So Skewed

Indian feminism does not have a common timeline, given our diversity. We’ve seen women lead causes not necessarily women related and we’ve seen men who led movements around women issues. The pioneer of feminism in India though is considered to be Savitri Phule - she fought caste and gender discrimination paving the way for women’s education.

Into Independence, while some women, the more privileged, at least middle class, were educated; while some women who were part of elite or educated families participated in public life, tagging along with the men of their caste or class - more or less, women even if educated were expected to get married and stay at home.

Of course, many working-class women including those from marginalized backgrounds did work outside home, but they were often looked down upon for it. For our purpose – prostitution existed in India, in towns and cities - with bigger volumes in bigger cities. Compared to the west, India, a developing country had larger numbers of women in prostitution, and already had red light districts with women living in them. So - prostitution existed, mostly confined to red light districts --- so was ghettoized and largely ignored.

So what next – who discusses prostitution first? how does modern Indian feminism look at sex, marriage and prostitution? How does sex worker activism begin?

Namaste and Welcome to So Skewed. I’m Surabhi, a lawyer and researcher. This is episode 3.

It was in the 1980s that we saw a mainstream women’s movement. Feminists and feminist organisations campaigned for stronger laws around women related issues like domestic violence, dowry violence, rape, sexual assault, female infanticide, and sex determination. Shockingly, unlike the radical feminists of the West, Indian feminists fully endorsed marriage. They saw it as desirable and wanted both men and women to be guided into a marriage where they can then have children. Except now they wanted to address the violence women faced in their marriages. Also, keeping up with the colonial shame around sex, the Indian women’s movement did not discuss sex at all in the beginning, except in the context of sexual violence.

The Indian women’s movement will later be criticised for only talking about issues faced by women from the middle class and presumably the so-called upper castes, assuming those issues to be common for all women, but ignoring the more complicated issues faced by Dalit women, Adivasi women, queer women, hijras, working class women and pertinent to our topic – no space for sex workers.

So in the beginning, we see the feminist discussions fully ignore issues relating to sex and prostitution. Marriage, they fully endorsed. But even before the beginning of this Indian women’s movement so before the 1980s, conversations around prostitution start happening within the Dalit movement, and this brings prostitution discourses into the mainstream.

Part 1: Caste – based Exploitation

In episode 1, we spoke about the Devdaasi tradition during colonial times, which saw periodic campaigns and laws against it. Despite the outlawing and I had mentioned this - the Devdaasi practice continued in the shadows. While some Hindu traditionalists continued to defend the tradition, we saw how middle class society started looking at the tradition as prostitution. With Independence – anti-Devdaasi laws that were passed by the British are adopted including the Madras Devdasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act, 1947. Remember, the Devdaasi tradition was more prominent in the South and West of India – so states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. The purpose of Tamil Nadu’s anti-Devdaasi Act as stated in it was that the Devdaasi practice, however ancient and pure, now led many women into a life of prostitution and had to be abolished. So we see that this idea has been cemented into the liberal psyche – yes, maybe you are right and it wasn’t prostitution earlier but now it has become prostitution anyway. Even when this Act is passed - it did get opposed // including by some women from the Devdaasi tradition.

One such woman was Bangalore Nagarathnamma. A Devdaasi and daughter of a Devdaasi, she was very well regarded in the field of Carnatic music. She advocated for the rights of women in the field of music and was the first president of the Association of Devdaasis in Madras Presidency. She was constantly targeted by culture critics who would accuse her of being a prostitute and ruining the moral values of society. Bangalore Nagarathnamma would hit back at this colonial lens and called out what she saw as the gatekeeping of culture and the purification of traditions.

The history of the Devdaasi tradition is a whole different conversation and this is not a nuanced take on it, at all. But just to contextualise the movements against the Devdaasi tradition that will happen, let’s recap a rough timeline of the tradition we’ve seen so far.

