Gender is a matter of culture; it refers to the social classification into ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. Our social consciousness has also embedded the concepts of masculinity and femininity, so gender is an important discourse which we cannot ignore. Since legislation is one of the most important instruments of government in organizing society and protecting citizens, the discourse on gender and legislation has got significance. The debates in parliament reveal a great deal about gender relations. When we look into the debates on women reservation bill, we can see that popular perception is influenced not only by patriarchy, but also by misogyny. For example Sharad Yadav’s much reviled comment, derisively referring to “short-haired women” (par-kati mahilaen) who would overrun Parliament (Menon, 2009). But opposition to this bill cannot be totally characterized as anti-women, since there is a question of upper caste women vs OBC men. Such sentiments better depict in the words of OBC representative, Nithish Kumar, ‘’we would not allow the social composition of the social composition (of this house) that has been achieved after a long struggle to be changed from backdoor’’ (Randall, 2006, p. 67) In the 2005 debate over amending the Hindu Succession Act to give daughters equal right to property with sons, MPs from the Samajwadi Party protested, arguing it would create ‘ashanti’ (disquiet) at home, pit brother against sister and so on (jagori, 2009, p. 16). So is the psychology of our political class!! The analysis offered by the legal system is not proportional to the woman’s experience and in essentiality is male dominated and gender biased; that all analysis of a given situation which demands legal and state intervention weighs heavily towards the male experience and fails to address the women’s question. If we look into the question of surrogacy debates, it conceptualizes women as a ‘natural body’, as the object of a contractual relationship (Menon, 2012, p. 192). In case of medical termination of pregnancy act (1971) feminist like Nivedita Menon argues that ‘it was not the concern for women, but the motive of population control’ that acted as the rationale behind MTP Act (Menon, 2012, p. 204). The ineffectiveness of law should also be discussed, in case of dowry law Srimati Basu argues that the Dowry Prohibition Act (amended in 1984) is ineffective because it can do little to address the social mechanisms through which dowry flourishes, and can come into play only if a complaint is filed (Menon, 2012). The fact that both giver and taker of dowry are held equally culpable is an inbuilt disincentive to report demands for dowry. Feminist legal analysis has helped to explore the rules and practices that are discriminatory in their impact. Nandita Haskar examined the way in which law has reflected patriarchal oppression. She not only pointed out the laws that continue to discriminate against women, but further connected these laws, and judicial interpretations of these laws, to patriarchal social relations in which women have been oppressed (Ahuja, 2010, p. 8). Even the debates on uniform civil code hardly touched the question of gender justice. This debate often revolved around communal politics and was rarely surfaced in public discourse as a feminist issue. In the case of Shah Bano Judgment, it was viewed as ‘anti-Muslim’ rather than ‘pro-women’. Personal laws have become the primary site of a constitutional and structural opposition between the fundamental rights of minorities (to religion) and of women, and always this opposition was settled in favour of religion. We have enough examples of sexist courtrooms, fuelled by patriarchal understandings on issues. The 1983 judgement of Gujrat High Court states that ‘’corroborative evidence for a charge of rape was not necessary in general and that a women’s complaint of rape should be taken on its own merit’’ (Menon, 2012, p. 116). The judgement looks like progressive, but its justification is totally anti-women. ‘’Indian society unlike the permissive west is tradition bound and a woman was unlikely to make a false accusation of rape, as she would be reluctant to admit any incident likely to reflect on her chastity had occurred.’’ (Menon, 2012, p. 117) This implied that, western women are more capable of making false accusations. This is detrimental to the woman's identity. On the 9th of February 2008, Chief Justice of Karnataka, Cyriac Joseph and State Human Rights Commission Chairperson Justice S. R. Nayak remarked that ‘’immodest dressing was the cause of increasing crimes against women ‘’ (Menon, 2008). Such irresponsible responses are self-explanatory on the psyche of our honourable judges. Section 377 of our constitution penalizes sexual activity ‘against the order of nature’. This prescription of heteronormativity[1] is a way to punish a greater threat to social order. There by dissolving LGBT rights. Section 375 IPC, recognizes only penetration of vagina by the penis as rape. All other forms of sexual assault are considered as lesser crimes, deserving a smaller quantum of punishment. Thus penetration by objects or in the case of very young girls, by a finger, does not constitute rape (Menon, 2012, p. 114). According to Nivedita Menon, section 375 IPC is a way to protect patrilineal descent and property systems. The implications of section 377 IPC and section 375 IPC can be read together with Flavia Agnes remark on rape laws.