Asian Age, (Edit) July 26, 2005

By Flavia Agnes

Thursday, 21st July, was a wet and rainy day. A day of water clogging, submerged railway tracks and clogged traffic. It was also the day the bill to ban the dance bars was scheduled to be discussed in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly. When the bill was passed unanimously at the end of, what some newspapers reported as a 'marathon debate', it also turned out to be a sad day for some of us, who had braved the rains and had gone to the Assembly to witness the debate from the visitors' gallery. We were a paltry group of women activists who had supported the bar dancers and opposed the ban. We were far outnumbered by the pro-ban group, the' Dance Bar Virodhi Manch', which also had a significant number of women activists.

We were sad, not because we were outnumbered, not even because the bill was passed unanimously. But because of the manner in which the 'women's question' is discussed, the comments that are passed on the floor of the house, by our elected representatives, who are under the constitutional mandate to protect the dignity of women! Subsequently, we have heard rumours that some of these comments have been withdrawn and will not be reflected in the reported proceedings. But this cannot obviate the fact that this is the way our elected representatives think about women. This is the terminology they use while commenting upon women.

I know that the House enjoys certain privileges. The proceedings are above legal scrutiny, in the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. But the question I wish to address is whether these privileges override the constitutional mandate of protecting the dignity of women.

One of the comments was aimed at us. 'these women who are opposing the ban, we will make their mothers dance ' (The comments have to be translated into Marathi to gauge its impact.) During the campaign we had been asked, 'will you send your daughter to dance in a bar?' But on the floor of the House, the situation had regressed, from our daughters to our mothers! 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.

An esteemed member narrated an incident of his friend's daughter who had committed suicide because she did not get a job. He said it was more dignified to commit suicide than dance in bars. And the house applauded! Yet another congratulated the Deputy Home Minister for taking this bold and revolutionary step but this was not enough.

Hotels with three stars... five stars... disco dancing... belly dancing... all that is vulgar. .. every thing should be banned, he urged. Another esteemed member was anecdotal. He had gone to dinner with a friend to a posh restaurant in South Mumbai which has a live orchestra, not a dance bar, he insisted. But women there were dressed in an even more obscene manner than the bar dancers [Comments.. why had you gone there? (laughter) ... was it part of your study program? (more laughter)]. All dancing except bharat natyam and kathak should be banned, he pleaded.

Then there were comments about films - western. .. English... Tamil - all are obscene, they argued. But not a word about Hindi and Marathi films. That is 'amchi Mumbai, amchi Marathi', I guess!

Then another esteemed member commented, '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..' Suddenly the term 'moral policing' had been turned into a hallowed phrase!

Mind you, the comments were not from the ruling party members who had tabled the bill. They were from the opposition. Their traditional role is to criticize the bill, to puncture holes in it, to counter the argument, to present a counter viewpoint. But on that day, the House was united, across party lines and all were playing to the gallery with their moral one-upmanship. No one wanted to be left out. Not even the Marxists. In fact the speech by the CPI(M) member was more scathing, than the rest. There was hardly a sprinkling of women. But they too listened in good cheer.

We were sad also because this bill would deprive thousands of women of their livelihood. The 'morality' issue had won. The 'livelihood' issue had lost. It was indeed shocking that in this era of liberalization and globalization dominated by market forces, morality had superceded all other concerns, even of revenue for the cash-strapped state.

It was a moral victory to the Deputy Chief Minister (DCM), Shri R. R.Patil. In his first announcement in March, 2005, the DCM had said that only bars outside Mumbai will be banned. A week later, came the next announcement. The state shall not discriminate! All bars, including the ones in Mumbai, would be banned. What had transpired in the intervening period one does not know. But what was deemed as moral, legal and legitimate, suddenly a week later, came to be regarded as immoral, vulgar and obscene.

At this time, the idea of a ban did not go down well even with NCP MLAs, let alone others. It took more than two months to get the Ordinance drafted and approved by the cabinet. Finally when it was sent to the Governor, he had returned it on technical grounds. By then it was mid-June. But even thereafter, the Congress Party Chief in Maharashtra stated that the Congress Party had not discussed the ban. In fact the media hinted that this indicated a rift within the ruling alliance over the dance bar issue.

But gradually everything got ironed out. Not only the ruling alliance was cemented but even the opposition had been won over. Rarely does a bill gets passed without even a whimper of protest. But this bill was showered with accolades. Even the Shiv Sena whose party high command is linked to a couple of dance bars in the city, supported the ban. All had done their bit in this endeavoour of 'protecting the dignity of women' .

How the state will effect this ban, when through its own admission, out of around 1300 dance bars, only 307 are legal and authorized, is something we will ,have to wait and watch. How will the entertainment industry cope with the ban and what are the new devices it will adopt to keep the flow going, is anyone's guess. The adverse effect of this ban on the revenue earned through excise duty on sale of liquor is yet to be gauged.

But meanwhile thousands of girls who were dancing and earning a livelihood are rendered destitute. Their legitimate work has been rendered illegal. Their choice - to enroll into the employment guarantee scheme, promised by the state, ridden with corruption and sexual exploitation or resort to street walking and brothel prostitution to make ends meet. That is unless they can make it up to the three star hotels, mujra houses or performances at private parties. But all this does not matter. After all, the bar dancers are not a constituency, they are not a vote bank. At least our beloved state and its youth are redeemed from moral depravity. Three cheers to the pro-ban lobby.