Hema Committee Report: Quid Pro Quo Expectations and the Illusion of Choice

Sexual coercion in casting, for example, leaves victim-survivors of abuse bound to choices they never truly made.

There is also an underlying assumption that all victims of harassment have the ‘option’ to refuse abusive behaviour, which is not true. It overlooks the complex realities that many face, where the ability to say ‘no’ is not as straightforward as it seems. 

(Photo: Kamran Akhter/The Quint)

The recent publication of the Hema Committee Report stands as a pioneering effort crucial in uncovering the true extent of systemic problems deeply entrenched within the Malayalam film industry. It was often reported that such problems included quid pro quo demands for sexual favours. The Hema Committee Report confirms this.  

While the report sets the stage for meaningful reforms ahead, it highlights troubling issues within the industry; where young women find themselves cornered into compromising situations and where sexual favours are demanded as a gateway to opportunities.

This creates a work environment that is neither equitable nor safe and in the entertainment world, this form of exploitation is colloquially known as the ‘casting couch’. A more appropriate term that does not downplay the severity of the issue is ‘sexual coercion in casting’.  

Based on witness statements and direct evidence presented before the committee, the report states that female actors and junior artists have been asked to make ‘adjustments’ or ‘compromises,’ terms that are used euphemistically to refer to demands for sexual favours.

It observes that women are discouraged from voicing such concerns as they are viewed as troublemakers and subsequently avoided by producers, resulting in a silent ban within the industry. As a result, refusing to comply with such demands is synonymous with putting their careers and livelihoods on the chopping block.  

Despite an authoritative report detailing such harrowing experiences faced by women in the industry, some deeply disturbing perspectives emerged in response to the report. When these scenarios were examined, some questioned the ‘actual’ harm in such demands.

The rationale behind these views were attributed to the belief that there is always a ‘choice to refuse’. Yet one must ponder if such a ‘choice’ truly exists or if it is merely an illusion of ‘choice’.  

The Myth of Choice: The Harm in Asking for Sex When Saying 'No' is an Option

The fundamental problem with this narrative is that it overlooks the fact that asking for sexual favours or suggesting such expectations in return for opportunities by itself is inherently unlawful due to its exploitative nature.

There is also an underlying assumption that all victims of harassment have the ‘option’ to refuse abusive behaviour, which is not true. It overlooks the complex realities that many face, where the ability to say ‘no’ is not as straightforward as it seems. 

Firstly, there is the question of the capacity to consent. Alarmingly, there have been reports suggesting that minors are sometimes coerced into these predatory situations with the knowledge—or even tacit approval—of parents or guardians. This underscores the gravity of the problem, as minors are deemed incapable of providing informed consent. 

Secondly, even if the capacity to consent exists, women often find it difficult to respond to sexual advances made. This is even more true for situations where significant power imbalances exist – like in the movie industry. This could be owing to shock, fear, confusion, internalised shame, conditioning, and a bunch of other factors.

Assertiveness and the ability to say 'no' are desirable for establishing personal and professional boundaries, especially for women. But like any skill, assertiveness is not innate; it requires conscious effort and mindful nurturing. Just as one cannot speak a language one has not learned, not everyone naturally possesses this skill. That certainly does not give those in positions of power the right to exploit others. 

Thirdly, there is often an expectation of women to be brave and bold under circumstances of abuse. Such narratives not only place an unfair burden on the victim but also perpetuate a culture of victim blaming. Ultimately, accountability should rest with the harasser and not the victim-survivor.  

Valid Consent

When considering the choice to consent, another critical question arises: Can there ever be valid consent when it comes to sexual coercion in casting? The answer is no. This is because consent, to be valid, must be freely given, informed, and enthusiastic.

Asking for sexual favours in return for opportunities is not only unethical, it is a form of coercion as it simply undermines genuine consent.

For consent to be genuine, individuals must make decisions freely and under fair conditions. When sexual favours are demanded in exchange for professional advancement, the very nature of these demands makes any apparent agreement inherently flawed, tainted, and unacceptable. 

This is not to suggest that adult women lack the agency to decide for themselves, but only to point out that unfair coercive practices can compromise their ability to exercise that agency.

Offering choices free from unethical and discriminatory conditions supports the advancement of a woman’s autonomy and agency. In contrast, practices like sexual coercion in casting exploit individual vulnerability and ambition. It leaves victim-survivors of abuse bound to choices they never truly made.  

(Aparna Asokan is a PoSH Compliance Lawyer and a DEI Consultant. She is the Co-founder and Partner of Sol PoSH Consultancy Services. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)