Before British colonisation, we know that the women were revered for being caretakers of the Gods in temples and caretakers of the Arts, known as temple artists. The Devdaasi tradition was not a homogenous practice. It consisted of different traditions across temples consisting of women from different castes backgrounds. Among the different caste groups within the Devdaasi tradition, some of or the majority of, these caste groups – I’m not sure how disputed this is – were marginalised caste groups. Today, communities that draw roots from the Devdaasi tradition prefer the term – hereditary dancing communities.

Then during colonisation. The practice was looked at by the British as prostitution. There were crackdowns, campaigns, cultural spaces and customary rights of the women were taken away. The women got removed from these art forms. Dances like Bharatnatyam that were practiced and preserved by these women in the temples for centuries, got taken over by so called upper caste identities, in an attempt to “purify” the art forms, and remove any sensual or erotic elements - as a reaction to how the British perceived these dances. So dances got removed from the temples, purified, and got taken away from the Devdaasis who, no longer had their cultural space, the temples, or the patronage to continue practicing their arts.

Now into Independence – the tradition continued in some temples but it was looked at as something that happens in rural India in a few temples that were more traditionalist, and the social and cultural sanctity of the tradition was anyway gone.

In the 1970s and 80s – we see another Devdaasi abolition movement. It starts being discussed by anti-caste movements especially the Dalit movement that starts calling out the tradition for targeting vulnerable girls from marginalised castes. It was argued that most girls and women who were in the Devdaasi practice were from poor rural families, from the most marginalised castes and these women would then move on to commercial prostitution. They also rightly pointed out that women in prostitution in general were mainly from lowered castes and were compelled to take up prostitution because of poverty, illiteracy and debt. So the Devdaasi tradition starts getting looked at as a form of caste – based exploitation. At this time also – we do see two camps among the women from the Devdaasi tradition: Some women were part of the Devdaasi abolition movement but some continued to refuse to look at it as a form of exploitation.

Some feminists at this time who we should note were not from marginalised castes or from the Devdaasi tradition would oppose the Devdaasi abolition movement. These feminists said that the abolition movement was ‘falsely progressive’; “it showed contempt for traditions and a patriarchal bias against free unmarried women”. The anti-caste activists would retort back saying that while women from the so – called upper castes were granted respectability through marriage, women from the so called lower castes were being recruited into these practices to apparently carry on ‘tradition’. They argued the tradition was patriarchal in favour of brahmin men and caste- ist because it exploited women who came from marginalised castes.

At this time – several Dalit poets and writers from Maharashtra also wrote stories of women in red light districts and these accounts saw prostitution being spoken about in the mainstream.

One such poet, writer and activist was Namdeo Dhasal. He wrote a collection of poems in 1972 called Golpitha named after the red light area he lived in, in Mumbai. I have not read this book so this is taken from articles online about Namdeo Dhasal who has been called the “Poet of the Underworld”. Golpitha described the lives of sex workers, pimps, and even - drug peddlers, crooks, henchmen taken from his experience of living in a settlement of Dalit workers in Mumbai. So he looked at prostitution, just like the other work the Dalit man and woman around him were doing, as part of the mechanism of oppression faced by the Dalit community as a result of the caste system. Golpitha stirred up quite a controversy for its strong language and frank discussions around prostitution, and caste in general but was widely read and highly acclaimed. Namdeo Dhasal is also one of the founders of the legendary Dalit Panthers in Maharashtra, which also started during thistime – around after Golpitha was released.

A 1997 Supreme Court judgment confirmed the conviction of the Devdaasi abolition movement. The Supreme Court of India held that traditions like the Devdaasi tradition was against the “dignity and self - respect” of the women; and noted that thecommon feature of such traditions were that women in it were illiterate, poor and came from the most marginalised Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes. Between the 1980s and early 2000s, we see states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka introduce harsher new laws and rehabilitations schemes to finally abolish the tradition. The Devdaasi practice is illegal, today.

