NLU Delhi’s entire male student population has been blacklisted from debates at St Stephens, Delhi University, as several female students have come forward on social media to recount sexual harassment stories, following social media posts by students naming harassers that went viral.
The St Stephens debating society posted on Facebook yesterday:
There have been allegations of sexual harassment against [a male Stephens student], who was our chief adjudicator, and [a male NLU Delhi student], who was a participant of the tournament debating as the pro in the team NLUD-[…], that won the tournament. Since the end of the tournament, various bold women from National Law University, Delhi (to which both of them belong) have come out and told accounts of sexual harassment that we choose to believe until we have conclusive evidence to believe otherwise.
Vice chancellor (VC) Prof Ranbir Singh told us that the student complaints and the St Stephens ban had come to his knowledge only today, following which the law school has formed an inquiry committee.
He said that he was currently meeting with this committee to decide the course of action from here on.
Update 23:12: Singh had also sent an email to all batches and faculty earlier today stating: “I have been made aware of the emerging accounts of sexual harassment within the NLUD community. Sexual harassment violates the most fundamental and cherished values that the University stands for. It also poses a serious challenge to our commitment to create an educational space and culture based on dignity, equal access, and mutual respect for all. I am therefore deeply concerned by these accounts and am taking the following measures as preliminary steps in responding institutionally to the issues that have arisen.” Singh said that mental health professionals with expertise in counseling survivors of sexual violence would be appointed. Several faculty members were also deputed to be available for students to talk to about sexual harassment, “24/7”.
Singh added that these were just “preliminary and immediate measures”, and that “we need to develop meaningful and lasting responses to sexual violence on campus. I am therefore inviting suggestions about possible measures that the institution can take in this regard. If any student has any concern or suggestion, I strongly encourage you to get in touch with me directly.”
Further action
The debating society added in that post:
Both these men, […] and […] stand blacklisted from the St. Stephens Debating Society Tournaments, in any capacity, henceforth. We are deeply upset by, and believe we need to take action against, what seems like a culture of harassment and toxic masculinity in the Debating Society of National Law University, Delhi.
Accordingly, we have decided that only women from NLUD would be provided the opportunities to debate and adjudicate at 71st Mukarji Memorial Debate 2019, and the 7th ProAm Debate 2019.
Our move to only allow female participants is to remind institutions that they have the responsibility to their female members as much as the rest of the members in the circuit to protect them from predatory behaviour.
St Stephens would also be writing to NLU Delhi’s debating society to ask them to return the trophies won by the team, and will be blackening out the names of the two men from the competition, according to that post.
Me Too
Update 19:58: We are for the time being removing major direct quotes from the public Facebook posts and paraphrasing these instead.
Clarification 23:30: For the avoidance of doubt, since publication, several of the authors of the below accounts have requested us not to publish their accounts and to unpublish this article. We can not unpublish the entire story due to the Stephens decision and the institutional response. However, we have further condensed our coverage of the original Facebook posts.
Preceding the Stephens post, several women studying at NLU Delhi posted to Facebook about their own experiences of getting molested, grabbed, groped and harassed by certain male students at the law school, whom they couldn’t report earlier out of fear of disbelief or the accused student’s clout and other factors amounting to victim blaming.
One female student, writing about an alleged harasser outed in another Facebook post, though she said that she wished that she would have had the courage earlier to speak out about it. She also said she was proud of the complainant, thanking her. “And to all those who wonder why women don’t file complaints, maybe here’s your answer?” she added.
Another student named one “senior” at the law school in her post, “otherwise a posterchild of feminist values”, who had allegedly sexually assaulted her.
Another separate allegation was made against a named senior male student and recounted how he had allegedly forced himself on her after lack of clear consent at a previous event on campus.
A separate allegation was made against a third male student, describing that after the assault she was worried about how if she had complained about the incident it could have resulted in victim blaming.
A culture of sexism and misogyny?
One recent NLU Delhi alumnus posted this week and named two male students from her time at NLU Delhi, adding that the college has been “sheltering those who’ve committed harassment and pretending like it doesn’t exist”.
She added in her Facebook post that NLU Delhi’s internal complaints committee was “terrible”, making life at college very difficult for at least one female student.
Second, she said, two alleged harassers had a lot of “social capital”, because they were good looking, and also because they played sports and were therefore “protected”.
She noted that she didn’t regret filing a complaint and a victim-blaming and slut-shaming mentality would have most likely resulted in the perpetrators getting off.
