Gender, Power, and Silence

A Critical Examination of the Hema Committee Report and the Marginalisation of Workplace Rights in the Malayalam Film Industry

The Hema Committee Report, commissioned by the Kerala government in the aftermath of the sexual assault of a leading Malayalam actress in 2017, has emerged as a critical document in understanding the systemic issues plaguing the Malayalam film industry. This report, chaired by retired Justice Hema, was tasked with investigating not only the specific instance of sexual violence but also the broader context of gender-based discrimination and workplace harassment faced by women in the industry. However, despite the report’s expansive scope, public discourse and media coverage have predominantly fixated on the sensational aspects of sexual violence, neglecting the equally vital, though less immediately titillating, concerns regarding basic human rights violations, workplace conditions, and the complex power dynamics that shape the lives of women in the industry. The mainstream media’s focus on the “spicy elements” of the report—primarily the high-profile allegations of sexual assault—reveals a deeper societal malaise. This preoccupation with the most scandalous aspects of the report reflects a collective failure to engage with the more pervasive, insidious forms of gendered oppression that permeate the industry. The silence surrounding issues such as the exploitation of junior artists, the systemic elitism within advocacy groups like the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), and the lack of institutional support for women in precarious positions underscores the entrenched patriarchal structures that continue to dominate both the film industry and the wider societal discourse.

The Committee’s findings on basic human rights violations are particularly illuminating, yet they have received scant attention. The report documents the dire working conditions faced by women, especially those occupying lower rungs in the industry hierarchy, such as junior artists and technicians. These women, who are already poorly compensated, often work in environments that lack basic sanitation facilities, forcing them to resort to makeshift solutions such as using bushes as toilets or changing rooms. This situation becomes even more acute during menstruation, when the lack of proper facilities exacerbates the physical and emotional challenges they face. The stark contrast between the privileges enjoyed by female stars—who have access to private caravans—and the deprivation experienced by junior artists underscores the deep class divides within the industry. These caravans, which serve as private sanctuaries for the stars, are rarely, if ever, made available to women of lower status, further entrenching their marginalisation. This exclusion is not merely a matter of convenience; it is a denial of basic human dignity and reflects the broader structural inequalities that pervade the industry.

The class divide within the gender, as highlighted in this report, reveals the profound inequalities entrenched in the Malayalam film industry. It underscores how gender discrimination intersects with class, leading to a hierarchy where even within the marginalised group of women, there is a further stratification based on economic status and industry position. 

The privileges afforded to female stars—private caravans, better pay, and access to essential facilities—contrast sharply with the deprivation faced by junior artists and technicians. This disparity is not just about convenience; it reflects a deeper, systemic issue where the value of a woman’s work and, by extension, her dignity, is directly correlated with her status in the industry. The female stars, though part of the gendered struggle against a male-dominated industry, still occupy a position of relative privilege that shields them from the harsh realities faced by those lower in the hierarchy.  This situation becomes particularly egregious when considering the challenges faced by women during menstruation. The lack of basic sanitation facilities forces junior artists to resort to makeshift solutions, which not only compromises their health and well-being but also strips them of their dignity. The exclusion from caravans—spaces that could offer privacy and relief—exemplifies how the industry’s class divides manifest in tangible, deeply personal ways for these women. Furthermore, the class divide within the gender reveals how the industry’s structure perpetuates marginalisation. By denying junior artists access to the same resources as stars, the industry effectively creates a two-tiered system of womanhood, where the struggles of those at the bottom are rendered invisible, their voices unheard. This structural inequality perpetuates a cycle where only those with power and visibility can advocate for change, leaving the most vulnerable women to fend for themselves in dehumanising conditions.

