Disclaimer: The opinions expressed below are the opinions of the writers and theirs alone.
The POSH Act was constituted and enacted in 2013 in India aiming to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace and offer redressal in case of an offence. The act mandates that all employers constitute an internal complaints committee (ICC) to make recommendations for the prevention, prohibition, and redressal of sexual harassment in the workplace. IIT Kanpur being a primary employer constituted its ICC in 2016, comprising of a presiding officer and five other members from both academic and non-academic sections, and an external member who has experience working with NGOs committed to the cause of women and issues related to sexual harassment. The committee has drafted two documents titled IIT Kanpur (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Students) Rules 2017 and the IIT Kanpur (Inquiry into Complaints of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace) Rules, 2021, prescribing the rules for the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment. Through an analysis of the two ICC documents, we attempt to understand and critique the existing institutional mechanisms in IIT Kanpur for preventing and redressing internal complaints.
Two primary problems in terms of the content of the policy documents are the vagueness of its language and the omission of relevant concerns. The vagueness of language indicates something which is mentioned but not adequately explained. It leads to confusing and random interpretations by all the parties involved. It may then also lead to arbitrary decision-making by the committee. In the Rules 2021 document, under the section ‘the manner of inquiry into the complaint,’ it is mentioned that “the past sexual history of the aggrieved woman shall not be subjected to probe during the inquiry proceedings and any such information shall be deemed to be irrelevant for the purposes of complaint of sexual harassment”. The lack of clarity about the definition of ‘sexual history’ allows intrusive questioning about the personal relationships of the complainant. Despite the sensitivity towards the complainant that is implied in the clause, it allows for the misogynist practice of judging a woman’s character by questioning the nature of her social and personal relationships. All her social relationships thus acquire a sexual meaning where the assumption is that her sexual history can be understood by examining her social relationships. The lack of clarity about what sexual history means opens up space for character judgment. Invoking the complainant’s relationships, her behavior in social settings, etc. has an undertone of moral policing. For example, the number of male friends a woman has, her outgoing nature, and physical expressions of affection towards her friends may be misinterpreted as her sexual availability. This kind of questioning suggests that the complaint is being judged on the basis of the complainant’s character rather than on the basis of the authenticity of the complaint. As such the onus of having to prove the validity of her complaint falls on the complainant.
The lack of clarity in the clauses applies to the 2017 rules also. Although the document clearly mentions that the rules pertain to those complaints of sexual harassment filed against the students of IITK, there is confusion in the document whether the complainant could be women in the campus in general or specifically the students. When the document defines the act of sexual harassment, it refers to the aggrieved as a woman, while in another place the aggrieved is specifically mentioned to be a student of IIT Kanpur. Such vagueness in definitions and various other clauses causes confusion as to whether the rules apply to all women of IIT Kanpur or only to the students of IIT Kanpur for their complaint against another student of the institute.
The omission of relevant concerns and questions is another point of contention. Omissions could be understood as ideas that are excluded or left out. For example, the Rules 2021 document provides the complainant with the option to make an appeal to the Board of Governors if she is dissatisfied with the report of the committee. But it does not mention the procedure to be followed to make an appeal. Unlike the 2021 document, the IITK Rules 2017, specifically drafted for the students, provides the procedure for appeal. But neither of the documents mentions the procedure to be followed if the complainant is uncomfortable with individual members of the committee and their remarks during the investigation process.
The lack of an intersectional understanding of gender is another problem with the documents. An intersectional approach would see gender interacting with other power structures such as caste, religion, class, and family. People’s experience of sexual harassment in terms of the physical and psychological impact it has on them, and their ways of coping with the experience, and their preparedness to file a complaint depend on their social background. For example, the concerns of a student from an underprivileged caste, or class background may not be the same as that of a student from an urban, upper-class caste background when it comes to filing a complaint. Another way in which this lack manifests is the notion of the gender binary that identifies the victim as a woman while the perpetrator is always a man. The rules therefore turn a blind eye to the experiences of sexual harassment that men or people from the LGBTQI community may face. However, this is not a problem exclusive to the IITK ICC documents but one that is inherent in the law itself.
Moreover, although the 2017 document is drafted specifically to address sexual harassment cases of students, it does not adopt a student-centric approach. Granted the existing hierarchy between faculty and student, a student-centric approach should entail adequate student representation within the committee, as well as adherence to a student’s perspective, which takes into account the context of students and their concerns. The document lacks both.
In other words, without adequate student representation, the power would be concentrated within the committee, mostly composed of faculty members who might not always be able to appreciate and understand the context of students’ concerns. The concentration of power is a result of the top-down model of the committee structured by the institute. The top-down model means that the people at the top have the decision-making power while the people who are impacted by the policies have no say in the matter. The model may also lead to discriminatory practices during the process of investigation. In addition to being a workplace, IIT Kanpur is also an educational institution. Although adequate student representation does not in itself guarantee a student-centric approach, it is definitely a means to address the concentration of power and its consequences.
To contest and challenge the undemocratic nature of the documents in what they say, how they have been constructed, what they imply, and their possible implementation, the campus community will have to initiate a conversation amongst themselves. Through such conversations, it is essential for the campus community to build a critical understanding of the various issues which concern them and possible ways to engage with those issues.
Savitribai Phule Study Circle (SPSC IITK)
Draft Submitted -12th February 2023
——————————————————————————————————————–
Savitribai Phule Study Circle (SPSC IITK)
We are an informal feminist collective constituted by students of IIT Kanpur. We stand against structures that perpetuate patriarchy and aim to critically engage with issues that concern the campus community through an intersectional feminist lens.
