Category Archives: Work Place Sexual violence


To politicise the oppressed is to engage them in dialogue, to raise awareness and provide them with the knowledge necessary for them to emancipate themselves and society as a whole. The process of fighting for gender equality is commonly termed feminism. Yet unlike the other freedom movements of caste, race and class, in which the respective populace often agree that they are oppressed, women’s rights movement must contend with dismantling internalized beliefs that women’s subjugation is natural.

Heterosexual and familial relationships often command great social control. The replication of wider gender oppression within these smaller units is rife. Thus women are subjected to a ‘dual-oppression’: one domestic and the other social. This duality leads women to endure intra-antagonisms beyond those experienced by other oppressed groups. Sexism in many heterosexual domestic relationships is so naturalized that many women often dismiss or overlook it. One could even term this situation ‘tamed slavery’. Women are tamed through societal insistence on submissiveness as a desirable feminine trait, a process that privileges men and disempowers women.

Feminist movements have long put forward the theory of patriarchy as a structural method of analyzing gender oppression. The 1980s saw mainstream feminism’s increasing shift from this theory towards the concept of intersectionality. Crenshaw’s theory argues that the systemic oppression of women is multi-layered, interrelated, and influenced by intersecting systems of race, gender, class, ability, and ethnicity. Yet often missing from this broader analysis of oppression is an acknowledgement of the role of class. This approach allows for greater structural analysis of the present and provides a stronger framework on which a future egalitarian society might be based.

Oppression operates on both ideological and material levels. Gender, race, religion, caste, ability, nationality, sexuality and cultural oppressions have ideological origins while the roots of class oppression are material. Yet in practice both these categories overlap, as ideology cannot be enforced without material effects. Hegemony, the standardization of ruling class norms and the ensuing entrenchment of ruling class power, comes about through lived experience.
Feminism cannot afford to ignore the material conditions that give rise to the spectrum of gender oppression. A blinkered focus only on ideological factors results in too narrow an approach. Casting feminism as an isolated issue belies its strong links with other freedom movements and results in conflicts and hostility with other liberation struggles.

Let me ask this: would the abolition of patriarchy—the male domination structure—lead to the abolition of racial, religious, caste-based, sexuality-based, and ability-based oppression?

No. Not at all. Furthermore, with an atomized approach we cannot identify the root cause of this social discrimination. If we have to choose to eliminate one oppression after the other, it will again have its own consequences and antagonisms. Moreover, when the base is not altered, different variations of hegemony will manifest and emerge again over a period of time.

Oppression, an agent of hegemony, cannot have existed from time immemorial. We therefore need to probe into the historical evolution of the issue. In the case of women, we can see from historical studies that human beings lived in groups, as in communes, and, according to some studies, biological paternity was not considered an important issue. “It was long thought – and it still is believed in certain primitive matriarchal societies – that the father plays no part in conception…”[1]

In a matriarchal society women held higher positions to men, gathered food, went hunting, led the clan and people were not subjected to any form of oppression. We may call it primitive communism. “The communistic household implies the supremacy of women in the house… because of the impossibility of determining the natural father with certainty, signifies high esteem for women…”[2]
A study of the past society reveals that production did not happen for the accumulation of wealth; there were no ‘goods’, there was no money and essentially there was no buying of labour. Subsequently there was also no exploitation and no hegemony. “Production at all former stages of society were essentially collective, and, likewise, consumption took place by the direct distribution of the products within larger or smaller communistic communities.”[3]

Production of ‘things’ is necessary for human survival. It requires the use of raw materials, tools and auxiliary materials. Even if these are all available, production is not going to take place just by placing them next to each other: somebody has to work on it. Therefore, we require labour. We need both the means of production and labour in order to produce ‘things’. Developments in the production process led to division of labour and formation of classes. The conditions that contributed to the growth of the prevailing economic system became the social order of the society. Social scientists have codified various types of society as primitive (more or less communal), slave, feudal and capitalist. We shall deal with capitalist production that currently dominates the world economy and the feminist theory advocated by capitalism.

Under capitalism, production for survival turned into production for accumulation of wealth. Profit is not a natural mandate. It is harnessed by capitalists for accumulation of wealth, for which workers are subjected to ruthless working hours, under brutal working conditions. Marxists call this new value created by excess labour power ‘surplus value’ and this is appropriated by capitalists as profit. This appropriation of surplus value is the basis for the hegemonic social relations and its manifestations.

Karl Marx delineates the division of labour in the earlier modes of production and under capitalism, summarized below:
Under capitalism, division of labour is based on private property and thus the owner–wage labourer relationship that emerges in this system is hierarchical. The labour relationship under capitalism saw the emergence of new mode of compensation for the labourer in the form of wages [money]; things became ‘goods’, means of production[4]became capital[5], and the exploitative formula was termed ‘profit’. This system of purchasing labour power by the owner of the means of production and the appropriation of surplus as profit is called exploitation of labour. This mode of production and the economic system based on private property is called capitalism.

Let us first briefly analyse social relations and then probe into personal relations at household level, as the division of labour is visible in both.

We as humans have to produce and consume in order to survive. Production is an economic activity, and a determinant of human life. Thus, human beings on both an individual and social level are subjected to product and labour relations. If labour relations are exploitative and unfair, it is very apparent that the resultant social relations will also be exploitative and unfair.