This is not the first time sexual harassment at NLU Delhi and other law schools has reared its head. In 2015, before the #MeToo movement got international attention, an NLU Delhi student had written an article in the student magazine outing the college’s harassment culture.
At NLSIU Bangalore, there have been at least two reported incidences of sexual harassment, which have taken a long time for students to take action over, resting in alumni getting involved.
In 2016, following an open letter alleging sexual abuse at Nalsar Hyderabad, the administration had vowed to create a safe space at the college.
Last year, two JGLS Sonepat students were sentenced to 20 years in jail for raping a fellow student in 2015, though they were freed after only four months in jail by the Supreme Court pending their appeal.
Editor’s note: Due to the number of complaints and in line with our usual policy in covering students, we have not named accusers and alleged harassers in this post.
Comments
As far as I know, if person A's post is shared by person B, it doesn't become visible to non-friends on person A's profile (as it was in this case).
OK.
Kian Freiherr von Ganz said -
[quote]Neither me nor Prachi were friends with any of the authors on FB but were able to see the posts[/quote]
Thus one wonders if a libel action can be pursued ?
Such an intense subject-matter is being discussed, and "GUEST" only cares about colleges used in the usernames?
~Karthik Inzamam Prasad, Student at NLU-D
LegallyIndia has ensured that unlike always, something of this sort is not pushed under the carpet. I laud the women for speaking up, and I am thankful for LegallyIndia for spreading their message.
If there are factual inaccuracies, please point them out, if there is a conceptual debate, please have it. DO NOT change the attention of this post from the absurdness of these heinous acts to LI's rights or breach in posting this article.
I do think that these women should have control over the narrative which they have helped inspire and create. To go against their wishes in such a manner and cause them mental agony 'for the greater good' is despicable.
These posts were made on Facebook and explicitly set to 'public' visibility, meaning that they were public statements made, just like Tweets on Twitter or Instagram posts or other social media posts, which are regularly quoted by media. We have not mentioned any of the names of the individuals involved and endeavoured to keep out identifying details.
But I think it is important that SH gets covered and gets wider attention across law schools, and women coming forward with their experiences and those experiences getting covered by media is an important part of that process, both for other survivors of sexual harassment and for potential perpetrators too, who may learn how to behave better from such accounts.
I am a student at NLU-D. While it may be legally tenable for you to post these accounts, I do not see why what Legally India thinks is the right thing to do trumps what survivors wish to do with their experiences. To put it quite bluntly, who is LegallyIndia to decide?
If the idea is to be an ally to the larger movement, how is appropriation of discourse without a survivor's consent a tenable moral position? The idea behind allying with survivors should be to listen to them and let their concerns and desires take precedence and not to steer it -- especially in a manner that they have objected to!
Your response seems to ignore thediscomfor of survivors completely. Surely that isn't what Legally India wants to promote? It's quite ironic that you hope you can encourage more survivors come forward by using tactics that disregard the feelings of those who already have.
Please take down this post. Thank you.
Are you sure that it is mental agony of the people involved that you are worried OR you are worried that NLU-D could loose some 'sheen'??
How can you claim to care about what happened to us when you yourself are engaging in a violation of consent?
It doesn't matter if the instances quoted were in the public domain and Legally India kept posts anonymous -- if there was no consent of the survivor concerned, your journalism is ethically questionable. This seems to be an attempt to capitalse at what is clearly a hard time for these women.
If any of them wanted to go about promoting social justice by publishing it here, they would have gladly consented to their accounts being used. Nobody but the survivors get to decide exactly how their posts should be used -- if not on legal then at least on ethical grounds please take down this post.
For a minute, assume that LI is doing it's job. When (say) Salve represents (say) Salman Khan, he is just doing his job, right? Just becoz he will be paid handsomely for it does not takes away Salve's professionalism, does it?
I really don't understand the point of something being in public domain and then obtaining consent to put it in public domain. Doesnt that sounds like an oxymoron? And no, I am not oversimplifying it. It is what it is.
On the other point, while it may be a Facebook post set to public settings, it still does not give you the right, whether moral and probably even legal to quote it word to word, making the whole point of hiding their identities completely redundant.
I understand the need and also importance of highlighting such stories and bringing the voices out in the open but please rephrase the accounts, re-worx the sentences or even better reach out to the concerned individuals and just see if they are willing to voice out their incidents.
