Photo Essay - Glimpses of Guna

Guna exists as a proverbial blip on the map of Central India; a sleepy town which has evolved, almost reluctantly, with the changing times, while still keeping most of its archaic atmosphere intact. It is the place which defined my imagination of the "town" while I was growing up, barely an hour away, in NFL Vijaipur, whose story I will record some other day. As one navigates through the various lanes, by-lanes, alleys, alleyways, roads, routes, paths and pathways of this small town, one is flooded with memories - the hotel where once a birthday was celebrated with all the friends, the favorite ice cream parlor which serves cheap yet delicious variety of, well, ice creams, the shop for books, the shop for watches, the shop for clothes, the family jeweler and so on and so forth until one wonders how far has one traveled and whether one was really that far away?   

The Election of President Donald Trump

Defying all the poll predictions, controversial real estate business tycoon and television celebrity, Donald J. Trump, was elected as the 45th President of the United States on Wednesday, 9th November 2016. The date is important, as it will go down in history as the day on which one of the most remarkable events in the 21st Century took the world by surprise. A substantial number of world leaders seemed to be in a state of panic and confusion, as most of them had been preparing to congratulate Mrs. Clinton as the next President. However, in a spirit that has defined his entire career, The Donald, as he is known to the American public, defied all odds and traveled the narrow path to victory which led him to the White House.

Unconventional and Bitter Campaign

Mr. Trump was roundly slammed by the mainstream media, his Democratic Party opponents as well as colleagues within the Republican Party, for his outlandish policy proposals as well as controversial statements denigrating immigrants, women, minorities, veterans, the disabled etc. which led many to conclude that he did not possess the temperament, experience or the wisdom required for the post of the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces. To the majority of observers, his campaign seemed to be mired in endless controversy and on the verge of implosion, which suggested that either he was not serious about his bid to become the President or more dangerously, that he seriously believed in everything that he was advocating. His constant about turns on his own statements, coupled with a complete disregard for factual accuracy, flustered long time political observers on both the right and the left, who were shocked at the unprecedented show of callousness from a major party nominee. The general consensus, before going to the polls, largely among the educated and opinionated section of the American public, was that Mr. Trump was seeking to capitalize on a wave of resentment caused by the export of American jobs to other countries, fears regarding immigration, racial tensions and general stereotypes against anyone who was not a white male American. This was in stark contrast to the long line of preceding American Presidents, including incumbent President Barack Obama, who had sought the highest office of the country, by associating themselves with the shared values of the American people. One thing more that separated Donald Trump from all the recent Presidents was that he had no prior combat or political experience. He was a TV celebrity cum real estate business tycoon, who was perceived fit to entertain and not to govern.

Hobbled by deep distrust, extremely bad press, just a handful of endorsements, grim poll predictions and a lesser budget than his opponent, The Donald went around his rallies, telling people about the number of votes that he had polled in the primaries ('highest in the republican primary history'), denying the fact that his statements were controversial, denying climate change as a scientific fact, threatening to jail his opponent and promising 'extreme vetting' for immigrants coming from countries 'compromised by terrorism'. In short, he just remained himself. And, perhaps, therein lay his key to the oval office, because, in complete contrast, his opponent, Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton, 'the most qualified candidate for the office of President in the United States History' according to President Barack Obama, came across as a darling of the 'establishment', never letting people know what she really thought and never uttering a word in public that was not scripted, and hence being 'fake'. Trump was the original bigot, Clinton was the fake saint.

A day before the polls, the election experts, political commentators, reporters, journalists, pollsters and vocal public opinion was convinced that Trump had a very very slim chance of becoming the President while Clinton was the favorite. There had been some last moment ups and downs with both the campaigns which had increased anxieties, but had done nothing to signal that the applecart has been completely upset.

Election Night

As the votes began to come in, people around the world settled down for some time to relive the moment from 2008, when Barack Obama had won the election against his Republican rival Sen. John McCain and had thus become the 1st African American President in the United States History. If Hillary Clinton were to win this election, which she very well was, the American people, women in particular, would have clinched another historic first, that of the election of the first female President of the United States. The added bonus seemed to be the satisfaction of seeing the loss of Donald Trump, who was smeared as the symbol of orthodox patriarchy, treating women as objects and workers as disposables, basking in the company of white supremascists and outright fascists, defying the established norms of his own party (not for good, for worse) and being an insufferable racist in general. If everything was to go down well with the results, liberal Americans would wake up the next day filled with pride and happiness.

