate or government ads. You too can be part of changing the news model. Go to newslaundry. com slash subscription. Be a part of the community that pays to keep news independent for the smoothest news laundry experience. Download our app, watch our [01:10:00] shows, listen to our podcasts, read our reports, stay informed, pay for news, protect democracy, save the world.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
