|
By Freny Manecksha A study by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences' Prayas project supports the controversial 2005 ban on bar dancers in Mumbai on the grounds that there is often an element of human trafficking involved in the entry of these women into the dance bars. The majority of women spoken to were not, in fact, exercising free choice and the right to livelihood but had been duped by middlemen
The Maharashtra government’s decision to impose a ban on dance bars (or bars serving alcohol where women are allowed to dance) has raised a storm. The decision, involving the livelihoods of around 75,000 women, has evoked strong reactions. From the responses, two main streams are discernible. Those opposing the ban bring in issues of right to livelihood and choice. Those in favour say working in bars is exploitative and that it would be wrong to assume that women coming from poor and marginalised sections of society are exercising a positive choice. They say ‘choice’ is perhaps just a way of “creating a social ladder whereby those who had been denied access to educational or employment opportunities are permanently relegated to exploitative sectors”. The Research Centre for Women’s Studies (SNDT Women’s University) and the Forum Against Oppression both oppose the ban and, earlier last year (2005), brought out a study on the working conditions and backgrounds of women working at dance bars. One of the study’s main observations is that there was no organised racket and no evidence of trafficking of women as far as the bars are concerned. The RCWS study also states that the bar dancer is conscious of the implications of her ‘choice’ or decision. She knows and agrees to the very specific working conditions of her profession. Prayas, a project of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences undertaking social work intervention in the field of criminal justice, supports the ban because it believes that these bars foster exploitation of women and children. It has published a study that presents the socio-economic profile and rehabilitation needs of women working in dance bars.
Prayas first came into contact with bar girls in the ’90s through its outreach facilities at the Chembur police station where women were brought in after raids were conducted on the bars. Women who could not pay the fine were kept overnight at the police station. A social worker who visited the homes of these women, near Sindhi Camp, found that most of them were single and had children. The father of their children had either deserted them or was not functional as a bread-earner. In conversations, the women often expressed a desire to get out of this kind of work but said they had no options. Prayas also came into contact with women who worked in bars through its rehabilitation efforts at the Chembur Protective Home where women who had been rescued were brought in. It was against this background that the Prayas study was conducted, following the decision about the ban, in the months of April and May 2005. The main objectives of the study were: - To understand the processes behind the entry and work situation of girls/women working in dance bars.
- To understand the socio-economic situation of girls/women working in dance bars.
- To seek the opinion of girls/women about the ban and the role of the state in the post-ban situation.
- To suggest alternatives to address the socio-economic and rehabilitation needs of girls/women in this sector.
Interviews and discussions were held with girls/women living between Mumbai and Borivali, Nerul and Kalyan/Bhiwandi, girls/women at the two government rescue homes in Deonar and Chembur (those who had been rescued from dance bars), and under-trial women at the Kalyan district prison. Methodology The study was conducted through the random survey method along with focused group discussions with the respondents wherever possible. An interview schedule was prepared covering subjects like reasons for coming to the city to work in dance bars, process of entry, family background, type of work done in dance bars, earnings and expenditure details, views about the ban, and alternative sources of livelihood. While the RCWS team conducted interviews at night in the bars where the women worked, Prayas’ social workers spread out in teams to visit the areas where the respondents lived. This, they say, was done with a view to eliciting a more frank and truthful account. During the course of the study, informal discussions were held with around 100 girls/women. Some refused to fill the interview schedules but agreed to a general discussion on the subject with the interviewers. Though the actual number of interview schedules filled was 72, there were many informal discussions held with the respondents. The discussions and interviews were analysed by a Prayas team. Difficulties The study was conducted in the wake of the decision to impose the ban, when the environment was “heated and delicate”. In the beginning, a few women spoke freely and frankly. But during subsequent visits the same women refused to cooperate. The team was given to understand that the women had been warned by some of the bar owners not to speak to outsiders. Many of the girls/women refused to cooperate on grounds that they did not see anything coming out of such an effort. Process of entry The study says that 90% of the women are forced to work to sustain their families. They had come to Mumbai to further their employment prospects. A majority of the women spoke of being duped by middlemen (dalals) who did not inform them of the nature of the work or the workplace. Some of the women’s experiences:
