---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kafila <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM
Subject: [New post] Statement of Concerned Citizens and Feminists on the
Death of W R Varadarajan
To: [email protected]
<http://kafila.org/author/ponni/> Statement of Concerned Citizens and
Feminists on the Death of W R
Varadarajan<http://kafila.org/2010/03/03/statement-of-concerned-citizens-and-feminists-on-the-death-of-w-r-varadarajan/>
*ponni <http://kafila.org/author/ponni/>* | March 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM | Tags:
CPI(M) <http://kafila.org/tag/cpim/>,
feminism<http://kafila.org/tag/feminism/>,
tamilnadu <http://kafila.org/tag/tamilnadu/>,
w.r.varadarajan<http://kafila.org/tag/w-r-varadarajan/>| Categories:
Left
watch <http://kafila.org/category/left-watch/>,
Politics<http://kafila.org/category/politics/>| URL:
http://wp.me/pcwAA-10r
We, a group of concerned citizens and feminists wish to register our sorrow
and shock at the death of W R Varadarajan, member CPI (M). We also wish to
record our extreme unease at the manner in which crucial facts to do with
the events and circumstances that preceded his death appear to have been
deliberately ignored by the party leadership. That the party was aware of
these facts is evident from a letter that the late Varadarajan addressed to
CPI (M) General Secretary, Prakash Karat, and extracts from which were
reproduced in the Indian Express, New Delhi edition, dated 24. 02.2010.
Over the past two decades, women’s groups and civil rights groups across the
country have worked very hard on the issue of sexual harassment and set up
procedure and protocols to address it. Feminist debates have also expanded
our understanding of sexual and emotional choices, intimacy within and
outside marriage in very fundamental ways. With respect to the events that
preceded Varadarajan’s death, such critical debates are even more urgent and
necessary. It is because of this that we have drawn up this statement. In
doing so, we have drawn on Varadarajan’s letter –since this is the only
document to do with this matter that is currently circulating in the public
domain.
1. The letter places on record *Varadarajan’s extreme dissatisfaction at
the so-called enquiry* that was instituted into his *alleged* improper
behavior towards a woman – comprising his sending ‘inappropriate SMS’s to
her. Varadarajan notes in this letter that the enquiry panel’s probe cannot
meet ‘standards of justice or fairplay’. He also notes that the judgment
meted out to him – summary removal from all party posts - is completely out
of proportion to the offence and in fact ‘grossly unjust and severe, in the
backdrop of earlier cases of proven physical sexual relationship involving
Party members in Tamil Nadu at the level of CC Member to State Committee
Member.’
This statement is in stark contrast to Prakash Karat’s subsequent defense of
the party’s decision to relieve him of his posts and responsibilities. It
also raises significant questions about the party’s attempts to mourn him
posthumously.
2. From this letter it appears that the *enquiry committee had adopted a
procedure that raises a number of questions.*
(a) The enquiry was based on complaints made nine months after the alleged
behavior had transpired and by third party sources, in the absence of the
first person complainant.
(b) The enquiry committee arrived at its decision, solely on the basis of
oral statements and ‘telephone’ evidence given by third parties and not by
the first person complainant to the committee. In fact no written submission
was demanded from the first person complainant, as is usually the case,
making one wonder at the seriousness of those who subsequently took it up. *A
basic principle outlined in policies to deal with sexual harassment is that
no third party can complain even if it states that it is on behalf of a
complainant.* This is a necessary safeguard for two reasons: i) It rules out
the possibility of misuse by a third person for his/her own reasons as well
as moral policing by a person who is not personally aggrieved and ii) makes
the complainant the centre of the complaint, seeking redressal for herself
and ensures that the complaint is serious, and will be pursued by her. She
can also indicate what redressal she is seeking: an end the harassment, an
apology or any other mode of redressal.
(c) The ‘evidence’ adduced in favour of the complaint – the so-called SMS
messages – were not made available to Varadarajan or to members of the
committee.
(d) The ‘phone interview’ with the first complainant was not made in
Varadarajan’s presence – usually an enquiry is conducted in a way that both
parties are aware of the statements the other is making and has an
opportunity to respond to the statements before an enquiry is completed.
(e) In violation of procedure as it is observed in these cases, one of the
original complainants, a CC woman member was coopted to the committee –
where the prosecutor became the judge, vitiating thereby its commitment to
principles of natural justice and fair play.
