By Apurva Kandpal

Abstract 

This article explores the controversial ban on bar dancing in Maharashtra and the State imposing arbitrary standards of vulgarity and obscenity. The ban, initially imposed in 2005 saw a long legal struggle between the State and the Judiciary with the bar dancers stuck in the middle of the struggle. Finally, in 2016, the Supreme Court declared the ban unconstitutional and upheld the fundamental rights of the bar dancers. This article analyzes the implications of the ban, the arguments presented by both sides and the situation of marginalized communities in India.

Introduction

The ban on bar dancers in 2005 in the state of Maharashtra represents the power structure and the construction of the sexuality of lower-caste women by the State and various other agencies. Bar dancers were shown as promiscuous, dishonourable and immoral women who lured upper-class men into giving them money by performing lewd dances or providing them sexual favours. The dancers were accused of contaminating the rich Indian culture and destroying families and homes. These women belonged to traditional dancing communities and had ancestors whose patronage was based on the age-old profession of dancing. The dance bars were an opportunity for these women to continue their family profession or in simple words, perform their caste. Finally, the Supreme Court’s judgement in 2016 upheld the constitutional rights of bar dancers to carry on one’s profession and removed the ban. The court also held the ban violative of the fundamental right to equality as the ban was only applicable to some specific establishments while others were allowed. 

Traditional Dancers and the State

The ban on bar dancing had a long and exhausting history, which made around 75,000 women jobless. The Bombay Police Act of 1951 was amended by introducing a bill that banned bar dancing all over Maharashtra. The amendment prohibited any form of dancing in establishments serving alcohol, which led to the shutting down of dance bars. The ban was brought in order to cleanse the dirty and immoral activities that occur in dance bars. The State believed that such activities contaminated the Maharashtrian values and thus the government was obliged to put an end to this and protect the dignity of women, families and homes. The binary between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ was highly called upon in the dance bar debate, where good women were those who did not indulge in sexual activities outside marriage while ‘bad’ women were those who sold their bodies for money and also harassed the ‘good’ women. Preservation of traditional values, prevention of a culture of vulgarity and human trafficking were the reason given behind the ban. 

Mumbai has been the hub of India’s entertainment industry and also a city where migrants come in search of livelihood. Migrants who were entertainers were among the ones who came to Mumbai for work. These entertainers resided in areas which were later marked by the government as ‘play houses’. These areas consisted of dances, musicians, theatre artists and sex traders, which was later named Kamathipura. Kamathipura, which was a name that denoted the dwelling place of a community of construction labourers, the Kamatis of Andhra Pradesh was later marked as the sex trade or ‘red light’ district of Mumbai. Women from the red light district were employed as waitresses and dancers in the bars of Mumbai. During this period, Bollywood also introduced ‘item songs’, which were nothing but sexualization and degradation of women’s bodies through a medium of music for commercial gain. These songs very much represent the real state of Indian cities like Mumbai, where society often portrays women as objects of desire and provocativeness. These item songs were imitated by the dancers in the bar. Statements like “we are only imitating those you admire” were used by the bar dancers in their protest against the Bill. 

With more dancers being introduced to the bars, there was a huge surge in the sale of alcohol which increased the profit margins of bar owners massively. Very soon, restaurants were getting turned into dance bars to take benefit of the situation. The surge in demand for bar dancers led to traditional dancers joining bars to continue their family profession. These women in most cases were the sole breadwinners of the family and were living in extreme poverty, while also being illiterate. Their conditions made it hard for them to find any other source of employment, which eventually led to these traditional dancers choosing to dance in the bars of Mumbai. The traditional dancers were not only earning their livelihood through bars but also ‘performing their caste’ at a time when they were facing a decline in their patronage due to modernization. The bar dancers belonged to either the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe/ other backward class/ nomadic tribes (SC, ST, OBCs and NTs) or socially backward Muslim communities and castes such as Bedia, Bhatu, Dhanawat, Gandharva, Chhari, Sansi, Kashmiri, Kesarvani, Chilbila Bogum Vollu, Jagari, Doli etc. These marginalized communities had dancing as their traditional occupation  The bars consisted of not only women who were willing to do sex work but also those who were solely there for dancing. The women who did not indulge in sex trade with the customers of the bar were protected by the bar owners in cases of men misbehaving but cases of police harassment were common. 

