Have a Seat, But First, Have a Heart That Cares
G Mamatha
REJOICE, sisters, rejoice! For yet another barrier is broken! Kirsty Coventry, a woman (have no doubts – she is a woman) has been elected as the President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the first time in its 131-year history. No joke, this is. A brief recap of our sisters’ struggles is necessary to understand how she rose to where she is.
The ‘father’ of the modern Olympic Games, Pierre de Coubertin, had reservations about allowing women to participate in sports. In spite of this, 22 women competed in the 1900 Olympic Games. At that time, there were only two games in which they were allowed to participate. Now, women make up 48 per cent of all athletes taking part in the Olympic Games. This seems like steady progress. But relax – let us look into another aspect. It was only in 1979 that the right of women to participate in sports was formally recognised in an international convention – the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
After another 15 years, in 1994, the IOC supported the initiative for a ‘fairer and more equitable system of sport and physical activity’ for women. In 1995, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action included, for the first time, a specific reference to sport as a tool for gender equality and women’s empowerment. The following year, i.e., 1996, the IOC decided to amend the Olympic Charter, adding these words:
“The IOC (…) strongly encourages, by appropriate means, the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures, particularly in the executive bodies of national and international sports organisations.”
Hmm… 96 years after women first competed in the Olympics, the need to ‘encourage the promotion of women in sport’ was finally recognised! And let’s not forget – “particularly in the executive bodies” – the governing bodies of sports organisations. To think that these changes came without struggle would be foolish.
Since then, targets were set: 10 per cent representation of women in decision-making positions by 2000, 20 per cent by 2005, and 30 per cent by 2020. Notice how they planned to double women’s presence in decision-making bodies – from 10 to 20 per cent within just five years. But to go from 20 to 30 per cent? They gave themselves 15 more years – just to set it as a target! Not bad, considering that it was only in 1981 that the IOC had its first two women members… and even then, they were not elected but co-opted. In 1990, for the first time, a woman was elected to the IOC Executive Board. Seven years later, a woman was elected Vice President. And for a woman to be elected President? That took another 27 years.
Why are all these things about sports and the IOC being discussed in People’s Democracy? Are there no other pressing matters for this paper to cover?
Ah, but here lies the catch.
Do not forget the protest of women wrestlers against sexual harassment. They gathered all their courage to take on the Wrestling Federation chief, whom they accused of sexually harassing athletes. This is no small feat. Forget the sheer strength it takes to stand up and challenge the one in power over them – even recognising sexual harassment in sport is a battle in itself. The IOC itself admits as much.
According to a survey conducted by the IOC during the 2018 Youth Olympic Games, 44 per cent of all responding athletes were unaware of what constitutes harassment and abuse in sport! And after being made aware – after all the lessons on “good touch, bad touch” and everything in between – 36 per cent reported that harassment and abuse were likely or very likely occurring in their sport!
Remember the defense of the Wrestling Federation chief ?
Ah, but lecherous behaviour has many forms. And women who face it – they know and feel it.
Even if it was about the wrestlers' protest, all these issues could have been discussed back then. So, that still doesn’t answer the question – why now?
And here is the reason.
The recent saintly words uttered by a judge of the Allahabad High Court:
“Grabbing breasts or snapping a pyjama string does not constitute rape or an attempt to rape.” It is merely the “preparation stage” and not an “actual attempt.”
And if you, my sister, have not fainted yet, brace yourself for more:
“The difference between preparation and an actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination…. It is also not stated by witnesses that due to this act of the accused, the victim got naked or got undressed. There is no allegation that the accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim.”
Hail, My Lord! We have marked your words.
It seems it is not just athletes who are unaware of what constitutes sexual harassment – even learned judges do not.
Sisters, and those among my brothers who are still sensitive, from now on, let us first look for determination in the predators. Then, let us calculate the degree of their determination. Wait for them to disrobe us. Let us be made to get naked, undressed.