If a mode of production and the resultant hegemonic social order are materially based, limiting the feminist struggle to only patriarchy or any such ideological forms would be deficient. For argument’s sake, if we agree that by eliminating patriarchy we manage to establish gender equality, how do we stop war and famine? How do we eliminate poverty? How do we eliminate the commodification of women’s bodies?

Manmade social order underpinned by unchecked desire for wealth engenders conflicts and it does not allow fair distribution. Karl Marx defines this as class antagonism in relation to property. He categorizes antagonistic groups as: 1) bourgeoisie (who own the means of production and whose source of income is profit), 2) land owners (whose income is rent from tenancy), 3) proletariat (who own labour and sell it for wages).

With an isolated approach on antagonisms and formation of state we appeal to the state to demand political reforms, ignorant of the fact that state is directly and indirectly ruled by those who control the means of production and that the state apparatuses only exist to support the existing hierarchies of power:
“As the state arose from the need to keep class antagonisms in check, but also arose in the thick of the fight between the classes, it is normally the state of the most powerful, economically ruling class, which by its means becomes also the politically ruling class, and so acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class….”[6]

Engels here demonstrates that the state and its legislative, judiciary, and military apparatuses will only work for the benefit of the ruling classes. Constant struggle may yield piecemeal reform. Yet as long as the economic system remains capitalist, we will not achieve equality: the internal logic of capitalism demands divide and rule to ensure a permanent disadvantaged, low-waged underclass.

To those who may argue that this argument is economically deterministic, and that patriarchy and other forms of oppression existed before class conflict arose, this denies the interrelatedness of social and economic disempowerment. Women, people of colour, LGBT folks, and people with disabilities comprise the lowest-paid members of the workforce, while many others are also homebound, drowning in poverty or pushed into sex work because of unemployment.

From the above discussion, it is clear thatthe evolution of society from communal living, to slavery, feudalism, and capitalism led to the creation of a modern system intent on producing profit and accumulating private property.The laws of commodity production and increase in wealth by those who possess of means of production further reduced any equality between men and women. The family became an economic unit of the society, in which sexual division of labour developed in line with the tools and mode of production. “According to the division of labor then prevailing in the family, the procuring of food and the implements necessary thereto, and therefore, also the ownership of the latter, fell to the man.”[7]

With developments in stages of production, a third division of labour was introduced in which the means of production were plundered and acquired by groups that took no part in production. “Here a class appears for the first time which, without taking part in production, captures the management of production as a whole and economically subjugates the producers to its rule … and exploits them both.”[8]Thus it is clear that working men, the owners of the means of production, were denuded of those means, and were subjugated into slave-labour under feudalism and later as wage-labour under capitalism. “The process, therefore, that clears the way for the capitalist system, can be none other than the process which takes away from the laborer the possession of his means of production; a process that transforms, on the one hand, the social means of subsistence and of production into capital, on the other, the immediate producers into wage laborers”.[9]

The pursuit of profit by the owners of the means of production established hegemonic dependency through the process of appropriation, enslavement, and institutionalisation of the domesticated women living with the male breadwinners, while increasing the dependency of the breadwinner on the owner of the means of production for their living requirements.

Once again, it becomes evident that economic conditions and the consequent social order form the root cause of enslavement, in this context the enslavement of women, and the consequent ideological-social categorisation. This categorisation—the valuation and devaluation of different categories of labour power—allows for cheap labour and thus for profit accumulation. Further,under manifested power relations as patriarchy and capitalism,Woman,with her reproductive capacity, is devalued as a commodity of labour and is looked upon as a reproductive unit responsible for sustenance of labour power through maintenance of the labourer,as well as the reproduction of new labour power through procreation.
Thus, now that we have examined a root cause, or at least a catalyst, of patriarchy, we must ask, what process will eliminate the hegemony that perpetuates gender discrimination for cheap labour and control over women’s reproductive capacity?
Answer: The end of capitalism—that which appropriated the means of production, that which enslaved us and subjugated us for the sake of attaining wealth, and made us dependent, even for basic survival; that which estranged labour; that which exploits the entire human race irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, and even religion. Capitalism must be overthrown and a new mode of production based upon collective ownership over means of production established.

It is not in my aim to replace feminism with Marxism, yet the Marxist approach aims to liberate far more women than does bourgeois feminism, which is concerned primarily with eliminating patriarchy. The bourgeoisie feminist flock (of any gender and sexuality) that demands economic empowerment based on the female accumulation of private property is not egalitarian. What must be remembered here is that

“The granting of political equality to women does not change the actual balance of power. The proletarian woman ends up in the proletarian, the bourgeois woman in the bourgeois camp. We must not let ourselves be fooled by Socialist trends in the bourgeois women’s movement which last only as long as bourgeois women feel oppressed”.[10]

However, though the bourgeoisie is the capitalist class,[11]the bourgeoisie feminist ideology, the ideology of the ruling class, often influences and embraces all classes of women, including the proletariat. Working class women, ignorant of the self-interested nature of bourgeois politics, are frequently seduced by its ideology and fall into libertarian camps.