State’s Anxiety Over Sexuality

The bars were licensed under regular licences issued to restaurants and bars and violation of the license terms led to a ground for raiding the bars. After such raids, the licenses in some used to be either revoked or suspended. During such raids, the police used to arrest the bar dancers and harass them while letting off the bar owners. There were multiple times when the dancers were retained in the police station the entire night and subjected to harassment in the station. There was a rise in the number of raids which were politically motivated and falsely charged which forced the bar owners to file a Writ Petition of the Mumbai High Court. The bar owners also sought protection from harassment by the police from the court. 

What needs to be pointed out is that three and five-star hotels were exempted from such the ban due to the “promotion of culture and tourism”. The hypocrisy of the government by allowing bar dancing in upper-class dominated spaces, the same dancers whom they called ‘immoral and obscene’ can be largely felt. The sexuality of the lower-caste women was considered a threat to the fixed identity carved out of the patriarchal Hindu upper-caste/class family norms. Dancing gets equated with sex work and the girls’ voices of protest are silenced. The violence perpetrated against the bar dancers helps maintain the patriarchal illusion of pure and untainted womanhood. 

Dance Bar Virodhi Manch was one of the most popular groups that were formed against the existence of dance bars, which they believed to be the root cause of immoral sexual activities. The group was represented by eminent leaders like retired judges political activists, social workers etc. They imposed the notions of ‘culture’ and ‘dignity’ on women and went on to support the ban by the government. There were many feminist groups that were emerging during the ban that supported the bill, like the Dalit Bahujan Feminists group who asserted that dance bars perpetuated caste patriarchy by making poor lower caste women available for the sexual entertainment of upper caste men. The bar dancers were blamed for destroying families by luring men into having sexual intercourse with them. Reports by housewives came to the focus where they were  reported saying, “I have lost my husband to the dance bars, must I lose my son, too?”. In such cases, only the bar dancers were blamed over such situations because of their caste and class. Men were shown as victims by the government and media, who despite thoughtlessly spending money on the bar dancers, were required to be ‘saved’ by the government. While the women who were trying to earn their livelihood were painted as immoral cheats. Besides targeting the bar dancers for indecent and obscene activities, the stamp of easy money was soon attached to them. The dancers used to earn significantly more than labourers who put in their “hard work and labour”. The dancers are shown as non-workers due to putting no ‘hard work like the factory workers’, and their work was further branded as the ‘commodification of women’ and ’the sale of her body’. 

The Judiciary on Bar Dancing

The High Court in 2013, held the ban on bar dancing discriminatory against the dancers and void of any logic. They observed that “The State does not find it offensive to the morals and dignity of women and or their presence in the place of public entertainment being derogatory as long as they do not dance! The State’s case for prohibiting dance in dance bars is that it is dancing that arouses the physical list among the customers. There is no lust when women serve the customers liquor or beer, but that happens only when the women start dancing?” The Court further emphasised on right to dance being part of the fundamental right of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Such exercise of fundamental rights can also be used for commercial benefit by a citizen. They equated it with the current issue of bar dancers using their talent of dancing to carry on an occupation and bar owners having dance performances in their bars. While the Home Minister of Maharastra believed that dance performers in bars are obscene and have a morally corrupting influence on society, the Court on the other hand, held that dances in bars do not come within the ambit of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, which mentions obscenity. 

After the High Court judgement, the Supreme Court in 2013 went on to uphold the decision by the High Court where they held the ban unconstitutional. It laid down multiple guidelines for the working of dance bars in Maharashtra. Some of these guidelines included mandatory CCTV surveillance, prohibition of obscenity, fixed timings and no direct tipping by the customers to the dancers. The Court’s decision aimed to strike a balance between preserving the dignity of dancers and also preventing any potential exploitation or criminal activities. But despite this judgement by the Supreme Court, the government of Maharashtra imposed a new law in 2014 which added Section 33A to the Maharastra Police Act. The amendment again prohibited dance performances in establishments serving liquor. This move by the government was an open challenge to the validity of the previous Supreme Court judgement. 

Finally, in the case, Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State of Maharashtra, 2016, the Supreme Court struck down the Maharastra government’s amendment and declared it unconstitutional. They reaffirmed their earlier judgement and held dance a fundamental right of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The court condemned the moral policing and arbitrary approach by the State against the bar dancers. Under Article Article 19(1)(g), the Indian constitution guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry any occupation, trade or business, therefore the dancers’ rights are protected under their fundamental rights. The 2014 amendment was also held to be violative of the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

About the Author

Apurva is a second-year law student at Jindal Global Law School. Her areas of interest are gender studies, intersectional feminism, queer theory, and criminal law. 

Image Source: https://m.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050430/saturday/main1.htm