Aparna Jain - For everyone who asks why women delay harassment complaints, remember the TERI case
I can’t remember the last time I was so infuriated. I had just heard the news of RK Pachauri
being reinstated as executive vice chairman of TERI by its governing council.
It was even more galling because the message that was being sent out to women
in the corporate world was this: No matter what an internal prevention of sexual
harassment committee finds, we will protect the accused. The safety of women in
the corporate workplace is not a priority.
With this callous action, the governing council of TERI has
reinforced what most women in Corporate India have been told for years: If you
want a decently remunerated career, you will have to put up with whatever we
dole out, everything from bias to bullying to full-scale harassment.
I have spent the past 18 months interviewing over 170
women for a book on the experiences of women in the workplace in Corporate
India called Own It, and almost everyone had a story to tell,
relating to everything from discrimination to verbal harassment and sexual
transgressions. And yet, despite the pervasive incidents, these stories were
narrated under a shroud of silence, with my firm reassurance that I would not
name them. That in itself was telling.
Many women had complained — only to be told to move
departments where “things would be easier” or that things would improve after a
“chat” with the offender. When I asked women why they did not use the internal
harassment machinery and committees to complain, they laughed, saying the
committees were an eyewash, in existence only because of mandatory laws. They
served the interests of the company, of the rainmakers, of the senior
executives and not of the complainants.
One woman was approached by a large MNC to be on their
internal committee as the external person for a specific case. But she was
groomed and given a backstory about how the company felt about it. In other
words, she was being quietly informed about how the complaint had to go:
Unsurprisingly, in favour of the senior male leader.
Another woman was offered a large sum of money to keep quiet
and leave quietly. With EMIs to pay and being clear that no resolution would be
reached internally, she took the money. This
is why I was so infuriated.
The governing council among which are stalwarts like Naina
Lal-Kidwai and Deepak Parekh condoned Pachauri’s actions by reinstating him.
Why? Why have they not commented on what made them take this action? What was
their motivation? Why was the complainant not protected? Why did they choose to
succumb to external motivation and not adhere to the ruling of the internal
sexual harassment committee that proclaimed Pachauri guilty?
I can only imagine the platitudes. A greater good? Much more
complex than what it seems? Reputations and business? External pressure?
What’s more, for months, no one in the media has asked tough questions of the
governing council members. The standard answer has been: “No
Comment”.
I know how dogged our media can be when they want a story. We have powerful editors who can pick up a phone and speak
to these council members to get to the truth. These are important explanations
that need to be heard. But no one has done this, as far as I know. The reasons
are obvious. How can editors afford to ruffle their feathers? What will it mean
for media organisations in terms of corporate patronage? I was appalled when I
brought up this case with a well-reputed feminist who dismissed this saying the
case was just an “old man thinking he was in love and getting carried away”. How quickly we make peace with those old men.
Why do we get caught up in the bigger picture when the core of
it is simple? A 75-year-old man harasses a girl young enough to be his
daughter. Evidence
piles up. Women in the organisation resign. Murmurs about Pachauri float
far and wide. Yet the man has the gumption and ease of confidence to enter
clubs and entertain foreign guests unflinchingly.
The woman who complained, however, has been branded a
troublemaker and, of course, it will be very difficult for her to find a job
elsewhere. Here, responsibility lies at the feet of the people who reinstated
Pachauri. But it also rests in the complicit silence of everyone who does not
stand for the complainant, everyone who perceives a complainant as a
troublemaker, and who is not willing to hire someone who has made a complaint
to a committee.
Our society has always laid the onus of the responsibility
on the victim.
Every second woman I know has a story to tell about how they
were touched or harassed in their childhood or young adulthood by a person of
power: A parent, a relative, a teacher, a neighbour. And what were they
taught? Keep quiet, because no one will believe you. Or in many cases, the
perpetrator is said to be important and the family needs to stay in his good
books. So child, hold on to your pain, hide it away and move on. The
shame hangs with you. And the perpetrator carries on.
It is this very attitude that moves seamlessly into
Corporate India. The shame is for the complainant. Let us find ways to brush
damaging reports under the plush expensive carpets that line our offices.
It takes conscious and committed leadership to lead a
company that is not influenced by norms that exist in our society as a whole
and to create more gentle productive work spaces – for all. I haven’t
seen a single instance of it yet. I hope workplaces have the gumption to tear
up their plush carpets and to confront whatever is hidden there.
And for every person who passes judgement on women who keep
quiet, remember the Pachauri case.
For everyone who asks why women move on quietly and
sometimes accept payoffs, remember the Pachauri case.
For every person who questions why women delay complaints to
a committee, remember the Pachauri case.
For every woman who has evidence and is yet condemned to
leave the company, remember the Pachauri case.
It is a case that encapsulates so many of our complicit
silences.
http://www.firstpost.com/living/pachaurihatao-for-everyone-who-asks-why-women-delay-harassment-complaints-remember-the-teri-case-2619448.html