‘We don’t want to punish, ban anyone’
The Malayalam film industry has been grappling with the fallout from the release of the long-delayed Hema Committee Report. One of the most significant developments was the collective resignation of the executive body of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), led by veteran actor Mohanlal, following revelations that led to sexual assault cases being filed against some of its executive members.
The ongoing #MeToo movement in the industry has prompted the Kerala government to form a Special Investigation Team to probe cases of exploitation within the industry.
In light of the report’s findings and the positive steps that have followed, TNIE sat down for a freewheeling interaction with actors Jolly Chirayath and Divya Gopinath, both members of the Women In Cinema Collective (WCC).
They discuss the need to address issues identified by the report that go beyond sexual harassment, the importance of creating an organised workspace with proper regulations, and more.
Excerpts:
Considering recent developments, do you feel that the Hema Committee Report has achieved its intended objectives?
Jolly: While the shocking revelations are based on women’s testimonies, the issues identified in the report extend beyond just sexual harassment. What I understood from the report is that there are various layers of power structures that determine how the industry operates to exploit the powerless — what I believe constitutes the ‘power group’. Unfortunately, what is happening now is that the public’s attention is more focused on titillating aspects, akin to collective voyeurism. And there seems to be a tendency to blame the women. The public and the media should shift their focus to the broader issues highlighted in the report.
Divya: Had it been five years ago, our own families would have discouraged us from discussing such issues. But now, society is viewing these matters in a new light. People around me have begun asking the right questions about power structures. When a government-appointed committee acknowledges the problems we face in the industry, society starts to see these exploitations as serious issues, rather than mere gossip. They understand the need for change.
Jolly: In cinema, the workspace is unorganised and unstable, with no clear structure or adherence to rules. After reading the report, I was surprised to learn that it was an actors’ union that opposed the implementation of work contracts, even when producers were willing to introduce them.
For those crying hoarse over ‘destruction of the industry’, it is important to recognise that only the industry itself can cause its own downfall — no external force can destroy it. The industry must collectively acknowledge the issues, and the government should introduce proper rules to ensure a safe working environment. Even with such measures, gender bias will likely persist due to prevailing societal norms.
Divya: For women, the word ‘adjustment’ starts within families. It is the responsibility of families and society to create a world where women are not asked to compromise in any way to secure work or their rightful dues. That change is happening now, although there remains a section that refuses to acknowledge the efforts made by organisations like the WCC to achieve this.
Jolly: That is because there is no governing body above the WCC that is constituted by men. If you look at the functioning of most women’s organisations in India, they are often affiliated with political parties controlled by men, and these organisations remain obedient to the interests of the men in power. Our greatest satisfaction now is that we have proven wrong those who predicted that the WCC’s existence would be short-lived or doubted our persistence.
Divya: We are speaking about these topics not because we hate men, but because we understand that cinema is a workplace and we recognise the meaning of consent.
Jolly: We are saying, don’t turn sexuality — a beautiful feeling and act between two individuals — into a tool for violence. If we compromise and accept the current system, sexuality will always be used as a tool for violence. Look at how we teach women to protect their virginity while granting men complete freedom. This, in itself, creates a power imbalance, with men resorting to force and other means to get what they want. When sexuality isn’t equally enjoyable and happily shared, the likelihood of violence increases.
Even as the Hema Committee report has opened up a space for dialogue, some wonder why the complainants were silent for so long. Some of the allegations date back to several years...
Divya: It’s not always easy to speak up. I know how difficult that journey is. Many might think it’s just about having a camera or a mic, but there’s a long and challenging path leading to that individual decision.
Jolly: Even now, people don’t see cinema as a legitimate workplace, especially for women. So, if a woman is determined to stay in that space, society concludes that there must be something wrong with her. After all, there are many who believe that no woman from a ‘good’ family would choose this path, right?
Divya: Since my college days, I have been involved in theatre. Later, I decided to study it professionally. After completing my M.Com, I went to a drama school. I have always seen cinema and theatre as professions. And when I have a bad experience in this space, the question I get is: ‘Why are you staying on in this field? Can’t you leave?’ That’s not fair. Why should I leave because someone else behaved badly?
Jolly: This question is often asked of women working in cinema. When a woman in IT was brutally murdered, did anyone suggest that women shouldn’t work in the tech industry? Recently, a doctor was brutally murdered in Kolkata. Is anyone asking women why they are studying medicine or working in hospitals? No, because these are considered ‘acceptable’ professions.
In the Kerala film industry, after acting, hair styling and costume designing are the two departments where you find women. On a set of 100 people, you will find only five or six women. And all of these sets are different, each with its own hierarchy. I believe that’s why an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is so important. Since 2013, under the POSH Act, every workplace with more than 10 people is required to have an ICC. However, it was only recently that the film industry was asked to establish one. The industry still sees ICC as just some nuisance demanded by the WCC.
Divya: But now, some people are beginning to realise the importance of having an ICC.
Jolly: That’s because the issues have become so significant that they have no other choice. Just imagine — if a censored report can have such an impact, what would happen if the original one were released? Some people would never be able to face a camera again.