It is from this understanding and position of solidarity on humanitarian basis, Marxists express solidarity to all women’s movements:
“.. this movement also contains a more profound spiritual and moral aspect. The bourgeois woman not only demands her own bread but she also requests spiritual nourishment and wants to develop her individuality… The economic as well as the intellectual and moral endeavors of bourgeois women’s rights advocates are completely justified”.[12]

Furthermore, Marx says:
“In short, the communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these Movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time”.[13]

In conclusion, patriarchy, though it may be a quasi-independent, as argued by bourgeoisie, in the present historical condition, it is comprised in or is absorbed by capitalism. Oppression is an exploitative mechanism and thus sex-based oppression is also found in capitalism with the motive providing cheap labour and higher profit. In the Indian context, this is further intensified by caste—another form of division of labour. Thus, patriarchy has become constituent of capitalism. Hence it is obvious that when the exploitation of labour based on private property is abolished and a socialist division of labour is established, patriarchy will also wither away[14]in the state, because under such equitable conditions, relationships between men and women will be more natural, as family will no longer be the economic unity of profit-oriented production.

“Men and women will not be bound together by pre-determined roles and notions of what is or is not ‘natural’, or out of economic necessity. Rather they will be free to enter into relationships which are suited to the emotional needs of the particular individuals concerned”.[15]

It is in this context that Marxist feminists suggest that the feminist struggle should be directed in the line of class struggle, alongside fighting the patriarchy. Such revolutionary struggles will carry the fight for: 1) equal division of household labour, 2) property rights 3) decision-making rights 4) fight for physical, cultural, and economic rights 5) fight for equal social division of labour of all and abolition of private property.

The eruption of the feminist self and of feminist politics if not anchored by class politics, if not brought into dialogue with socialist class struggle, will lose the at the emancipation of proletariat women. So, if feminism intends to be all-encompassing, then socialism[16]is its guiding light. The new type of socialist society following the dictatorship of the Proletariat will not only be gender balanced, but also free of exploitation of labour, thus eliminating the encumbrance and conflicts arising out of dual labour. Such an existence will truly be a higher form[17]of living.

[1]Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, Vintage, 1977, pg. 39
[2]F. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Progress Publishers, pg. 49
[3]F. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Progress Publishers, pg 170
[4]Simplified and generalized for the sake of briefing, natural resources and labour have been included in it, but labour is autonomous.
[5]Karl Marx explains it in detail in his works.
[7]F. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Progress Publishers, pg 55
[8]F. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Progress Publishers, pg 162
[9]Karl Marx, Capital Volume 1, pg.668
[10]Clara Zetkin,
[11]“Bourgeoisie: Engels described the Bourgeoisie as the class of great Capitalists, who in all developed Countries are now almost exclusively in possession of all the means of Consumption, and of the raw materials and instruments (machines, factories), necessary for their production (Principles of Communism, 1847); and as ‘the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour’…. The Bourgeoisie, as in this sense the Economically dominant class, which also controls the State apparatus and Cultural production, stands in opposition to, and in conflict with, the working class….”, Tom Bottomore, A dictionary of Marxist Thought, edited by Tom Bottomore, A Maya Blackwell book, 2ndedition. P. 36.
[12]Clara Zetkin,
[13]Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto, combined edition with Economic and Philosphic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx, translated by Martin Milligan, Prometheus Books, New York, 1988. P. 243
[15]F. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Progress Publishers, pg. 162
[16]As defined by Marx and Lenin, Socialism is essentially a transitional stage on the road to communism.
[17]Being a transitional stage it will be, as called by Marx ‘the higher stage of communist society’, under which the state will wither away, a totally different attitude to work will prevail, and society will be able to inscribe on its banner the motto ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’. Tom Bottomore, A dictionary of Marxist Thought, edited by Tom Bottomore, A Maya Blackwell book, 2ndedition. P. 500,501.

Originally Published in:

To Read in Tamil:

My Body My Weapon

kWhatsApp Image 2019-03-15 at 1.58.24 PM


Are we Humans?



Are we Humans?

GOD & Religion were born out of exploitative conditions favoring Ruling Class to oppress women and laborers. Is it sinful to speak against GOD when whole of India is crying for the brutal rape & murder of the 8 year old chid ASIFA?

While we have to demand Justice for any religious atrocities which are further proving to be dangerous for children, isn’t it highly important for a society to understand that No Religion or any Prophet or any Religious Reformist can ‘civilize’ Human Beings. Religion is an Institution! An institution to dominate, oppress and make wealth for the Rich Class. It discriminates one another by claiming superiority or purity over others. Thus hate and power becomes its Instinct. Arrogance and brutality becomes its foundation.

As humans capable of thinking, what is stopping us from being rational? What is stopping us from asking this very simple question – when so many GODs are available, why not even one is able to STOP such brutalities?

Let us not counter this question with answers like ‘Sin’ & ‘Re-birth’! Is it rational? If we are convinced with ‘Sin’ & ‘Virtue’ then why are we shedding tears for Asifa? If we believe in someone being ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ person, then why are we seeking justice from Court? Come – let us sing aloud to invoke the ‘Good God’ to take an avatar to kill the ‘Asura’? If we are going to say that No Religion encourages Rape or preaches ‘bad’ things, please go back to your religious texts and read what it says about Women and laboring class.

We claim ourselves to be ‘Humans’ – i.e Humans who have six senses, who can think and who has the ability to reason out. When we call ourselves Humans, it denotes the evolution from savagery and barbaric stages in which human beings were not aware of Nature. They could not understand the effects, changes and disasters caused in Nature. They had to find solace by worshiping it or seeking its grace for a healthy life. They had to cling on to something to help themselves from the fear of destruction. This belief / superstition later developed into Religion and GODs emerged out of exploitative conditions that enabled one group of people to accumulate wealth & power. While on one hand this group which emerged as Ruling Class and State oppressed and appropriated the wealth of the other Tribes through weapons & ‘Army’, it also ‘produced’ Religious Texts and Morals to make people subservient on their own – i.e willingly surrender to the POWER, the power of Kings / Masters (today it is Capitalist) in the name of GOD; in the name of ‘Paavam’ & ‘Punniyam’. Thus Religion is the most cunning and oppressive tool created by the Mankind for selfish reasons.

