当印度的”#Metoo时刻”打击到艺术世界时,谁可以发言?

2018年10月4日

位于印度西部城市浦那的记者Sheena Dabholkar在推特上写道:“我的DM是开放式的”,让人们知道她可以听到袭击受害者的证词。宝莱坞女演员Tanushree Dutta在向新闻界讲述资深演员Nana Patekar于2018年9月27日的虐待行为后,引发了一波指控。印度的几位女性在Twitter和Facebook上传播他们在政治中性和心理虐待的故事,新闻,娱乐和艺术。

Dabholkar还转发了一份声明,谴责印度喜剧组和Youtube明星All India Bakchod(AIB)。该组织的成员被指控通过与一名喜剧演员保持工作关系,这是一个恶劣的工作环境,据称该喜剧演员将未经请求的阴茎照片发给同事,并骚扰未成年女孩。 Dabholkar的追随者数量迅速飙升:每隔几个小时就有数千名新粉丝。仔细看看,这些大多是右翼巨魔账户,其中有几个人告诉她说'谢谢你女士,揭露了左翼的堕落。'这个'左'主要是指AIB的成员和他们的粉丝。这个群体可能是次大陆影响最广泛的批评声音之一,尽管经常收到逮捕令和威胁,但他们并不害怕面对政治。在撰写本文时,Dabholkar的Twitter帐户已被停用,AIB的未来并不确定。

As India’s #MeToo Moment Hits the Art World, Who is Allowed to Speak Out? - 当印度的艺术时刻冲击艺术世界时,谁可以发言?喜剧组All.Bakchod(AIB)由Gursimran Khamba和Tan.Bhat创建。礼貌:盖蒂图片。
这段插曲对于新闻界所吹嘘的“印度MeToo时刻”如何容易受到右翼势力的操纵很有说明性。在她开始发推文支持后的几天,Dabholkar的设计博客LOVER受到了跨站点脚本(XSS)攻击。作为网络法医分析师,帮助追踪袭击事件的Cyber​​mate Forensics和Data Security的Arpit Doshi告诉我,“这是一个由“脚本小伙子”(一名业余黑客)进行的攻击,以恐吓Dabholkar女士。”攻击可能被认为是为了让她知道她正在被监视,并使她几乎无法控制她的在线状态。
特别是在印度半岛,越来越明显的是,我们的在线存在几乎没有安全性。Facebook的情况尤其如此:这个社交媒体网站因为将用户的数据上传到希望逮捕的国家而受到严厉谴责。在孟加拉,政府经常使用含糊的诽谤法,在社会媒体的帖子上逮捕平民。但是各州的监视行为并不是唯一的问题:像Dabholkar这样在网上表达他们的关注和支持的人们被迅速召集到社会媒体上,而不是在法庭上寻求指控,或者不遵循“正当程序”。在全球性的历史时刻,法律制度继续未能成为虐待和攻击的受害者,要求恢复法律的讽刺意味对许多人来说并没有消失。
Facebook的情况尤其如此:这个社交媒体网站因为将用户的数据上传到希望逮捕的国家而受到严厉谴责。在孟加拉,政府经常使用含糊的诽谤法,在社会媒体的帖子上逮捕平民。但是各州的监视行为并不是唯一的问题:像Dabholkar这样在网上表达他们的关注和支持的人们被迅速召集到社会媒体上,而不是在法庭上寻求指控,或者不遵循“正当程序”。在全球性的历史时刻,具有讽刺意味的是,法律制度在受害者遭受到虐待和攻击时一直是失败的,很多人都不再期望于法律的回归。
As India’s #MeToo Moment Hits the Art World, Who is Allowed to Speak Out? - 当印度的艺术时刻冲击艺术世界时,谁可以发言?“女权主义记忆项目”。礼貌:尼泊尔图片库,

这不是印度的第一次“MeToo时刻”。2017年10月24日,24岁的法律系学生Raya Sarkar公布了来自南亚的60多名男性学者的名单,指控他们犯有性虐待行为。该榜单包括来自印度一些最重要机构的学者和教授:新德里的Ambedkar大学和Jawaharlal Nehru大学、印度在普纳的电影和电视学院,以及国外机构:剑桥大学和芝加哥大学。在收到300多封WhatsApp的邮件、电子邮件和短信后,萨卡尔编制了这份名单,这些人选择匿名接受指控。