One by one, as all 'battleground' states went to Donald Trump, pride, happiness and hope vanished from the faces of those supporting the Clinton campaign. By the time it had become clear that Mr. Trump was going to become the next President of the United States, Mrs. Clinton had locked herself in a hotel room, probably because her campaign had not thought it as important enough to draft a concession speech, and her many female supporters outside were reduced to tears in the face of the 'impossible'.

The people had spoken. Donald Trump was going to be the 45th President of the United States of America.

Chaos and Acceptance

The power of the verdict of the United States Presidential election was on full display as the markets around the world tumbled, world leaders scrambled to prepare a strategy of dealing with the incoming Trump Administration and people in America rioted on the streets, repulsed by the outcome. How could the impossible happen? How could the same states who had voted to elect President Barack Obama, now elect Donald Trump? How could the people trust such a xenophobic, racist, misogynist, run of the mill bigot? How could the people NOT trust Hillary Clinton, who had dedicated 30 years of her life fighting for them?

The answer was there for everyone to see, if only they wished to see it. The countryside of the United States was reeling with loss of jobs, reduction in standard of living, ageing infrastructure and hostility to immigration. By dismissing these claims as the claims of a racist, sexist, xenophobic - in short - politically incorrect mob, the Democratic Party alienated a large section of the working class of the country, trying to pursue a loftier 'global' agenda. While as a consolation it can be said that Mrs. Clinton polled nearly 2 million votes more than Mr. Trump, the fact is, there is no runner's up trophy in a Presidential Election. You either win or you lose. And Donald Trump had won according to the electoral college system that determined the winner of the race.

Soon, the focus shifted from the loss of Mrs. Clinton to the win of Mr. Trump. Was Donald Trump serious about pursuing the outlandish policies that he had vaguely outlined while running for the office of President? What all had he said about the specific issues that concerned other countries? No one had thought it worthy enough to listen to what Mr. Trump had to say on various issues of ancillary concern to the American public, as his remarks were always controversial and he wasn't winning anyway. Now that he had won, an American newspaper observed, the same kind of remarks, from now on, would determine troop movements and market sentiment.

Indo-US Ties under President Trump

The question of single most importance to an Indian observer is, how is President Trump going to conduct his Foreign Policy? What is going to be the future of Indo-US ties under his administration and what does India stand to gain, or, more importantly, lose, from such a foreign policy? 

The President-Elect has grumbled about the number of H1B visas being provided by the US, while those close to him have expressed dismay over the number of Asian CEOs in the Silicon Valley. However, in an event organized by the Republican Hindu Coalition, the President-Elect professed his admiration for "the Hindus" and Prime Minister Modi. He has promised that under his administration, India and America are going to be the "best friends".

In keeping with the President-Elect's campaign promise of fighting "radical Islam", India should use all available opportunities to shore up support against the proxy war being fought in Kashmir by Pakistan through the use of terrorism.Unlike any other President, President-Elect Trump has indulged in unprecedented behavior with respect to his policies and campaign promises and therefore it would be too early to comment upon the shape that Indo-US ties will take in the future. Only time will tell.

BRICS and the Art of Stonewalling

At the recently concluded BRICS Summit in Goa, China once again came to the rescue of its all weather ally Pakistan and stonewalled any attempts to name Pakistan based terrorist outfits JeM (Jaish E Mohammad) or LeT (Lashkar E Taiba) in the Goa Declaration, instead agreeing only to a watery reference of "relentless pursuit against terrorist groups so designated by the UN Security Council".  

However, India forcefully put forward its views on state sponsored terror with Prime Minister Narendra Modi describing it as the "mother ship of terrorism". Emphasizing that the growing arc of terrorism today threatens Middle East, West Asia, Europe and South Asia, India submitted that "the most serious direct threat to our eco-prosperity is terrorism". Slamming Pakistan even further, PM Modi said that the country not only shelters terrorists, but that it also nurtures the mindset of terrorism. 

