Maala Parvathy recently petitioned the Supreme Court to halt proceedings initiated by the SIT based on her statements to the Hema committee.
Published Dec 06, 2024 | 4:43 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 06, 2024 | 4:43 PM
Actor Maala Parvathy, recently petitioned the Supreme Court to halt proceedings initiated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) based on her statements to the committee.
The release of the Hema Committee report on 19 August revealed the plight of female actors in the Malayalam film industry and opened a can of worms that stands unresolved even after almost four months.
Formed in 2017 to address women’s struggles, the committee, led by former Kerala High Court Justice K Hema, exposed a culture rife with exploitation, sexual harassment and the dominance of a powerful group controlling the industry.
The “casting couch” and other discriminatory practices were laid bare, sparking hope for change.
Yet, women in non-privileged roles, such as assistant directors and makeup artists, find themselves increasingly marginalised.
Many lost their jobs and some are ostracised for speaking out or being associated with the report. Even though the committee was formed to empower them, the release of the report deepened their struggles, raising questions about its impact on ground realities.
Meanwhile, actor Maala Parvathy recently petitioned the Supreme Court to halt proceedings initiated by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) — probing the cases of sexual harassment allegations that came up after the release of the Hema Committee report — based on her statements.
She was once part of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes) but resigned from the committee in 2022 due to the association’s failure to take action against actor-producer Vijay Babu, who was booked in a sexual assault case.
In a Conversation with South First, Maala Parvathy revealed the immense personal and professional challenges she faced since the Hema Committee report’s release.
Q: Why did you decide to share your experience before the Justice Hema Committee, and what was your understanding of the committee’s objectives?
A: I decided to share my experience because I believed the committee’s purpose was to study and address the issues women face in cinema, not to investigate crimes.
The Terms of Reference (TOR) outlined that the committee’s objective was to focus on areas like security, remuneration, gender equality, and increasing women’s participation in cinema.
I believed that it was a study aimed at improving the industry, not a legal investigation and that is why I shared personal details based on my experiences.
Q: What was your reaction when you learned that an FIR was filed and the investigation proceeded despite your initial purpose being to share your experience?
A: I was troubled when I learned that an FIR was filed and the case proceeded, especially since I had made it clear to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that I was not interested in pursuing legal action.
The committee’s original objective, as I understood it, was to address industry issues, not to identify criminals or file cases.
I felt uncomfortable as people who were not directly involved were being summoned as witnesses, which caused unnecessary mental distress. I made my position clear in writing and on video; expressing my desire not to proceed with the case.
Q: You mentioned that trust was a key factor while sharing your experiences. Can you elaborate on why the change in the committee’s direction caused you distress?
A: Trust is fundamental when engaging in any process, especially one that involves personal experiences. When the committee’s direction shifted from being a study to a legal process, it felt like a breach of trust and confidentiality.
This change caused anxiety and distress for those involved, as it was no longer a safe space for open dialogue.
My assumption that it was a study was a mistake, but I still believe in the importance of addressing women’s safety in the industry through mutual understanding, not through legal pressure.
Q: What would you say to those who believe you should have taken a more active stance in pursuing legal action, given the serious issues raised by the committee?
A: I understand the importance of addressing serious issues like women’s safety in cinema, and I do not want to obstruct anyone who wishes to pursue legal action.
However, my purpose in approaching the committee was never to identify criminals or take legal action — it was to share my experiences in the hope of improving the industry.
Women’s safety is a crucial issue that should be tackled collaboratively by both women and men. I acknowledge my flaws and accept that others may take a different approach, but I believe that the democratic way forward is through mutual respect and understanding.
Q: Despite the media discussions surrounding the Hema Committee, what is the industry’s response to it?
A: There has been no response or dialogue from the industry regarding the Hema Committee. As an individual artist, I am not connected to the industry’s internal discussions. I don’t have many friends within the industry, nor am I part of any organisation or association in cinema.
Our ultimate goal is to make the industry more inclusive and friendly for everyone, but at the moment, things are becoming more complicated.
Unfortunately, no personal conversations or serious discussions are taking place to address these issues, and I don’t know whether it is happening.
Q: The Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) has opposed the petition filed by you in the Supreme Court. What does this conflict mean?
A: I asked the WCC members about this, and they clarified that it’s not a personal matter but rather a technical issue. I’m not sure how to elaborate on this.
I spoke to Asha Revathy, she mentioned that they were surprised by this move as well. Regardless, there is no dispute between me and the WCC, it’s purely a technical matter.
Q: The media focuses more on sexual harassment aspects in the Hema Committee report. But what caused the change in its focus? What other important issues, which went undiscussed?
A: The media showed more interest in discussing the sexual harassment part of the Hema Committee report, which caused a shift in its focus. The terms of reference for the committee included various points, with women’s safety being just one of them.
Other important issues, like remuneration policies, contracts, women’s inclusivity in technical roles, and scholarships, went undiscussed.
Initiating criminal proceedings was not part of the terms of reference. It is disappointing that these valid issues were overlooked. Everyone who gave statements to the committee was encouraged to open up, with assurances that privacy would be ensured.
However, the descriptions we provided were later transformed into statements for legal initiatives. The session felt like a brainstorming opportunity, and that’s why everyone felt comfortable opening up to help create laws that would enhance the film industry.
But things turned out differently, and the focus shifted away from the broader issues.
Q: In Kollywood, the Hema Committee report has sparked considerable discussion, with calls for the formation of a new committee supported by the Nadigar Sangham. As an artist actively involved in the South Indian film industry, what is your response to these developments?
A: I am not an active part of Malayalam cinema, so I cannot claim to be a significant one in other industries. However, there are issues in the Tamil industry as well.
When it comes to the Telugu industry, they stand out, especially in terms of remuneration. Unlike Malayalam and Tamil industries, the Telugu industry ensures timely payments to artists, which is highly commendable. This credit should be given to the Telugu film industry.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
