In the first week of May, at least two statements were made questioning the stand of Kolkata’s Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI) in matters of sexual harassment within the institute. An open letter was shot off to Chairperson Suresh Gopi by an alumnus who survived sexual harassment at the institute 10 years ago. Another statement came from the students’ union of the institute, criticising the poor attitude of SRFTI towards its alumni and survivors.
In her open letter to Suresh Gopi, who is also a Union Minister of State, BJP politician, and a prominent Malayalam actor, an alumnus asked why the institute was protecting those who were guilty or accused of sexual harassment.
After facing sexual harassment at the institute in 2015, she, along with two other survivors, had filed a complaint with the Internal Complaints Committee (IC). The IC had found two professors guilty, after which the governing council (GC) of the institute made them take compulsory retirement. The two men could not get the decision overturned even after going to court. However, recently, they approached a tribunal to send the survivors fresh legal notice.
In her letter to Suresh Gopi, the survivor expressed concern that the men may have taken the step after observing the procedural delay in taking action in another, recent case of sexual harassment.
A year ago, another alumnus, who was also a former faculty member, of the SRFTI, approached the IC with a complaint of sexual harassment against a top official. The IC had submitted its preliminary report last October. However, the second stage of the investigation was unduly delayed, and Suresh Gopi released the chargesheet only when media reports questioned the delay.
In December last year, the Calcutta High Court asked the institute to finish the second inquiry within six months, out of which four have already passed with allegedly no action.
The survivor of the 2015 case points out in her letter to Suresh Gopi that this should make it clear why women who make Me-Too revelations don’t always choose the legal path. She alleged that the institute had not been supportive towards the women even when it came to appointing an efficient lawyer in their case.
“When the professors tried to quash the GC’s decision [asking them to go on compulsory retirement] in court, the lawyer appointed for us by SRFTI did not say a word. We were students at the time and it was a women-centric NGO that arranged a lawyer for us. After this the court had asked the GC to reconsider its decision and hear both sides. The GC did this and upheld its decision [of compulsory retirement for the guilty]. Even though the IC and the court were on our side, the government systems including the police worked against us in every step of the fight,” the letter said.
She said that so many years after graduation, the survivors still had to fight the case because of the failure of the system, comprising Suresh Gopi, that favoured the guilty. “I have felt that such stories should be used as background music when questions about the absence of women in cinema are asked,” she wrote.
Raising the new case against the top official, she alleged that the institute refused to take any action, including the basic measure recommended by the IC of suspending the accused. “By delaying actions, the accused has been given a chance to approach the court to buy more time. He has been accorded the leniency of work from home while he was paid a salary by the government.”
Along with demanding quick completion of the inquiry in the new case, she asked the institute to stop the practice of protecting the accused. The SRFTI should also approach the court to quash the tribunal petition of the guilty professors in the 2015 case and add the survivors as complainants in it, she said.
Expressing solidarity with her and other survivors of sexual harassment at SRFTI, the students’ union of the institute also put out a statement. Demanding accountability from SRFTI and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the union urged the institute to stand with the survivors and not the perpetrators.
“We condemn the institute's repeated failure to protect its students and its consistent shielding of perpetrators,” they stated. The union also stated that the inaction in the new case sent a dangerous message that the “safety and dignity of students are secondary to the interests of the accused.”