We as human beings capable of thinking, learning and functioning only through our senses, isn’t it strange and stupid to believe that something exists beyond our senses? Yes there are umpteen things in nature that humans have not yet explored, but how is worshiping GOD going to help us explore them? Don’t we agree that all explorations are the outcome of Human Brain and effort? Ain’t we able to reason out that the images / morals are only reflecting the same Human Life with all perversion and inequality? Having lived for ages and ages, we are only witnessing more cruelty day by day rather than ‘Dasavathara’ that can kill these evils.

I request those brothers and sisters who shed tears for Asifa or Nirbhaya or any human being to first question their beliefs, because it is US  (the believers in Religion, Caste & any such non-materialistc Idealism) who are blockades to Justice, the real justice that will establish equality in this society. We believers – the unscientific idealists are the protectors of the hegemony that sanction authority to ‘teach lesson’ to our ‘enemies’. We believe in ‘destroying’ & ‘punishing’ the ‘bad people’ without questioning the (ruling class) dictionary that defines something as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, something as ‘good or ‘bad’, something as ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’. We believers do not question the reason for the existence of such conflicting conditions such as good / bad, rich / poor, pure / impure, powerful / powerless, Religion vs Religion, Caste vs Caste, Sex vs Sex, Race vs Race etc., we are happily convinced with the ‘Paavam’ / ‘Punniyam’ story or ‘Good’ person vs ‘bad person’. At the best we may blame a Mother for the ‘bad’ upbringing of a child.

A human being could be a ‘believer’ either because of ignorance or out of selfishness (the later being the top most reason though). Yes as humans if we are not able to question the beliefs, rather FAITH that sanctions authority to very few to use those beliefs against a fellow human being to harass, to kill, to rape, to oppress and to exploit  then are we worthy enough to call ourselves ‘civilized human beings’?

#JusticeforAsifa #Unnao #VAW #Patriarchy


சிறார் குற்றவாளியின் வயது


அச்சம் தவிர் அறிவு கொள்

13 14 15 16

Dress Code – a social ignorance


5th September, 2103 – Puthiya Thalimurai Tv invited to participate in a debate that was scheduled to discuss about the proposal prepared by The directorate of collegiate education. The proposal recommends to impose # dresscode for students. Students are expected to be banned from wearing T-shirts, while jeans and sleeveless shirts will be off limits for female students. “Boys will be asked to wear formal outfits, like shirts and trousers, while girls will have to be in salwars or saris. –

Related Video and my comments:

Victim Blaming is the most adapted strategy in our society. Whole world is no exception to that. Particularly, when it comes to #sexual #violence #against #women there is an outcry with the  ‘male tongue’ which points out to dress, behavior, attitude etc. If one has to put it in a crude manner with a Tamil dictum it shouts saying “break the legs of the women and lock her home, then everything will be alright”

The proposal by Ms. Senthamizh Selvi, The directorate of collegiate education is as equal as saying so. This directorate is representing the Arts and Science College. It is said that dress code has already been imposed in few Engineering Colleges. We do not know if it is not important for Medical Colleges and other institutions.

Distraction, Protection against Sexual assault, dignity and morality has been the primary reason often spoken by such people. If a man is getting distracted by seeing a women dressed ‘sexy’, then it is going to be the same case with Women also. Not only on the account of being sexy, but depending on color, design, fashion and style one would get curios or attracted towards other person irrespective of gender. One of the panelist Mr. Manushyaputhran asked that a person may also get distracted over the other person because of his / her looks, ‘beauty’ etc, so what are we going to about it? He sarcastically pointed out that, more than students, it is the faculty that gets distracted with dress and looks of the other person.

Not only that a student my feel distracted because of the teaching standards of the professor, attitude of the professor, the institution’s approach etc. He / She may be even be distracted or travel in his / her own world because some issues in the family or society. May be the Institutions might even say that if a person feels distracted, then would be dismissed. An energetic brain is bound to think too many things at the same time. It is quite natural. It is said that brain (waves) travel faster than the sound waves. Not only ‘decent-closed’ dress, any damn thing on this earth is not going to be able to stop this. May be the Professor’s teaching methodology and the experience an Institution gives may be of some help.

Secondly, it is about Sexual Conduct. I have been writing about the ‘freedom’ that is granted to women in an Globalized Era under Capitalism. I have even put forward some harsh realities and psycho-graphics. However, they are meant to be a discourse with my fellow beings. It is knowledge dissemination with the observations that I make and intended to educate, expose, create awareness about the external factor that conditions our mind about Status, Pseudo Radicalism by means of “fashion”. We need to debate on it and make everyone understand that those dresses emphasize that Women is all about Flesh and Beauty. We should point out on the dangers of consumerist Slavery. It is important for women (& men) to know about Retaining their Self-Respect without falling prey to such ‘fashion statements’. Making it Rules and Codes is to be defined as Dictatorship. The people who oppose this does not seem to have understood the ‘Dress Politics’ in an Globalized Era, they are not sensitive about liberal Economy.  This perception is a blatant result of Patriarchy.

