justice debate

‘It’s like blackening faces’: Why I am uneasy with the name and shame list of sexual harassers

We cannot afford to throw away due process and adopt vigilantism.

I write this in response to a post by a Facebook friend addressed to “Kafila feminists” and some others who have been expressing disagreement with and concerns about a statement, signed by a group of 12 feminists and carried on the Kafila website, asking for the withdrawal of an online campaign to name and shame Indian university teachers accused of sexually harassing or assaulting students.

To me, this predicament is not new. Throughout my life as a feminist and Left activist, I have seen courts, legal processes, etc betray women. I really have little faith in those processes but my unease with the name and shame campaign is not about claiming faith in processes, which in most cases do not exist and if they do are deeply unfair to victims. To me, the issue has always been this: is the cure offered more dangerous than the ailment? I had used this exact line – “the cures being offered worry me” – in a 2012 speech, which went viral, about cries for summary justice, mob justice, death penalty, castration, and so on.

In villages and mohallas, I have seen activists – and no, they are not Savarna, or elite, or on Kafila or Facebook – confronted with situations where victims of sexual abuse and the communities backing them feel so frustrated with the unjust “processes of justice” that they demand to be able to just go in a mob and beat up the accused person, blacken his face, parade him, and so on. What concerns activists in such situations is that it is so common for young Dalit or Muslim men to be accused anonymously (without any woman actually having to come forward as a complainant as some women or men claim to be her proxy) and lynched.

I wrote a post in October 2014 about such situations (citing cases from Delhi, Nawada in Bihar, and even the Jawaharlal Nehru University), arguing why we have no option but to insist on some sort of a due process. I have been in situations where a man was being beaten up on the pretext of molesting some woman, and I had to step in and say, “Where is the woman? I will help her file a complaint. You cannot just beat someone up based on hearsay.”

What about due process?

What alternatives do we have, really, to the available due processes, however weak and flawed these are? If we can create lists and put them up on village noticeboards, social media or TV, and declare social boycotts based on them, then so can a Khap Panchayat or groups like the Durga Vahini; in fact, they already do. By accepting the politics of lists in one context, are we not robbing ourselves of the argument of due process that we make in the other contexts of power?

I am not saying the men on the name and shame list are necessarily blameless. But I have always made the distinction between a woman speaking for herself and making a specific complaint – I have supported innumerable such complaints, at heavy personal and political cost – and the politics of anonymous lists.

So, no, I will not sign up to the politics of anonymous lists. I do not put mocking labels on people curating and publicising or defending such lists, but I respectfully refuse to be part of this project. The project of creating anonymous lists is, to my mind, akin to blackening faces, publicly parading and socially boycotting people based on anonymous allegations. And we know who, generally, wield the power to do so in our society and over whom.

It’s alright to be unpopular for taking this position. I am used to it. I have taken the unpopular position of opposing the death penalty, of speaking up for Hadiya in Kerala, of opposing Islamophobia, of speaking against human rights abuses in Kashmir. In fact, I have held unpopular positions for most of my political life.

I am saddened that in the blink of an eye and a click of the mouse, those of us who have lost skin in innumerable battles supporting survivors against “men of our own ideology/politics/milieu”, who are the usual suspects supporting every such complainant and facing vicious hostility for so doing, are being pilloried and mocked on social media as “establishment feminists protecting their own”.

The statement I signed does not question the motives of “younger feminists”, indeed of anyone defending the list, but it does express uneasiness and respectfully make an appeal.

No need for transparency?

I appeal feminist collectives of all kinds to think this through. Are you really comfortable with this project of preparing and circulating lists based on anonymous testimonies, where those named are to be damned without a defence? If you are doing this, are you really including all names being shared with you? Are you quite sure that those creating the lists are not exercising their discretion? In other words, are you simply a neutral medium through which accusers can anonymously name the accused, or are you exercising some discretion based on criteria that are not really transparent?

My criteria are transparent. I am willing to name and hold accountable men who are accused through some sort of a process.

I cannot arrogate to myself the power to accuse people without this minimum criterion, else I would be like those news anchors who point an accusing finger every night, and when asked about process, just say: “I have said it, now it’s up to you to disprove the allegation. I said Najeeb Googled ISIS, now how do you know he didn’t?”

I am sure many women are frustrated and angry about the impunity enjoyed by men who wield power and use it to prey on women. I have been asked if we should not be asking what led to the creation of this list in the first place (the lack of faith in internal complaints committees, in due process)?

Someone asked me on Facebook, “Why have the complainants not made a complaint to the ICC? Does each of the named colleges even have an ICC? Is it trained? Does it know the law? Are the members approachable? Are they people known for their fairness? How can we blame the victims for not following the due process when college authorities have not followed it?”

My response is: we have in no way blamed the victims for “not following due process”, and certainly not chastised them for naming their harassers. The questions we are asking are integral to the battles that need to be fought – for one, making internal complaints committees autonomous, accountable, accessible to all and gender-sensitive. That’s no easy task, but it can be done by launching sustained movements in each institution invested in this work. When we appeal to people to pursue these avenues, we do not do so glibly, assuming the processes are easily available. In fact, our statement acknowledges the opposite: “We too know the process is harsh and often tilted against the complainant. We remain committed to strengthening these processes.”

What will be the consequences if we collectively give up on due processes, if we replace processes with crowd-sourced registries? The registries may, in a handful of cases, result in follow-up processes, but in most cases the process of naming and shaming itself will be the punishment. Those curating the list will be the only process that is available or legitimate, and there will be no room for appeal. That is power with which, as a feminist, I am deeply uncomfortable, for reasons I have cited above.

We cannot afford to throw away due process and adopt vigilantism. Although vigilantism may feel satisfying (after all, we are thrilled reading about the exploits of the fictional Lisbeth Salander, hacking into the secrets of sexual predators and giving them their just desserts), it has grave consequences for feminist politics, for progressive transformative politics of any kind. We have no options but to fight for better and more autonomous and accountable enquiry processes, better support systems for complainants on campuses, workplaces. I hope we can reflect on these issues, seriously and quietly, without the kind of acrimony, distrust and disrespect being witnessed on social media.

Kavita Krishnan is the secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.


In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.


Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.


The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.


The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.