The Dalit movement in the 1970s and 80s was correct in pointing out that commercial prostitution sees a lot of women from marginalised castes. In fact - systematic and hereditary forms of caste – based prostitution have existed and some continue to this day. These are deeply entrenched social issues and is discussed in Indian discourses around prostitution.

So before we go on, let’s talk caste and other demographics within the sex trade.

While I have recounted conversations around caste- based exploitation quickly and best I can, it is not my place to have a conversation around caste. I am not attempting to downplay the issue at all – India, with its problematic caste system, has had and still has – some extremely exploitative practices. The thing is – this fact, that prostitution sees women from marginalised castes, is used to the advantage of the anti-prostitution camp comprising of feminists and activists who argue that prostitution cannot be work to a woman who has, in such a case, been forced into prostitution by virtue of her caste whether she says she consented to it or not. To them - it doesn’t matter if she says she consented because she’s forced by circumstance to consent to it. This fact may very well be true. The issue is that the anti-prostitution camp uses this fact to argue that any recognition of the sex trade would be tantamount to accepting or condoning the worst kinds of prostitution that may exist, like caste-based prostitution.

But two things. Firstly: anti-prostitution laws as envisaged– would not be able to tackle caste-based issues at its root at all. This will have to be a specific law directly addressing this specific problem but mainly, social intervention to ensure access to education and jobs. If a woman who has entered the sex trade because of her caste, if she is detained under the law, it will be when she’s already in the sex trade. And secondly: the argument sex workers have made. Across the world as it is in India – this is not a justification but an unsavory fact. Women from marginalized backgrounds, castes and communities are more likely to be over – represented in prostitution. We also find an overrepresentation of the hijra community in the sex trade. The hijra community, the third gender, have existed since the beginning of time but have been excluded from the mainstream and criminalized under British Rule. They have seen sex work as one of the few jobs they can do. The others being begging or performing at religious or cultural functions – which tradition is quickly dying. Similarly – in the West, black women, women of colour, transwomen, women from indigenous tribes and communities, all who have been left out from the mainstream, are overrepresented in prostitution. Even gender - - while men, and other gender identities do sell sex across the world, the majority of sex workers are women and the majority of clients are men. Which is why we for convenience refer to sex workers as women even though that is not always the case.

Sex workers tell us that the social inequalities that we see in society is reflected in prostitution; the most marginalized people may find themselves in the sex trade. So, if we were to look at the demographics of sex workers – it will reflect existing social inequalities -- starkly. Yes – there are some sex workers more privileged than the others – an escort or a call girl will be less prone to violence or police harassment than a more marginalized sex worker in a brothel. Sex workers are not a homogenous group. But sex workers are well aware of this fact. Their activism includes the range, from the high – end escort to the most marginalized woman in the sex trade.

Discussions around gender and caste should happen but not when discussing sex worker rights. Remember, when we discuss sex worker rights – we discuss the rights of the women currently in the sex trade. Conversations around why it’s mostly women or queer identities, why among women it’s mostly those from marginalized social backgrounds, are conversations to be had and the sex worker movement has addressed this, but one - we need to change the lens with which we’re looking at these issues which we’ll talk about when discussing sex worker views and finally - these conversations cannot be had at the cost of sex workers who are currently in the sex trade. No matter how they find themselves there.

Part 2: The Indian Women’s movement

India’s anti-trafficking law was passed in 1956 in compliance with the 1949 UN anti trafficking convention. Now - this law was then majorly amended in 1986. But unlike other women related laws passed during this time in the 1980s, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (the ITPA) – India’s law dealing with prostitution, was not passed as a result of any feminist campaigns or interventions despite the women’s movement being active at this time. It was amended after recommendations made by a Law Commission Report which noted that the 1956 Act did not help in curbing trafficking or the exploitation of prostitution. So just like the West, the Indian state has an abolitionist stand and does not distinguish between Trafficking and Prostitution. Just to understand how the state viewed prostitution at this time, this is what Member of Parliament, Margaret Alva, who introduced the ITPA amendment bill in 1986, said in the Lok Sabha:

The exploitation of women and girls for the purposes of prostitution is an obnoxious feature of crime against them … though prostitution has persisted since time immemorial, it has all through been considered an evil that wrecks the foundations of the family and the community, as basic units of human society….…..

