(Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha.)
Sharad Yadav should have known better. As the President of a party that rules a State and carries considerable influence, he carries a responsibility to choose his words with care. His body language and comments in Parliament on the fair or dark skin of women, and the attributes of women from the South when they dance, were outrageous and condemnable and indicated the poor and deteriorating standards of public debate often led by senior leaders.
Later, in the face of a barrage of justifiable criticism, instead of apologising, he went a step further insulting the HRD Minister Smriti Irani when she asked him to express regret, saying, "I know what you are." These words found an echo in the Bihar Assembly when MLAs of the RJD, taking the cue from Sharad Yadav, made nasty personal comments about the HRD Union Minister. The live telecast of such comments have an even wider impact. It is precisely because of the cascading effect on their followers and sections of the public when leaders make sexist statements that it is essential to work out a parliamentary mechanism to make members accountable for the language they use.
There are certain issues, and certainly demeaning statements against women is one such issue, when one expects political leaders to rise above party considerations and strongly condemn such statements, regardless of who has made them. it did not happen this time. On the contrary, Parliament was further shamed in the eyes of the people, when MPs present in the House kept silent while Mr Yadav held forth, with the exception of DMK MP Kanimozhi, who got little support. Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad, a member of the Cabinet who was present in the House at that time and made no effort to intervene, made a belated statement disassociating and disapproving of the comment three days later.
In my own experience in Parliament, I found that it was only when one made a huge fuss when any member made a sexist comment, that the Chair or others would intervene in support. It happened once that the recruitment of female cabin crew was being discussed during question hour. Snide and objectionable comments were made by some members about recruitment procedures "outside the interview office." The House found this funny and many members sniggered. Of course we protested, but found that even the Chairman at the time seemed to consider this insult to air hostesses humourous and added his own comment. Parliament was instantly turned into an all-boys' club. The Minister who was at the receiving end of innuendos was not only unperturbed but seemed to be enjoying it. It was unpleasant to have to stand and literally shout against the Chair. Later I was told by some "not to take things too seriously."
Women are often put on the defensive at the workplace when in their presence sexually coloured comments or " jokes" are made. The onus is on the woman to deal with the discomfort she feels.The law against sexual harassment at the work place includes a clause that places the responsibility to create an environment at the workplace free of discrimination or sexually coloured language and behaviour on the employer.
Why should Parliament not apply the same rules for itself? Women are in a small minority in Parliament because of the lack of political will to bring the Women's Reservation Bill which would, by substantially increasing the number of women in the House, influence behaviour and language. But as an immediate step, the Government, leaders of the opposition and the Chair of both Houses should initiate the setting up of a self-regulatory mechanism on the lines of the Ethics Committee which would make accountable members who use demeaning language against women, minorities or oppressed castes. Parliament should also set up a Complaints Committee under the law which would also bring a measure of accountability into the behaviour of members.
There are other aspects also to Mr Yadav's comments. The debate was one in which Mr Yadav was on the right side. He was opposing the Bill to increase FDI in insurance to 49 per cent. He linked his opposition to an argument that equates the push to bring FDI with a trend of subjugation before white skin. The argument even at face value was unconvincing. The individual most aggressively pushing for the opening up of the Indian market to foreign capital happens at present to be the President of the United States. It is not a question of colour at all, but a commitment to a set of economic policies that push for privatisation in every sphere, regardless of the disastrous national consequences. To divert the issue to one of colour is to trivialize it.
It is difficult to understand how a mindset can move from that argument, however weak it may be, to a discussion of the comparative beauty of white and dark skinned women. Mr Yadav now claims that this is a question of racism and that he is prepared to debate it. There is little doubt that racism exists in India. Coincidentally, NDTV was running a Whats Your Choice programme on the existence of racism and blatant discrimination against dark skin in India. But Mr Yadav's comments were hardly a rebuttal of racism. It was rank sexism.
The politics of social justice which Sharad Yadav represents has had a powerful influence on Indian politics, overturning upper caste political and economic hegemonies. Post Mandal mobilisations in the decades of the eighties and early nineties on social justice platforms, reflecting the repressed anger of backward communities, was met by the most objectionable casteist and also racist arguments against reservations for OBCs, dalit and tribal communities by upper caste, anti-reservation mobilisations including highly objectionable comments by young women from these castes. The passage of time has not fundamentally altered these hostilities. The big difference though is that the now upwardly mobile castes who benefitted from the post Mandal achievements mimic in substantial measure the casteist approaches to those lower down the caste hierarchies. These are reflected in the increasing atrocities against dalits by those who once fought caste oppression. It is equally reflected in patriarchal approaches towards women.
The political platform of social justice has moved a long way from Lohia's advocacy of women' s rights. If it had not, then Sharad Yadav would have not made the remarks he did.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. NDTV is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.