Kalakshetra: Unheeded Distress Calls

Kalakshetra, a name synonymous with traditional art forms with over a decade of artistic legacy, finds itself in the crossfires of what could’ve been an avoidable controversy.

What transpired?

The controversy surrounding the alleged sexual harassment by faculty began to surface sometime in December 2022, after a renowned Bharatanatyam dancer and former student and Director of Kalakshetra Foundation posted on social media (later deleted) indicating ongoing acts of sexual harassment being brushed under the carpet, further warning parents against sending their daughters to the Institute. This was followed by another student’s post alleging sexual harassment, which led her to discontinue her course in 2019. Soon, more allegations of sexual harassment surfaced against three of the faculty on social media that, led to on-campus protests and boycotting exams. It is reported that the Tamil Nadu Women’s Commission received complaints from at least 100 women from Kalakshetra (past and present) of verbal abuse and sexual harassment, some alleging abuse since 2008.

The Internal Committee of Kalakshetra claims to have conducted a suo-moto inquiry and claimed to find no merit in the allegations. This was followed by the issue of a gag order by the Foundation, warning of legal action against students who raised their voices. Later, the External Member of the IC resigned, expressing dissent to the administration’s response to the controversy.

Consequently, a group of 7 students of the Institute moved the Madras High Court, praying for the Court to direct the Institute to formulate a gender-neutral policy against sexual and other forms of harassment, which was granted by the Court along with an interim order restraining the Institute from taking any adverse action against students. Running parallel to this proceeding is also a police investigation and an independent inquiry initiated by the Institute.

Unsurprisingly, the administration’s poor handling of the situation and the attempt to stifle distressed voices has created mistrust among its students and faculty.

So how did things take such an unpleasant turn for such a prestigious institution? An analysis of the reported incidents would give us a glimpse into the apparent missteps of the administration:

Lacking a PoSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) Policy

While the institution had an established IC, reports tell us that no PoSH Policy was in place. The PoSH Rules 2013 mandate an employer to formulate and widely disseminate an internal policy, charter, resolution, or declaration against sexual harassment to promote a gender-sensitive environment (Rule 13). Further, considering that minors were also a part of the institution, a policy in tune with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012, was essential.

An Irregular Internal Committee (IC)

The UGC Regulations (read with the PoSH Act 2013) call for establishing an IC with a woman Presiding Officer (PO) employed at a senior level, two faculty members and two-teaching employees, and three elected students (if the matter involves students) and one external member, all nominated by the executive authority. Of these, half of the total members shall be women. Further, persons in senior administrative roles cannot be members of the IC to ensure autonomy.

In 2022 following a student’s complaint, the Director of the Institute reconstituted the IC, appointing herself as the chairperson, along with an external member and two other faculty as its members, without student representation. Earlier this year, the suo-moto investigation was carried out by this IC, giving a clean chit to one of the accused. The constitution of the IC is in violation of the UGC regulations.

Lacking sensitivity and delay in taking cognizance

Reports suggest that acts of sexual harassment were a norm within the Institute, with alleged acts happening as early as 2008. Complaints were allegedly dismissed as rumors, while students were warned not to spread gossip. Inaction from the administration caused students and faculty to take to safe online spaces to share their experiences of abuse and disgruntlement with the management. What followed was a domino of downhill events, marring the reputation of a prestigious institution. Had the institution made a sensitized effort to listen and act rather than draw a veil over distressed voices, maybe things wouldn’t have taken an ugly turn.

Lessons Learnt

While the Institute grapples with this nightmare, what lessons can employers take away from this?

Deal with sensitivity, deal with urgency

Kalakshetra’s biggest drawback was brushing alleged “gossip” under the carpet. Employers must understand that it takes immense courage for a victim of abuse to come forward and speak of the abuse. While we do see more voices coming forward, it takes empathy to understand that a victim puts self-reputation at risk to voice out abuse, particularly in an Indian context. Employers must strive to treat complaints of sexual harassment with respect. They must make every effort to ensure that voices are heard with urgency. A delay in cognizance of such complaints can prove costly for any company’s reputation.

Be compliant, stay compliant

While Kalakshetra made efforts to appoint an IC, it lacked vision in appointing its members or creating a gender-safe space. To stay compliant, employers must strive to formulate a robust zero-tolerance policy that seeks to prohibit, prevent and effectively redress sexual harassment at the workplace, in tune with the PoSH Act and Rules 2013. The policy must envision gender-safe spaces and remove underlying factors contributing to a hostile work environment. It shows the employer’s commitment to providing a safe and enabling environment for its beneficiaries, instill confidence in the management, and hold themselves accountable, positively impacting the company’s goodwill.

Compliance does not end with the creation of a policy but mandates employers to provide periodic sensitization and orientation programs for employees and IC members to stay compliant. While the PoSH Act brings within its ambit only sexual harassment against women, nothing prevents employers from framing gender-neutral policies with inquiries carried out by an appointed body in addition to the IC.

Establish an unbiased IC

Keeping in mind the spirit of the law and the vision of the internal policy, vigilance must be exercised in choosing members of the IC. Kalakshetra’s example shows how a member with a vested interest can cause harm to the outcome of an inquiry or question the committee’s neutrality. Any person with possibly conflicting interests shall not be appointed to the IC. Members with a potential vested interest in individual cases must recuse themselves to maintain a fair, unbiased, and transparent proceeding. PoSH rules also mandate that IC Members be periodically oriented, trained, and involved in capacity and skill-building programmes to meet the objectives of the law. Such training also checks internal biases that could have detrimental effects on inquiries. Kalakshetra’s unfortunate example must cause employers to introspect- Are we creating an environment that furthers victimization, or are we consciously striving to create a space that enables distressed voices?

Disclaimer: No information contained in this website may be reproduced, transmitted, or copied (other than for the purposes of fair dealing, as defined in the Copyright Act, 1957) without the express written permission of Rainmaker Online Training Solutions Pvt. Ltd.