The ZeTo campaign organisers responded to Althea’s concerns expressed in an earlier post. We are delighted by and thankful for their willingness to dialogue, for we do believe that such an exchange of views is absolutely necessary for common ground to evolve on this issue, precisely because our readings of the political and social present in Kerala, are different.

Especially in response to M J Vijayan who has intervened in this discussion with his post on Kafila –we of course do not differ with his readings of feminist theory in this matter, but in answer to his question if the present moment in Kerala is characterised by unjust tolerance and excessive punishment, our answer would be a firm yes. This is probably because we believe that ‘injustice’ and ‘excess’ relate to not just the frequency but also the distribution of punishment and injustice.

Firstly, since quite some time, we have been pointing to the manner in which sexual violence laws in Kerala have served more the purpose of building ‘punitive publics’ against the rivals of ruling powers or other voices they deem troublesome, and less that of providing justice to survivors. We worry how the slogan of Zero Tolerance may worsen this, and not remedy it. Secondly, we have repeatedly pointed to the excessive use of such law against men of marginalised groups, and this includes sexual violence against men in police stations. We worry that if a more nuanced understanding of structural patriarchy is not adopted as the theoretical basis of the campaign, then such suffering will remain permanently invisible, and this would only deepen injustice. Thirdly, the mainstream Left has been quite shameless in making instrumental use of feminist discourse in moments that suit it, dumping it mercilessly when those moments pass — and so we wonder how we may broaden our influence so that the mainstream Left does not co-opt the campaign. Fourthly and most importantly, we cannot help noticing that all survivors of sexual violence or harassment are not considered to be of equal worth even among the broad feminist community here: those with cultural capital and access to networks, including family influence, do gain much greater discursive presence. In the end, this leads to individual visibility and ultimately a neoliberalised celebration of individual resilience and courage, which hides privilege and makes collective work actually more difficult. All these come from our own anti-patriarchal political work in recent times in Kerala.

We are hopeful that the ZeTo campaign represents a moment in which all sections of the feminist community can seriously introspect on the way in which the laws against sexual violence have been actually been used by the state in Kerala. This requires not the citation of feminist authors, but actual analysis of events in twenty-first century Kerala. Althea has been engaging with emergent patriarchy in Kerala of the present and calling for approaches, frameworks, and activism that takes into consideration the emergent context, of the waning welfare state and its present alliance with predatory capitalism, and of the fading democratic culture being replaced by the protector-provider state that scoffs at democracy.

That said, we would like to take forward this dialogue.

We welcome the response from the ZeTo campaigners, and rejoice in the prospect of working together towards common goals. Unlike M J Vijayan, they do see that it is potentially dangerous in the unfolding present with state power becoming more and more distanced from democracy all over the world. In that spirit, we raise this question: if we agree that zero tolerance is a potentially dangerous concept, would it not be possible for us to also state that our ultimate aim is to move towards locally-appropriate frames of restorative justice? Althea’s position has been for restorative justice supported by ethical policing respectful of democracy. Restorative justice, we believe, allows us to demand that the law should be more mindful of structural inequalities and less dealing in binaries.

We advocate this approach since the reality on the ground of a sexual assault case is often significantly different than a clear-cut binary of a male aggressor and a female survivor or victim — especially when the accused person lacks privilege. Our focus has been to highlight and engage with both women and men on why gender roles are toxic for both women and men. We believe that patriarchy and misogyny are harmful to men as well as women whether at home, at workplaces, and out on the streets. Our approach makes space for men to explore alternate models of masculinity that allows for vulnerability, and expressions of emotions. We are cautious of phrases like ‘zero tolerance’ since that implies a combative, closed space, rather than an open evolving space that has room for healthy models of masculinity as well. ‘Zero tolerance’ implies instant expulsion, so when it was articulated, anti-carceral groups had to ask: expulsion by who? The super-patriarchal state? That question is all the more relevant in a context in which the state, worldwide as well as locally, has indeed shed welfarist and democratic trappings. In the national context, ‘zero tolerance’ seems to be a hot favourite of the right-wing — witness the ‘zero tolerance’ approach called Prahar, apparently against terrorism, announced in a press conference of BJP leaders.

The global implications of the slogan do not shed automatically just because its recurs in a local space; those implications have to be shed consciously, and this is political work. The state in Kerala, anyway, has grown sharply undemocratic since the second decade of this century — and this may not be apparent to visitors from north India or the development tourists who have accepted the present Kerala’s government’s invitation to participate in the propaganda tours it has been organising, and readily swallowed their half-truths. Also, there is the growing popularity of the men’s rights mobilisation in Kerala and the anti-feminist backlash that we have all bee living through.We believe that one way in which men’s rights movements can be countered is through making feminist spaces non-threatening for men so that they may initiate struggles with and challenges to their own subordination to the super-patriarchy of the state and their own masculine identities.