So prostitution is looked at as something to be preventedsince it is the exploitation of women, yes but also because – it’s an evil affecting the family and the community. You’ll notice the view is still in line with Victorian morality and the British take on prostitution, and the legislature in India at this time (and still today), considers the colonial view on prostitution as the default position. Margaret Alva says that prostitution has throughout time been considered an evil, which is not true in the case of Indian history – it only started being considered an evil after British colonisation.

In her essay “Immorality, hurt or choice: Indian feminists and prostitution” Geetanjali Gangoli writes about the Indian women’s movement, and how when they do confront sex – it is through the lens of vulgarity and obscenity. Women’s groups at this time would protest advertisements or movies including going and blackening out posters which had women in clothes or poses they found vulgar, obscene or sexually suggestive. There was also funnily an incident where the Forum against Oppression of Women in Bombay – a feminist group of this time - went to blacken out a film poster, and when they got there they “retreated in horror” when they found out that the Bajrang Dal was already there and had started doing their job for them. So just like radical feminism in the US – feminist activism around sex in India often coincided with the conservative view. Flavia Agnes, a well-known feminist said that these campaigns ‘‘reinforced the notion that anything sexual is obscene, and that respect for women is equivalent to treating them as asexual’.This legacy of Indian feminists attacking movies that showed a woman in any form as sexual or sensual including the insulting of the actresses continued for a long time – well into the 2000s.

When feminists of this time discussed prostitution – it was about how prostitution laws could be used against ‘non-sex working women’. Flavia Agnes wrote about an incident - where an activist was charged under solicitation laws when she went to a railway station in Bombay to buy cigarettes from a cycle – stand post-midnight. This fact the activist did not reveal to the police because smoking was seen as inappropriate behaviour for a ‘good woman’ so she didn’t tell this to the police and they charged her for the solicitation of prostitution. So feminist discussions that followed this case spoke about the re-defining of a ‘good woman’ – so, just because she smokes and is out at night, doesn’t mean she is a prostitute. There’s also discussions on women’s access to public space – why can only a man and a prostitute access these spaces at night and if a woman does access these spaces does this mean she deserves to be “treated like a prostitute.” So while there isn’t an active attack on sex workers or prostitution, there’s this clear other-ing of sex workers that we see in Indian feminism.

When it does have to confront prostitution eventually, it looks at prostitution as against the institution of marriage and as anti-feminist. Just to give you a taste of how a feminist of this time views prostitution ( and, marriage and sex) and how it coincides with conservative or patriarchal views – this is a quote from 1998 where a feminist is opposing the legalisation of prostitution.

“From a feminist point of view, the proposal to legalize prostitution is untenable—why should it be assumed that men have certain urges which need an outlet urgently…. The socialization route is the route to take, so that young men are socialized to monogamy and young women are socialized to view sex as beautiful, natural activity (so that they do not refuse sex to husbands after 2 or 3 children) …”

So the Indian mainstream feminist movement – again a movement of privileged middle class women, took on the views of the radical feminists of the West, albeit with a few Indian tweaks – marriage is good; husbands should have sex with only wife; wife should ‘give’ sex to husband and problem solved - we don’t need prostitution.

Part 3: The Indian Radicals

End of the 1980s and into 1990s – some organisations set up in red light areas. NGOs carrying out humanitarian interventions. One such organization is Prerna which set up in 1986 in Mumbai. Another was Sanlaap in Kolkata, set up in the early 1990s. These organizations viewed prostitution as the commercial, sexual and economic exploitation of women. So they took radical feminism’s anti-prostitution stand and believed that all prostitution is the trafficking of women. These organizations still work in the field of anti-trafficking in India today.

