JNU: SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ATTENDANCE ROW
R. N. MISRA
JNU flashed into the limelight again, this time for more wrong reasons and even without Kanhaiya’s ‘Azadi’ gimmicks. The cause was more academically inclined with sexual harassment of a girl student pursuing research. Later, it turned out to be a terrible movement against such harassment of more than eight students. However, their combined FIR was not accepted. Those girl students ultimately submitted separate FIRs almost containing the same language and the same offence, thus creating a doubtful case in the eyes of law. It was an explosion of immoral activities of a professor cum research guide who had been torturing his female students for quite some time. Academically, JNU seems to have rolled down to the lowest level because if students are not sexually safe, how can the institution survive? With whatever modernised ways in sexual freedom the institute has acquired, it has still a limitation as far as the teacher and a taught relationship is concerned. A teacher must have an unimpeachable character. If he is unable to maintain it, he must find some other job. Whatever is the politics involved in such cases or even deep-rooted group power is played, a teacher in every respect come out blotless in his individual sexual and moral character. It must be noted that when a girl complaints about sexual harassment her whole life is at stake. Her future is supposed to be marred. Therefore, she rarely complains unless the matter becomes acute and unstoppable or goes out of control.
The post-Nirbhaya scenario has created a different situation and provided a platform for judging men-women relationship distinctively. It has left no choice for an investigating authority if a complaint is lodged by a woman against a man. It has to frame a charge-sheet. The man involved in the case is arrested immediately. He may be bailed out, but the damage is done instantly. Therefore, the men should give a deep thought to their action or go even hundred times to think before taking any untoward sexual act, physical or non-physical. He must know that no evidence is required except girl’s own statement and no collaboration is needed to confirm it. In this respect, the man is highly susceptible to be charged with a criminal offence. The Verma Commission has redefined the concept of rape and our IPC has been changed accordingly. The rape includes all five points which Justice Verma has mentioned. They are:
1. Physical contact and advances or
2. A demand or request for sexual favour
3. Making of sexually coloured remarks or
4. Showing pornography and
5. Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, nonverbal remarks and conduct of sexual nature
Justice J. S. Verma has dealt with in detail the concept of rape, sexual assault and harassment. Rape is not limited to penetration of private space of a woman as was accepted earlier. It includes oral and anus sex also. Any non-consensual penetration of sexual nature is included in the definition of rape. In this respect non-penetration form of sexual assault is also rape. The acts of sexual assault means use of criminal force or disrobe a woman as an attempt to insult woman’s modesty. All such acts come under definition of rape. Rape also includes use of foul words, gestures, unwelcome threat of sexual nature, stalking, staring and molesting etc.
The above acts of offence have been elaborated to explain what constitutes rape in Indian conditions. These points should be known to every man who comes in contact with a woman in his personal and professional life. Men should be alert, behave and act properly if they often come in touch with women. A teacher is supposed to be a friend, philosopher and guide to all his students and he must rise above sexual considerations. To his girl students, he must appear to be a father figure. This is the minimum social qualification of a teacher which we expect or else who will send his daughter to an educational institution?
JNU is no exception for the moral codes as adopted by its teachers. It has a very high sounding anti-harassment committee known as Gender Sensitization Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH). But it functions differently to what it stands for. Within 24 hours the offender must be suspended and inquiry committee must finalise its decision within 3 days. If the offence seems to be true it should be reported to police for further inquiry and FIR be submitted on behalf of the victim. This is what JNU should do in sexual harassment cases. So far JNU has shown laxity on such matters. It was this reason that a sexual harassment complaint developed into a movement. JNU once again failed in its duty and has demonstrated a very low level of its administrative competence.
Now I come to the matter of attendance which became a dominant authoritarian contention at JNU. It must be kept in mind that attendance as a form of activity is a necessary evil. It has different shapes, effects and styles through which a person’s presence is registered. It is applied differently in different cases. The concept of ‘presence’ is variously styled. The attendance which is needed in an educational institution differs from the attendance which is held in other centres. The attendance which is taken of the criminals in a prison cannot be compared with the attendance as is taken regarding the university students. Even among them, a research scholar has a different form of attendance than PG or undergraduate students. Though the concept of attendance is the same, its form varies from institution to institution or group to group. It varies from proxy attendance to the highly liberated form where columns of presence and absence are filled arbitrarily, thus the formality of completing the register is done. It is in this light that JNU attendance should be taken into consideration. Every fool who has a little schooling understands the concept of attendance as it is generally prescribed i.e., 75% classes to be attended. When JNU VC declared 75% attendance mandatory for all students, irrespective of their classes, gradations and levels, he posed administratively a nave and funny problem. JNU already has a statuary provision for the same. What was the reason which prompted VC to reiterate the same? Naturally, under his nose, the concept of attendance was not seriously taken; rather it was unofficially permitted to avoid attending classes by students. The teachers do not regularly maintain the register of attendance and only under pressure and emerging situations they fill the columns as needed. The situations have always been the same or tell us how many students were detained in the previous session from appearing at the final examination due to shortage of prescribed attendance? The teachers know well how they maintain the register. Why and how suddenly this attendance ghost started haunting students?
In actuality, the mandatory 75% attendance came to light as retaliation against the sexual harassment cases filed by the girl students. There ought to be no connection between sexual harassment and attendance. But some of the professors created it as a defence against their immoral activities. These are two separate concepts. Even a student who does attend classes less than mandatory percentage has every right to complaint against the professor for sexual harassment and shortage of attendance cannot be made as an excuse. By mixing abruptly sexual harassment case with mandatory attendance the VC and some of the professors have confused the matter so as to punish the complainants. It is a clear case of mismanaging an educational institute which once had a good reputation. I wish that the attendance matter must be dropped or diluted in good faith so as to create conducive academic atmosphere. As for sexual harassment cases are concerned let them take a natural legal course. JNU sexual harassment cases have been followed by a movement first by a combined FIR and later on through individual FIRs which have made the whole situation farcical. JNU students are experts in creating a ‘movement’ but they are unable to fight their individual cause. JNU in this respect represents a confused group of some of its teachers and students and the present sexual harassment case, as has been clubbed with a mandatory attendance, is a real example of this confused scenario, retaliation, and defeatism on the part of its administration.
Delhi High Court has admonished JNU for not providing a safe environment for women students. The report of the fact-finding committee set up by JNU was an eyewash. It contained nothing substantial to know about what happened in the Lab No 409. Even both the parties were not called to give an explanation. What type of fact-finding committee it was? If it had no power why it was set up? VC is the weakest link in the whole affair. JNU must understand that there ought to be a permanent committee to deal with sexual harassment cases and setting up a temporary committee like the fact-finding committee is a violation of the law. Every institution employing or dealing with men and women must have a permanent set up to deal with sexual abuses. By mentioning committees after committees (GSCASH/FCC/ICC) and doing nothing or trying to buy time to protect its staff is a clear indication that JNU has never taken seriously the matter of sexual offenses. Hon’ble High Court/ Supreme Court is requested to set up SIT to look after the matter and bring JNU to book so that in future no such laxity in dealing with sexual matters be done by it. As long as a safe environment for women students is not provided, and VC does not submit an affidavit to the court (HC or SC) to this effect, girl students have every right not to attend classes, labs or research activities. JNU must be taught a strong lesson for its open violation of women rights.