After we survive all these preparations, let us see if an actual attempt is made. And once all these conditions are met – and in the process the predator is satisfied – only then may we proceed to file a complaint. An attempt has been made. ACTUALLY.
Let us keep our blood boiling (it should, for the sensitive types) before we return to this once again – after a small detour.
Again, what does the newly elected IOC President – who is a woman – have to do with all this?
Kirsty Coventry, after being elected as President, made an important observation on gender equality and the question of bringing about a change:
“I don’t believe you can really create change if you don’t have a seat at the table.”
A seat at the table. Mark it.
We have been demanding a seat at the table. But instead of giving us an equal share, they offer us token representation – ceremonial at best. Our demands for an equal role in decision-making are conveniently pushed aside. And when we are not part of decision-making, the decisions made do not reflect our needs, nor do they address our concerns.
What is more damning is, all those lecherous predators, voyeurs, harassers, and the utterly ignorant, occupy the seats.
Hold on. A mere seat at the table is not enough. In our country, the Olympic Association is led by a reputed woman athlete. But did she do anything for the protesting wrestlers? NOTHING. This proves that just having a seat at the table is not enough. We need those who are sensitive and conscious – those who understand what it means and feels like to be discriminated, oppressed and exploited – to be at the table. Ahem. It is not just biology – ideology is equally important, if not more.
Now, let us look at some important statistics about Indian women – their aspirations, political participation, their presence (or absence) in decision-making bodies, and how this absence impacts decisions.
Prof. Sanjay Kumar has edited a book: Women Voters in Indian Elections – Changing Trends and Emerging Patterns. According to this book, until 2010, the number of women voters who voted was lower than that of men. However, in the 2019 general elections, men and women voted in nearly equal numbers.
Prof. Kumar analyses electoral data and points out that in Uttar Pradesh, during both the 2017 and 2022 assembly elections, women voters outstripped men (not to be confused with disrobing). Even states like Bihar and Uttarakhand have shown similar trends in recent elections, while in Punjab and Delhi, the number of men and women voting has been nearly equal.
Before celebrating women’s empowerment, be warned.
The same study also found that while the number of women candidates in elections has increased across different levels, a wide gap still exists between the percentage of men and women contesting elections as candidates. In other words, the study confirms what we already know – women’s representation in decision-making bodies remains limited. Decision-making is still a male-dominated bastion.
The study says when women were asked about the reasons for this bias, they spelled them out clearly. One-fifth stated that patriarchal norms and the structure of society were the biggest obstacles. Thirteen per cent pointed to household responsibilities, which prevent them from active participation in politics.
And then come the cultural norms. Cultural norms here mean: women should not talk to other men, the purdah system, restrictions on mobility, and everything else that keeps them in their ‘place’.
Sisters, how right you are!
Patriarchy – which dictates that women have no freedom of mobility; patriarchy – which forbids women from speaking to other men; patriarchy – which confines women to care work alone. And, of course, patriarchy – which sees women as objects to be lusted after, enjoyed, and then condemned.
She is not to be trusted.
If you need a better knowledge and understanding of patriarchy, look no further. Just read Manu ‘Dharmaśāstra’. The learned judge has read it well. The wrestling chief has internalised it thoroughly.
Kirsty Coventry, in her initial interaction, stated:
“We're going to have to navigate difficult leaders who have different opinions.”
And: “It's not been the easiest thing, but I have had incredible support, and we are making a difference.”
In our country, we too have to navigate difficult leaders – and, of course, difficult judges. They are here, there, and EVERYWHERE. And no, it is not the easiest thing.
Coventry spoke about “incredible support.” That is exactly what we need to make a difference.
Incredible support means standing with one another – not resorting to character assassination of the victim, her dress, attitude, behaviour, or anything else.
Incredible support means offering a shoulder to cry on and raising a fist to fight. It means not just reacting, but acting.
After all, haven’t we learned that prevention is better than cure?
Let us rise together – to prevent unjust orders from being passed and prevent unjust acts from being committed by lecherous men.
As the history of the IOC shows, persistence pays and persistence wins. GOLD.
or reload the browser
