Stay Off Campus Alone at Night”: SMCH Advises Female Doctors After Kolkata Incident, Faces Backlash
In the wake of a recent incident in Kolkata, Silchar Medical College and Hospital (SMCH) has issued an advisory to its female doctors, cautioning them against roaming alone on campus at night. The advisory, which was ostensibly intended to ensure the safety of women on campus, has sparked a significant backlash, with critics arguing that it places the burden of safety on potential victims rather than addressing the root causes of violence and insecurity.
Background: The Kolkata Incident
The advisory follows a disturbing event in Kolkata, where a female doctor was allegedly harassed and assaulted while returning from a late-night shift. The incident reignited debates about women’s safety in public spaces, particularly in and around healthcare institutions where long and irregular working hours are common. The attack has been widely condemned, and it has prompted various institutions across the country to reconsider their safety protocols.
The Advisory: Content and Implications
SMCH’s advisory, released soon after the Kolkata incident, advised female doctors to avoid roaming alone on campus after dark and to always be accompanied by a male colleague or security personnel when necessary. The advisory also recommended that women use well-lit paths and avoid isolated areas on the campus. The administration stated that these measures were part of their ongoing efforts to enhance security for all staff members, particularly those who are most vulnerable.
However, the advisory quickly drew criticism from various quarters. Many saw it as a regressive step that implicitly blamed women for the violence they might face, rather than addressing the systemic issues that allow such violence to occur. Critics argue that by advising women to restrict their movements, the institution is perpetuating a culture of fear and limiting the freedom of female doctors, who already face significant challenges in a male-dominated profession.
The Backlash: Voices of Opposition
The backlash against the advisory was swift and widespread. Female doctors at SMCH, along with various women’s rights organizations and student groups, condemned the advisory as discriminatory and counterproductive. They argued that it reinforces harmful gender stereotypes and fails to address the real issue, which is the need for better security measures on campus.
One of the primary criticisms is that the advisory seems to place the responsibility for safety squarely on the shoulders of women, rather than on the institution or society at large. By advising women to avoid certain behaviors, the advisory implicitly suggests that those who do not follow the guidelines are to blame if they become victims of violence.
Moreover, many have pointed out that such advisories do little to deter potential offenders. Instead, they contribute to a culture where women are expected to modify their behavior to avoid harassment, rather than focusing on preventing the harassment itself. This approach, critics argue, does nothing to challenge the underlying attitudes and behaviors that lead to violence against women.
Institutional Response: Defending the Advisory
In response to the backlash, SMCH officials defended the advisory, stating that it was issued out of concern for the safety of their staff members. They emphasized that the measures suggested in the advisory were meant to be temporary and part of a broader strategy to improve campus security. The administration also announced that they are working on upgrading security infrastructure, including increasing the number of security personnel on campus, installing more CCTV cameras, and improving lighting in poorly lit areas.
However, these assurances have done little to quell the outrage. Critics argue that the advisory reflects a deeper issue within the institution and society at large – a tendency to control and restrict women’s behavior in the name of safety, rather than addressing the root causes of violence and insecurity.
Broader Implications: Gender and Safety in Medical Institutions
The controversy at SMCH is part of a larger national and global conversation about gender, safety, and the responsibilities of institutions. Across India, female healthcare workers often face unique challenges, including long hours, night shifts, and working in isolated or high-risk areas. These conditions make them particularly vulnerable to harassment and violence, both within and outside the workplace.
Institutions like SMCH have a responsibility to create a safe working environment for all their employees. This includes not only physical security measures but also fostering a culture of respect and equality. Critics of the SMCH advisory argue that true safety for women can only be achieved when institutions actively work to change the social and cultural norms that perpetuate gender-based violence.
One way to do this is through education and training programs that address issues like sexual harassment, gender sensitivity, and bystander intervention. These programs can help create a more supportive and inclusive environment, where all staff members feel safe and valued.
Moving Forward: What Needs to Change?
The backlash against SMCH’s advisory highlights the need for a more comprehensive and thoughtful approach to women’s safety in medical institutions. Rather than placing the onus on women to protect themselves, institutions must take proactive steps to ensure that their campuses are safe for everyone.
This includes not only improving physical security measures but also addressing the cultural and institutional factors that contribute to an unsafe environment. For instance, ensuring that there are clear and effective policies in place to deal with harassment and violence, providing support for victims, and promoting a culture of respect and equality are all crucial steps.
Moreover, institutions should engage with their staff members, particularly women, in developing and implementing safety measures. This can help ensure that the policies and practices put in place are truly effective and meet the needs of those they are meant to protect.
Conclusion
The controversy over SMCH’s advisory to female doctors is a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges women face in the workplace, particularly in environments like medical institutions where they are often required to work long and irregular hours. While the intention behind the advisory may have been to protect, its execution has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to safety.
Moving forward, it is crucial that institutions like SMCH take steps to create a safer and more supportive environment for all their employees. This means not only improving physical security but also addressing the cultural and institutional factors that contribute to an unsafe environment. Only by doing so can we hope to create workplaces where everyone, regardless of gender, can feel safe and respected.