So the views of these anti-trafficking organisations in India, like Prerna and Sanlaap, who occupy the anti-prostitution camp, just like the West, becomes the humanitarian and liberal view in India. They oppose the existence of the sex trade because they believe prostitution is essentially the exploitation of the most marginalised women. They believe that prostitution cannot be work under any circumstances especially in India where entry into the sex trade, as per them, is never voluntary. To them – women in the sex trade might say they are there by choice now but if their entry into prostitution was because of violence or poverty or some form of coercion, force and deceit – then it cannot be said to be consensual. Actually, they also question the very notion of ‘consent’. They say: that the women do not have a full understanding of the unequal and exploitative power dynamics that exist in the sex trade, so even voluntary entry is not informed consent and so a woman can never actually consent to her prostitution.

The Indian Radicals argue that legalisation of the sex trade will legitimise abuse and exploitation in the brothels, and will favour third parties so pimps and brothel owners. Some have also said in the past that calls for legislation is a result of ‘western influence’. Which doesn’t make sense cause prostitution is illegal in most of the West. As a rule - across the world, any anti-trafficking NGO or organisation is coming from this anti-prostitution stand, remember this, so they believe all prostitution is trafficking and work towards removing sex workers from the sex trade. These anti- trafficking organisations also oppose the use of the term ‘sex worker’, instead using ‘women in prostitution’ - so the radical feminist influence. There is another reason for this which we’ll talk about in the next episode when talking about US’s involvement in anti-trafficking discourses. When I compare the anti- trafficking organisations in India to the radical feminists in the west, I am not implying they have the same disdain or disgust towards sex workers that we saw during second – wave feminism. I’m just pointing to the fact that these organisations take on the radical feminist view on prostitution and so lead the anti-prostitution camp. They view all commercial sex work as exploitation but generally are seen to be sympathetic towards the plight of sex workers. But in their refusal to call them sex workers, they view them as victims – as helpless, as poor, uneducated women with no agency who do not and could not know better. To them - the women are being exploited by the men around them; the women are being made to do prostitution; and we can help her come out of the sex trade. While these organisations do work with sex workers and their children in skill training, awareness and advocacy, they also actively work with governments and police in their rescue and rehabilitation efforts - I’ll talk about this in a later episode – how intervention is carried out.

In India – apart from these anti-trafficking NGOs, like Prerna and Sanlaap, the anti – prostitution camp will include feminists, activists, other NGOs, and academicians, so people considered to be loosely from the left and also the state and more conservative and religious organisations, so those considered to be from the right.

With the forming of these anti-trafficking NGOs, we see prostitution being discussed in academic and liberal circles but – sex workers are still voiceless. They are looked at as poor, uneducated, and exploited women and there was nothing to challenge this narrative.

But not for long. In the early 1990s, something happens that brings the voices of sex workers out of the red light districts. The HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Part 4 – Sex Workers Emerge

And finally, someone talks about sex.

The HIV/ AIDs epidemic happens across the world. By the 1990s, the World Health Organisation with the United Nations start pumping in funds for effective AIDs control, in the post- colonial Global South, which wasn’t at the time equipped to deal with this big a problem. Tackling the AIDs epidemic came with a unique problem –the most vulnerable and affected groups were criminalised and so invisible – sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender/third gender populations and their partners; and drug users – those who used injections. It was quickly realised that the only way to effectively contain the disease was to run peer-education programmes and empower these communities from within, and this gave, sex workers in India, the opportunity to mobilise.

Two such public health initiatives resulted in two of India’s biggest sex worker organisations.

In 1991 – Dr. Smarajit Jana, a public health specialist along with the WHO start with a study on the cases of HIV infections among sex workers in Sonagachi - Kolkata’s red – light district. He quickly realised that for productive results, he had to involve the sex workers, and from this emerged one of the earliest and very celebrated organisations of sex workers in India – the Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee (DMSC or just, Durbar – which translates to, the Committee of Women for Equality) established in 1995 in Kolkata.

