Book Review : Sarpanch Sahib by Manjima Bhattachaya

                                          

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the social and economic status of women in India is woeful, if not downright pitiable. It is fair to assume that in a democratic set up, involving more women in the democratic process, would lead to balancing out these inequalities. Moreover, what good is a democracy if half its population is left out of the decision making process?

However, the way it is structured, Indian democracy is deeply flawed. It vests power in those already powerful, while the marginalised are often left out in the cold. Women happen to be one such group.

The 73rd Constitution Amendment Act 1992 mandated reservation of seats for women in at least one third of all Panchayat councils and a third of the Pradhan (or head of the Panchayat) seats.
The idea was that having confirmed seats in elected bodies would enable women to better engage in the democratic process at the grassroots, change the systems and help mould the laws that govern them.

Beginning in 2000, the NGO The Hunger Project-India has worked to encourage women to participate in the political process. They trained women representatives in 14 states across the nation, in order to equip them with basic knowledge and impart skills training.

The book "Sarpanch Sahib" is a project to document the stories of seven of these remarkable women leaders in the panchayat system, across the country. The seven different women leaders were interviewed by different authors or journalists who went out to meet them. Putting these stories out in the public domain helps make us aware of the struggles these women face. Their successes are all the more noteworthy, considering the odds stacked against them. At the same time, as these stories show us, leadership can't always be imbibed; some are born leaders.

As the stories unfold and we visit these women in their villages and homes, one is struck by the grit and determination the women display. The authors bring home to us the fact that despite little or no education, these leaders bring their own unique perspective to the problems at hand. Almost each of these ladies has prioritised funding schools, and bringing access to water, roads and electricity for her village or block.

The support for these women leaders, from their people, is usually palpable; though a few times there is hostility in evidence, too. Yet each woman soldiers on, fighting the good fight, determined in her belief that her work will benefit her people in the long run.

This is a book that should be made mandatory reading for high school students. Copies should be distributed in Parliament, specially the Lok Sabha. The accounts in this book are proof that women make as good people's representatives as men-if not better- given a chance. Closing the gender gap in political representation is but a small step in improving the overall gender imbalance in our society. Now that panchayats have shown the way, it's time we stepped it up to the next level. Maybe, some sense will prevail and the bill for reservation of seats for women in Parliament which has been hanging fire for over a decade now, finally gets to see the light of day.

Book                   : Sarpanch Sahib, Changing the Face on India
Edited by            : Manjima Bhattacharjya
Published by       : Harper Collins
First Published    : 2009
Number of pages : 150

                                                                   

                                                                       

The "Superwoman" Syndrome

The modern Indian male, specially the one who sees himself as liberal, agrees that women taking up paid jobs outside the home is a natural progression. What goes unstated is that traditional gender roles inside the home must remain undisturbed.

Middle and upper class women stepping out of the home, entering the workforce, are seen as "liberating" themselves. They would gain economic freedom and hence some measure of liberty. However, in many Indian households individual freedom counts for little and your business is everybody else's business. So often, the money women earn is not even their own. The freedom they hoped for often does not include control of their own finances.

Women born without privilege always knew that "work is liberating" was just an adage without much truth to it. What kept women bound to home and hearth, for centuries, is male domination and that remains unchanged.

It's been a revelation to upper class women that they step out to their jobs only to return to a second shift  at home, doing most of the housework. Of course, most upper class women have the option of hiring less privileged, poor women to do their house work. However, overseeing this housework is almost exclusively women's work. The home and its upkeep has traditionally been the woman's domain and so it remains. We are stuck with binary gender roles and men continue to be the dominators. The power rests with men.

Women may work in paid jobs outside the home, whether out of choice or necessity, but their primary role remains that of the house keeper and the nurturer. Added to this is the myth that the ability to "balance" a professional career while being a nurturing home maker comes naturally to women. Multitasking is now considered a basic virtue every woman must possess. It's the elusive mirage every "working woman" is supposed to seek, if we are to go by innumerable self help books and umpteen women's magazines. Indeed, many women have taken to the "superwoman" tag with great pride.

Where does this leave women who choose to be single or unmarried or childless? When playing multiple roles is the norm, no wonder we as a society see single women as incomplete, flawed, or awaiting the right moment or man to come long, at best. At worst, they are looked upon as scheming and selfish.  