The critique of elitism within the WCC, as highlighted in the Hema Committee Report, further complicates the narrative of gender advocacy in the industry. While the WCC has undoubtedly played a crucial role in bringing gender issues to the forefront, it has been criticised for failing to represent the diverse voices of women in the industry. The committee’s findings suggest that the WCC, despite its noble intentions, has become an insular group, primarily representing the interests of women in more privileged positions, while neglecting the experiences and needs of those from marginalised backgrounds. This elitism within the WCC mirrors the broader societal tendency to privilege the voices of the powerful while silencing the marginalised, thereby perpetuating the very inequalities it seeks to address. Moreover, while the WCC has played a crucial role in bringing gender issues to the forefront, its formation raises important questions about the intersection of class and gender within the industry. Would the WCC have been formed if the victim had been a junior artist rather than a leading actress? And if the issue had been something less sensational than sexual assault—such as the lack of sanitation facilities—would it have garnered the same level of attention? These questions highlight the selective nature of the industry’s response to gender-based issues, where the severity of the issue is often judged not by the harm it causes but by the social status of those involved.

The lack of institutional support for women in the film industry, as documented by the Hema Committee, further exacerbates these issues. Women facing harassment or discrimination often find themselves isolated, with no access to legal or financial support. This lack of support not only leaves women vulnerable but also deters others from coming forward with their experiences, thereby perpetuating a culture of silence and impunity. The report’s findings reveal a stark disconnect between the industry’s public image as a progressive space and the reality of its deeply entrenched patriarchal structures, which continue to oppress and marginalise women. The complacency of certain women within the industry, who downplay or dismiss the severity of the issues raised in the Hema Committee Report, further undermines efforts to address these systemic problems. By aligning themselves with the industry’s power structures, these women contribute to the perpetuation of the very inequalities that they themselves may have experienced. This complacency is particularly troubling when it comes from women in positions of influence, whose voices carry significant weight in shaping public discourse. For example, Jomol, a former actress, has publicly stated that they never experienced harassment, thereby implying that those who do must bear some responsibility for their plight. Such statements, whether made out of genuine belief or a desire to align with the industry’s power structures, serve to reinforce the harmful notion that women who face harassment or discrimination are somehow complicit in their own victimisation. This narrative is deeply damaging as it not only shifts the blame onto victims but also discourages other women from coming forward with their experiences. Similarly, actress Sarada’s remarks in the Hema Committee Report, where she attributed the challenges faced by modern actresses to their “provocative” dressing, reflect a troubling internalisation of patriarchal norms. Such statements reveal a broader cultural problem within the industry, where women are often complicit in perpetuating the very structures that oppress them. This internalisation of patriarchal values serves to divide women within the industry, pitting them against each other and undermining collective efforts to challenge the status quo.

One of the most troubling aspects of the discourse surrounding the Hema Committee Report is the way in which it has been co-opted by patriarchal forces within the industry, particularly the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA). Despite the report’s damning findings, the narrative that has emerged in some quarters is one that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the report and the women who have come forward with their experiences. This counter-narrative, which is rooted in patriarchal ideologies, frames the report as an attack on the industry and its male leaders, rather than as a necessary critique of systemic gendered oppression. In doing so, it seeks to reassert male dominance within the industry and silence the voices of women who challenge the status quo. The response of AMMA to the Hema Committee Report is emblematic of this patriarchal backlash. Rather than engaging with the report’s findings and working towards meaningful change, the organisation has instead sought to discredit the report and its proponents. This reaction is indicative of a broader societal tendency to resist challenges to established power structures, particularly when those challenges come from women. The narrative that has emerged in response to the report is one that seeks to reassert traditional gender roles and maintain the status quo, rather than addressing the systemic issues that the report has brought to light. 