SANGRAM, which was formed in 1992 in Saangli, Maharashtra also started as an HIV prevention programme, eventually forming the Veshya Aids Muklabla Parishad, Saangli (VAMPS – translating to, the Committee of Prostitutes to Combat AIDS).

They will keep coming up so remember the legends - DMSC in Kolkata, West Bengal and VAMPS in Sangli, Maharashtra.

With this begins the sex worker movement in India.

In 1997 - the First National Conference of Sex Workers was held in Kolkata attended by 4000 sex workers. An Asian Meet was organized in Kohlapur in 1999. The Millennium Milan Mela met in Kolkata in 2001 (among opposition from feminist groups it was said) but this time with 25000 women, asking for ‘rights to oppose the wrongs done to sex workers’. At this meet, sex workers famously slogan- ed ‘we want bread, but we also want roses’.

To consolidate sex workers’ demands – the DMSC in its first conference held in 1997 presented the famous ‘Sex Workers’ Manifesto’. The Sex Workers’ Manifesto’ begins with the following words:

A new spectre seems to be haunting the society. Or maybe those phantom creatures who have been pushed into the shades for ages are taking on human form — and that is why there is so much fear. The sex workers' movement for last few years have made us confront many fundamental questions about social structures, life sexuality, moral rights and wrongs. We think an intrinsic component of our movement is to go on searching for the answers to these questions and raise newer ones.”

The sex worker manifesto played a significant role in reorienting the discourse around prostitution. It presented the voices of sex workers and opposed the NGOs that attempted to ‘save’ women from the trade. It challenged both the patriarchal and liberal narrative around prostitution. If I could – I would just read this 8 page document because in it sex workers have critiqued: society, patriarchy, marriage, men, women, sexuality, etc.

The most important thing, though, that the sex worker manifesto states – Sex work is work. It is not fun and frolic – it is hard labour. It is not a moral condition – the woman who enters prostitution is no different from a working class man who has to migrate from his village to a city for a job; and also not much different than a woman who enters marriage for economic and social security. They say that the poorer especially women have fewer options – whether they enter into a marriage or do domestic work, construction work or sex work – many times, her life circumstances will determine the option for her. And still - the abuse and treatment of a sex worker by society, the State, the police is horrendous – no worker or labourer, is treated as badly as a sex worker is – because sex work is somehow considered sinful and immoral. To them – if other workers can justifiably demand better working conditions, more legal protections, higher wages – why cannot a sex worker who wants to continue doing sex work also demand the same.

DMSC and VAMPS occupied the space of the liberal feminist. They looked at sexual freedom as integral to a woman’s freedom; they asked why societal norms around sex do not apply equally to men and women. Sex work, to them, was an occupational choice – a type of work available to women who have far and few options, and as free a choice as any, in a capitalistic, patriarchal, and casteist system. They said the women should be empowered and recognised as ‘sex workers’. They criticised being viewed as “victims” and said that attempts at rehabilitation were out- of-touch, not helpful, patronising, controlling and harm sex workers.

DMSC and VAMPS have played such an important role in empowering sex workers. Sex workers say that unionising helped them see themselves as people with worth and the sex trade as something they need not be ashamed of. These organisations are grassroot level organisations, and they have done and do a lot of productive work. They empower the sex workers to deal with the police and their neighbours. They engage in collective bargaining with the police and third parties in the trade. DMSC has helped with the setting up of USHA Cooperative, a banking cooperative for sex workers set up by sex workers, because many can’t access mainstream banking. Members of the DMSC called themselves Jouno Kormi which means sex workers in Bengali. They are credited for introducing the term in the Bengali vocabulary– because they wanted to assert their identity as workers.

So with the AIDs epidemic we saw voices coming out of the red light districts of India.

But along with this, started a lot of interventions into brothels. So this period onwards, we see, all very quickly, the rise in NGO, academic, state and international ‘concerns’.