Part of this is no doubt due to the fact that Indian society is still centred around the family. The individual, her choice or her privacy don't count for much. Having restricted myself to traditional gender binaries, I am not discussing lesbian or queer women or the rest of LGBTQI spectrum so far.

If Indian women want true liberation, not just a partial one we must look beyond traditional gender roles. Men need to step into the kitchen, take on the child care and care of the elderly and sick. This will not happen overnight if we suddenly demand it of men. We must begin with mandatory teaching basic life skills, both at home and in schools to children of all genders. May be have a basic qualifying test and link it to issuing of citizenship documents like passports or aadhar or voter IDs? It's time we began in earnest. Women can then finally relax and learn to let go. We don't have to be superwomen. Not all of us, anyway.

Feminism

                                        picture: Women with raised hands image coutesy: EPW

Feminism is the radical notion that women are people said someone famous. That sums up feminism better than any long winded definition. Feminism aims to restore to women their full humanity, enabling us all to see women as human.

Here's the wikipedia entry and the dictionary definition of feminism. Yet time and again, we are fed the lie that feminism is anti-man or feminists want all men dead. (ahem! more on that later, when we talk about misandry) Most people simply don't know what feminism is, or have misconceptions about it. And so often it takes up a lot of feminists' time, effort and energy in explaining what it means. Here's my attempt at a sort of ready reckoner and myth buster. 

To quote bell hooks, "Simply put,  feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression."
                                                           

I will elaborate this in the Indian context- mostly the mainstream, north Indian one, which is most familiar to me. The parts that comprise the largest struggles of feminism in India are the patriarchy and the caste system, which combine and reinforce each other to make women's lives miserable.

Feminism aims at the restoration of basic human rights to women and people of all genders. This can only be achieved by dismantling the patriarchy, the system for and by men which keeps them in power through domination and violence. 
                                                                             

Let's talk about the patriarchy.

The head of the family is the patriarch or father. He is usually the oldest male member, in whom rests maximum power and who makes all decisions for the family. This power structure is replicated at all levels of society. The Indian state, too, is steeped in patriarchal attitudes, and through its various organs, sets out to decide for its citizens what is best for them. 

Patriarchy enforces strict gender roles for males and females.

                                                                   

 These roles are reinforced in a circular fashion.

It keeps men and women bound in certain roles, and as we perform these roles, we adapt to them. These performances of femininity and masculinity are closely monitored. There is praise on performing well and fierce retribution is meted out for missteps.Those who don't follow the norms face violent consequences and the cycle is perpetuated.
                                                                            

Women's performance of femininity are controlled through violence. And this cycle of violence perpetrated over centuries has become so ingrained in our social fabric, that we take it for granted.

Violence need not always be inflicted by a tear to the skin or a breaking of bones. A harsh word which hurts and may leave a lasting impact, or just the fear that something awful may happen to one is also violence. So often, just the threat of it is enough to keep women in control.

Moreover, women have so internalised the concepts of patriarchy and sexism that most of the time we don't recognise sexism when we see it. Misogyny isn't specific to men; women practise it freely too! Following the dictates of patriarchy can be rewarding to a certain extent. Women who toe the line are assured of a certain safety, specially if they belong to the upper caste or class- both usually reinforce each other in the Indian context.

One of the norms enforced by patriarchy are the labour roles designated by gender. Women are expected to stay at home, produce babies and look after the household chores such as cooking, cleaning, laundry and care of the old and infirm. Women are assumed to have a temperament which is best suited to such work. They are typecast into the roles of "natural born nurturers".

The flip side of this popular myth associated with gender roles is that men are best suited to the aggressive hustle and bustle of life outside the home and perform hard labour. Of course, these norms don't always stand up to scrutiny. But we are so conditioned to these norms, we accept them as they are, without question.


One only have to venture into the rural heartlands to see that in India today, the majority of the back breaking hard labour in agriculture is done by women: the majority of Indian farmers are women. But they are not termed farmers because the land they toil away on, either isn't to their names, or they work on others' fields and are thus not counted as labourers, not farmers.

The movement of feminism is more about erasing outdated gender roles rather than pitting two clearly demarcated groups against each others. Feminism aims to abolish these gender binaries and blur the lines.

