What The Hema Panel Report On Malayalam Cinema Hides Is Very Revealing

Oogway, the sagacious master in the delightful Kung Fu Panda, was never short of truisms about life. He said, "One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it." 

It is true of the Hema Committee report on Malayalam cinema. By redacting 55 pages and making public only a 235-page report, the panel has revealed quite a few things by choosing to hide a few things. And what it has revealed, in any case, is not exactly new or groundbreaking.

That the report filed in 2019 has seen the light of day five years later is in itself a tale that tells itself. Even now, the Pinarayi Vijayan government would not have made it public had it not been goaded by a right to information (RTI) application filed by a bunch of journalists.

The committee, which was formed in the aftermath of a sexual assault on an actress (a case in which frontline actor Dileep is one of the accused) in 2017, went into issues of sexual harassment and gender inequality in Malayalam cinema.

The three-member commission, comprising Justice K Hema (retired), former bureaucrat K B Valsalakumari, and veteran actress Sharada as members, submitted its report to the Kerala government in December 2019. But the report gathered dust because some of the information in it was deemed sensitive.

Huh!

Bizarre, Befuddling

What else could an investigative report on sex allegations and, in general, treatment meted out to women in the film industry be? It is like ordering a McCheese burger and not eating it on the grounds that it may be too fatty.

The Hema panel report was always going to contain information and details that were bound to be uncomfortable. The delay in making it public was nothing more than some dubious tactics attempted by powers that be, and it exactly reveals the kind of clout that some perpetrators of diabolic crime have in the Malayalam film industry.

Broadly, among the findings are that actresses faced harassment, including instances where the doors of their rooms were knocked on by intoxicated individuals in the film industry. Many of them, who suffered sexual harassment, were reluctant to complain about this to the police due to fear.

The report also calls for strict enforcement of the non-consumption of alcohol and drugs on sets (this is claimed to be rampant) and the regulation of artists' and technicians' remuneration. 

Now to the puzzling parts surrounding the report and its publication. The thing that is bizarre is the way actress Ranjini sought to stall the report's release by moving the courts on it. By the way, she has also welcomed the release of the report. As we said, it is all a tad confusing. 

On the face of it, her reservations about the report's release were over privacy concerns. Ranjini, for the record, had deposed before the committee and said she wanted to know whether her concerns and statements were put out by the panel in the right manner without prejudicing her. 

It is unlikely that anyone who has deposed any committee was ever worried about how their statement would be treated by a panel of experts. Whether Ranjani was genuinely afraid of her words being misconstrued or was she being used by some other outside forces to stall the report's release is a matter of conjecture.

She has indicated that her legal team will address any remaining issues. She could be all innocent and was just scared by the forces that control the industry. 

Problem Not Unique To Malayalam Film Industry

But to be fair to the Malayalam film industry, the charges of sexual harassment, lack of basic facilities like women’s toilets and changing rooms, gender bias and discrimination, disparity in remuneration, and the absence of a legally-constituted authority to address their problems are not unique to it. Bollywood, Kollywood, Tollywood, Sandalwood... you name it, the scenario is sordidly the same, if not worse, across film industries in the country.

But 'Mallu' filmdom takes pride in being progressive. As it happens in other spheres, the so-called liberal sections can be sinister. Among the various incidents that have been made public in the committee report, the one about an actress who spoke about having to work with an actor who sexually assaulted her makes for a harrowing read.

Apparently, she had to act alongside a man who had previously abused her. As per the report, they were playing a married couple, and she had to hug him in front of the camera. Her mental and physical stress peaked, and the scene had to be shot 17 times. The report comes down on the filmmaker, who, without understanding why the actress was taking so many retakes, reportedly criticised her.

Of course, the actress could have walked out of the film the moment it was known that she was going to be paired with a person she had serious issues with. But that would be treading into victim-blaming territory. However, she could have at least openly told the director her misgivings.

Anyway, by not naming and shaming the errant actor and the cold director, the report seems to be erring on the side of needless caution. If the idea was to show up what was wrong in the industry, it cannot be done without identifying the alleged villains. 

As we said, the 55 pages that have been redacted (specifically pertaining to the experiences of sexual harassment faced by women) defeat the very purpose of the panel and its report. Apparently, the sexual abuse victims have explained their horrendous experiences and why they kept silent all along. But by holding those portions back, isn't the government helping those perpetrators rather than the victims?

More worryingly, the report hints that even female child artists are not spared, and they too are exploited. This is explosive, if true. But again, a lot is left to speculation.

Report Or Gossip Column?

Quite damningly, the report also revealed that a founder member of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), who had claimed there was no sexual assault on women in the film industry, had done so for selfish reasons. (The WCC was formed in 2017 after the sexual assault of a prominent woman actor in Malayalam cinema.)

It is said that members of the WCC were generally not getting work because they protested against the male atrocities in the industry, but this one actress, who is one of the founding members of the WCC, was getting several offers in cinema.

"The only member of WCC who is getting several offers in cinema is the founder member of the WCC about whom I have already discussed above. She is the only one woman who stated repeatedly that there is no problem for women in cinema and that she had not heard about any sexual harassment on any woman in cinema, etc, which is far from the truth. In this context, if her evidence is analysed, we are persuaded to believe that she is deliberately not speaking against men or the industry only because of her selfish motive not to get ousted from the Malayalam industry," the report said.

Again, no names. So the report, in its present public form, reads like a gossip column, with all of us forced to guess the identities of those mentioned.

For the record, the WCC was formed as an 18-member group, with its members being Rima Kallingal, Parvathy Thiruvothu, Sajitha Madathil, Remya Nambeesan, Manju Warrier, Stephy Xavier, Vidhu Vincent, Anjali Menon, Bina Paul, Asha Achy Joseph, and screenwriter Deedi Damodaran, among others.

So who could be that founding member who is still getting regular work? Let your conspiracy theories run riot, because that is what the Kerala government has forced you to do. 

On a serious note, the government's intentions are questionable. For it has redacted even portions about difficulties women face in film sets due to the lack of toilet facilities. The point is that the government can still keep the 'sensitive' portions behind the veil, but it should at least order an inquiry based on the sworn statements.

If, as the report says, sexual harassment is rampant in the Malayalam film industry, shouldn't the government be taking stringent action? To get a report and still not act on its findings is criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.