People further ask – Dress code in institution is going to be for 5 hours, is that enough to change someone’s mind? How is it going help curb violence outside the campus? There is a lots to do to improve the quality of education in an institution, is dress code a priority? These questions are justified. But the answers seem to be “I am concerned about what you do inside my campus (limits), outside that I am not bothered”. What kind of Social Concern is this? One of the Panelist who happens to be a professor said that “If it comes here, it will come outside as well”. This is the standard of the education institutions here. She used a phrase called ‘Hieghts of Feminism’. Quite funny. What is Feminism?  Is it amount feminity? Is it about being Women? There has been numerous discussion put forward by Feminists on what is Feminity (or gender – the social construction). These ‘Professors’ don’t seem to have read them at all.

Another Panelist Ms. Banu Goms said that ‘Women’s anatomy would definitely stimulate a Man, hence women should not ‘provoke’ men with their dresses”. It sounded like I live in barbaric era. Talking about the Capitalistic Dominance on a Women’s Body and Psyche makes sense. Instead she argued saying it is ‘scientific’. ‘Biological’ instincts is different from saying it is scientific. And even such instincts arouse naturally, then it applies to women as well. But women have been oppressed on grounds of Morality, Virginity, Chastity etc and they have suppressed their emotions for centuries. In fact by now the genes have got mutated. Another panelist Ms. Suseenthra a student asked “Will a man be aroused on seeing a Mother’s breasts while she is serving food”. Ms. Banu reacted immediately out of ‘Cultural Shock’ saying, “Oh how can you talk so vulgar?” This testifies her ‘intellect’. If we say even Women get ‘orgasm’, I am sure she would have commented ‘you seem to be sex maniac’.

Manushyaputhiran shared a different view about Uniforms. Our society is drowned with unequal distribution of wealth and Caste indifference, hence we cannot completely accept that view, however it is important the we encourage discourse around the point that ‘uniforms are a part of Institutionalizing and pseudo discipline’. Dress has become a status symbol and the society has been brain washed enough. So we have to analyze both ends.

One set of People argue that ‘Conduct’ is in mind, others say, if we loose our senses (body) everything is lost. We have to understand that Heart, Body everything is same. Brain is the basis of everything. What is stored in our brain appears as visuals and thoughts in us. We call that as ‘mind’ (or heart). What is stored in brain is a result of social conditioning and it is very hard to change that.

While I walk out after the program, Vasumithra called to ask “People (professors) are saying that dress code is important to save students from distraction.. but we have instances where teachers, professors and chancellors (male) indulge in sexual harassment and even Rape the students. Will someone be able to guarantee that the professors will not indulge in sexual harassment against women those who dress ‘decently’?”

Moreover Homo Sexual harassment is also quite common in Institutions. What will those People say about ‘Men’s dress’ in this case?

It may not be surprising if they again defend by saying it is the problem with the ‘dress’, ‘attitude’ etc.

In memoir of Gayathri, a student belonging to Arunthathiyar Caste, whose death is still mysterious. She studied in Vivekananda College, Thiruchenkode and is said that she was sexually harassed and raped by the faculty. I can certainly say that she was not wearing ‘sexy’ clothes….

To read in Tamil:

பணியிடங்களில், பெண்களுக்கு பாலியல் ரீதியான தொந்தரவுகள்



பணியிடங்களில், பெண்களுக்கு பாலியல் ரீதியான தொந்தரவுகள் தருவோர் மீது விசாரித்து நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க புதிய சட்டம் ஒன்று இயற்றப்பட்டுள்ளது. லோக் சபா மற்றும் ராஜ்யசபாவில் இந்த சட்டம் ஏற்று கொள்ளப்பட்டு, பின் ஜனாதிபதி ஒப்புதலும் வாங்கி தற்போது நடைமுறைக்கு வந்துள்ளது

இது பற்றிய தகவல்கள் சிறு கேள்வி பதில் வடிவில் :

எந்தெந்த நிறுவனங்கள் இதனை பின் பற்ற வேண்டும் ?

அனைத்து நிறுவனங்களும் – அவ்வளவு ஏன் – வீட்டி பணிபுரியும் பணிப்பெண் கூட பாலியல் சீண்டல்களுக்கு ஆளானால், இச்சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கம்பிளேயின்ட் தரலாம். நிறுவனங்கள், சிறு கடைகள், ஹோட்டல்கள், அரசு துறை நிறுவனங்கள் என எல்லா இடங்களுக்கும் இச்சட்டம் பொருந்தும்

இந்த சட்டத்தில் முக்கியமாக என்ன சொல்லப்பட்டுள்ளது ?

ஒரு பெண் பாலியல் சீண்டல்களுக்கு ஆளானால், அவர் அது பற்றி, பணி புரியும் இடத்தில் புகார் தரலாம். ஒவ்வொரு நிறுவனமும் இதற்காக ” Internal Complaints committee ” ஒன்றை அமைக்க வேண்டும்.