Since I am covering all discourses around prostitution – there’s also another outlook of: mild tolerance towards prostitution that we see from some sections. This isn’t necessarily a feminist argument and perhaps more patriarchal. It is a sympathetic lens of looking at sex workers as women who need money and have no choice, and looking at men as having more sexual urges than women, so viewing prostitution as almost essential in society as long as it’s invisible. Interestingly even the DMSC in its sex worker manifesto– took this stand – that sex workers fulfil an important social demand.

In recent times, we have seen history repeat itself. We saw in real time – an attack on women in the entertainment sector, similar to British colonial times. There were discussions among the middle class and elites on the intersection of gender and caste; dignity and morality, while marginalised women suffered the consequences.

In August 2005, the Maharashtra state Government declared a ban on ‘bar dancing’.

It carried out amendments to the Bombay Police Act, effectively banning ‘bar dancing’ in smaller bar businesses but allowing it in 3 star hotels and up, so the more elite bar businesses. The Maharashtra government stood by its decision. It’s reasons?? bar dancing was against the dignity of women; it was against public morality; it was a bad influence on the youth, and these bars were used for the solicitation of prostitution. So for public order, for the morality of men, and for the dignity of women - the Maharashtra government implemented a ban which rendered 700 small bars out of business. Along with it - 75,000 bar dancers lost their livelihood.

The playbook was the same.

One side saw the bar dancers, bar owners and some sections of feminists and activists. They argued bar dancing was work for these women, many of who came from traditional dancing communities. They said that the ban was elitist. Bar dancing was no different from any other job in the entertainment industry. It was clear that bar dancers were easily targeted because they danced at smaller establishments and came from more marginalised backgrounds than say dancers, models and actresses. Not to target these other jobs in the entertainment field cause they face their own share of unnecessary scrutiny but why were bar dancers considered more cheap ? more corrupting?

The other side saw the state, politicians, feminists, activists, NGOs, academicians, and anti-trafficking organisations, who said that dance bars were becoming dens of prostitution and marginalised women were being exploited. They said the ban was good since it challenged the exploitation of marginalised women, many of who came from traditional dancing communities.

With these two sides – the matter goes to Court.

The ban is challenged by the Indian Hotels and Restaurants Association and the Bhartiya Bar Girls Union before the Bombay High Court for violating the Right to Livelihood under Article 19 and also Article 14 of the Constitution: the Right to Equality. because it allowed bar dancing in three star hotels and up but not in permit rooms – essentially discriminating between the women dancing in more elite bars and those dancing in smaller bars.

The Bombay High Court held in favour of the bar dancers in 2006 itself saying the ban was unconstitutional. This judgment is challenged by the Maharashtra Government before the Supreme Court which agrees to hear the petition and so puts a stay on the Bombay High Court order. So now that it’s under appeal in the Supreme Court, the ban is back in effect. This was just the beginning of a tussle between the bars and dancers -- and the Maharashtra Government who were adamant to not let these smaller dance bars run. In 2013, the Supreme Court held that the 2005 ban was indeed unconstitutional. So the ban was in place from 2005 to 2013. Now between 2013 and 2016 – there’s more proceedings, more amendments, more striking off, of these amendments, but overall - a complete refusal to issue licenses to bars so bars continued to remain closed.

In 2016, an Act is passed: the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016. This Act in principal allowed bar dancing but prohibited “obscene” dancing. The guidelines issued, made these bars subject to such heavy scrutiny, it almost maintained the ban. One of the guidelines issued was that the alcohol area and dancing area should be segregated, so you cannot serve alcohol near the dancing area. Another prohibited the showering of notes on bar dancers or even personally handing her anything that can be monetised, essentially banning tips to bar dancers, and now the women could only receive a monthly salary. Another guideline was that CCTV cameras should be put in the dancing area. These guidelines were insensitive, out of touch, vague, difficult to enforce, and anti-business, making these bars vulnerable to constant police raids.