名单公布后不久,几位重要的女性学者在政治博客Kafila上发表了一份声明,要求将名单删除。信中说,我们对Facebook上的主动行动感到失望,其中男性被列为性骚扰者,没有上下文或解释。信中敦促女性透露自己的身份,并接近司法部门。收到这封信时,人们非常愤怒:签署这封信的大多数妇女都是上层阶级和阶级,因此可以说她们能够更好地接触到“机构和程序”。这封信也读起来像是一个严格的等级制度,一个不加批判地依赖偏颇的基础设施。

上个月,2018年10月8日,一个名为@herdsceneand的匿名Instagram账户开始发布一系列针对印度艺术专业人士的指控,其中有以下故事心理虐待、攻击和恐吓。据报道,这些账户大多来自志愿者、实习生和美术馆助理,他们都选择匿名,以保护自己在艺术界已经脆弱的地位。

高知MuZuri双年展的创始人之一,艺术家Riyas Komu,是第一个被点名的艺术家之一。在谈话的中间,他用手指抚摸我的胳膊和大腿,问我:“你到底在这里干什么?”''详细说明指控Komu,从一个匿名受害者谁讨论在2015年的事件,据说他侵犯了她,同时提供专业意见。科莫从双年展上卸任。与此同时,孟买的TARQ美术馆关闭了摄影师Shahid Datawala的独家展览,因为他在Facebook上因攻击一个同样是家庭朋友的未成年妇女而被传唤。

As India’s #MeToo Moment Hits the Art World, Who is Allowed to Speak Out? - 当印度的艺术时刻冲击艺术世界时,谁可以发言?“女权主义记忆项目”。礼仪:尼泊尔图片图书馆.

在帕坦,尼泊尔加德满都的古老部分,杜巴广场目前接待一系列革命女性的褪色照片。在其中一张照片中,两名尼泊尔女性 - 一位戴着一副猫眼太阳镜,另一位穿着紧身天鹅绒西装外套 - 在泰姬陵的摄影棚背景前骑一辆跑车。照片上方的一张小卡片告诉我们,其中一位女士是Shanta Manavi,她在尼泊尔共产党的地下工作了20年。照片加德满都2018年,在“女权主义记忆计划”的旗帜下将类似的照片汇集在一起​​。该项目由Diwas Raja策划,收集口述历史和私人档案,包括在摄影工作室拍摄的照片,政治集会和亲密的时刻,一些由女性自己拍摄,另一些则由那些记录丢失的人拍摄。照片加德满都是上个月#MeToo指控袭击印度艺术界后首批采取行动的机构之一。根据他们的“无废话”行为准则,摄影师Pablo Bartholomew的工作室在2018年版的节日中被取消,因为一名年轻的女记者对他提出了骚扰和欺凌指控。

在“女权主义记忆项目”中公开展示照片,身份证,逮捕令和拘留文件,为我们提供了尼泊尔历史制造主流话语所遗忘的革命女性的物质证据。这些图像让我们想起了次大陆妇女之间几乎古老的团结:政治,支持和关怀的地下网络,这些网络往往是无形的,而且在当代语言中难以理解。这是一个及时的提醒,因为在次大陆的女性网络和跨性别者之间似乎缺乏支持和团结,其中大部分谈话完全是语义的:人们更关心的是辩论他们对女权主义的定义而不是寻找有效的解决方案,或者制定法律术语,而不是在谈判攻击指控的新框架上共同努力。

也许今年在印度“MeToo时刻”取得的最大成功是外交部长M.J.Akbar辞职,此前有16位女性出现了袭击他的报道。此后,阿克巴聘请了一支由97名律师组成的团队,对第一位给他起名的女性,即记者Priya Ramani提起诽谤诉讼。许多人认为民族运动远非如此,因为人们出现他们的故事的利害关系仍然太高。

对话也在闭环中进行。阶级和种姓偏见继续在“呼唤”中运作,在这里,跨性别者,达利特人和工人阶级几乎没有机会表达他们的经历。这是一种双重约束:人们将社交媒体视为颠覆法律制度的一种方式,但只有少数人拥有表达自己故事的特权和权利。直接解决这一问题的一种方法是,艺术机构(其中大部分是私人拥有和资助的)建立一个支持和照顾虐待受害者的集中网络。没有人说他们愿意,只做了一些公开的承诺。高知双年展基金会已承诺成立内部投诉委员会。但这似乎隔离了问题,而不是为虐待的受害者创造更广泛的机会与他们的故事走到一起。正如学者Vqueeram Aditya Sahai在回应他们认为艺术界基本上是被动的反应时所写的,谈论平等比谈论“基于阶级获得资金、基于种姓的劳动分工以及种族歧视的和有才能的”更容易。

FRIZE特稿 ARThing编译

 

On 4 October 2018,

Sheena Dabholkar, a journalist based in the western Indian city of Pune, tweeted: ‘My DMs are open’ to let people know that she was available to hear testimonies from victims of assault. Bollywood actress Tanushree Dutta had inspired a wave of allegations after speaking to the press about the abusive actions of veteran actor Nana Patekar on 27 September 2018. Several women in India took to Twitter and Facebook to relay their stories of sexual and psychological abuse in politics, journalism, entertainment and the arts.

