Apu’s World

I’ve been following this case of Air India airhostess Komal Singh, who alleged that two AI pilots misbehaved with her during a flight. Pilots, on the other hand, say that she and another crew member, a flight purser, were causing trouble in the cockpit and all they did was push them out in the interests of public safety. (I thought after 9/11, no one was allowed to enter cockpits, so it beats me as to how Komal and the purser were there in the first place).

First, the police filed a case against the two pilots accused, and did record injuries on Komal’s body. Going by the reports however, it is not clear what exactly these injuries were; and in any case, how do you distinguish between injuries someone received when pushed out or received when someone tried to molest her? Sexual intent would perhaps be hard to establish, from the nature of injuries, though at least it confirms that an altercation took place.

Then, Air India established an internal committee to probe the case (headed by a woman as per Vishakha guidelines), but the committee gave the pilots a clean chit and instead accused Komal of concocting the sexual harassment angle. In fact, they charge-sheeted her for insubordination. What is not clear is how the committee arrived at its findings. Was it just a question of whom they believed, and did their belief that Komal was a ‘habitual complainer’ or that she complained ‘too late’ influence their decision?

But, the matter didn’t end there. The National Committee for Women (NCW) has also looked into the case and its findings seem to be directly opposed to that of AI’s internal committee. The report was supposed to be out on Nov 4th but the NCW has asked for more time, since they are still interviewing some passengers who witnessed the incident. While there is no official report yet, sources (news leaks?) indicate that their report will find the pilots guilty. To add more confusion to the whole plot, Komal has also accused the NCW of altering some of her statements and trying to persuade her to compromise.

The question is, why should 2 committees, 1 internal and 1 external find such varying evidence? It’s not as if the case is old - things happened barely a month or more ago, when witness memory as well as physical evidence, if any, should still be fresh. Perhaps it points to the fact that the procedure for dealing with sexual harassment cases in companies (or elsewhere) is not very methodical or rigorous. Since the case is not yet concluded, it’s early days yet, but such diverging views by two official committees in a short time points to issues with the way we deal with sexual harassment cases.

Not all cases may have witnesses or evidence, but where they do, these should be given importance, rather than just letting them devolve to ’she said, he said’.

Update (Nov 18th): The NCW report is out and it appears as if those earlier news reports were wrong. The NCW report partly matches the AI internal enquiry since it does rule out molestation. But, it also mentions that Komal was indeed pushed and that the situation could have been handled differently.

Related Posts You May Like
1. On the Anand Jon sentencing
2. Two Cases and Two Verdicts
3. Rape and Harassment in India

apu Women & Feminism