The blanket ban of dance bars may thwart one ‘evil’ but what about the lives, rights and protection of women in that profession and many others like it?
The saga of the bar dancers in Maharashtra has been a long one, splitting the women’s movement in India straight down the middle. The then Maharashtra Government acted on the complaints of women activists decrying the home-breaking perpetuated by “these women”, living lavish, biryani eating lives on the hard earned money of men who spent on these women, instead of their own families (the men were apparently not at fault here). Despite a stern dressing down by the Supreme Court in 2013 on the Amendments to the Bombay Police Act, the new Government has approached the issue once again, with optimism.
The previous Amendment banned live dances in restaurants and bars, with exemptions given to Hotels ranked 3 star and upwards. The assumption that the type of crowd that visits the “banned establishments” is different from the crowd that visits the “exempted establishments” was dismissed by the Supreme Court as playing to stereotypes. The Court pointed out the absurdity of the argument that a dance that leads to depravity in one place would get converted to an acceptable performance by a mere change of venue, and even went as far as dismissing the arguments as “elitist”.
This time around, no establishment is allowed to host a live dance programme, and once again, the Supreme Court has stepped in to stay the operation of this Amendment, noting that the Maharashtra Government has made a “nice try” to enforce the ban once again.
There is much to be seen about reactions to systems and establishments which challenge the patriarchal monopoly on women’s bodies. It is true that dancing and sex work rely heavily on the male gaze and often this leads to violence and coercion. The possibility of this being prevented by protective measures for women is not something that is explored seriously, despite the observations of the Supreme Court to ensure that this was done.
When the ban was in force from 2005 to 2013, it was not like bar dancing stopped in entireity. Like all banned activities, the establishments went underground, and thus compromised the safety of women who were therefore not allowed to form associations or unions to protect their interests. Neither did any concrete system come in to assist women who could not follow these hidden paths. Attempts to ‘rehabilitate’ these women were ridiculous, and to expect bar dancers at their standards of living (including paying fees at a good school for their children, and buying homes to live in on ‘private’ loans) to roll out Lijjat Papads was nothing short of ridiculous.
The same goes for surrogacy, which challenges the patriarchy’s monopoly on a woman’s uterus. Till date, there is no legislation enacted on the practice of surrogacy, despite there being a well known ‘market’ in India, to the extent that there are advertisements which make oblique references to the practice for labs in India. As a result, surrogates are at the mercy of the NGO that locates them and the laboratory that handles the insemination, and their earnings from the procedure are consequently quite low, besides the risk of being saddled with a child born with an impairment, or a change of mind of the parents.
None of these are options for employment that will feature in a career guidance program or an aptitude test result. Many women are compelled to make these choices in the hope of a better life for themselves and their families, precisely so that their children do not even have to consider such options. By pushing such practices to operate under the radar, cases of trafficking and abuse remain unreported for fear of police action against the victim, and women have to accept meager pay and operate in unsafe and unsanitary conditions.
A similar analogy can be made with prohibition, which is a feminist issue, but not in the way usually portrayed. In a 2005 study by the WHO, it was seen that prohibition only impacts women’s consumption of alcohol, reducing it substantially. Men seem unfazed, and the answer is quite obvious – bootlegged and illicit liquor are more accessible to men in secret locations, potentially unsafe for women. The blindings and deaths of men partaking of such creations has been a regular feature of news reports, and while it is true that these men are often the sole breadwinners, their death or impairment is not making life easier for anyone. The question again is how do you address issues of abuse, when clearly, outright bans are not a practical option.
By taking the moral high ground and preventing one evil, policy makers are creating a whole set of problems for the women who are at the centre of these activities. The idea that blanket bans on morally reprehensible activity will suddenly lead to bright and sunny lives for women is naïveté at its finest, and usually based on no credible studies and collection of data. Women have a right to control their own bodies – including seeking redressal against abuse - even before they have freedom to carry on any occupation under the Constitution of India, as uncomfortable a truth as it is for many.
Amba Salelkar is a lawyer working on gender and disability law and policy. She tweets at @MumbaiCentral though she lives between Chennai and Goa and is with the Equals Centre for Promotion of Social Justice