இந்த கமிட்டியில் எத்தனை உறுப்பினர் இருக்க வேண்டும், யார் யாரெல்லாம் இருக்க வேண்டும் என்ற விபரங்களை இந்த சட்டம் விரிவாக கூறுகிறது

மேலும் புகார் உண்மை – என்றால் அதன் மேல் தகுந்த நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கவும் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது. பொய்யான குற்ற சாட்டுகள் தரப்பட்டால் அப்படி தந்த பெண் மீது நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கலாம் என்றும் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது

ஒவ்வொரு நிறுவனமும் Internal Complaints கமிட்டி அமைக்க வேண்டுமா ? உதாரணமாக 5 பேர் வேலை செய்யும் ஒரு மருந்து கடையில் ஒரே ஒரு பெண் இருந்தால் அங்கும் Internal Complaints கமிட்டி அமைக்கணுமா ?

10 அல்லது அதற்கு மேற்பட்ட நபர்கள் வேலை பார்க்கும் எந்த நிறுவனம் அல்லது கடையும் (அங்கு ஒரே ஒரு பெண் ஊழியர் இருந்தால் கூட) இந்த கமிட்டி அமைக்க வேண்டும்.

அரசாங்கம் ஒவ்வொரு ஏரியாவிலும் சில லோக்கல் கமிட்டிகள் அமைக்கவும் சட்டம் பரிந்துரை செய்துள்ளது. 10 க்கு குறைவான நபர்கள் ஒரு நிறுவனம் அல்லது கடையில் வேலைக்கு இருந்தால் அங்கு நிகழும் இத்தகைய குற்றங்களை லோக்கல் கமிட்டி முன்பு எந்த பெண்ணும் கொண்டு செல்லலாம்

Internal Complaints கமிட்டியில் யார் யாரெல்லாம் உறுப்பினர் ஆக இருக்க வேண்டும்?

கமிட்டியில் குறைந்தது 4 உறுப்பினர் இருக்க வேண்டும். கமிட்டியின் தலைவராக ஒரு பெண் தான் இருக்க வேண்டும். அவர் அலுவலகத்தில் சீனியர் நிலையில் இருக்கும் பெண்மணியாய் இருத்தல் நலம். கமிட்டியின் மொத்த உறுப்பினர்களில் குறைந்தது பாதி பேர் பெண்களாக இருக்க வேண்டும். 4 பேர் கொண்ட கமிட்டி எனில் – குறைந்தது 2 பெண்கள்; 5 பேர் உள்ள கமிட்டி எனில் குறைந்தது 3 பெண்கள் இருத்தல் அவசியம்

இந்த கமிட்டியில் நிறுவனத்தில் பணி புரியாத ஒரு வெளி நபரும் இருக்க வேண்டும். இவர் சேவை நிறுவனங்களுடன் (NGO) தொடர்புடையவராக இருத்தல் அவசியம்

ஒரே ஊரில் இருக்கும் நிறுவனத்தின் ஒவ்வொரு கிளைக்கும் ஒரு கமிட்டி அவசியமா? வெளியூரில் இருக்கும் ப்ராஞ்ச்களுக்கும் கமிட்டி தேவையா ?

ஆம் உள்ளூர் அல்லது வெளியூர் எங்கு கிளை அலுவல்கம் இருந்தாலும் அங்கும் இத்தகைய கமிட்டி அவசியமே.

தனது மேலதிகாரியான பெண் அதிகாரி தனக்கு செக்ஸ் டார்ச்சர் தருகிறார் என ஒரு ஆண் ஊழியர் இந்த சட்டத்தின் கீழ் புகார் தர முடியுமா?

இல்லை இந்த சட்டம் முழுக்க முழுக்க பெண்களை பாது காக்க மட்டுமே இயற்றப்பட்டது. சட்டத்தின் தலைப்பிலேயே “பெண்களை பாதுகாக்க ” என கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

ஒரு ஆண் அதிகாரி ( Gay ) தனக்கு செக்ஸ் டார்ச்சர் தருகிறார் என இன்னொரு ஆண் ஊழியர் இந்த சட்டத்தின் கீழ் புகார் தர முடியுமா?

முடியாது மேலே சொன்ன காரணம் தான்.பெண்கள் மட்டுமே இந்த சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கம்பிலேயின்ட் தர முடியும்

ஒரு பெண் ஊழியர் மற்ற சக ஊழியர்களை விட – தனது மேனேஜர் மேல் செக்ஸ் கம்பிலேயின்ட் தந்தால் அது சீரியசாக எடுத்து கொள்ளப்படும் என்பது உண்மையா ? ஏன் ?

ஆம். சக ஊழியர் மேல் தரும் செக்ஸ் கம்பிலேயின்ட் விட- தான் ரிப்போர்ட் செய்யும் மேனேஜர் மேல் அதே புகார் தந்தால் அதன் விளைவு அதிகம் தான்.
காரணம் ஒரு மேனேஜர் தான் தன் கீழே இருப்போருக்கு வருடாந்திர அப்ரைசல், ப்ரோமோஷன், லீவு என எல்லாவற்றையும் ஓகே செய்ய வேண்டும். இந்த அதிகாரத்தை அவர் தவறாக நடக்க முயல்வது பெரும் குற்றமாக கருதப்படும்

இங்கு அந்த குற்றம் மட்டுமல்ல தனது பதவியை தவறாக பயன்படுத்தினார் என்பதால் தண்டனை அதிகமாகவே ( அநேகமாக வேலை இழப்பு) இருக்கும்
இது புதிய சட்டம் என்பதால் இது பற்றி விரிவாய் பேச எங்கள் ஸ்டடி சர்க்கிளில் இருந்து ஒரு மீட்டிங் ஏற்பாடு செய்துள்ளோம். அதன் அழைப்பிதழ் இது…

