Why ‘obscenity’ case against Kolhapur dancers polices women’s bodies

On September 14, Soniya Gaikwad, 25, was at the office of a district dance association in Kolhapur when she received a call from Karveer tehsil police station to present herself. “I didn’t know what to do. At first I thought of not going, but I reached there around 5:30 PM,” Soniya said Treatment box via a phone call.

Over the next four hours, she had to sign some papers, submit photos, and answer questions about her performance the night before. With over 32,000 followers on Instagram, Soniya is a well-known dancer from Kolhapur and like many other dancers, she earns a living by performing at events, especially during the festive season.

On September 13, she and three other dancers had performed at a mandal association in Mharul village, about 17 km from Kolhapur city. At 12.30 pm, an FIR was lodged against Soniya, the three other dancers and the organizers for showing “obscene gestures” and not having the necessary permission to conduct the event.

When asked how they define ‘obscene’, Police Inspector Kishore Shinde of Karveer police station said Treatment box that there were police personnel present at the location and that they were in possession of a video recording of the performance in which this alleged obscenity was “visible”.

Soniya refutes these allegations. “They have not shown me any video yet, even though I asked how they determined this. I have not even been given a copy of the FIR or informed about the sections filed against me,” she said.

Treatment box accessed the copy of the FIR and found that Soniya is the first accused and the case has been filed under Sections 126(2) and 296 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and sections 110, 131, 33(r) of Maharashtra Police Act (MPA). The BNS sections are for unlawful restraint and obscene acts and songs in public places, while the MPA sections deal with traffic regulation, violation of rules and indecent behavior in public.

In October 2023, the Bombay High Court did so past a verdict that made that clear Wearing short skirts, dancing provocatively or making gestures that the police consider “obscene” cannot be classified as obscene acts under the law.

This is an attempt to criminalize an artist, Soniya said. Obscenity as a crime is one facet of colonial-era legislation and exists to this day without any clear legal definition. The BNS mentions the word twelve times, but does not provide clarity about what it means. The marathi term “ashlil”– meaning obscene or vulgar – is routinely used to brand artists, especially those belonging to Dalit communities.

In her book, The Vulgarity of Caste, historian Shailaja Paik says writes on how the term hinders artists from Tamasha (a popular form of public theatre, practiced mainly by Dalits) of translating their economic and cultural successes into the symbolic capital of respectability. This is the same term mentioned several times in the FIR against Soniya and other dancers and also in the list released by the association.

This is not the first crackdown by the moral police against dancers. In 2005, the Maharashtra Police Act was amended and used to close down dance bars in Mumbai quote that ‘indecent, obscene and vulgar’ performances ‘give rise to exploitation of women’ and ‘affect public morals’ (sic)‘. What followed was a decades-long legal battle that culminated in a Supreme Court case order who deemed these laws unconstitutional and called the provisions “an unreasonable restriction on the right to freedom of occupation.”

The dancers we interviewed in Kolhapur said that in addition to the legal challenges, the case has also led to job losses, debt and harassment.