So, you are certain that many more startling allegations and truths are yet to be revealed?
Jolly: The court has now sought the complete report. However, consider this, when it comes to issues related to women, such as rape or rape-related murders, what stance have the governing bodies and judiciary taken so far? There is little to be hopeful about. From the Abhaya case to the Valayar incident, it is evident that the system has consistently been against women. Justice remains elusive. Women need to recognise this and form a pressure group to demand answers and solutions.
Have you ever felt the influence of the ‘power group’ in the film industry?
Jolly: It’s not always a specific individual who wields power. Rather, it’s the network of people around them, those they favour. By observing these individuals and their behaviour towards us, we can gauge whether the powerful person includes us within their sphere. Everyone exerts power over those below them.
Divya: I think we should reconsider the term ‘power group’. Sometimes, even without their direct knowledge, their preferences and demands are fulfilled.
Jolly: Consider the 2017 incident [rape of an actor] — a horrific event that should never have occurred. This was not directed at a junior artist but at a prominent actress. By following this case, you can discern the power dynamics at play.
If a privileged and prominent actress has not received justice, how can a woman with no privilege or from a weaker position come forward with her issues? This is a rare opportunity to speak out, and we may not get another chance to do so openly. Yet everyone knows that even when speaking up, the court will demand proof. Like Sheelamma (actor Sheela) asked, if someone unexpectedly and forcefully hugs us from our back, can we take a selfie for proof? We may not have evidence of abuse or assault. What we need to understand is that a woman who is speaking up has undergone trauma at the workplace. It is not easy for her to come and talk. We are brought up in a system that teaches the opposite, where women are blamed for such incidents. That is why they take time to react.
Divya: I have a personal experience. In 2017, I opened up about an assault I faced. After that, I was called for some movies. But they asked if I had any problem if that person was also a part of the film. When I said yes, I stopped receiving calls. People were trying to tell me that speaking up is a problem. We are exploited in one way or another every day. We cannot file cases every day.
Jolly: It is hard to bring a change. Because we [society] are used to systemic violence. Sometimes, people are not even able to understand that we are being subjected to violence. People also ask why some of our members continue to work with people facing allegations. We intend to reform such people — not to punish or ban them. That shouldn’t happen. We have been cornered for speaking up. We know the pain. So we should not do that to others. [Actor] Alencier, after the release of the Hema committee report, called me and said that men, including him, have committed mistakes and acknowledged that we had taken a big step. I think it is a good change.
‘WCC is not a collective to oppose men’
As you said, filing a case is not always possible. The effectiveness of naming and shaming is debatable. What are the logical corrective measures then?
Divya: Constituting an ICC. People will get a space to open up about their issues. Most of the time, members of ICC do not even know they are part of it.
Jolly: According to the guidelines issued by the state government, one member of ICC should be from outside the cinema industry — an activist or a social worker. The government can constitute a panel. When the member is a friend of the producer, investor, or controller, the credibility becomes questionable. This is how it is working. The crew is not aware of the existence of ICC. We have also suggested creating awareness among members through sessions on ICC and its significance.
An actor recently alleged that the Hema Committee primarily relied on testimonies of those recommended by the WCC…
Jolly: I think such people have not read the report. It was a very transparent committee. WCC might have received an email from the committee, inviting members to share their views, just like any other organisation. Even FEFKA (Film Employees Federation of Kerala) and MACTA (Malayalam Cine Technicians Association) received the email. Anyone who wanted to speak to the committee was welcome to do so. Mohanlal went twice. And he was the president of AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists). So the info was certainly passed on.
The executive members of AMMA have resigned. Do you see this as a sign of renewal?
Jolly: I don’t believe it’s appropriate for us to comment on this decision by AMMA, especially since we are not members of the organisation. However, within AMMA, there seem to be two differing opinions, and that’s a sign of democratic engagement. If the situation has led to a space for diverse viewpoints within the group, it could be seen as a positive development.
What is your opinion on a victim filing an FIR and going for a case?
Jolly: When a victim decides to pursue a case, they face a challenging trial period while dealing with their fear and trauma. It’s important to consider how they would manage the rigmarole. Some NGOs approach the WCC, offering free legal assistance. We can support victims by seeking help from these external organisations that are willing to assist.
Many people are now thanking WCC for this movement...
Jolly: We are proud to witness this change in attitude among people. WCC as a group has been the target of trolls and ridicule. Over time, WCC has received support from male co-stars and others in the film industry. They appreciate our commitment to standing up for a cause and advocating for a broader group of people.
Divya: We are witnessing a shift in people’s attitude. But that being said, taunts and ridicule against the group and its members still exist. People fail to realise we are just like any normal person, with healthy friendships and a chill persona (laughs). Just because we raise our voices against injustice it doesn’t mean we are surly. Now people have begun to realise that WCC isn’t a collective that is formed to oppose men; now the group has found its true meaning among the public as an organisation that addresses workplace issues and structural deficiencies.
Besides actors, who are the others who face unjust treatment on sets?