Dabholkar also retweeted a statement condemning the Indian comedy group and Youtube stars All India Bakchod (AIB). Members of the group had been accused of creating a hostile work environment by continuing a working relationship with a comedian who had allegedly sent unsolicited photographs of his penis to a colleague, and harassed underage girls. Dabholkar’s follower count quickly spiked: thousands of new followers every few hours. Upon closer look, these were mostly right-wing troll accounts, several of which messaged her saying things like, ‘thank you ma’am, for exposing the depravity of the left.’ This ‘left’ primarily referred to members of AIB and their fans. The group is perhaps one of the most wide-reaching critical voices in the subcontinent, not afraid of confronting politics despite receiving regular arrest warrants and threats. At the time of writing, Dabholkar’s Twitter account has been deactivated, and AIB’s future is uncertain.

 

As India’s #MeToo Moment Hits the Art World, Who is Allowed to Speak Out? - 当印度的艺术时刻冲击艺术世界时,谁可以发言?

印度喜剧组合AIB Comedy group All India Bakchod (AIB) founded by Gursimran Khamba and Tanmay Bhat. Courtesy: Getty Images

The episode is instructive of how what is being touted in the press as ‘India’s MeToo Moment’, is vulnerable to cooption by the right. A few days after she began tweeting her support, Dabholkar’s design blog LOVER was hit by a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack. As the cyber forensic analyst, Arpit Doshi of Cybermate Forensics and Data Security, who helped trace the attack, told me, ‘This was an attack performed by a Script-kiddie [an amateur hacker] in order to intimidate Ms. Dabholkar.’ The attack may be read as an effort to let her know that she was being watched, and that she had little control over her online presence.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that, especially in the subcontinent, our online presence has little security. This is especially the case on Facebook: the social media site has been harshly condemned for turning over the data of users to nation states looking to make arrests. In Bangladesh, the government has regularly arrested civilians over social media posts, using ambiguous slander laws. But the surveillance behaviours of states are not the only concern: people like Dabholkar who were voicing their concern and support online were quickly called out for taking to social media, rather than pursuing allegations in the courts, or for not following ‘due process’. In a global historical moment where legal systems continue to fail victims of abuse and assault, the irony of asking for a return to the law is not lost on many.

As India’s #MeToo Moment Hits the Art World, Who is Allowed to Speak Out? - 当印度的艺术时刻冲击艺术世界时,谁可以发言?

‘The Feminist Memory Project’. Courtesy: © Nepal Picture Library

This is not India’s first ‘MeToo Moment’. On 24 October 2017, 24-year-old law student Raya Sarkar published a list of over 60 male academics from South Asia accusing them of sexually abusive behaviour. The list included academics and professors from some of the most important institutions in the country: Ambedkar University and Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the Film and Television Institute of India in Pune, as well as institutions abroad: Cambridge University and the University of Chicago. Sarkar had compiled the list after receiving over 300 WhatsApp messages, emails and text messages from people who chose to remain anonymous with their allegations.

Shortly after the list was made public, several important female academics released a statement on the political blog Kafila, asking for the list to be taken down. ‘We are dismayed by the initiative on Facebook, in which men are being listed and named as sexual harassers with no context or explanation,’ read the letter, urging the women to reveal their identities and approach the judiciary: ‘Where there are genuine complaints, there are institutions and procedures, which we should utilize.’ The letter was received with great fury: most of the women who had signed the letter were of upper caste and class, and thus with arguably better access to said ‘institutions and procedures’. The letter also read like a tightening of ranks, and an uncritical reliance on a biased infrastructure.

Last month, on 8 October 2018, an anonymous Instagram account under the handle @herdsceneand, describing itself as ‘cutting through BS in the Indian art world, one predator and power play, at a time,’ began posting a series allegations against various Indian arts professionals, with stories of psychological abuse, assault, and intimidation. Most of the accounts reportedly came from volunteers, interns and gallery assistants, all choosing to remain anonymous in an effort to protect their already fragile place in the art world.