Let's talk about the caste system.

As it stands today, caste is a system that confers on each person born into a Hindu family, an unalterable social status. There are four main castes but there are also those who are outside the fold, the "outcastes" or Dalits or untouchables.

Caste works as a "carefully graded system of inequality" arranged according to "an ascending order of reverence and descending order of contempt".
                                                                             

Caste can be more dehumanising than class as it deprives the disadvantaged of not only access to capital but also of dignity and personhood. Imagine a centuries old structure which simply doesn't recognise you; you're invisible to it.

Marriage is one of the key areas of life dominated by caste, and the endogamous marriage (within the same caste) is key to maintaining separations between castes. Maintaining the purity of the bloodline can only be achieved through keeping a tight control on women's bodies and their sexuality, which is also what patriarchy aims at: to keep women's sexuality in check.

The Caste System also helps uphold the Patriarchy.
The two systems of patriarchy and caste merge seamlessly and reinforce each other in exploiting the bodies of the marginalised and controlling the bodies of women.

Inequality operates at many levels in our society. Patriarchy also upholds the caste system and vice versa. The two systems in conjunction with each other keep many groups of people oppressed. Some of these groups like the people of all minority religions such as Muslims or indigenous tribes or adivasis are all marginalised, some of whom are at a double disadvantage.

The status of women belonging to these groups is even more inferrer to that of their menfolk. In the Indian context, feminism must look to include all such groups of the disenfranchised and provide them a platform. Feminism which doesn't include these groups is quite futile.

At the same time, in the broader context, women's postion in Indian society is much worse compared to men. Of course it's a matter of degrees: the lot of Indian upper class women -who are almost always also upper caste - is better than that of men of lower socio economic strata, who in turn are in a better position than their women folk, only if marginally so. Suffice it to say that though things may be getting better for women, we have a long struggle ahead in dismantling the patriarchy.

A look at some of the common myths around Feminism.

1. Feminism is a foreign import.

Feminism is very much an Indian product and has roots in India. In the modern context, men and women have been working for the emancipation of women from their unequal status since the nineteenth century.

One of the first to set up an all girls school and pave the way for women's education was Savitribai Phule, trailblazer in her own right.

2. Feminism seeks to make women equal to men. We aren't looking for equality, we are looking to dismantle the patriarchy (and the caste system must be annihilated along with it.)

Both these systems privilege some people by the accident of birth and condemns millions others to unforgivable and illegal forms of survival like manual scavenging, from which they have no respite. This is compounded by the fact that this system of injustice has been in place for centuries.Feminism seeks the liberation and freedom of all individuals, not just women.

3. Feminism is anti-men.

Feminism is anti-patriarchy and the system of violent coercion with which it works to enforce gender roles. Patriarchy and the caste system which it supports and underpins were built over centuries to put savarna or high caste men in privileged positions of power. These system were built by exploiting the bodies of women and men of lower castes.

Feminism doesn't advocate hatred of men. It aims at dismantling the system which is held up by men, mostly unwittingly and unthinkingly. Yes, the default beneficiary is men so it's no wonder it seems we are attacking men.

My suggestion for men: take a step back, don't make it personal. Don't assume you represent all men. And whether you like it or not, you are privileged; work to understand it. (hey, you're reading this piece, you're doing great! Yay!)

4. Feminism isn't needed anymore because women are already equal to men.

If you think women are equal now, and there is no need for feminism, you need to read some statistics. Girls are killed before birth and women are burnt for dowry. Women continue to be paid less on average than men, many jobs are not friendly to mothers, and women continue to be responsible for the majority of household work.

5. Women choose to doll up and be feminine, why do they need feminism?
Femininity is a performance women are forced into, yet they go gaga over spa treatments and hair colour? Yes, those acts may not be feminist acts in themselves but if wearing nail paint makes a woman happy, why shouldn't she? Also, we have to pick our battles till the day we all start dressing in a gender neutral, androgynous fashion. Till then, let's keep our bras and our toe rings.

6. Feminism only liberates women at the expense of men.
Feminism doesn't just liberate women; it also liberates men by breaking down the standards which society has put in place for both women and men. Men are taught in this society to be macho, emotionless leaders, and to never show weakness. "boys don't cry" is yet another stick to beat men into submission, by the patriarchy. Feminism says that it's okay for men to show weakness, be followers, and to show their emotions.