Shame!!!!
1. We are definitely not removing or unpublishing the entire post.
2. We reached out to one of the authors of a post asking whether we could repost the entire post. Quoting selectively from public Facebook posts that have pretty much gone viral, is definitely fair use.
3. We are currently talking to several people about the quotes and will take a call on this shortly.
This post pretends to care about survivors by posting against their wishes. This post will discourage women from speaking up on platforms like facebook because any story can be picked up without permission or even notice.
Notably, I believe one problem people have with our article is the idea that survivors should be able to be in control of their own narrative, by choosing where and how their accounts get published and re-published.
I fundamentally agree with that.
But I think in this case, part of the disagreement stemmed from a lack of clear common definitions and agreements about where private ends and starts with things such as posts on Facebook, and the original intention behind publishing them.
I don't think there's necessarily a 100% right or wrong answer that applies all the time here, but on a balance and without being able to turn back time, I don't think anything would be served by us removing the article at this point.
We are commonly fed a narrative that sexual offenders and misogynists are from small towns and villages, are BJP supporters, speak in Hindi, never went to elite schools and colleges etc. The truth is that the smart English-speaking lefties who go to elite schools and colleges are just as complicit. There is of course the example of Lawrence Liang, and how the NSLIU human rights brigade has not uttered a word about him. But many lesser known examples exist, which are even more serious. This is why the MeToo movement is so important. It is confronting years of toxic "bro" culture.
The point that you seem to miss is that a "public post" is not a "public post". Facebook as a platform is completely different from Legally India as a platform.
FB allows the woman to retain control over the rather nebulous circumstances of public disclosure, one in which FB posts are viewed as activism in the private space.
On the other hand, LI is a professional platform that is accessed by potential colleagues and superiors/ supervisors, people who would have influence over you in the professional and academic space.
If you can't differentiate between the two, then I'm sorry to say that you come out looking the poorer for it.
For instance, if one of the complaints had been made on Blogger or Tumblr or Wordpress or Instagram for instance, would it then have been legitimate for media to base a story on those posts? If not, is there any point at which it would be, if the original poster never gives explicit consent?
Sure, SH is a special case, but nevertheless, it is arguable that consent is implicit as soon as you post on one of these platforms, including on Facebook, especially once it's gone viral.
Regarding negative consent, we had asked for permission to re-post the entire post, not to report on the substance of the allegations (providing those allegations were indeed made publicly).
Once Stephens posted about it and Ranbir Singh commented on it and sent an email out internally, the story itself was bigger than the original FB posts, which arguably became part of the public record.
That said, I appreciate that our decision to republish was not necessarily a clear-cut call to make in this instance.
you appropriated our experiences so your platform would get more attention.
our university is finally responding positively and has provided an opportunity for dialogue and you are jeopardising it because you are making decisions for me and survivors still in college.
this is not about sh. this is about integrity and ethics. which demand that you respect us and take this down.
Please lets avoid diverting the discussion into an academic question of what is 'arguable'. You did not have the consent of the survivors who posted their accounts on their personal social media accounts, to do any of the following:
1. Reproduce the posts in your piece
2. Use the posts to create your piece
3. Mention identifiable details from the posts
Regarding your question on the "grey area" of wordpress posts, the same principle would still apply: these are individual experiences put up online, and they deserve to retain control over how they are used, irrespective of the chosen platform of such individual.
None of this changes irrespective of how viral the news is, or who else you have contacted regarding the story, including the Vice Chancellor. The duty to respect the personal accounts of the survivors persists despite all these circumstances.
In light of this, please take note of the requests of the authors of the posts on which the piece is based, and do take it down. It would demonstrate a genuine understanding of the issue at hand.
- an NLUD alumnus
You choose the post publicly about your experiences. A website reposts them. What's the wrong here? How has Legally India harmed you? It has only supported you.
Or maybe another diktat has been issued by the Ranbir Singh led admin to tone down stuff.
1. NLSIU students engaged in sexual harassment
https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/oranges-for-sexual-harassment-nlsiu-debates/articleshow/62701738.cms
2. NALSAR student arrested for harassing air hostess
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Nalsar-student-misbehaves-with-flight-stewardess-held/articleshow/48752522.cms
3. NUJS student from Bangladesh arrested for harassing student
https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/west-bengal/scholar-in-harass-net/cid/1403540
Kian Ganz has told me that this has to remain up because it is in public interest and because more people must know. He has decided what is best for us, despite us informing him of severe consequences survivors may face including the threat of violence, intimidation, and emotional abuse. He engaged in a tactic of victim-blaming, very similar to that used by those perpetrating harassment, by telling us that if our posts were public, people would have already read it. The difference is that we made those posts using our agency, and right now you are depriving us of that.
