There are two cases this week that require us to rethink our notions of justice, especially in the post #MeToo moment. The first is the video posted by New Delhi-based Shivani Gupta and her friends demanding an apology out of the older Soma Chakraborty which has now gone viral. The second, the sexual harassment and victimisation allegations against the CJI.
Soma had raised an objection to the younger woman’s sartorial choice and had gone on to ask the men present at the restaurant to rape her. Shivani and her friends, feeling that an apology was due followed Soma into a shop where the video was made. “I will make you viral” Shivani can be heard saying in the video. The line touched a nerve with me, as I realised that these young women were banking on the ‘collective’ to support them as they were doing what they had learnt — to speak up for themselves, to go after misogyny and sexism. They got what they wanted — virality, with venom being spewed on the older Soma as a show of solidarity for Shivani — and also some they did not expect — critique of the methods used, and a discourse on how not to beat misogyny with misogyny.
It struck me that there have been so few conversations about how to continue the fight after speaking up, what means to take to reach the end that is justice. We now know we must and can speak up for ourselves, and will find support if we do, but how to do it right? And the discourse around the video comes at a good point in time, stressing that the justice we seek is not retributive, and what we seek must be sought through fair means and not by playing the same cards as the one we are calling out.
The promise of solidarity was the first that was made by the #MeToo movement. It was this that brought more and more people to speak up against sexual harassment. In the course of watching the accused perpetuators stealthily slip back into their jobs, reclaim any lost ground in a matter of months and be protected by a patriarchal brethren, the promise of memory became the next that the movement has tried to offer.
Now, memory too is a job of the ‘collective’, the largest possible group of watchdogs — the same group whose support that Shivani was seeking — and it is this fabulous sisterhood that is holding to account the country’s highest court right now, as they have reminded and fought and held on to memory and chased after change and continued to rage on for the next person right after.
The case against the CJI brings a kind of self-care to attention where the former junior court assistant withdrew from the court proceedings as she felt she would not get the justice she seeks. This is important as many of us fail to draw the line where important and to take self-preservation seriously — in this case it must be lauded as an act of kindness towards oneself. And while feminists and activists across the country are organising themselves to ensure justice is served for the person in the CJI case, it is important that we see memory also as labour-intensive in the number of times and for the number of people whose actions we must never forget. For the sake of the ‘collective’ good we could take care of ourselves where required, and the justice we imagine will be better when it combines a non-retributive justice with memory, solidarity and self-care.