Feminism will set women and men free; free to achieve our full potentials as caring, loving, nurturing human beings. Because nothing less will do.

Note: I have used extensively my knowledge gleaned from reading bell hooks, and the books "gendering caste" by Uma Chakravarti, "The History of Patriarchy" by Gerda Lerner, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's writings. Deeply indebted to these. I have used open source images available from google.

Caregiving and Paid Work

How often have you heard the argument that women would be better off, and the cause of their empowerment greatly furthered, only if they worked? Even the most well meaning women and often men -read privileged, and blinded by it- will say it with all the emphasis at their disposal. Implicit in the statement, is the assumption that women normally don't "work"!

                                                   Picture: image courtesy UN WOMEN
                               
Going outside the home to work, and being compensated monetarily for that work, is quite a recent development in human history. The idea of work outside the home, monetised, is less then a hundred and fifty odd years old.  

So much of our lives are determined by money- the having of it, the ability to spend it and save it. - the consequence that if you don't have enough of it, or don't earn it at all, you are not worth much, is only to be expected.

 Since the work such as cooking, cleaning, washing, care giving, child rearing and care of the elderly and the infirm, generally considered women's work is not valued monetarily, it's fallout is the undervaluing of women's lives. Proof, if it were needed, is in this piece in Huffingtonpost India  saying that Indian women do ten times the unpaid work that men do.

One is likely to think, at this juncture, what's to stop a woman from going out to work? Many women are doing just that. But when it comes to women it all gets massively complicated. Because uterus, eggs, new humans. 

Having babies and furthering one's family- and the human race, by extension- would logically seem to be in the interests of men, too; a father is, after all, as much a parent as a mother. Yet the structures of patriarchy have been so constructed that over centuries, childcare and nurturing has been relegated to women and now they are deemed to be specialists at the job. A job that keeps them at home, unpaid and undervalued. 

If you read women's magazines you may be familiar with that rare beast, the "work-life balance". This struggle is restricted to a very small segment of the Indian population, women born into privilege, who were afforded an education and then could exercise the option to pursue a career. Yet many of these women had to opt out of flourishing and highly successful careers, specially when they had their children, as told in this recent story in Quartz. Like I said, uterus, eggs, new humans. 

Needless to say, men need make no such attempt at balance because the life part is well taken care of for them and they are free to look into their careers with single minded focus. If they do pitch in with care work, they earn extra brownie points for it. Women, on the other hand, even when earning an income outside the home, are saddled with child rearing and care giving. Men are encouraged and expected to seek partners with less earning capacity than themselves for this reason.

There's a website with pretences to feminism which goes by the tagline: "for women who do". Left unnamed, presumably, is the category of the millions of women who don't.  Of course, house work doesn't count as work. When the media does centre women, it talks to them condescendingly.

Not unsurprisingly,when the talk does veer to getting women into paying jobs the purpose is to boost the economy. Here's an example from CNBC.com that says why women should be allowed to do more paid work as it could be a huge boost to the economy. So even when there is an acknowledgement that a woman can't just up and walk out of her home into a job, no thought seems to be given to look into the hurdles in the way. The economy is centred, not the woman.

In summing up :
1. Large numbers of educated women stay home or give up jobs once they get married or especially once they have babies.
2. Women who were working outside the home, but cease to do so after marriage, do so either because their husbands or in-laws will not allow them as it's beneath their dignity or because the jobs available aren't well paying enough.
3. Women stop working outside the home after childbirth due to lack of proper child care facilities.

A few suggestions.
1. Give monetary support to mothers or other care givers. A fixed amount, per child or elder who needs full time care. This will add value to the care giving work, while making the obtaining of the supplies needed for taking care of the child or elderly. 
2. Encourage employers to provide child care facilities to their employees. 
3. Paternity leave should be extended and made mandatory. Child rearing should be as much a man's job as a woman's if you really wanted to bring the child into the world.
4. We could tie this up with added incentives for parents having a girl child. This kind of a gesture could also be of great symbolic value. Let's not forget that we have an abysmal sex ratio at birth. 

Post script: Only 933 girls are born for every 1000 boys in India as per the Government of India 2011 Census. The causes of that and its repercussions are a matter for another discussion, another day.