He feels that students would not be advantaged if the post was unpublished. Who are you to make that determination? Were you harassed?
His journalistic ethics do not allow him to take down the post, but do allow him to exploit us by using our stories without our consent.
You cannot say you care about survivors if you disregard what they want and speak over them. You cannot say that you care abotu violation of consent while violating our consent.
This article will get multiple shares and likes, which is what you wanted. It has completely erased our confidence in Legally India.
-Aarushi Mahajan, the alumnus whose name you included without consent and whose accounts you have retained despite absence of consent and requests to remove them.
Also, since your post, we have taken consent regarding any of the more detailed paraphrasing included in the FB posts.
They have not allowed you to replicate it on new content, please remove it.
Please i request you to kindly make them feel comfortable and secured in their space if you can by a small act on your part and i am sure you will win a lot of love, repect and positivity.
I think it's also worth asking whether Facebook can ever be an entirely 'private' sphere anymore. Can a person really control the content in a meaningful way? Once it's on Facebook, it's available forever, with viral and controversial posts such as these travelling as screenshots via WhatsApp and so on.
- that NLUD (and probably all other law schools) have sexual abusers in the student body who MUST be punished
- that what Stephens has done is a very good way to take action against sexual abusers
- the inquiry at NLUD needs to be watched carefully, to see whether the perpetrators will get away
- there needs to be a discussion on whether sexual abusers should be banned from college placements. They have a fancy NLU degree, let them find a job on their own.
- just as people are getting called out for past actions, should that happen now in the case of established lawyers today, who sexually raged or harassed people in the 1990s/2000s?
Multiple women whose stories you have stolen have commented and reached out asking for the stories to be removed, yet you fail to do so.
The argument that by posting on fb and making the post shareable women have given up any expectation of privacy is as offensive as it is tenuous.
Let me put down the many reasons why your actions are problematic:
A. People can change settings/ take down posts from fb public or otherwise and the same is not the case here.
B. If a story was taken down and someone took screenshots and published it for instance, there is no doubt that it would be a violation of the original poster’s privacy. There would be no question that merely because the story was a ‘public post’ on Facebook the author of it had given up control.
C. If this was a story which was fictional, a creative account, and I shared it under my name on Facebook as a public post, that would not entitle you to share it on your website without my consent, no matter the public interest you may claim. It would be apparent that the copyright in the story belonged to me and my expectation of privacy is reasonable.
D. These stories, while not being fictional accounts, are still subject to copyright protection (as for instance, newspaper articles are) - you may have removed chunks of direct quotations but your quoting of Prof. Singh’s email (which is absolutely a private communication) and furthermore quoting bits/ paraphrasing from women’s stories without any independent commentary or thought is clear plaigiarism. From the perspective of a law professor or student - a project which did exactly what you have would fail due to plagiarism
All those believe that republishing without permission is not morally right, you can come with that argument to my law firm, we will teach you a couple of things about how life can be fair and mean.
All those who think that actions are not legally sound, please attend media law and IP law classes again. Maybe you weren't attentive enough.
In this glorious era, personal responsibility is passé or as everyone knows,a bigoted cis male patriarchal capitalist neo colonial power structure/concept.
So what, if the posts were public and posted on the world's third most popular* website ?
LI was still OBVIOUSLY wrong.
You old codger with your silly antiquated notions of personal responsibility.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites
I think you should hide few comments because the reaction of the people stems from the fact that they have not read the earlier version of this article and therefore they are unable to distinguish between the earlier and present version.
Also people tend to read comments and form their opinion.
Also do not put down the article.
The word rockstar almost always appears when people comment on LI articles. (I for one have never used to describe paper pushers/corp lawyers).
That's the consequence of free speech and expression. People can and should be allowed to label paper pushers as ROCKSTARS.
Sad, but ...