‘’Rape laws are based on the same old notion of chastity, virginity, premium on marriage and the fear of female sexuality’ (Menon, 2012)’. According to Catherine A. Mackinnon, ‘neutrality of law treats and affects men and women differentially as it is based on male norms, male experience and male dominance, to the total exclusion of women’s experience from the“male-stream” law, and thus law has contributed to women’s oppression’ (Ahuja, 2010, p. 4). If the principles of justice are not to apply directly to institutions such as courts and constitutions, legislatures and laws, then one might well ask what is the point of having them at all? - Ashique Ali T Works Cited Ahuja, N., 2010. www.academia.edu. [Online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/1562885/The_Need_to_Understand_the_Womans_Question_and_its_Implication_on_Women_in_Patriarchal_Society [Accessed 9 09 2014]. jagori, 2009. [Online] Available at: http://jagori.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dowry_infopack.pdf [Accessed 10 9 2014]. Menon, N., 2008. Judging Women. [Online] Available at: http://kafila.org/2008/02/20/judging-women/ [Accessed 9 12 2014]. Menon, N., 2009. www.kafila.org. [Online] Available at: http://kafila.org/2009/06/07/and-arent-obc-women-women-loud-thinking-on-the-womens-reservation-bill/ [Accessed 9 9 2014]. Menon, N., 2012. Feminism and the Family – Thoughts on International Women’s Day. [Online] Available at: http://kafila.org/2012/03/08/feminism-and-the-family-thoughts-on-international-womens-day/ [Accessed 9 9 2014]. Menon, N., 2012. Seeing Like A Feminst. New Delhi: Penguin Books. Randall, V., 2006. Legislative Gender Quotas and Indian Exceptionalism: The Travails of the Women's Reservation Bill. Comparative Politics, 39(october). [1] Heteronormativity refers to the overwhelming power of the assumption that heterosexuality is natural and normal, and is the norm to be emulated.
0 Comments
Women’s Woes: Origin and Solution
In the light of ever increasing assaults on women with each passing day, there is an urgent need for collective introspection in order to recognize the roots of the problem and arrive at a probable solution. However, it is a different issue that such meets never happen, not even in the cyber world where minimum effort is required. The present restrictions on women did not exist forever as it is often portrayed by the patriarchs and conservatives. However, the history of women’s oppression is so long that it seems like ‘forever’. I’m quite sure you will be disgusted and at the same time shocked to know certain findings, like the fact that Sati was not a practice originating from Vedas neither was there any justification for it. I must make my stand clear before I proceed, by no means do I or this blog aim at hurting the religious or political sentiments of any individual. All facts and statements presented in this article have been verified and the sources properly cited. The intention is only to discuss an amicable solution to the atrocities faced by women in our society. Our society has been changing with the emergence of new means of production. As we moved on from primitive hunting to cattle rearing and then to agriculture and finally to use of modern machinery, all of our lives changed, it became more comfortable with each progressive step. It must be noted here that in no society has the women’s status been static, her roles kept on changing, to use the correct term, it kept deteriorating. Religion is and has always been a guiding force for the society so we will explore this premises first. Vedas and Upanishads are said to be the source of Dharma in Hindu religion, these books were later interpreted to give the Dharmasutras which lay down laws for domestic life. However, Vimla Farooqui says, ‘the later surveys show little connection between the laws initiated by later books and Vedas’ indicating misinterpretation of Vedas which was probably deliberate. Religion runs on certain laws, in Hinduism the Law Givers were of supreme importance and they are the once of our concern regarding this article. The first of all law givers was Gautama (7th Century BCE, North India) who explained marriage as a social contract. His laws permit marriage between different castes. He restricted women’s activities in the religious field. Widow-remarriage was permitted with her brother-in-law. Women retained the right of inheritance at the time of Rig Veda. Later on, Gautama gave women to inherit father’s property only when he had no son; she had the right to inherit husband’s property. Baudhayana (Andhra) was regarded as the next law giver of importance. The practice of sale of girls by father was prevalent, he condemns this sternly in his writings. However, he did not believe in independence for women. In his time, monogamy was the rule but polygamy was not banned. Inter-caste marriage was permitted. More strict rules were introduced for widows, she should avoid one year of good food and should sleep on floor before she married again. Only sons could inherit father’s property while daughters could inherit mother’s ornaments. Apastamba (3rd Century BCE, South India) another revered law giver prohibit inter-caste marriage and widow remarriage for women. In his laws he supports monogamy and denies inheritance rights to women. Notable thing about Apastamba’s work being introduction of seclusion for women. With the idea of private property becoming prevalent, seclusion was more of a commercial decision than a protective one, this slowly developed into what is today known as the ‘purdah’ system. Here, I would like to discourage all those people who say that seclusion of women started in India with advent of Muslims while Islam came into existence only in 7th Century CE. The next law giver of our relevance was Vashishta, he was a proponent of stricter rules for women. He was of a view that ‘A woman is not independent, the males are her masters.’ He permits re-marriage to widows after leading six months of ascetic life. He permits polygamy only to Brahmanas and Kshatriyas. A daughter could inherit if her father has no son. He goes a step further to support child marriage. From the religious laws of life we can clearly see how the restrictions on women were gradually imposed with time. The laws giving freedom to women were getting extinct. Buddhism commands genuine respect for its approach towards women as explained by Vimla Farooqui ‘In Buddhism every man and woman was a free agent, independent of any supra-natural agency or the medium of priests or rituals. There was no concept of inequality between man and woman.’ Our discussion would not be complete without discussing the political laws given by the great philosopher Kautilya (4th Century BCE). By this time women had been put in seclusion (purdah). Girls were married at the age of twelve years. Remarriage of widows was allowed but preference was given to a life of chastity. Polygamy was permitted only for men. Daughters did not have right to inherit father’s property, but a system of dowry was introduced prescribing they shall be given adequate dowry at the time of marriage. Panini (5th Century BCE) was the first to define laws for the women of royal family. He explained that with advance in knowledge of men, they began producing much more than they could consume in their life time, this acquired the term of ‘property’. Women’s seclusion, as we have seen earlier, was a result of this property accumulation. Manu (2nd Century CE) the law giver accumulated works of several authors and prepared his Manu Samriti. By 1st and 2nd century CE Manu had become a standard source of laws of Hinduism and his laws dominate Hindu society till date. In his works, he proposed a rigid caste system, going a step further, he specifically defined how each of these castes was to interact with each other. He legalized child marriage and opposed widow re-marriage. He also introduced the infamous practice of ‘Sati’. Here, I cannot stop myself from telling you the story of how the cruel practice of Sati came into being as told to me by my University teacher. The story goes this way, in one of the Hindu religious texts which lays down the laws and rites to be performed by the family of the deceased, there is a mention of this particular ritual which says ‘when the body of the deceased is carried to the cremation ground by his relatives, the wife of deceased is to be carried along as she sits beside the dead. She is to get down and stand with everyone once the body is put on the ‘chitaa’ (the stack of woods on which the body is burnt) and only when the body is completely burnt is she supposed to leave that place with everyone else, in the meanwhile, the relatives are supposed to put the religious offerings and also the fuel to keep the fire burning.’ This ritual was written in Sanskrit originally, so it was only the Brahmins who had the sole right to interpret it for the commons. They somehow misinterpreted a particular phrase of Sanskrit which completely altered the original ritual and what we got was the practice of Sati. The ritual had now become ‘The wife of the deceased is NOT to get down from the ‘chitaa’ and she must burn with it, while the relatives must make sure she does not step out of the fire’ a mistake by the supreme authority of the time had cost women her right to life. However, there is no proof to tell us whether or not, the misinterpretation was deliberate. On no ground, rational or moral, can such a practice be justified. We must understand that under all circumstances, right to life is infallible and if there is any procedure denying this right to individual, it must be shunned then and there, even if it is religion. Being the ones blessed with agency, it shall be our characteristic behaviour that we think and apply some sense before accepting any utterances of the self-proclaimed preachers. Now, we will try to understand what changes in women position occurred due to foreign invasions in India. In Tenth and Eleventh centuries Muslims began to come to India. In this clash of two different cultures, the Hindu society felt the need to preserve their culture and in this quest they clung firmly to the old laws. Old laws were twisted in a manner that simple laws became complex, so its comprehension was left to the priests i.e. Brahmins. Vimla Farooqui explains that ‘at this stage child marriage firmly enforced, women kept in seclusion and the custom of ‘Sati’ much in prevalence, women had no right to inheritance, polygamy was permitted and widow remarriage prohibited.’ The British Empire adopted a policy of non-intervention in religious matters and hence did not try to remove oppressive customs. They kept Hindus and Muslims laws separate to keep the communities divided. The social reformers made their impact during the 19th Century and challenged the things which were not right about the society. The notable reformers of this time were Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidya Sagar, Veeresalingam Pantulu, Sr. D. K. Karve, Jotiba Phule, Ranade and Dayanand Saraswati. However, it must be noted here that the women themselves were not allowed to participate in these reform movements. Gandhi, in this respect, was different in the sense that he appealed to women to come out of their ‘purdah’ and join the reform movement, he also let them participate in the struggle for Independence. The first women’s organization known as Sakhi Samiti was set up 1882 by Swarna Kumari Devi. The same year, Pandita Ramabai set up Arya Mahila Samaj in Poona and Sarala Devi Chaudharani set up Bharat Istri Mahamandal in 1901. Several other organisations were founded on similar lines. All India Women’s Conference (AIWC) was setup in 1927 under the leadership of many women of princely families and women members of Congress Party. A campaign was launched by AIWC against Child Marriage and as a result Sarda Act