Abhinandan Sekhri wrote this piece and shared it with me before publishing it. I felt I must respond.

It’s just a three-word sentence, “No means No”, but somehow men in this society are unable to understand it but are also a bit nervous about it. Is it that difficult to understand? Is it that nuanced? I don’t think so. It is as simple as it could be. Let me start with an incident I was witness to this Holi; a festival that legitimises molestation and groping under the garb of “bura na mano, Holi hai”. I got into the lift of my building when a bunch of pre-teen boys got into the elevator with colour on their hands and mischief on their minds. Among them, was a young 14-year-old girl enjoying the Holi fervour. As soon as the elevator door closed, one of the boys switched off the elevator lights and pounced on the girl to put colour on her. Being in a confined space, enjoying cultural legitimacy and male privilege, even a seven-year-old boy felt emboldened to smear colour with such audacity. The girl kept saying “No.”

I pulled up the boy and told him, “No means No”! The boy was perplexed at his privilege being taken away. After all, it was Holi and the girl was a part of their Holi gang, who until now was playing with them, albeit in an open space and with water. How could she say no now?

With their nervousness about “No means no”, I find most grown men feeling much like the same as the boy in the elevator.

It’s not just Holi, patriarchy finds one way or the other to legitimise sexual harassment of women. Even institutional structures, not just social structures, reek of patriarchy and sexual exploitation. As is evident from some recent judgments in our courts and unfortunate incidents in BHU, the point I am trying to make is that sexual harassment, whether by words or action, has cultural, social, institutional and in governmental support (a case in point being the refusal to recognise marital rape). It’s a big monster to fight against. Nothing makes this monster more nervous than the rallying cry of “No means No”.

Let us look at embedded privilege from the vantage point of the upper caste and the way they look at affirmative action. They speak of merit which is a convenient, politically loaded euphemism for privilege. Privilege is a really neat structure. Most well-intentioned upper caste people can be heard saying, “But I am not a casteist, I have worked hard to be where I am. Why should I have to pay for the deeds I have not been a part of?” conveniently ignoring the inherited privilege.

The author’s argument comes from the same position of privilege. The “grey area” that he argues for, to me is nothing but the privileged getting nervous of losing it. Men are scared, no doubt. Some highly educated (not that education matters in this case) men are seen arguing, “Tomorrow, I could get into trouble just because a woman I had sex with chooses so. Why should I be vulnerable?” or “This can be misused”. If it sounds similar to the privileged upper caste argument above, it’s because it is exactly the same. Only in this case “upper caste” has been replaced by “men”. The thing common to both though is privilege. Indeed, it’s no surprise then that all these arguments of cajoling, playful resistance, feeble no, a mischievous no just to tease – which the author skillfully calls grey areas; are coming from men!  It needs to be examined why only men (except for a few odd exceptions) are opposing the criminalisation of marital rape? Because such laws turn the tables on them. Such laws take away their culturally approved privilege and transfer power in the hands of women. Much like any affirmative action turns the tables on caste privileges and transfers power to the oppressed.

I do not disagree with the author in that we don’t want to make intimate encounters between adults akin to a call-centre protocol. That would be the end of romance, wouldn’t it? The romantic encounters which lead to sexual encounters which lead to beautiful relationships, sometimes unconventional, and the much-needed breath of fresh air in our mundane, stale and fast-paced life. But it should not be missed that in all these beautiful, romantic or sexual encounters, only one party retains power and that party is a man. When a woman uses sex as negotiation, like the author points out – where is this going, or commitment or anything else, the women is simply using the diminutive power she has in a society where (as I mentioned above) patriarchy has social, cultural, institutional and state’s approval and support. The odds against her are colossal. The playing field is hardly level, to say the least. She has the least power and has the most to lose. A woman asking for a commitment, or questions like – where is this going, doesn’t necessarily mean that she absolutely wants to be with you for the rest of her life. (As much as the jokes in all-male WhatsApp groups may portray that picture, that picture is not true). She is simply trying to swing some power her way in this lop-sided power equation. For all you know, she might dump you just after she takes the morning-after pill.

Men are nervous, yes. That’s because tables can be turned, for the first time, on them. For aeons, women have been nervous while dealing with men. Starting from mythology where Sita had to stay within a lakshmanrekha. All women in this “great” society are taught right from a very early age- “Kisi se hans ke baat mat karna, kisi se zyada dosti mat badhana, dhyaan se kapday pehano (Don’t laugh or smile when talking to men, don’t be friends with too many people, be aware of what you wear).” All the “don’ts” and “can’ts” are for women.

Men grow up with freedom; women, not even a fraction of that. They are nervous when they get out of their houses, they are nervous in the workplace, they are nervous in their homes. In fact, they are nervous when there are men around, just by their mere presence. This is the first time men are nervous and they are coming up with all kinds of arguments to defend their privilege like the author does in his piece. That women learn to normalise it, it’s because they can’t escape it. And this has gone on for centuries. Now when women have finally asked men to understand “No means No”, men are horrified. Arguments can vary – like the ones the author gives or the ones I have mentioned above. But fear is the same – losing out on privilege, a neat privilege which many men don’t even acknowledge.

Human beings are not radio stations. They don’t need medium wave or frequency modulation to communicate or acknowledge consent. It’s not rocket science. Women know when somebody is inappropriately touching them, it’s time men too knew it instinctively when they are not wanted!

Playful romance and “a mischievous no” may or may not be as delightful, at least for the time being. But with the balance of power in place, it may evolve into something which we have never experienced before.

I am not trying to portray women as weaklings here. Women have agency and are also deploying it more and more amid us. But we cannot rest until every woman is able to use her agency and power. Just because a few urban women can boldly say “No” and are understood, does not mean all are. Let us first level the field, and then talk of equal rights. Until then, we men cannot cry victimhood.

The lakshmanrekha is being re-drawn, only this time and, for the first time, it’s around men!