In response to a recent alarming incident in Kolkata, where a female doctor was violently attacked, Sri Muthukumaran College of Health Sciences (SMCH) has issued a controversial advisory urging female doctors to avoid roaming alone on campus at night. This advisory, which came in the wake of the attack, has sparked a significant backlash, highlighting a broader debate about safety measures, institutional responsibilities, and the implications of such advisories on gender and personal safety. The incident in Kolkata, a serious and distressing event, has understandably heightened concerns about the security of female staff and students. The assault on the doctor drew national attention, bringing to light the vulnerabilities faced by women in various settings, including academic and professional environments. In light of this, SMCH’s advisory aimed to address immediate safety concerns by recommending that female doctors refrain from being on campus alone after dark. While the intention behind the advisory is rooted in concern for safety, its issuance has been met with substantial criticism from multiple quarters. Critics argue that the advisory places an undue burden on women, suggesting that they should alter their behaviour to avoid potential danger, rather than addressing the root causes of insecurity. This perspective is indicative of a broader issue where institutional responses to safety concerns often shift the responsibility onto individuals, particularly women, rather than implementing systemic changes that address the underlying problems. The backlash against the advisory reflects deep-seated concerns about victim-blaming and the need for more proactive and comprehensive measures to ensure safety on campus. Many argue that instead of advising women to avoid certain behaviours, institutions should focus on enhancing campus security, such as improving lighting, increasing patrols, and implementing more robust surveillance systems. The criticism is centred on the belief that the advisory inadvertently shifts the focus from creating a safer environment to adjusting individual behaviour, which can perpetuate a culture of blame rather than addressing security flaws. The response from female doctors, students, and advocacy groups has been vocal and critical. There have been calls for SMCH to reconsider its approach and to adopt measures that more directly address safety concerns, such as the establishment of a dedicated safety committee, increased security personnel, and more comprehensive support systems for individuals facing threats. The situation has sparked a broader discussion about campus safety protocols and the role of institutional advisories in shaping perceptions and behavior. Advocates emphasize that while advisories can serve as short-term guidance, they should be part of a broader strategy that includes structural changes and a commitment to fostering a secure and supportive environment for all campus members. The advisory from SMCH has thus become a focal point for discussions about how best to ensure the safety of female doctors and other campus members while promoting a culture of respect and security. The controversy underscores the need for a balanced approach that integrates immediate safety measures with long-term strategies aimed at addressing and preventing violence. Moving forward, educational and professional institutions must engage in open dialogue with their communities, assess the effectiveness of their safety protocols, and implement comprehensive measures that address both preventive and responsive aspects of security. The broader implications of this incident and the subsequent backlash highlight the ongoing challenges in creating safe and supportive environments and the importance of addressing these challenges through a combination of proactive measures, community engagement, and institutional accountability.
n conclusion, while the advisory from SMCH is a response to a serious and unfortunate incident, it has sparked a broader debate about the most effective ways to ensure safety and security for female doctors and other members of the campus community. The backlash against the advisory reflects deeper issues related to safety protocols and the need for institutions to adopt comprehensive approaches to address and prevent violence. Moving forward, educational and professional institutions must engage in open dialogue, implement effective safety measures, and foster environments where all individuals feel secure and supported.
