Moral policing

Anna University Vice-Chancellor Dr. D. Viswanathan. - SHAJU JOHN

A dress code and a ban on mobile phones by Anna University of Technology and a noisy controversy over an actor's remark on women and sex are seen as evidence of conservatism making a strong bid to reassert itself in Tamil Nadu.

EVEN before the thousands of students in Tamil Nadu's 200-odd engineering colleges could settle down to studies after getting over the usual admission-related tension, further accentuated this year by the Supreme Court ruling on reservation, Anna University of Technology added to their problems by imposing on them certain stringent, non-academic restrictions. The university sent out letters to its four constituent colleges and 227 affiliates, directing enforcement of a dress code and a blanket ban on the use of mobile phones on their campuses with effect from September 1. The dress code proscribes jeans, T-shirts, skirts, sleeveless tops and tight outfits.

Explaining why the university thought it necessary to impose a dress code, Vice-Chancellor D. Viswanathan argued that certain forms of attire detracted from the seriousness of academic pursuits. However, he assured the students that there would be no "military-like strictness" in implementing the dress code and that the colleges had been asked to enforce it "in a phased manner". He said cell phones, particularly those with cameras, ate into valuable lecture hours. He also said that the university would take a serious view of any attempt in the colleges to organise "film-based" cultural programmes.

The university's orders drew instant protests from students, educationists and activists of students' and women's organisations. G. Selva, secretary, State unit of the Students Federation of India (SFI), told Frontline that the dress code clearly targeted girl students, although the university claimed that it was meant for both boys and girls. He did not accept that tight-fitting dresses worn by girls distracted boys and faculty members, or that the ban was needed to control eve-teasing. Describing the ban as "undemocratic" and based on a "male chauvinist approach", Selva said that such bans were "unnecessary, particularly in the case of institutions of higher learning such as Anna University, which deal with responsible and mature students". He wondered why "these boys and girls, most of whom are aged 18 and so have the right to vote", should be denied the right to choose their clothes. He said that students of professional colleges, who had to do a lot of laboratory work, had found by experience that they were more comfortable in jeans and T-shirts than in any formal wear. He complained that in imposing the dress code the university had only acted at the behest of the managements of many self-financing colleges, which, he said, had their own dress codes which they used as money-spinners. "They levy hefty fines on students for any violation of the code," he said.

"Many of these colleges fine their students if they are seen talking to classmates of the opposite sex. What the university has now done will only legitimise such actions by the self-financing colleges," Selva said. He said the ban on the use of mobile phones was even more irritating. "Reasonable restrictions on the use of mobile phones on the campus might be all right, but a total ban on the use of one of the greatest technological innovations would present the premier institution of technology in the wrong light."

Questioning the sense of priority of the university, a student wondered why it should meddle with personal choices when there were far more serious problems crying out for attention, such as the shortage of qualified teaching staff in many self-financing colleges.

Although Anna University introduced the dress code only in September, its Vice-Chancellor had set the ball rolling much earlier by voicing his puritanical sentiments. Perhaps taking their cue from him, many arts and science colleges in Chennai imposed in July "an informal ban" or "restrictions" on wearing "indecent attire", including low-waist jeans, short tops, mini-skirts, sleeveless shirts and so on. The subtext was obvious: "If eve-teasing happens, it is because the girls dress provocatively". It is an attitude that puts the blame squarely on the victims instead of the offenders. "This presumption is baseless," said Selva, citing a university study.

But then, it is not just Chennai academics that enforce this kind of moral code. Only a few weeks earlier, Mumbai University Vice-Chancellor Vijay Cole had reportedly announced that he would talk to the principals of affiliated colleges about ensuring that the girls' dresses did not distract students from their studies. The proposal, however, did not take off. The rape of a college girl by a policeman in Mumbai is said to be the reason for the Vice-Chancellor's proposal.

An article in the Shiv Sena mouthpiece, Saamna, condemned the rape but blamed women for wearing revealing clothes.