இதை வாசிக்கும் நீங்கள் HR அல்லது லீகல் பீல்டில் இருந்தால் நிச்சயம் நீங்களும் கலந்து கொள்ளலாம் அல்லது உங்கள் நிறுவன HR மேனஜர்க்கு இந்த பதிவை அல்லது மீட்டிங் குறித்த அறிவிப்பை அனுப்பி, முடிந்தால் கலந்து கொள்ள சொல்லுங்கள் !

source: – via by Siva Kumar

Eclipsing women’s rights: sexual harassment at Sun TV — NWMI statement

NWMI demands immediate reinstatement of woman journalist
The Network of Women in Media, India, an independent forum of media professionals across the country, condemns the continued victimisation of a complainant of sexual harassment, and demands her immediate reinstatement. We also demand an independent inquiry into the case and the setting up –as required by law– of formal mechanisms to redress sexual harassment at the Chennai-based Sun TV.

The background

S Akila joined Sun TV Chennai in December 2011 as a news anchor/news producer. Ever since she joined, V Raja, the Chief Editor, and Vetrivendhan, the Reporters’ Co-ordinator, indicated that the confirmation of her job and subsequent pay rise depended on the ‘compromises’ she was willing to make. This was apparently not the first time they had made such demands, but due to the hostile and intimidating atmosphere at the office, few women had been able to resist. As a result of her refusal to concede to their demands of sexual favours in return for job security and pay hikes, her confirmation remained pending even after completing the six-month probationary period.

Meanwhile, in November 2012, Ms Akila’s Diwali bonus was withheld. When she raised the issue with Mr Raja, he asked her to get in touch with him over the phone after reaching home. Upon phoning him, he told her that she had been confirmed and that she should “take care of him” for the favour. Ms Akila terminated the call, but managed to record the conversation.

When Mr Raja realised that she was not coming around, he kept harassing her in different ways, including verbally abusing her in front of her colleagues. On January 21, he summoned her to his cabin and threatened her with dire consequences if she went public with a complaint of harassment. Soon thereafter, in contravention of the norm of assigning shifts, he put her on morning shifts for several weeks, which required her to leave her residence at 3.30 am in order to be at office at 5 am, since the office did not arrange for morning pick-up. Questioning the unusual assigning of a continuous morning shift, she confronted Mr Raja on February 26. He informed her that she was continuously on the gruelling morning shift because she was not “adjusting” to him. After serving the morning shift for another few weeks while struggling with domestic responsibilities, things became unbearable. Ms Akila then approached the police on March 19 and filed a complaint of sexual harassment. On the same day, Mr Raja was arrested under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Two days later, Mr Vetrivendhan was also arrested on the same charges.

Continued harassment

However, the arrest of the harassers was only a continuation of the nightmare. Soon after Mr. Raja’s arrest, Ms Akila received an anonymous phone call by someone threatening to kill her. In a move to isolate her at the workplace, her friend Mr Kannan who was aware of the harassment and was supportive of her, was suspended on grounds of a complaint filed by colleagues who refused to work with him or Ms Akila. When Ms Akila reported to the office on March 25, she was not assigned any work. As per schedule, she was to anchor the 12 noon news bulletin, but she was not allowed to go on air. In a complete travesty of justice, on March 26, Mr Raja who was by then out on bail, joined work, and the next day, Ms Akila was handed a suspension order. Thus, a woman who resisted sexual harassment and stood up to demands for sexual favours has been further victimised.

It must be noted that there is no redressal mechanism at Sun TV for complaints of sexual harassment. This is in contempt of the Guidelines issued in 1997 by the Honourable Supreme Court in the Vishakha case, which places an obligation on every establishment in the country to ensure the rights of women workers by creating a conducive workplace free from sexual harassment. These principles of gender equity and labour rights are also enshrined in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2012 which was passed by both houses of Parliament and is only awaiting the President’s assent.

Our demands:

1) Immediate reinstatement of S Akila

2) Payment of damages for mental trauma

3) Immediate suspension of V Raja pending an independent inquiry as well as the police investigation into the case

4) Independent inquiry into the case, by a team that includes independent, third-party lawyers, journalists and women’s rights activists

5) As a longer-term measure, setting up of an Internal Complaints Committee as per the Vishaka Guidelines.

6) Establishment of Complaints Committees in all media houses as per the Vishakha Guidelines and the new law once it comes into force.