These comments are in line with the strategy of isolating Pakistan diplomatically on international forums, adopted by the Indian government after the Uri terrorist attack. The gains from this strategy may not fructify overnight, as many in the mainstream media, habituated to a 'breaking news' culture, seem to think. The fact that BRICS grouping's main focus is on Investment, Trade, Energy and Infrastructure is not lost on anyone. By forcefully putting forth its views on cross border terrorism, India has sent out a clear signal that development cannot be delinked from security and that at least for the Indian government, development and security go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive.

BIMSTEC to the Rescue

Displaying his unconventional style of conducting Foreign Policy, PM Modi extended an invite to six countries - Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand, which are a part of Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation or the BIMSTEC grouping. While the Thai premier was unable to attend because of the recent demise of the Thai Monarch, all the other countries were represented by their leaders who welcomed the invite.

Not only did the BIMSTEC countries actively participate in the summit, they also endorsed India's stand on terrorism. In complete contrast to the Goa Declaration, the BIMSTEC Leaders' Retreat Outcome Document 2016 noted:

Recognizing that terrorism continues to remain the single most significant threat to peace and stability in our region, we reiterate our strong commitment to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and stress that there can be no justification for acts of terror on any grounds whatsoever. We condemn in the strongest terms the recent barbaric terror attacks in the region.We strongly believe that our fight against terrorism should not only seek to disrupt and eliminate terrorists, terror organizations and networks, but should also identify, hold accountable and take strong measures against States who encourage, support and finance terrorism, provide sanctuary to terrorists and terror groups, and falsely extol their virtues. There should be no glorification of terrorists as martyrs. We recognize the need for urgent measures to counter and prevent the spread of terrorism, violent extremism and radicalization. We express our determination to take concrete measures to step up cooperation and coordination among our law enforcement, intelligence and security organizations.

The language employed in the above mentioned document is forceful and checks all the right boxes for India. What was not so soothing, however, was the ambivalent stand taken by Russia.

The Tight Rope to Moscow

Considering the stiff opposition by China, and keeping in mind the national interest of Russia in the face of EU-US Sanctions, President Vladimir Putin did not stress too much on India's position on cross-border terrorism, but did not exclude it from his remarks either. At the end of his remarks in the restricted meeting with PM Modi, he said that "one of our priority issues is combating terrorism together".

The Indian Prime Minister sought to rekindle the warmth of time tested friendship that India enjoys with Russia by remarking that an old friend is better than two new ones. The joint statement released at the end of the meeting between the two leaders noted:

India and Russia recognize the threat posed by terrorism, and believe that the full implementation of the relevant UNSC resolutions, the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy without application of any double standards or selectivity will be instrumental in countering this challenge.....They stressed the need to deny safe havens to terrorists and the importance of countering the spread of terrorist ideology as well as radicalisation leading to terrorism, stopping recruitment, preventing travel of terrorists and foreign terrorist fighters, strengthening border management and having effective legal assistance and extradition arrangements. Furthermore, stressing the need to have a strong international legal regime built on the principle of ‘zero tolerance for direct or indirect support of terrorism’, both sides called upon the international community to make sincere efforts towards the earliest conclusion of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT).

It is clear that India understands the need to balance the growth of its bilateral relations with the United States with the deft handling of relations with its old friends like Russia, because Moscow and Washington have many antagonistic positions on issues of global concern. The agreement to buy the S-400 ‘Triumf’ air defence systems from Russia, worth over $5 billion, and to collaborate in making four state of art frigates besides setting up a joint production facility for making Kamov helicopters, is an attempt to walk the tight rope of seasoned diplomacy.

Conclusion

Zhou Enlai famously said that all diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means. Although China's stonewalling of India's continued efforts to isolate Pakistan diplomatically on every international forum might not be a call for a diplomatic war, but it certainly is a thorn in the flesh for the bilateral relations between both the countries. The Indian government will be well advised to play its cards cautiously while dealing with Beijing, as there is more to gain through trade and cooperation rather than by annoying an increasingly assertive neighbor. Though China might continue to protect Pakistan from severe international backlash, India must continue its newfound strategy to isolate Islamabad, as it is an improvement upon the previous policy of passivity in the face of terror and is bound to yield substantial gains, sooner rather than later.     