Another controversy raged in Tamil Nadu in the last week of September. This was over certain observations made by film actor Kushboo, published in a Tamil-language magazine with the findings of a survey on sex-related issues, including pre-marital sex. The controversy exposed the intolerance, gender bias and hypocrisy of sections of the State's media and the political class which, however, lose no opportunity to assert their reformist zeal and progressive spirit.

The magazine's survey was about the sexual attitude of women and it covered women in the age group of 18-30 across 11 cities in India. Kushboo begins her article with the observation that women in Chennai, who so far had been behind those in Bangalore in the matter of expressing their sexual desires, were now overcoming sex-related mental blocks. She, however, says that this openness also raises the question whether this is a healthy trend in a largely orthodox Indian society. She says that parents, if not teachers, should teach the basics of sex to children. Expressing herself against "changing boyfriends every week", she says that sex is not just about the body, but also the mind. She says that if the girl is convinced of the firmness of her relationship with her boyfriend, she can go out with him with her parents' permission. She suggests that parents can permit this if the girl and the boy are "serious" in their relationship.

She writes: "Our society should liberate itself from the ideas such as the one that women should have their virginity intact when getting married. No educated man will expect the woman he marries to be a virgin." She has also a word of caution to women who go in for pre-marital sex: "Guard against conceiving and contracting AIDS."

A day or two after the magazine hit the stands, a Tamil-language eveninger said in its lead story: "Kushboo's observation that women having [sexual] relationships with other men is common has raised vehement condemnation from many sections." The daily reported that critics took Kushboo's comment as an insult to the Tamil woman and that she seemed to expect others to behave just the way she did in her personal life. They wanted her to apologise for expressing such an opinion, the tabloid added.

It also published the views of a few people, including Bharatiya Janata Party national secretary L. Ganesan and Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam propaganda secretary Nanjil Sampath. Both of them were critical of Kushboo's remarks. Two days later, a group of women, with brooms in hand, staged a demonstration demanding that the actor quit the State, and burnt her effigy. The demonstrators belonged to the Tamil Protection Movement led by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder S. Ramadoss and Viduthalai Siruthaigal leader Thol. Thirumavalavan.

The police provided heavy security to Kushboo's residence. The issue has also been taken to court by the PMK's Central Chennai district women's wing secretary Deepam Jayakumar, on the grounds that Kushboo's observations undermined the culture and civilisation of Tamils and derided the pride of Tamil women.

Kushboo, who was on a short visit to Singapore, first clarified that her observations on pre-marital sex were based on the findings of the magazine's survey on the subject and said that she had been misunderstood. She explained that her contention was that pre-marital sex was an "unfortunate trend worldwide" and that she had not said anything specifically to malign Tamil culture or women. Soon, she rushed back to Chennai and in a television appearance said that the issue had been blown out of proportion. She added that she was sorry if she had hurt the sentiments of Tamils by any of her observations in the magazine article. The matter ended there, though some petitions against her observations are still pending in the courts.

The media debate, however, continues. While human rights activists, feminists, some women's organisations and a section of intellectuals assert that Kushboo has every right to express her views, a number of political leaders, particularly those connected with the BJP and the Dravidian parties, feel outraged and say that she has hurt Tamil sentiments with her remarks about the chastity of their women. Feminists, however, assert that there should be perfect equality between man and woman and that chastity should not be expected of women only.

The debate also has raised some questions about the media, which take up such sensitive issues, and also movements that attempt to suppress diversity of opinion in the name of protecting culture and traditions. The State Committee of the All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA) has defended Kushboo's right to express her views and criticised as "undemocratic" her detractors' demand that she leave the State on the grounds that she had derided Tamil culture. A statement issued by the president of the State Committee, N. Amirtham, and general secretary, U. Vasuki, said that those who sought to protect Tamil culture should do well to raise their voice against the increasing incidents of sex-related violence and kidnapping of girls for forced prostitution, which also had been doing great harm to Tamil culture. The AIDWA criticised the attempt by a section of the media to convert personal sex-related issues to marketable commodities in the context of globalisation and cited in support the "obscene" photographs published by the Tamil-language magazine along with the controversial survey report.