The 21st day of July, 2005 witnessed a marathon and raucous debate in the Maharashtra Assembly, over an Amendment to the Bombay Police Act. This Amendment was to insert Sections 33-A and 33-B which, respectively, outlawed all forms of dancing at beer bars and permit rooms, but exempted cabaret and like performances in three star hotels and similar establishments. Every Legislator was at his morally righteous best, burning with indignation at the sheer moral depravity being brought about by dens of vice, where the main draw was the vulgar and obscene performances by women. This indignation was accompanied, in no less measure, by a zealous, paternalistic urge to protect the life and dignity of the dancers. Yet another concern which was ripping apart the conscience of our esteemed Legislators was the fact that a majority of these women were coming from outside Maharashtra, thereby not only lending themselves to victimhood of inter-state trafficking for the flesh trade, but also contributing to the defilement of the pure-as-milk culture of Bombay and the entire state of Maharashtra.The  Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the amended Act were not lacking in lucidity- that the ban was expedient in the interests of curbing vulgarity and obscenity and to protect the moral fibre of society.Renowned feminist lawyer- activist Flavia Agnes, who witnessed this historical endeavour of protecting public morality and virtue, recounts  snippets of that  great “debate” : “These women who are opposing..the ban, we will make their mothers dance  . . .',  Isha Koppikar... she is an atom bomb, attttom bomb ... laughter and cheer . . . the dancers wear only 20% clothes... more laughter and cheering... these women  who dance naked (nanga nach), they don't deserve any sympathy... a round of applause….'we are not Taliban but somewhere we have to put a stop. The moral policing we do, it is a good thing, but it is not enough . . . we need to do even more of this moral policing…”Hence came about those provisions which clamped down on dance bars, snatching away the livelihood and the dignity of work of thousands of women, leaving them hapless and destitute, ultimately compelling them to offer themselves for a price, usually a measly one.  The Bombay High Court in 2006 trashed the ban, holding that morality cannot be allowed as a ground for curbing freedom of expression (after all, any kind of dance is an expression of such freedom) or depriving people of their right to livelihood.  A persistent State Government, buoyed, no doubt, by its lofty sense of responsibility as guardians of society and the sensibility and moral of its denizens, went on appeal.  The stalemate continued, the ex-dancers sank deeper into abject poverty, destitution and exploitation, till, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgement.The government cut a really sorry figure before the Supreme Court. Its contentions, based on its self appointed role of guarding public morality by eradicating all forms of obscenity, defended and assertively argued by a team of India’s finest legal stalwarts, failed to cut any ice. The claim that proliferation and continuation of these bars were leading to excruciating suffering and exploitation of women was held as being without substance, in the absence of substantiating data. In fact, the government drew flak when it had no answers to the Court’s question of what it had done to improve the plight of those very women whom it claimed to protect so zealously. A significant part of the Court’s scathing criticism was reserved for the exemption granted to three star hotels and other establishments patronised only by the well-heeled and ‘refined’ members of society. It was elitist and disparaging, agreed the Court, that certain types of dancing- the purported immorality of which sought to be curbed by Section 33-A were metamorphosed into a paragons of virtue by this exemption.  In this context, one is reminded of the Bombay High Court’s decision in the Joyce Zee alias Temiko case (1975) wherein a cabaret involving partial nudity was permitted to go on unhindered, because members of the audience (comprising both men AND women) was considered mature enough to be able to restrain themselves from letting supposedly aroused lust get the better of them. But it seems evident the government swears by the belief that the poor and lower-middle class male, who usually frequents the dance bars, is not to be trusted with his libido, especially when it is being tickled by such apparently lascivious dance moves. Dilip Chitre’s  rapier-sharp wit-laced “Aspects of Pornophobia”, which appeared in the 1968 Autumn issue of Quest would be an apt read here, for it demonstrates the ludicrousness of trying to impose and implement such antediluvian concepts like morality and obscenity. Add to it what transpired during the so-called debate in the Assembly- the deliberations reflected nothing but the most execrable derision for even a modicum of civility and humane consideration. The hypocrite swears by the very norms he secretly defies, so goes the axiom. And here, this defiance by our hallowed Legislators is at its brazen best.Virtue, Morality, anyone??

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING