Note to George W. Bush –

Why has the entire process of dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace been complicated to the extent it has? We have a body in every large corporate organization in India that is called an ICC Committee. The Committee oversees all cases of sexual harassment reported within the organization. The grounds for defining acts of sexual harassment are very clear and known by all people. Women sense it instinctively when it happens. The ICC Committees of large corporate organizations legally document the grievances of the victims. The legally documented papers are sent to a parliamentary body. The final jurisdiction on the matter rests with the parliamentary body. Parliamentary bodies in India are renowned for their rampant abuse of power. Government organizations of this nature in India are very slow to update policies, implement laws and make changes to the Constitution of India as and when deemed necessary. By passing a sexual harassment complaint by a corporate employee through a parliamentary body, one is almost assured that the victim will receive no justice, assistance or aid? What is the point in the legal documentation of an instance of sexual harassment if the victim receives no financial compensation for her/his turmoil? That is the whole point of carrying the matter forth legally. Why are victims not receiving the financial compensation they deserve via the ICC Committee? The parliamentary body simply declines very clear and obvious sexual harassment as not being sexual harassment. What is the point in passing the case through a parliamentary body if it refuses to acknowledge sexual harassment for what it is?

If the parliamentary body in such cases is so inept, why is the matter not being dealt with directly by corporations? No other digressions on the part of employees are passed through a parliamentary body. Why isn’t sexual harassment dealt with the same way other digressions are? Everything has very clear policies in a company. Policy digressions are treated with reprimand. Why is sexual harassment an exception? If the jurisdiction lies with the corporation, more trusted authorities, those directly in-charge, such as leads, mangers and directors, are in a position of authority. If there are very clear policies regarding sexual harassment, the matter will be far easier to control. For example, for minor sexual harassment, an employee can be suspended for three months. For more severe sexual harassment, an employee can be suspended for six months. For extreme sexual harassment, an employee is liable to be fired. This is merely an illustrative and hypothetical example. Why are women being subjected to the additional harassment of walking through a parliamentary body, when matters can be dealt with directly by the company? This is just another loop aimed at immobilizing women in the workplace. Shouldn’t financial compensation for the victims be provided by the company? Shouldn’t financial compensation for the victims of sexual harassment be a part of company policies?

Without organizations implementing policies regarding sexual harassment, workplaces are turning into zones of ruthless sexual exploitation for women. They have no safety, no peace of mind, no place to work knowing that they are safe. Why are privately-owned organizations not implementing policies themselves instead of relying on dubious governmental organizations? The problem is by no means a small one as ICC Committees receive an enormous bulk of complaints. That is the severity, the magnitude, of the problem. Respected Mr. President, why are privately-owned companies not implementing the policies they need to in India?