Uri Attack: Hard Choices before India

In yet another example of cowardly proxy warfare promoted by the Pakistani Army and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate, four heavily armed militants infiltrated the Army Headquarters in Northern Kashmir's Uri Sector in the Baramulla District and killed 17 soldiers, in one of the worst attacks on the army in 26 years. The Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Lt Gen Ranbir Singh said: 

"All four killed were foreign terrorists and had some items with them which had Pakistani markings. Initial reports indicate that the slain terrorists belong to Jaish-e-Mohammed Tanzeem (militant group). Four AK-47 rifles and four under-barrel grenade launchers along with a large number of other war-like stores were recovered from them."

"Days of Strategic Restraint Over" 

The government and the ruling party both issued strong statements, with BJP General Secretary Ram Madhav asserting that the days of strategic restraint were over. He said:

"We feel that the time for strategic restraint is over. India needs to tackle this menace with a firm hand and we need to take proactive measures. That is why Prime Minister has said that perpetrators behind the attack shall not go unpunished. Terrorism is the policy instrument of cowards and in this case the footprint of involvement of our neighbour is all over there. They have been using terrorism as a state policy in the most cowardly manner to attack, maim and kill people, soldiers as well as civilians, in our territory."

The Prime Minister too condemned the attack and in a series of tweets asserted that the perpetrators of the attack will not go unpunished. The Home Minister, who was to visit the United States and Russia, cancelled his trip and called Pakistan a "terrorist state" and appealed for its global isolation.

The statements, coming from both the ruling party and the government, are unparalleled in their severity and point to the increasing escalation in the tensions between both India and Pakistan. Indeed, with an elected leader commanding an absolute majority at the center, India possesses the political will necessary to take swift and punitive action this time against Pakistan, "at a time and place of its choosing".  

The numbers provided by a report in the Economic Times are alarming with regard to infiltration of terrorists from across the border and demonstrate the extent to which India's patience has been stretched thin. For example, in 2011, there were 247 infiltration attempts, followed by 264 attempts in 2012, 277 attempts in 2013 and 221 attempts in 2014. 13 infiltrating terrorists were killed in 2012, followed by 38 in 2013, 52 in 2014 and 37 in 2015.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Ever since it realized that it stands nowhere in terms of conventional warfare when it comes to India, a fact that led to its ignominious defeat in three wars, the Pakistani Army and the ISI seem to have perfected terrorism by non-state actors as a means of sub-conventional warfare, a strategy which has come to be known as "death by a thousand cuts". A dysfunctional and failed state apparatus in Pakistan has meant that while the Pakistani Army and the ISI execute their nefarious plans through their remote control of Pakistani Defense and Foreign Affairs, the civilian leadership is left to deflect the blame, obfuscate the issue and deny any wrongdoing.

In such a scenario, where the real power is exercised by the Army, talks with Pakistani Civilian Leadership are just a hogwash designed to keep India engaged while simultaneously inflicting multiple terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab to stoke militancy and unrest. Parity with India is an obsession in Pakistan and an economically, strategically as well as globally resurgent India does not help their strategic imperatives. In fact, Islamabad has repeatedly scuttled any attempts at establishing good relations between the two countries, either by sponsoring terrorism against India, ceding a part of its illegally held territory in Kashmir to China or by repeatedly trying to internationalize the issue of Jammu and Kashmir while carrying out massive human rights violations in its own province of Baluchistan.

It is for India to realize that it is futile to expect any major changes in Pakistan's attitude given that there is a diffusion of power between various stakeholders in Pakistan. 70 years of Pakistan's existence has shown that it is happy to remain a satellite state of one major power or the other (earlier it was the US and now its China) and that its leadership, both civilian and military, is motivated by personal pecuniary interests coupled with Indophobia, which rationalizes the existence of the state in the first place, and has no vision of an independent foreign policy or resolving domestic issues amicably. In short, the average Pakistani be damned but the Generals need their kick by instigating India. In an interview with Arnab Goswami of Times Now News Network, Prime Minister Modi admitted as much when he said that there are different forces working in Pakistan.