Jolly: Assistant directors. They face significant challenges that are often not discussed openly. The difficulties of being an assistant director have remained unchanged since I started years ago. I have assisted in some films. They often work long hours, up to 16 at a stretch, without fixed working hours or regular breaks. Many don’t have the comfort of an air-conditioned room and may have to share cramped quarters with others on set. In a creative field like this, an erratic work schedule can impact overall productivity.
Do you think these harsh working conditions are normalised because they were once glorified?
Jolly: That could be a possibility. Just because some faced struggles in the feudal setup, it isn’t fair to reciprocate the same in this advanced world. It is not fair to continue the struggles of the past in today’s advanced world. Many countries have adopted shorter working hours and better conditions, recognising the importance of mental health and well-being. If we don’t address workplace issues, we risk creating a workforce that is mentally distressed.
Actor Sheela, as you mentioned, has made a welcome statement. In contrast, committee member and veteran actor Sharada made some comments that were termed regressive. However, that could also be seen as a collective voice of many from that generation. Could you share your thoughts on this?
Jolly: Sheela is also from that generation, so the two people of that generation could have different opinions about how they want to address their workspace personally. It is disheartening that a committee member gave such a statement. She is not denying the issue, but opines that there is no need to discuss the topic openly. This comes from an old way of thinking. I see it as a concern of mothers at home, who think that it is wrong for women to talk about such things in public. It is regrettable that a person with such a mindset was included in the committee.
Divya: I personally feel that when we read the committee report, we can understand the views of these three people (Justice Hema, Sharada and former bureaucrat K B Valsalakumari]. People are not giving the mic to the other two; they are only seeking her [Sarada’s] opinion.
Jolly: People will look for the comments to validate the one that is most prominent in public opinion. In this committee report, there is no conclusion or suggestion that all three people have studied and made together. Women are blamed for many things, like their dressing or behavior. I would say such remarks show the lack of one’s personal development. The conditioning has not changed; some are in the patriarchal value system.
Divya: What we seek is structural changes in the industry...
Jolly: When the industry undergoes structural changes, society’s attitude will change as well. This profession should be open to everyone, creating a belief that anyone can enter it. Also, if we want positive outcomes, we need strong rules and regulations. Otherwise, if it is a namesake, the changes will not be sincere and there is a possibility that they will be brutally rejected. And we may not have this much of a voice tomorrow.
Did you ever feel any pressure like that?
Jolly: It’s not exactly pressure, but we often lose work without explanation. Our names will be on the list, schedules are set, and then suddenly, we are dropped from the project. If we ask why, they just say, ‘It’s cinema…’ Even when the director or writer wants us, we can still be removed. This has been happening for a long time.
Divya: Personally, my workflow took a hit. We understand it clearly, which is why we are speaking up. But it’s fine. We have started talking about it, and now, work will come, and more women will join in.
Jolly: In other industries like Tamil and Hindi, women are creating projects centered on women’s stories. Men should be able to do this, too. But, with the current power structure, many struggle to make films, and producers face a lot of pressure. Directors and producers alike suffer due to power games. If more people were gender-sensitive, we could see more stories like that. If women had the power to produce, write scripts, and make films, the industry’s view of women would change — they would not be seen only as actresses, but placed differently. Unfortunately, this is still lacking in our industry.
You are speaking very openly now. Do you worry that this might affect your work?
Jolly: I have never had such fears. My positive and negative sides are that I don’t respect structural hierarchy. I believe in giving equal respect to everyone. I’m not part of any religion, political party, or group. Despite the risks, my greatest comfort is my freedom to express my opinion without looking around. I am not going to live for 500 years, and I don’t view life as human-centric. With that conviction, I have no fear. We all have to die eventually, so I choose to die peacefully.
Divya: When I first started speaking out, I was scared. But there is a push from within – that it’s not just about me. For instance, I decided to speak out against the actor who misbehaved with me after realising that it was not a mistake or a one-off incident – the person had behaved in a similar manner with some other artistes too.
In this profession, many people don’t even realise the issues, and some believe it’s their duty to perpetuate them. We often don’t fully grasp the impact of speaking out until it affects us personally. Despite this, we continue to speak up. It’s tough when there is no work because we are not just activists; we are trying to make a difference from within our field. In 10 years, people might wonder where these women are.
Jolly: We are the ones who drove P K Rosy away. In the 96-year history of our industry, we know what happened to that Dalit girl. Our struggle is never easy. No matter how much progress we make, there will always be challenges for some people. I depend entirely on this work, with no other job or income source, so there are fears. But living with fear is not useful; it’s better to live with hope.
Divya: In the last five years, people began inquiring about us only after the Hema Committee report. I am in my 26th year, and I have struggled to find jobs that I love. We have personal lives beyond our profession. It’s crucial to understand and change this situation. Malayalam cinema is celebrated worldwide for its creativity and it should also be celebrated for its professional and systematic structure.
Jolly: Not only that, our industry is small, but we have managed to create such a big movement, which is a major achievement for us. One of our strengths is our high level of democratic awareness. The notion that the industry might be destroyed is baseless because art, especially cinema, is essential and cannot be eliminated from society. Cinema is an integral part of our existence.