We are also relieved that the ZeTo campaign is conceived as non-partisan. However, are we mindful enough of this? For instance, a poster announcing a ZeTo campaign meeting seemed to include prominent figures associated with just one political party, the CPM. If we are going to be really non-partisan, should not such meetings always and necessarily include prominent and influential figures from all political parties with genuine commitment to the Indian Constitution, including the smaller parties of Dalits, Muslims, the SUCI, and so on? The CPM, and especially the ruling LDF government, has been keen to co-opt calls for justice to the victims of sexual violence against women and children in a shockingly instrumentalist and cynical fashion – we have seen that again and again. The strategy by which liberal feminists were mobilized online for various ends that ultimately served the CPM’s ends of eliminating rivals or foes has played out too many times during the past ten years. Each time, the promises made to the liberal feminists have been betrayed. We would be heartened if ZeTo’s promotional materials included images of many difference constituencies in Kerala working towards social and gender justice.

We would be heartened if we were to see ZeTo actively searching out, and reaching out to these constituencies, rather than waiting for them to join you. In Kerala, even in this age of instant connectivity via the internet, groups working towards similar goals appear to work within silos. We would be heartened by a clear strategy indicated in the ZeTo Manifesto on how your collective intends to reach out to constituencies that may be aligned with your vision but have not yet heard your call.

One reason why many of us remain suspicious of mainstream feminism in Kerala is the fact that sexual violence allegations have become a major technology used at all levels, from the ruling party for attacking the opposition, formal and informal, to women aggrieved by the lack of equality and respect for them in romantic relationships. The destruction that it wreaks is being justified through an utterly cynical deployment of feminist discourse. This is actually creating a more fertile ground for men’s rights misogyny, too. Mainstream feminism, much of which is now deeply entangled with the ruling power, has tended to encourage this process, rather than take principled positions on these, even to the extent of attacking fellow-feminists who publicly air doubts about the ethical implications of furthering this technology, especially in the interest of powerful political parties. Since ZeTo also adheres to a strictly principled stance and refuses the cynical deployment of feminist discourse in the power struggles between political parties and justifying state authoritarianism, we must initiate an honest and non-confrontational dialogue about how and when state power can be called upon, and how feminists can craft critical and healing responses to grievances of individuals stemming from patriarchy, from civil society.

In addition, we are deeply concerned by a scenario where radical feminist demands are co-opted, domesticated, disciplined, and reframed into manageable policies that restrict rather than transform social change. Althea’s irrevocable support for ASHA workers stems from this very important constraint for us. We do not wish to be used as a tool for the government to manage women or women’s issues. Our experience last year with the ASHA workers’ historic protest was instructive: among the many ways in which misogynist CPM and CITU leaders tried to pit women workers’ demands for living wages and dignity against anti-domestic violence campaigns, as though only the latter qualified as ‘truly feminist’. How exactly we seek to deal with the state’s and the political parties’ cynical use of feminist discourse and goals to their own ends, and how we plan to protect the ZeTo from such misuse needs to be discussed openly and frankly.

None of the above points are meant to trigger blame — the ZeTo campaign may indeed be a place in which understanding, and following it, forgiveness, may indeed be possible.

Of course, we are aware that our deployment of the word and the concept of “forgiveness” in the context of restorative justice for the society may be perceived as letting the perpetrators of sexual violence off the hook. Nothing could be further from the truth. As women, as queer-identified agents and advocates, as members of marginalized ethnic, caste, and class communities, we are well aware of the legacy of “Otherness” that dominates the discourse of justice. We are aware of how “Otherness” has been used too often to reproduce bigger and more toxic circles of “Other” communities. As radical feminists, we do not wish to participate in the reproduction of “Otherness.” In our adoption of such a stance, we follow the examples set for us by radical feminist thinkers such as bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Gloria Anzaldua and others who work at the margins of colonized cultures. We do this not because we suspect the “centers,” but because we are aware that every “margin” has its own “center,” and we relish the opportunity it affords us for introspection, for forming alliances from the margins to other margins, to take in the distances, to create alternate models of resistance to the colonizing power of patriarchy, wherever it may be, at the margins or at the centers.

For us, radical forgiveness is the cornerstone of restorative justice as it gives us our agentive choice back to us; what abuse takes away is precisely our choice. Social transformation requires that we act from a position of choice, of autonomy, that we are able to view critically the linear history of transcendence, of justice as transcendence in the narratives written by patriarchal colonizers.