The Network of Women in Media, Working Council
1. Ammu Joseph, Bangalore

2. Kalpana Sharma, Mumbai

3. Laxmi Murthy, Bangalore

4. Rajashri Dasgupta, Kolkata

5. Sandhya Taksale, Pune

6. Sameera Khan, Mumbai

7. Ranjita Biswas, Kolkata

8. Malti Mehta, Ahmedabad

9. K A  Beena, Thiruvananthapuram

10. Sonal Kellogg, Delhi

11. Parul Sharma, Delhi

12. Padmalatha Ravi, Bangalore

13. Melanie Priya Kumar, Bangalore

14. Chitra Ahanthem, Imphal

15. Manjira Mojumdar, Kolkata

16. Sharmila Joshi, Mumbai

17. Sandhya Srinivasan, Mumbai

18. Pushpa Achanta, Bangalore

19. Meena Menon, Mumbai

March 28, 2013



அகிலாவுக்கு ஆதரவு, சன் நிறுவனத்திற்கு கண்டனம்


*பெண்  ஊடகவியலாளர்கள் விடுக்கும் பத்திரிகைச்செய்தி*


பெண்கள் தங்களுக்கு நேர்ந்ததை பொதுவாக வெளியில் சொல்ல அச்சப்படும் சூழல்
நிலவும் நிலையில் தன்னை பாலியல் ரீதியாக தொந்தரவு செய்தவர்கள் குறித்து
புகார்கள் அளிக்கப்படும்போது புகார் அளிப்பவரையே குற்றவாளியாக மாற்றிவிடும்
விநோதம் இங்கே நிகழ்கிறது. புகார் அளிக்கும் பெண்களுக்கு உரிய பாதுகாப்பு
இல்லை. அண்மையில் அப்படி புகார் அளித்து தனது மேலதிகாரியின் கைதுக்கு காரணமான சன் டிவி செய்தி வாசிப்பாளர் அகிலாவுக்கு கொலை மிரட்டல் வந்ததாக‌ அவர் தெரிவிக்கிறார். மேலும்அவர் பணியாற்றும் நிறுவனத்திலேயே அவருக்கு செய்தி
வாசிக்க வாய்ப்பு வழங்காமல் பழிவாங்கப்பட்டதுடன்,  அகிலாவை தற்போது இடைநீக்கம் செய்திருக்கிறது சன் டிவி நிர்வாகம். பாலியல்ரீதியாக இணங்க மறுக்கும் பெண்களை திறமை போதவில்லை என்று காரணம் காட்டி, அதிகாரத்தைபயன்படுத்தி ஒடுக்குவது போன்ற மோசமான செயல்பாடுகளிலும் பணியிடத்தில் உள்ள மேலதிகாரிகள் ஈடுபடுவதைத் தடுத்தாகவேண்டும். சன் டிவி நிர்வாகத்தின் இந்த செயலுக்கு பெண் ஊடகவியலாளர்களாகிய நாங்கள் கடும் கண்டனத்தைத் தெரிவிக்கிறோம்.

1997ல் விசாகா எதிர் இராஜஸ்தான் அரசு வழக்கில் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் வழங்கிய
தீர்ப்பின்படி, வேலை செய்யும்இடங்களில் பெண்களுக்கு இழைக்கப்படும் பாலியல்
தொல்லைகளைத் தடுப்பதற்குரிய வழிகாட்டு நெறிகளைநீதிமன்றம்  வகுத்தது. இது போன்ற முறையீடுகளை ஆய்வு செய்வதற்கு உள் விசாரணைக் குழுக்களைஅமைக்குமாறு வேலையளிப்போரைக் கேட்டுக் கொள்வதும் இவ்வழிகாடுதல்களில்  அடங்கும். ஆனால இதுபெரும்பாலான இடங்களில் இல்லை. இப்படியான ஒரு குழுவை அமைப்பது அவசியம்.
பெண்களுக்கு எதிரான பாலியல் வன்கொடுமைகளுக்கான அவசரச் சட்டம் தற்போது
நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் நிலுவையில் இருக்கிறது. அந்தச் சட்டம் நிறைவேற்றப்பட்டால்
இக்குழுவை கட்டாயமாக அனைத்து பணியிடங்களிலும் அமைத்தாக வேன்டும்.விசாகா குழு வழிகாட்டுதலின்படி பாலியல் குற்றங்கள் கிரிமினல் குற்றங்களாகக் கருதப்படவேண்டும். புகார் அளிக்கும் பெண்கள்தொடர்ந்து நிறுவனத்தில் பணியாற்றும்படியான சூழலையும் உருவாக்க வேண்டும். பாலியல்
தொல்லைகொடுத்தவர்களுக்கு ஆதரவு அளித்து, பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளான பெண்ணை ஒதுக்கி வைக்கும் செயலை  பெண்ஊடகவியலாளர்களாகிய நாங்கள் வன்மையாகக் கண்டிக்கிறோம்.

பெண் ஊடகவியலாளர்களாகிய நாங்கள் விசாகா குழுவை உடனடியாக ஒவ்வொரு
நிறுவனத்திலும் அமைக்கும்படிகோருகிறோம்.உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் இந்த விஷயத்தில்
மிகவும் முனைப்புடன் இருப்பதால், ஊடக நிறுவனங்களில் இத்தகைய குழு ஒன்றை
அமைப்பது மிகவும் முக்கியமானதென்று நாங்கள் கருதுகிறோம். பாலியல்ரீதியாக
தொல்லைகள் தருபவர்களை கையாளுவதற்கு இந்தக் குழு மிகவும் உதவிகரமாக இருக்கும்.

பெண்களுக்கு இழைக்கப்படும் அநீதிகளில் எப்பொழுதும் பெண்களின் பக்கம்
நிற்கிறோம் நாங்கள் என்பதைஇந்த அறிக்கை மூலம் தெரிவிக்கிறோம்.மேலும் இதுபோன்ற விஷயங்கள் தொடரும்பட்சத்தில், அதிகாரத்தை பயன்படுத்தி அத்துமீறல்களைச் செய்வது தொடர்ந்தால் பாதிக்கப்படும் பெண்களின் பக்கம் நின்று போராட்டங்களை முன்னெடுப்போம் என்றும் அறிவிக்கிறோம்.

பெண்  ஊடகவியலாளர்கள்
தொடர்புக்கு 9841155371, 9159486669