A House Divided

While the reaction among Indian media, political and strategic experts and civil society at large has been that of taking stringent action to stop the flow of terror from Pakistan, on the other hand there is the usual clique of naysayers who have characteristically put their numerous if's and but's in the debate.

Shivam Vij, writing in the Huffington Post, advises the Indian government not to engage Pakistan militarily as it could backfire. Among the reasons cited are "risk of war", "risk of failure", "international pressure", "economy" etc. In short, let there be status quo ante and what if our few soldiers are dying, we can absorb the losses. The Left Parties, are perpetually in favor of an unconditional political dialogue, even when their own Members of Parliament were humiliated by the separatist leadership on their recent visit to the state. I am constantly amazed by the fact that the Left Parties still have Members in the Parliament. This opinion piece by Mohammed Zeeshan in DailyO starts by stating that India can't effectively respond to Pakistan anyway, asks it to decide on a consistent course of action towards Islamabad and says that the only consistent course of action towards Islamabad is Track-II dialogue and maybe economic sanctions. But that's a big maybe.

It is this multiplicity of opinions in the face of terror that stopped successive governments since the outbreak of the militancy in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990 from taking any concrete steps against this proxy war. These governments were also hampered by the fact that all of them were coalition governments requiring endless debates and discussions, cajoling and cooing, to come to any conclusion. However, Prime Minister Modi has no such compulsions. The country has given him a decisive mandate with full majority in the Lok Sabha and the ball is now in his court and he has to make some hard choices if he wants to fulfill the election promises he made in the run up to the 2014 General Election.

Options Before Us

India must boldly consider moves that it has refused to consider so far fearing escalation and risk of failure. The dream to become a superpower can never become a reality without ensuring that the cardinal duty of a nation state is fulfilled, i.e. achieving security for all its citizens. Given below are some of the steps that India can consider while formulating its future strategy viz-a-viz Pakistan.

1. PoK is Indian Territory, Take Out Terrorist Camps: Kashmir formally acceded to India in 1947 but Governor-General Mountbatten made the accession conditional on a plebiscite. According to the resolution passed in the United Nations, a plebiscite could only take place when Pakistan vacated its troops from the region. Since it has not done so for the last six and a half decades, India should now treat the matter with an iron fist and carry out surgical strikes in the PoK to take out any terrorist camps being run in the region to spread militancy and unrest.

2. Scrap Article 370: It is only India's constitution which guaranteed full autonomy to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the form of Article 370 which limited the center's role in the state to defense, foreign affairs and communications. Pakistan was not able to formulate its constitution for a long time and when it finally attempted to do so, it did not grant any autonomy to their side of Kashmir. The result was that although the demography in PoK has undergone a profound change since 1947, the demography of Indian Kashmir more or less remains the same (except for the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1989). With no industries due to militancy and security situation in the state and not much tourism or trade either, the people of the valley unofficially live in a ghetto where Azadi is a chimera, poverty a reality and darkness is most probably the future.

3. Balochistan: India should maximize its efforts to fix the international spotlight on the massive human rights violations perpetrated by the Pakistani Army in Balochistan. It should patronize the human rights organizations working for Baloch Rights and grant citizenship to prominent Balochistani activists working for the cause. By increasing its contact and network among the Balochi activists, India can in future attempt to create similar militancy and unrest in Balochistan as exists in Kashmir today.

4. Disrupt Pakistan's Aid Infrastructure: Pakistan is a bankrupt state surviving on the aid distributed to it from numerous capitals across the world including the United States. India must bring its enormous international goodwill to bear upon these states (except China) and must categorically state that any aid to Pakistan will only go towards the funding of non-state actors and towards maintaining the luxurious lifestyles of Pakistani Generals, and hence should be stopped. India's diplomats are among the finest in the world and they would be able to bring results if given a clear mandate to do so.

5. Tackling the Dragon: China, Pakistan's all weather ally, should be handled in a different manner. It is no use grandstanding before a nation that has everything to gain by keeping the factors that fuel instability in the region alive. We must leave no stone un-turned in creating hurdles in the implementation of CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) while simultaneously baiting China in the South China Sea. We must make it even more difficult for Chinese businessmen to do business in India when we know that the money earned will only be used against us. We should also make it clear that China's strategic imperatives do not precede India's and that terror is not acceptable as a stratagem.  

