Opinion DU’s advisory on college fests casts onus of ‘safety’ and ‘protection’ on victims

However, it must be noted that some of the measures such as installation of CCTVs, pre-registration through Google forms and deployment of security personnel are already in place in many colleges, and yet, there have been repeated violations. There have been instances when the ones who “lawfully” entered the college premises emerged as the assaulters. So, an NOC is a completely ineffectual deterrent when it comes to the fetishisation of female body/women’s spaces in a patriarchal set-up.

Execution of the guidelines are fraught with challenges, given that large scale security arrangements have to be made and adequate funds generated, which may not be possible (particularly in the post-Covid context). Therefore, shortage of resources and budgeting issues are bound to arise. Keeping record and documentation of all potential entrants is not only tedious but would also put an additional strain on the already overburdened administration. Drills may turn out to be futile as there is always the possibility that the number of outsiders on the day of the event would be higher than when drills are conducted. Ensuring that “all places near the venue are well illuminated and there are no dark patches” may become a serious logistical issue. Finally, obtaining NOC not only means struggling with bureaucratic red tape but also gives the state direct control over the independent activities of students, more so those of women and other marginalised groups within these colleges. The list, therefore, has only short-term value and utility, and will eventually become untenable in the long run.

Though the guidelines are meant for all DU colleges (co-educational and otherwise), it is the women’s colleges where it would be stringently followed in the name of “protection” and “safety”. Unfortunately, despite such measures, women’s colleges will still remain vulnerable to trespassing as long as men continue to bask in the glory of their entitlement and no policy is framed to correct (unacceptable) male behaviour. The presence of patriarchy is writ large in the “advisory” as it puts the entire onus of “protection” and “safety” on the victims (women, other gender minorities or the marginalised) instead of on the perpetrators.

Furthermore, the guidelines state that “all responsibility of any incident lies with the college and its authority”. It is no less an attempt to shirk all kinds of legal responsibilities. Once the NOC is issued, the responsibility for outsider transgression now lies on the transgressed, there is no scope to hold men/ miscreants responsible for their overstepping of and disregard for boundaries. While the college certainly cannot be absolved of its organisational failures, the police and the perpetrators should be the ones primarily held liable.

It is very clear that these security measures in no way guarantee “safety” or “freedom”. As several stakeholders, particularly the students, often (rightly) express, it is impossible to be free in a locked-up building with raised fences. The threat from the “outside” always looms large — fences of “security” can be overpowered by the transgressive energy outside. It has been repeatedly proved that increase in security never curbed violence, rather it made violence seethe with restlessness. In no way can patriarchal arrogance be corrected by building higher fences and hiding women (and other minorities) from sight. It only makes the patriarchy believe in its powers to induce further submission. “Freedom” then becomes only an “illusion”.

The objective of the University administration and law enforcing agencies should not only be “protection” and “security” of educational spaces, but it should be geared towards holding perpetrators accountable and making them aware of the consequences of their actions. There is no doubt that the list of advisories is oppressive and smacks of patriarchal hypocrisy. Instead of focusing on gender sensitisation on campus and educating men about decency and respect for boundaries, the aim once again has been to “secure the sanctity of women and other groups” susceptible to violence by limiting them and by refusing to acknowledge the culpability of men/the miscreants.

All said, the significance of the advisory cannot be entirely denied as the colleges alone can no longer handle the ever increasing burden of male aggression.

The writer is associate professor at the Department of English, Miranda House