was passed in 1929, fixing 14 years as the marriageable age for girls and 18 years for boys. AIWC decided to fight for equal rights in inheritance and marriage for women, this was opposed vehemently by Hindu orthodoxy. A committee was setup under B.N. Rau as the Chairman but the proposed changes in the Hindu Code Bill could not be enacted at that time due to the protest. The national movement gave the women a chance to fight for their rights but the participation was mainly from the upper and the upper middle class. There was a little participation by the tribal women mainly from north-east. The post-Independence era saw some success in form of several women organisations coming up. Better rights to women in marriage, inheritance, adoption in 1955 and 1956 by the parliament was a victory of women’s movement. Strict laws against physical and mental assault, dowry law passed in 1962 has been amended twice. The Bill for 1/3rd women’s reservation is still pending. Bipan Chandra points out ‘After independence, too, they [women] had occupied high offices, of governors and cabinet ministers at the Centre and in the states, including that of chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state.’ Now, coming to the recent assaults on women, which are not so recent but have started getting media attention recently after the horrendous night of 16th December in Delhi [see Capital Punishment to All Four Accused], it is the result of centuries of gradual decline in women’s status which has taken this form now. The men have started seeing women as one of their material possessions and hence want to control them. Continuous hostility was maintained for women just in order to keep them suppressed and have the upper hand when it comes to property distribution. The whole turn of events was obviously not executed under any planned structure but similar course of action in each era taken against women made the history of women’s woes homogenous, with the men controlling and secluding women each time. Each time when the society witnesses yet another assault on women there arises a question- ‘whose mistake is it?’ and for all those who arrive at a conclusion that it’s the women who are to blame for provoking men, I have nothing but shame to confer. In my wildest dream would a victim be held responsible for the crime and not the criminal, who is assumed to be innocent just because the ones who have the authority to ‘assume’ belong to the the same sex as the criminal. To fight with oppression that the women have to face in everyday life we must first of all acknowledge the fact that it is the men who are to blame for the present conditions and not the women. Living in a modern nation state, the very foundation of which has been laid on the principles of liberty and equality, an individual has absolute right to practice anything he/she wants as long as it does not pose any threat to any other individual, and this applies to women as well. As far as I could think of, wearing any costume, at any point of time, in whichever place, cannot in any way harm others. So, on what grounds do these political statements claim of it being a blame that should be put on women? And if there is a philosophy which guides us in a way restricting our liberty, then the authorities must not be afraid to put it to the test of constitution. However, that won’t be possible as long as you want votes from the subscribers of that philosophy and this is just one out of many failures of the accepted form of democracy. So, what shall be done? There has to be a solution to every problem. The problem of women oppression can be tackled by a mechanism of two simultaneous action plans; I am going to name them- Short Term or Immediate action, and Long Term or Permanent action. In the Short Term Action Plan, the focus has to be on prevention of any more incidences of assault on women. For this we would need a strong police force dedicated to the cause. Just like traffic, the job of women’s safety should be assigned to a separate department of police. This would ensure a much better implementation of plans and the action would be quick. Also, we would be requiring a separate judicial wing for this purpose in order to make sure there is no delay in court proceedings. It is not too much of asking for women’s safety but the results will quite clearly be seen with immediate effect. Every social evil has to be rooted out permanently and for that the change has to be very organic so that it seeps through the walls of conservatism into the minds of the common people and this can be achieved only through “education and awareness”. The academic curriculum should be revised by education experts in cooperation with the psychological brains. Also, for the people of the villages where education will need some time to establish itself there should be screening of films and animated sequences which would depict the messages of women equality and benefits of empowering women. The people should be told how the good of women is not just the good of one half of the society but that of the whole. What I am asking for, is a narrow streak be added to the current structure of administration, dedicated for the empowerment of women. While writing this article I started dreaming about a beautiful society where men and women are treated as equals, only to wake up to the reality where the insecurity and woes of women are never-ending. Bibilography: Farooqui, V. (2011). A Short History of Women's Movement in India. New Delhi: People's Publishing House Chandra, B. (2007). India since Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books -Aditya Nayak Please mail us your suggestions and criticism at [email protected] or at [email protected] |
Categories
All
Archives
June 2016
AuthorsAshique Ali T |