Parvathy Thiruvothu on Justice Hema Committee Report: ‘Put through a long wait…, expected quicker action…’

As the findings ignited a heated debate about the culture of silence and the dire need for systemic change, Parvathy Thiruvothu, a leading Malayalam actor and WCC founding member, speaks to Arun Janardhanan.

Has Malayalam film industry changed (with regard to plight of women) since 2017?

There have been many changes during this period. It’s important to note that the formation of the WCC led many of its members to lose projects and even their careers for challenging the power structures in the industry. The fact that some people are willing to work with members of the WCC itself is evidence of change. The people who choose to give us work show where they stand in this process.

Both new and older generation actors have also become much more sensitised to these issues. Without this movement, even these initial changes wouldn’t have occurred.

When we look at these changes, some have embraced them, understanding their importance, while others have changed out of fear of the consequences if they don’t. But yes, there is change, though it’s still in its early stages.

Even if there had been no sign of change, we would have continued to fight, and we will continue to fight.

What next? Do you believe the release of this report will lead to significant change?

We have made specific demands: proper contractual remunerations, the application of the POSH Act (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act), and mandatory Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) for all productions. Change is a process, and it should address physical and all other forms of exploitation based on complaints. It is important to remember that when we demand ICCs, they are meant to protect everything and everyone, not just women. However, we are still waiting to see the recommendations of the Hema Committee.

Two ministers who held the Culture portfolio in the last seven years now claim they haven’t seen crucial parts of the report. How do you assess the government’s handling of this issue – from the formation of the committee to the report’s release?

Our review – the WCC’s – of the government’s role in the entire process is ongoing. I can’t speak for the collective as a whole. More importantly, the collective cannot go against the government – it can either work with the government or push it to act.

But if you ask me personally, I felt we were put through a long waiting game. We expected quicker action. If justice delayed is justice denied, then justice has been delayed here for so long, and the report only came out after a lot of pushing. We were initially told that the process would be confidential, and we trusted the process as it is a government process. But then, it is like a doctor seeing a patient, writing a prescription and refusing to give it to the patient saying he will keep it. Hey, I need the prescription, I need to buy the medicine.

This report, submitted to the government in December 2019, only came out in August 2024. This is such a long period. During this time, how many have been exploited financially and physically in this industry. I agree that when there is a recommendation, it can’t be implemented quickly. But how do we protect people until the recommendations are implemented? That should have been considered by the government.

I don’t view the government’s handling of this positively. But at least the report has finally come out. We are going to study it in detail. Wishy-washy, broad-stroke answers won’t help. We need to put systematic changes in place.

The focus of the Hema Committee report was larger. When we talk about three ‘P’s – prevention, prohibition, and punishment – the larger outcome is that if the first two Ps are taken care of, there is no need for the third P. Punishment was not the main focus of the Hema Committee, but when prevention and prohibition were ignored, the supposed purpose of the committee was also forgotten.

What action do you expect from the government now? The Chief Minister said the government will definitely take criminal action if victims approach them with a complaint. If, through suo motu action, an FIR is filed, will victims who gave statements to the Hema Committee personally be able to cooperate with a criminal investigation?

When it comes to criminality and potential POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) charges, it’s all guesswork as to what the government might do. In criminal cases, minors might be involved, so the government needs to sit with the committee and clarify the choice of words used in the report – such as “women” or “girl” – to ensure accuracy.

This report was submitted to the government in 2019, yet despite the significant resources and money spent on the committee, the Cultural Minister (Saji Cheriyan) says he hasn’t even seen the report. Why did it stay with the government for so long without being studied? When will they start looking into the nuances and details of the cases documented in the report?

Of course, they must take suo motu action if there are potential POCSO charges. When we give confidential statements, and if such actions are taken, survivors will also have to cooperate.

However, the real job of the government should have been to bring about systemic changes, not just put the onus on us by saying, “We will take action if you file a complaint.” Thank you for saying that, but we already knew this. If the government wants to take action on its own, that’s a valid fight. But when we talk about survivors’ choices and whether they should participate in this process, we have to ask: when was the last time a survivor actually received justice? It hasn’t happened in a long time, and that makes this whole conversation incredibly draining.

When examining issues of sexual harassment, exploitation, and inequality, do you see the root cause as power, morality, or character aberrations of individuals?

It is a combination of power, morality, and character aberrations. Women have always been defined in a patriarchal system in a particular way. The dignity of an actress is often questioned, and she is reduced to something less than her skillset at work places.

Unlike men, when a woman succeeds, it’s almost seen as a stroke of luck. They would say she “happens to be good at it”. People ask, “Aren’t you here for money? Fame?” And those who exploit believe they are doing us a favour by giving us opportunities. True, they may be holding power over distribution and production. But times are changing, and women are becoming producers and directors, too. Unfortunately, the conditioning alone hasn’t changed.

There is a deeply rooted patriarchal way of looking at women, and it persists. When I talk about these issues, people ask, “Why don’t you just leave this profession if it’s difficult?” Would they ask the same question to a man?

How do you view male actors, like the late Thilakan, who faced challenges in the Malayalam industry and confronted power?

I have only heard about what Thilakan went through, but it shows that when power is at play, those in control have the ability to weaken and take away everything from someone. They did just that to Thilakan – it was truly horrific. He held an important, undeterred space in the industry and paid a heavy price as he continued his fight.

If he had to endure that, just imagine what women are going through now. Many of us had to sacrifice our careers to form the WCC. We’ve drawn inspiration from those earlier battles, learned lessons, and have expanded the fight.

Ever since I started giving interviews, seven-eight years after beginning my acting career, speaking out about rights, basic amenities for women, and sexual exploitation, the immediate impact was that my work was taken away from me. This happened even though my movies were doing well and making good revenue. I was sidelined. Despite achieving commercial success back-to-back, I found myself with no work after I spoke out about these issues.

Do these issues signal a degeneration of media and the medium itself – cinema? Or do they reflect deeper cultural problems?

I wouldn’t say it’s entirely a sign of degeneration, because there’s also an awakening happening. Media is now being held accountable by the public. It’s not just one-sided media trials and slut-shaming anymore. Social media is calling out TV channels for their biases. We can see that many channels have really cleaned up on their own.

As for the medium itself, I wouldn’t say the problem lies with cinema, but rather with our culture, which is built on exploiting minorities and weaker sections, such as women.