The Infosys episode may have triggered companies to cover themselves against legal and financial risks arising from s.harassment. Some companies in the IT sector have laid down policies, obtained undertakings from employees, counselors, formal training on rights and redress systems. The Director & Company Secretary of Shell at London told me of the hotline she has, that any employee can call, from any office anywhere in the world. All these may be necessary but sufficiency arises when employees are also trained well to prevent such occurrences.

Just ahead of the International Women’s Day this year, we have been presented with two somewhat disparate cases that provoked further debate on s.harassment. The first is the case of a central public enterprise which should have been the epitome of adherence to the code prescribed by the Supreme Court and a model employer. Worse still is the fact that the CMD himself is the accused. It is reported that the CMD was in the company of the Regional Manager and a female employee. They had dinner together in the hotel and the employee was asked to accompany the CMD into his suite where he had reportedly made advances, for which the regional manager had later apologized. If true, this shows a degraded mind and a very poor assessment of women who have been oppressed, denigrated, and intimidated over the centuries. Such acts, if proved, deserve the most severe of punishments so that people in high positions are particularly deterred from misusing authority and letting their fantasies fly into senseless behavior.

As the proportion of female employees is increasing, and their jobs demand late hours, issues of harassments at work places and while commuting are bound to increase. These will be compounded by the internet, e-mail, cell phones and micro cameras which are being used indiscriminately. The BPO units, call centers and some segments of the IT sector are particularly vulnerable for two reasons – one is the night shifts; and the other is the assumed informality and a “western” approach. Absence of dress codes, imported slang, new body language, new swearings, etc. may induce a cultural confusion among immature employees that could aggravate relationships and increase the potential for harassment. The problems get compounded when arranged marriages are getting incrementally replaced by romancing ones that originate mostly from work places.

Female employees do not get the exposure, sensitization, and training to prevent, handle and combat harassment. If not at the college level itself, they must be formally educated in the company induction programmes as to how to ensure their own safety. For instance, they should be made to discover the thin lines between official and un-official hours and meaningful and hidden agendas for meetings. They should be trained not to give an opportunity to others to misinterpret intentions and inclinations. They must be explained the male psychology. They must be told of the machos that thrive on self-serving rumors. They must know the ways in which soft-scandals occur because of the age-old stereo-typing that aggravates harassment.

They must also know the dynamics that lead to infatuations, momentary lapses, pre-marital and post-marital affairs and the social skills to prevent them. They must be trained on the manner of dressing, use of perfumes, physical gestures, body language, eye contact, physical distances to be maintained, the lengths of time to be exposed at each meeting, the ability to perceive danger signals early enough so as to avert a deeper relationship, and the like. It is believed that women’s instincts are sharp and they have a natural way of handling these situations. But such informal social skills may be insufficient to cope with the new environment. It might be opportune and appropriate to construct a module on “do and don’ts” as well as a “survival kit” to let women employees save themselves from abuse of one kind or the other.

The other case, that of Justice Shiraj Desai of South Africa is indeed curious and possibly calls for capacity building of another kind. Salome Isaacs, a South African AIDS activist, complained of rape by Justice Desai while in Mumbai attending the World Social Forum. It is tragic that the person who was to guard justice and promote human rights should be the accused. It is another matter that Salome has withdrawn all charges, unconditionally. Papers reported that Salome and Justice Desai had a nice party and the former went to the room of Justice Desai at 3.00 a.m. on a Sunday to discuss the day’s conference agenda. Medical examination confirmed that there indeed was an intercourse, if not forcible, and the debate among social activists veered round to the fact that Salome was readily carrying a protective condom and had, in fact, requested the honorable Judge to use it. The feminists argue that this was sensible as a protective measure against AIDS and that all women must carry one! In my view, this might be a protection too far - as the assumption is that the potential rapist will oblige the victim on this count but not spare her from the main assault. The feminists must also take into account that mere possession of such protection can indeed invoke other types of harassment. If Justice Desai, as he claims, is a victim, (the South African Courts have since dismissed the case and exonerated him) there should be enough lessons for such gentlemen also to be trained in a set of dos and don’ts. This is particularly important in a society which is increasingly conscious of abuse of women’s rights.

The line between an affectionate gesture and s. harassment is thin. There have been cases when an affectionate farewell pat or hug when one is separating from an organization has been misconstrued by the female colleague as s. harassment and by the male as a suggestive advance that needs to be pursued further. In the sunrise industries suffering from cultural confusion, the difference between friendly gestures and indecent ones get increasingly blurred - an agreeable proposal can be romance and a disagreeable one can be construed as harassment. Instances are galore of misunderstandings, miscommunications, and emotional distresses arising from simple misreading of intentions on the one hand and provoking undesirable behaviors by mishandling situations, on the other.

Organizations, particularly which are intent on affirmative actions to improve the ratio of female employees must give sufficient attention to preventive aspects of potential s. harassment. That will save many employees, of either gender, from being victims – either of harassment or accusations.

Post Script: I have written this article with trepidation – a friend from Europe, on hearing my views, warned me that I would be lynched by feminists as my argument dilutes the focus from the accused and the potential perpetrators of oppression and degradation of women. My plea to the feminists is that when hotels ask us to use the locker for valuables, when we take insurance for valuable electronic goods against theft or against personal accidents, when people are advised not to travel to some countries, or when the feminists themselves register their servants with the police, the idea certainly is not to dilute the importance of the crime and the criminal. It is just a more sensible way of reducing risk - unless one suffers from tendencies for self-victimization.