3. It is also evident from the letter that *neither the original
complainants nor the enquiry committee appears to be clear about what they
were complaining about*. One of the complainants had alleged that
Varadarajan had a) sent inappropriate SMSs to a third party (who did not
participate in the proceedings) and b) that he had told the recipient of his
SMSs that he would divorce his wife and marry her. The second complainant
pressed the first charge, but not the second charge. Both these complainants
are not the actual parties involved.
The letter indicates that both Vardarajan and his wife subsequently took
steps to file for divorce by mutual consent but she was stopped from doing
so by the second complainant, who told her that this step would provoke
awkward publicity for the party. Instead, she was assured that the party
would take disciplinary action against her husband. It is noteworthy that
Varadarajan’s wife had written to the party even before the charge of
inappropriate behavior was brought against him, saying she wished to file
for divorce – for reasons that had nothing to do with her subsequent
complaint.
---
Given these questions that come to mind on reading Varadarajan’s letter, we
wonder at the committee’s understanding of his behaviour, since it is not at
all clear what the nature of the ‘impropriety’ was. This is important, to
repeat what we have said earlier, in view of the sustained efforts by
women’s groups over the last two decades to sharpen their understanding and
action with respect to sexual harassment and violence against women, in a
legal, procedural and political sense. It is ironic that the enquiry
committee comprised members from the All India Democratic Women’s
Association, which, in other contexts has been part of efforts to define
feminist protocols with respect to instances of sexual harrassment.
We wonder too if the enquiry committee members had not pre-judged the matter
at hand and acted in haste for reasons best known to themselves.
In view of these concerns we would like to raise a set of questions for
further thought and debate:
1. The enquiry instituted against Varadarajan appears to have been hasty,
ill-conceived and directed by motives that had little to do with the merits
of the case.
2. A reputed civil rights activists and women’s rights lawyer appears to
have begun the process that led to the enquiry – by stating she wanted to
make sure that Varadarajan turned away from the ‘wrong track’. A member of
the enquiry committee appears to have counseled Varadarajan’s wife to not
seek divorce since this would create ‘awkward publicity’. Both these
responses betray a stifling moral anxiety that we usually associate with
conservative and right wing opinion-makers, and not feminists or leftists.
Given the complex and sustained debates by feminists on questions of
marriage, family and intimacy, it is disheartening that older and oppressive
notions of morality appear to direct our actions.
3. The CPI (M) appears to have mangled the idea of human intimacy –
through resorting to an enquiry process that was deeply problematic. As
feminists and democrats, we are committed to a transparent public culture
that is willing to discuss seriously and responsibly issues of emotional and
sexual choice. Hasty and furtive action in these matters cannot but lead to
a tightening of patriarchal controls and encourage sexual and political
hypocrisy at home and in the world. A party that calls itself ‘communist’
surely needs to interrogate inherited and given notions of marriage,
conjugality and family – whatever the position it adopts, the least it can
do is to be open to debate and discussion.
4. Lastly, it would not do to dismiss away criticisms of the party’s
stand as ‘interference in its internal affairs’. This is not unlike what
errant and violent husbands say when charges of domestic abuse and violence
are brought against them. Now that Varadarajan’s letter is in the public
domain, it is important that the CPI (M) addresses questions that it raises
and account for their actions to the larger public.
Issued by Penngal Santhippu, Chennai (contact no: 98409-98517)
Signed/
A. Mangai, V. Geetha, Geeta Ramaseshan (for Penngal Santhippu)
Add a comment to this
post<http://kafila.org/2010/03/03/statement-of-concerned-citizens-and-feminists-on-the-death-of-w-r-varadarajan/#respond>
<http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/kafilabackup.wordpress.com/3871/>
<http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/kafilabackup.wordpress.com/3871/>
<http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/kafilabackup.wordpress.com/3871/>
<http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/kafilabackup.wordpress.com/3871/>
<http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/kafilabackup.wordpress.com/3871/>
[image: WordPress]
WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage
Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com?key=23c3e1c236acd2b20096cfbb8ce70980&email=kmvenuannur%40gmail.com>|
One-click
Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com?key=23c3e1c236acd2b20096cfbb8ce70980&email=kmvenuannur%40gmail.com&b=xkac9a%2CmJi%7C8VlFAQH%26BFCh%3FL%2F7qI%2F%25Kb9%5BXqKc>|
Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
by Email <http://support.wordpress.com/post-by-email/> feature.
--
You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a
nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will build on the
foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.
-AMBEDKAR
http://venukm.blogspot.com
http://www.shelfari.com/kmvenuannur
http://kmvenuannur.livejournal.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"humanrights movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.