Artist Riyas Komu, co-founder of the Kochi-Muziris Biennale, was one of the first to be named. ‘Midway through the conversation, he ran his fingers up my arm and thigh, and asked me, ‘what are you really here for?’’ details the allegation against Komu, from an anonymous victim who discusses an incident in 2015 in which he is said to have violated her while offering professional advice. Komu has since stepped down from his position at the Biennale. At the same time, TARQ gallery in Mumbai closed its solo exhibition of the photographer Shahid Datawala, after he was called out on Facebook for assaulting an underage woman who was also a family friend.

As India’s #MeToo Moment Hits the Art World, Who is Allowed to Speak Out? - 当印度的艺术时刻冲击艺术世界时,谁可以发言?

‘The Feminist Memory Project’. Courtesy: © Nepal Picture Library

In Patan, an ancient part of Kathmandu, Nepal, Durbar Square currently plays host to a series of faded photographs of a group of revolutionary women. In one of the images, two Nepali women – one wearing a pair of cat-eye sunglasses and the other in a close-fitting velvet blazer – ride a sports car in front of a photo studio backdrop of the Taj Mahal. A small card above the photograph tells us that one of the women is Shanta Manavi, who spent 20 years underground with the Communist Party of Nepal. Similar photographs have been brought together under the banner of ‘The Feminist Memory Project’ by the festival Photo Kathmandu 2018. Curated by Diwas Raja, the project collects oral histories and private archives, including images taken in photo studios, at political rallies, and in intimate moments, some photographed by the women themselves, and others by those the records of which have now been lost. Photo Kathmandu was one of the first institutions to take action after the wave of #MeToo allegations hit the Indian art world last month. In accordance with their ‘No Bullshit’ code of conduct, photographer Pablo Bartholomew’s workshop was cancelled from the 2018 edition of the festival after an allegation of harassment and bullying was made against him by a young female journalist.

The public display of photographs, identity cards, arrest warrants, and detention papers in ‘The Feminist Memory Project’ gives us the material evidence of revolutionary women that have been forgotten by the mainstream discourse of Nepali history-making. These images remind us of an almost ancient type of solidarity between women of the subcontinent: underground networks of politics, support and care that have often remained invisible, and that are difficult to understand in contemporary terms. This is a timely reminder, as there appears to be a lack of support and solidarity between networks of women and trans people in the subcontinent, where much of the conversation is entirely semantic: people are more concerned with debating their definitions of feminism instead of finding productive solutions, or conjuring up legal jargon rather than working together on new frameworks for negotiating allegations of assault.

Perhaps the biggest success of this year’s ‘MeToo Moment’ in India has been the resignation of the minister of state for external affairs, M.J. Akbar, after 16 women came out with reports of assault against him. Akbar has since hired a team of 97 lawyers to file a defamation suit against the first woman who named him, journalist Priya Ramani. What many see as a national movement is far from it, with the stakes for people coming out with their stories still being too high.

The conversation is also being conducted in a closed loop. Class and caste bias continues to operate in the ‘calling out’, where trans people, Dalit people, and the working class have been given little opportunity to voice their experiences. It’s a double bind: people take to social media as a way to subvert legal systems, and yet only few have the privilege and access of articulating their stories. One way to directly address this is for arts institutions, a majority of which are privately owned and funded, to set up a centralized network of support and care for victims of abuse. None have come out saying that they will, and only a few public commitments have been made. The Kochi Biennale Foundation has promised to set up an internal complaints committee. But this seems to insulate the issue, rather than create a broader opportunity for victims of abuse to come together with their stories. As academic Vqueeram Aditya Sahai wrote in response to what they regarded as the largely passive reaction of the arts community, it is ‘easier to talk about the equality of equals’, than ‘address the class based access to funding, the caste based division of labour and the racialised and ableist logic of artist profiles.’ The MeToo effort cannot be seen as successful, or even as a ‘movement’, until it addresses these fundamental concerns of inclusivity and accountability.  Hopefully this is to change in the days to come.

Main image: ‘The Feminist Memory Project’. Courtesy: © Nepal Picture Library

Skye Arundhati Thomas

Skye Arundhati Thomas is a writer based in Mumbai. She is a contributing editor at The White Review.

Skye Arundhati Thomas是位于孟买的作家。 她是The White Review的特约编辑。

 


ARThing 追踪|Tracking - 1 /1
  • 当印度的”#Metoo时刻”打击到艺术世界时,谁可以发言?



Comments are closed.