[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/EfPksojMT0eLS/200.gif[/img]
LI has been reporting on sex harassment at least since 2010, way before #MeToo had become 'fashionable' for media to report on, and have written at least 130 articles about SH in some form or other: https://www.legallyindia.com/tag/sexual%20harassment
We have been first to push hard in cases such as Supreme Court sexual harassment re justices Ashok Ganguly and Swatanter Kumar, and have generally tried to also raise awareness of the issues at colleges (as partly linked to at the bottom of the article) and also in the wider legal profession and society: https://www.legallyindia.com/analysis/the-rapid-rehabilitation-of-powerful-men-of-rk-pachauri-ak-ganguly-swatanter-kumar-tarun-tejpal-and-the-length-of-memories-20160330-7369
So yes, I understand that this is a sensitive issue, but partly it is also the media's role to ensure such debates are public and don't just happen in hushed tones, while also documenting the power of social media.
Where are you when countless SH proceedings are ongoing at various top law firms? Why aren't lawyers made aware of these chaps? Why are their identities hidden?
Why do law firms not disclose the reason for exit of many partners?
Why are they letting them do the same thing to countless other women? Why? The nation needs to know.
Kejriwal must also be pleased to know that he can defend his hit and run brand of politics and defamation cases by employing the argument that he could have changed the settings of his posts or deleted them later.
P.S. - this is my take only with respect to the argument against the right to control the public posts. I refrain from opining on any related to feminism, sexual harassment, victim shaming, identity protection, proportionality of Stephens' actions, oppression in NLUs, profile of victims or accused, and other issues raised above.
Ah !, that shining beacon of virtue,morality,duty,backbone and ethics.
The pride of India and envy of the world, comrade.
Through this comment, I don't intend to debate whether the accounts of the survivors were "public" or not and whether that gave you the legal right to repost it without their consent.
However, there are just a couple of things I wanted to mention:
1. The trauma that these women experienced is private. The ordeal they had to go through when articulating and sharing their stories online is horrific enough; they shouldn't have to deal with their stories being monetized and used to increase people's engagement with your website.
2. The request to take down the article is not coming from a need to protect or defend the college. That just isn't the primary concern. It's coming from a realization that the college administration is finally willing to engage (hopefully, in a constructive manner) with the complainants, and having the article up may derail the progress. LI is of the opinion that they need to report on the happenings at NLUD as it's in the interest of the public. But it's also in the interest of the public for college to address the allegations and the toxic masculinity that is rampant on campus. This is not to say that it will be LI's fault if the college admin steps away from their responsibilities. But we've been trying our best to explain to LI that this kind of publicity could contribute to the derailment of the admin's engagement with the issues. And yet, we're at a point where all of these very real concerns are being treated as fodder for academic debate in the comments section.
Kian, is this really the hill LI wants to plant its flag and claim victory on?
I think one concern is that initially most of the calls were for LI to take down the entire story. Respecting the right for survivors' agency, nevertheless, once a story becomes institutional it is newsworthy and important for it to be covered. Not everyone may agree with this decision, but in our opinion not covering what has happened at that point is not defensible either, and boils down to censorship of media and effectively media being complicit in covering it up.
People may feel they have full control on a platform like Facebook, but it's not like Facebook doesn't have a profit motive or protects people's privacy adequately. Indeed, if the original FB posts had been intended purely for private consumption, the issue would never have taken on a life of its own and the debate would not have started with offline consequences.
To say that in SH cases, media absolutely can not report on it after public statements have been made and once there are real-world reactions, basically leaves very little room and purpose for journalism and reporting on SH, and relegates SH purely to social media platforms, which seems counter-intuitive.
However, I agree that in this case, there may have been a disconnect between our understanding and for how public / private the original FB posters intended their posts to be.
Once explained that situation, we have made edits to this article that I think have struck the correct balance between giving sufficient background to the story, which is important for readers and other survivors to be aware of and which puts the institutional reaction into context, while also aiming to respect the privacy of people and the updated Facebook permissions.
But I agree there had been some miscommunication and crossed wires in our communications with the posters, and in hindsight, this could have gone differently and we have also taken some valuable lessons from reporting on this and the specific sensitivities involved in social media and SH specifically.