Conclusion

The National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar, celebrated as doers and men of their word, have lost their face before the public due to the repeated terror attacks taking place on the Indian soil and the failure to counter them. Their role in guiding the Prime minister as he contemplates the future course of action is going to be critical and can make or break their reputation in the time to come. It is hoped that the Indian leadership does not squander away the huge mandate accorded by the public to the government and wipes the menace of militancy and terrorism from its very roots.    

All You Need To Know About The Bhanwari Devi Case That Led To The Formation Of The Vishakha Guidelines

This was published in Indiatimes

Sexual assault is a serious offense which has destroyed the reputation of many a public figure. Whether it's ex-TERI Chief Rakesh Pachauri here in India or comedian Bill Cosby in the United States, the offenders are swiftly isolated from the society, no matter how high they sit, and are brought to stand trial in the court of justice. However, it wasn’t always this way. The case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan in 1992 was the landmark case where the Supreme Court dealt with the question of safety of women from any kind of sexual harassment at the workplace and laid down detailed guidelines for the same.

Bhanwari Devi was a Saathin working in the Women’s Development Project of the Rajasthan Government. The state government had recently launched a campaign against child marriages and Bhanwari Devi took an active part in spreading the influence of this campaign in her area. She tried to stop the marriage of a one-year-old girl and was furiously resisted by the villagers. In 1992, she was raped by five villagers in front of her husband for her temerity to stop an evil practice from spreading further. The district court acquitted all the five accused.

The matter came before the Supreme Court via a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a group of NGOs by the name of “Vishakha” in which the petitioners urged for judicial intervention to make workplaces safer for women due to the legislative inactivity in this regard. The Supreme Court observed that India was already a signatory to Convention on elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and held that international conventions are to be read into the fundamental rights to enlarge their scope and advance their objective. It thus read the provisions of CEDAW (signed by India in 1980) in Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and laid down binding guidelines to be followed by every private and public sector employer to ensure the dignity and safety of women in the place of employment.

This was a landmark step by the apex court as it strayed into the territory of the executive by issuing guidelines which were binding, and hence, were law. The judiciary cannot make the laws, it can only interpret them, but in Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court resisted such orthodox theoretical interpretation of separation of powers and proved that it would not hesitate to occupy the space vacated by the legislature by its inaction, to meet the ends of justice. For this, the Supreme Court earned a fair share of criticism with some critics citing this judgment as an example of judicial overreach.

However, the passage of time has proved that the Supreme Court was correct in intervening in this regard. Today, due to the power and reach of social media and other information networks, sexual harassment has emerged as a very serious issue in our public discourse. However, back in 1992, it had not acquired the sense of seriousness that it commands today. Fundamental Rights were supposed to be enforceable ‘vertically’ i.e. an individual could only enforce them against the state. But through this judgment, the apex court ruled that in some worthy instances, fundamental rights were also enforceable ‘horizontally’ i.e. by one individual against another.

While there have been numerous cases where women have secured justice and a safer work environment for themselves by pursuing litigation against employers indulging in sexual harassment, there have also been some cases where this shield accorded to women has been misused to file frivolous cases and to bargain for higher pay and promotions. Therefore these guidelines have come to be known as a “double edged sword” which can secure justice for worthy litigants and can also cause havoc for those abusing it to secure petty personal gains.

Meanwhile, the legislature has sought to shake off its decades-old attitude of treating such issues regarding the safety and dignity of women lightly. This is less because of a genuine awareness regarding such issues and more because of the fear of ceding their power to the judiciary. The 2012 Nirbhaya Gang Rape case has galvanised public support for enacting tough measures against the culprits indulging in this sort of sexually predatory behavior.

It is to be noted that even though more than 20 years after the judgment in the Vishakha case was passed, the parliament has still not passed a comprehensive legislation directed at combating sexual harassment against women at the workplace. It can only be hoped that our parliamentarians heed the developments in this regard and take urgent steps to ensure a welcoming environment for women in both public and private spaces of employment.