“I was sold by my relatives to a dalal for Rs 20,000. I have to send money regularly home from the earnings of working in the bar.” “I was deceived in my village and brought to Mumbai. I do not know the local language of Mumbai. I wish to go back to my village but there is no way out.” Presence of middlemen The study notes that middlemen receive commissions from the bar owners for bringing women to work in the bars. They play an active role in getting the women to Mumbai and help them in the process of settling/adjusting to the lifestyle of the bar. The process of entry seems to follow a pattern. The woman is told that the money given to her family when she is brought to Mumbai is like a loan. Until she repays this amount she “has to abide by what the middleman says/wants. Such women do not have the freedom of selecting a bar of their choice”. There were some cases in which minor girls were locked up in their rooms. The study notes that while good-looking women get an advance, the more plain-looking ones have to bear their own travel expenses to Mumbai. The Prayas study infers that such a modus operandi indicates that there is an element of human trafficking in the process of entry into this sector. The report calls for legal action against men who deceive women and bring them to Mumbai, not revealing the nature of their work and often locking the women up or keeping a close watch on their movements. Socio-economic status Both the RCWS and Prayas studies point out that the women come from very poor and socially vulnerable backgrounds. According to the Prayas study, 50% of them are illiterate. Only 19% had studied up to secondary level. More than 60% of the women had been negatively affected by their low educational status, with lack of opportunities in the job market. In another revealing picture, the Prayas study notes that 47% of the women were “deserted, divorced or widowed”. Seventy-one per cent of the women had children who were receiving primary or secondary education; the women were extremely concerned about the future of their children. The women are fully aware that they are stigmatised and that working in a bar is not socially acceptable. The study says the women “lived under constant emotional tension and fear of exposure about the nature of their income source, especially by the neighbours”. Consequently, there was a conscious attempt to keep their “real” identity secret. Income and expenditure One of the biggest misconceptions in the media has been about bar girls/women getting easy money and earning well. According to the Prayas study, women working either as dancers or waitresses receive no fixed income but are dependent on tips given by customers. This money is often shared with the bar owner on a fixed ratio ranging from 30 to 60%. The amount a woman makes varies from Rs 50 to Rs 500 a day. Besides the erratic income the women have to shoulder very heavy expenses. Since most of them live far away from the bars in which they work, they have to rely on taxis and autorickshaws at night. The drivers of these vehicles take advantage of their situation and often demand fares three times higher than usual. Food expenses are also much higher since the women rest during the day and prefer to order food from eateries and restaurants. Some women who cooked meals at home complained of grocers charging them much more for essential supplies. They could not go to public hospitals when they fell ill, and private practitioners charged them more.
The study shows that 89% of the women stayed in rented apartments and 25% of their earnings went towards rent, electricity and water bills. The women complained that many landlords took advantage of the nature of their work and demanded higher rents. The social isolation meant they did not have ration cards and could not properly operate bank accounts or procure loans. They are dependent on private moneylenders or those within their own sector, like a customer, a middleman, peer or bar owner. Some 85% of the women said they had taken loans from the bar owner and had to put in more hours of work, thereby increasing their dependency on this sector. Post-ban, a women’s organisation has come forward to try and form a self-help group among women working in bars so that they can make collective savings. Lack of shelters Another observation from the Prayas study was that the lack of safe shelter options left the women extremely vulnerable to physical, sexual or emotional exploitation. It recommends that the state make necessary arrangements for the creation of temporary and safe night shelters -- a recommendation that finds mention in the State Policy for Women 2000, under the category of women in distress situations. Prayas believes that after having brought about a ban, the government must come out with a rehabilitation package as this is a group of women that requires support and cannot be seen as capable of taking care of itself. Most importantly, what is required is a shift in attitude -- that the women are seen as victims rather than offenders deserving criminal action. Rehabilitation efforts Prayas recommends sensitive action during raids by policemen and calls for the provision of psycho-social and legal counselling. Prayas itself has worked for several years in the field as a ‘re-connector’ for vulnerable groups whose links with family, community and social organisations have broken down. Its social workers are aware of how, in crime and prostitution, the victim reaches a point where there are no options left. She is hesitant about her acceptance by the outside world (including by social workers) and feels a sense of obligation to her fellow inmates/workers whose support and nurturing have been solid. By stepping outside this confine, she is taking a calculated risk. Prayas attempts rehabilitative measures in stages. From the Protective Home, the girls/women are sent to its rehabilitation centre at Mumbai Central, known as the Women’s Development Centre. Here they are put under a programme in which they receive a daily stipend of Rs 50 and are given basic literacy education or taught basic skills. Later, an attempt is made to apprentice them with civil society organisations where they can work as office assistants, balwadi teachers, community health volunteers, para-legal or social workers, etc. Prayas believes that civil society could provide a more supportive and “protected environment” for this group of people. So far, attempts to rehabilitate the women in the corporate sector have failed.
(Freny Manecksha is an independent journalist based in Mumbai) InfoChange News & Features, January 2006
|