Moreover the resignation of all office bearers of the organisation, including Mohanlal, in the face of mounting criticisms, is indeed a problematic response to the issues at hand. This act of collective resignation can be seen as an evasion rather than a meaningful engagement with the problem, reflecting a deeply patriarchal mindset that prefers to retreat from accountability rather than confront it head-on. At its core, this mass resignation can be interpreted as a way of washing one’s hands of the responsibility to address the serious concerns raised by the Hema Committee report and other critics. Instead of taking a stand, acknowledging the organisation’s failings, and working towards tangible solutions, the leaders chose to step down, leaving the issues unresolved. This move can be seen as a form of symbolic disengagement, where the act of resignation is used to deflect criticism and avoid taking the difficult but necessary steps to enact real change. From a patriarchal perspective, this resignation is deeply troubling because it reinforces a culture where those in power—often men—can escape the consequences of their inaction by simply stepping aside. It is a way of maintaining the status quo without making any genuine efforts to dismantle the structures of oppression and inequality that are so deeply embedded in the industry. By resigning, the office bearers, including Mohanlal, are effectively abandoning their responsibility to the women who have been marginalised, silenced, and subjected to degrading working conditions. This act of retreat serves to protect their reputations rather than address the systemic issues that plague the industry. Moreover, this resignation also sends a troubling message to the broader industry and society: that when faced with criticism, especially when it pertains to gender and class inequalities, the appropriate response is not to engage, listen, and reform, but to walk away. This is a quintessentially patriarchal response—one that prioritises the preservation of power and image over justice and equity. It is a way of shutting down dialogue, evading accountability, and leaving the most vulnerable to fend for themselves without the support of those who could have made a difference.

The discourse surrounding the Hema Committee Report also reveals the messy and complicated nature of gender dynamics in the Malayalam film industry. The report highlights the ways in which consent and coercion are often blurred in this context, with women being pressured into compromising situations under the guise of professional obligations or industry norms. This blurring of boundaries is indicative of a broader cultural problem, where the concept of consent is poorly understood or willfully ignored, and where coercion is normalised and accepted as part of the industry’s power dynamics. The societal failure to acknowledge and address these issues is perhaps one of the most damning indictments of the current state of gender relations in the Malayalam film industry. Despite the clear evidence of systemic abuses, there remains a widespread reluctance to confront these issues head-on. This reluctance is reflected in the media’s focus on the sensational aspects of the report, rather than on the more substantive issues of workplace rights and gender-based discrimination. The victim-shaming that often accompanies discussions of sexual harassment and assault in the industry is further evidence of this societal failure, as it seeks to silence and discredit those who speak out, rather than addressing the underlying issues. 

The discussion about the systemic issues in the film industry often uncovers a troubling layer of misogyny and victim-blaming, which is prominently visible across both traditional and social media channels. This dialogue often exacerbates the already problematic dynamics within the industry, fostering an environment where women are scrutinised, demeaned, and marginalised rather than supported and heard. The phenomenon of slut-shaming, combined with an entrenched anti-women sentiment, reflects a deep-seated cultural and institutional bias that is resistant to meaningful reform. In examining this issue, it is crucial to recognise that the act of slut-shaming operates as a mechanism of social control that disproportionately targets women. This practice involves disparaging women by labelling their behaviour or attire as promiscuous, thereby subjecting them to moral judgement and stigma. In the context of the film industry, where women’s bodies and personal lives are often subject to public scrutiny, such shaming serves to reinforce traditional gender norms and maintain patriarchal control. Victims of abuse or exploitation are particularly vulnerable to this form of retribution, as their experiences are trivialised or used against them to undermine their credibility and agency.

The media’s portrayal of these issues often aggravates the problem by sensationalising and distorting the experiences of women in cinema. Traditional media outlets may amplify scandalous elements or reduce complex issues to mere entertainment fodder, further marginalising the voices of those affected. Social media, while ostensibly a platform for democratised discourse, can similarly reinforce harmful narratives through the spread of misinformation and the amplification of vitriolic commentary. This duality of traditional and social media exacerbates the marginalisation of women, turning what should be a dialogue about reform into a battleground for entrenched prejudices. 

In conclusion, the Hema Committee Report represents a critical opportunity to address the systemic issues of gender inequality and workplace harassment in the Malayalam film industry. However, the focus of public discourse on the more sensational aspects of the report, to the exclusion of the more substantive issues of basic human rights violations and workplace conditions, reflects a broader societal failure to engage with these issues in a meaningful way. The response of organisations like AMMA, and the broader patriarchal backlash against the report, further complicates this picture, as it seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the report and reassert traditional gender roles. Ultimately, the report highlights the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to addressing gender inequality in the film industry, one that acknowledges the complex power dynamics at play and seeks to empower all women, regardless of their position within the industry.