Suhas Palshikar on wrestlers’ protest: The Indian system failed these young women, and society failed itself

Another failure may be laid at the door of the government — the sports ministry in particular but also the prime minister himself, who finds time to tweet and treat sportspersons to high tea when they win medals but refuses to even indirectly indicate concern in the matter of their alleged sexual harassment. More and more young women with talent are entering the arena of competitive athletic tournaments. They come, more often than not, from modest family backgrounds. The plight of women wrestlers and the neglect of their allegations of sexual harassment by authorities in sports bodies is poor advertisement for women’s participation in sports.

Unfortunately, the Court extricated itself from the matter after the police assurance on FIRs. The present Court, granting that it has the best intentions, is beset with two self-inflicted limitations that debilitate the rule of law. The first is what constitutional expert Gautam Bhatia describes as the “executive’s court”. The Court tends to imagine and think the way the executive would do. Ironically, along with that, the other limitation of the Court has been that it very simplistically and romantically believes in institutional balance and separation. As a result, it has refused to actively enter into the executive domain — a virtue in ordinary circumstances but a problem when we are facing executive excesses without legislative control. The theory of separation of powers is fine on paper, but if the court shies away from entering into the executive domain in times of grave constitutional erosion, the rule of law is the casualty. In the wrestlers’ case, the Court refused to follow up on the matter. This distancing by the Court, which may be lauded for its nuanced balancing, has resulted in unfair treatment of the complainants and weakening of the rule of law.

A more worrying trend witnessed in the past five to six weeks pertains to the vicious polarisation in the country today. Anything that remotely brings blame or questions at the door of the ruling dispensation is treated with suspicion and invites aspersions. The wrestlers have been criticised for taking too long to complain, for not having faith in the “committee” and for protesting publicly. In the cesspit of social media, sympathisers of the ruling party spew venom. Some would believe that there is an element of misogyny in this, but the undeniable point is the anger about putting the ruling party into a difficult position. In other words, we have lost the sense of perspective or proportion needed to make a distinction between political affiliation and concern about a larger malady. Political leaders would indeed feel gratified with the loyalty of followers but this adulation to the extent of extolling a moral wrong is fearsome — both for the leader and for society.
Finally, where do we stand as a society in this episode? The allegations have been out there — along with the denials. This paper has reported the sordid details that sportspersons have listed in their FIRs. The moral question is: Are we stirred by this? By the images of wrestlers being dragged by police? By the details of predatory behaviour? If this happens to medal winners, what would be the plight of aspiring sportspersons?

And this is not restricted to sportspersons, really. This applies, equally, to any other field. This is also not about sexual harassment alone; because at the root is the denial of equal citizenship. Ambedkar was keen on the element of “fraternity” — a word that adorns the Preamble. That word communicates a great responsibility on police, rulers, courts and on us as a society: That our nationhood and our constitutional democracy hinge on a sense of sisterhood among citizens.

But in the wrestlers’ case, there has been no public outcry — only cautious commentaries in the media, a shameful silence by the elite, celebrities et al and cursory concern among the general public. It is a sad comment that only the “khaps” are coming out in support of the wrestlers. At the end of the day, the honour of women wrestlers will be easily reduced to a caste issue — protecting “our” girls (an unmistakably patriarchal outcome), rather than girls and women in general. While it is great that “kisan” leaders are coming out in support, it is also a limitation of the publicness of what a woman’s rights and dignity mean.

Beyond the NCR and parts of Haryana, apart from a few token marches, public conscience is not stirred. Beyond formal visits to the venue of the protests, most political parties do not find this issue worthy of engaging on a sustained basis. All this indicates the fragility of our nationhood because we are willing to exclude questions of the rights and dignity of women, Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims, even though this exclusion shrinks the nation.

At the moment, the wrestlers’ protest is drowned out, naturally, by the grief and shock of the train tragedy. But as our rulers remind us with supercilious smartness, tragedies like train accidents can be averted by the technology of Kavach. Hope that is true. But the plight of the wrestlers has shown that there are critical issues for which there is no kavach — neither law, nor public pressure.

The writer taught political science at Savitribai Phule University, Pune