Never knew that Stephen's was a Haven in these matters. My memory is different. This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
https://barandbench.com/women-survivors-reveal-sexual-harassment-at-nlu-delhi-administration-takes-note/
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/metoo-singes-journalists-twitter-thread-provokes-stories-allegations-1927525?pfrom=home-topscroll
[quote]While it remains to be seen what action the administration will take against the alleged harassers, the male students of the University have already felt the repercussions as a result of their peer’s actions. As first reported by Legally India, The Debating Society at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi has barred male participants from NLU Delhi for the 71st Mukarji Memorial Debate 2019, and the 7th ProAm Debate 2019.[/quote]
It takes a lot of courage in this world for a woman to stand up and make an allegation, and just going by common sense and by the law, our presumption without evidence to the contrary should be to believe such accounts. In the overwhelming majority of cases, going public about SH is very traumatic and there are really only very few reasons that a woman might risk going through with that.
The time period involved is not relevant either.
However, I agree with you that the legal and other established processes must also work in parallel to social media campaigns, etc, particularly if the women wish to pursue it further. But those are also two independent things of each other: naming a harasser is about more than just the law, and is also about women exercising their right to free speech in talking about crimes or unacceptable behaviour.
[quote]Kian Ganz got access to them because he was friends with someone on Facebook who had shared them and was a victim herself.[/quote]
And Freiherr von Ganz replied -
[quote]Neither me nor Prachi were friends with any of the authors on FB but were able to see the posts[/quote]
This means that the comment made on 04 Oct 18, 21:12 on this site under this article is false unless proved otherwise.
If you really care about survivors, listen to them when they speak. These knee-jerk reactions only help men feel better about themselves.
1. Lefties, liberals, feminists and anti-nationals are generally very vocal about SH and women's rights.
2. To a large part, excepting the Trumps, Kavanaughs, etc, #MeToo accused have in recent years come from so-called liberal or left-leaning professions, like media and entertainment, maybe because the women (and supposedly the men) in those professions are more liberal, feminist or empowered? There's been Pachauri and Tejpal. Now 'exonerated' Farooki. Justice Ashok Ganguly was fairly left of centre. And Raya Sarkar list was full of left-ish professors.
3. The majority of men named, get some flack on social and traditional media, and also offline, including by liberals, from what I can tell. And in some cases, like Pachauri and Tejpal, the legal process actually takes place and takes years (in India). But in most cases the survivors don't necessarily choose to make legal complaints, and sometimes the social pressure and speaking out is where it ends. Sometimes, employers or institutions start their own inquiries. And sometimes, nothing happens.
4. None of that so far, really has to do with left or right-wing, although it seems like many more 'lefty' men are getting outed than right-wingers.
As for single instances of Nivedita Menon defending Liang, for example, that is not necessarily an issue of left vs right. Her and others defending Liang, may be an anomaly vis-a-vis the usual 'leftish' discourse that all victims should be believed, but I would assume it's ultimately about someone coming to the aid of their long-time friend after having heard their side of the story and giving them a benefit of the doubt. It's maybe a tad hypocritical, but I would assume that's a personal decision more than not a political one (though I don't know about that exact case, of course).
Likewise, arch-liberals Tejpal and Pachauri have had friends and defenders and lawyers, who have stood up for them, as have Ashok Ganguly, and Swatanter Kumar. But they've also been fought hard against by 'liberals' or feminists.
Nothing of that really has to do with political leanings, but I assume more with the fact that accused men will be able to muster some support. And in some cases, some of the men may even be innocent, or may have a compelling counter-narratives or evidence that close friends of decades may choose to believe.
For instance, if you're a feminist and your husband or best friend is accused of #metoo, are you suggesting that the feminism must always trump their personal relationship? And if it doesn't, and they publicly support their husband or best friend, or forgive them, that they are not allowed to complain about any SH ever again?
#metoo is fairly complicated. But, just like gender, it really cuts across all political lines, and will also involve more complex social and personal dynamics for many of the people involved.
http://www.asianage.com/life/more-features/061018/chetan-bhagat-issues-what-looks-like-an-apology-as-more-and-more-women-say-metoo.html
https://www.livelaw.in/nlud-stands-up-against-sexual-harassment/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1p2pYvHFZiqdXqthryPTUSd6elK_uQeQhFrO4X3t7HQE/edit#gid=0
Here is the twitter handle: https://twitter.com/protestingindia
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/news/metoo-hits-modi-govt-as-journalists-call-for-resignation-of-mj-akbar-and-top-union-minister
https://www.thequint.com/news/india/mj-akbar-sexual-harassment-allegations
Any future coverage on this?
seemasapra.blogspot.com/2018/01/fwd-new-writ-petition-on-sexual.html
This is a public court record.
Don't conflate one with the other. That just reflects poorly on your intellect.