These guidelines were challenged in the Supreme Court, again. Finally the Supreme Court sits with the Maharashtra govt, bar owners and bar dancers and rewrites the guidelines, removing some clauses and retaining some. It removes the clauses regarding segregation of the bar room and the dance stage, and also of mandatory CCTV cameras, since it was violative of the dancers’ right to privacy. It also held that tips can be given but the money cannot be showered on the dancers anymore and now has to be handed over.

With this Supreme Court order passed in 2019, the ban was finally lifted - 14 years later. Varsha Kale, an activist, who formed the Bharatiya Bar Girls’ Union said that despite the bar dancers having an association, despite the Government saying the ban was to protect the women -- in all those years of the ban, not one bar dancer was heard when framing these guidelines. Not a single bar dancer to make guidelines about the bar dancing industry - an industry the bar dancers know a lot about and can help with. Why were they not included? Because these women are looked at as either too immoral or too exploited to know what’s good for them. Just imagine, industry guidelines passed for professionals in any other field ---- like law, medicine, engineering, science, art, entertainment, without including the professionals in the field – the lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, artists. Usually, professions are left to be self-governed by people and associations in that field. So why not for bar dancers?

Just the fact that the State government even suggested a guideline to abolish tips for dancers shows that they have no idea that women are doing this for work. Anyone should know that workers in the service industry are very reliant on tips – that’s a major chunk of their income. That’s the same with bar dancers – it is part of the trade, and it doesn’t cap earnings like a monthly salary does. While the supreme court read down this guideline – so now while you cannot shower money on dancers, you can hand it to them – it still allows a dystopian level of surveillance over the bars and dancers. The Maharashtra Government said that showering notes on women, the bar dancers, was demeaning to them. Showering money is part of tradition in even some Indian weddings and who decides if it’s demeaning or not? In fact – bar dancers tell us that in 1997, bar owners had actually started a system of only monthly pay without tips, and bar dancers had gone on strike then to oppose this rule, and got back the system of tips which are usually showered. They never opposed or went on strike over this. If the women who are doing it and clearly exercising agency, if they don’t think it’s demeaning or exploitative – why does the state? why does the judiciary? Why do the feminists and the activists? Why this unnecessary scrutiny to a woman’s feelings and dignity in her profession?

What’s even more interesting is that in the 14 years of the ban, all parties in power and in opposition; no matter which party, no matter which coalition, no matter what drama has happened in Maharashtra politics – all politicians have been united in this decision. Standing firmly against bar dancers.

For bar dancers – they work in the field for 5 years, maybe 10 years and their main earning years is her 20s so bar dancers rely on this short period to earn money for their future and many get into bar dancing because of financial constraints. This ban was for 14 years so bar dancers who lost their jobs in 2005 would never make it back to the profession. When the ban was announced, bar dancers clearly said that the ban will force dancers into unsafe situations and clandestine activities. Amidst the court proceedings over all those years, they said that the dancers were actually doing sex work now, which they didn’t do as bar dancers. So the ban implemented to prevent their prostitution – actually pushed them into it. Feminists and activists who supported the ban did say that women should have been rehabilitated, but in the 14 years – there was not even one report of a single rehabilitation.

And let’s look at this situation for what it truly is. The State, politicians and judges – the male patriarchs deciding what’s good for morality, take away the livelihood and cultural spaces of bar dancers – just like the British Raj did with the courtesan and Devdaasi traditions. Then the educated middle class – the feminists and activists none of whom have been bar dancers, moralising and debating about how bar dancing can be exploitative and demeaning – just like the Victorian feminists, English civil society and missionaries who campaigned against the Devdaasi and nautch traditions.

While 75,000 marginalised women, who were entertainers and dancers, many who got pushed into prostitution, ran from pillar to post hoping someone would understand that what they did was not immoral; that what they did was not exploitative or demeaning; that this was their job - that they had the right to their livelihood – the right to survive.

So Skewed

3. Modern India’s Tryst with Prostitution

Listen to this podcast on