labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministas
julho/dezembro 2015 - juillet/décembre

Indian Feminism: Dynamics and Challenges

Asha Mukherjee

Abstract

On the face of it, the categories such as “Feminism” and “Indian” are highly problematic and various juxtaposition of these categories leads to additional problems as it is often argued by scholars.  Is feminism simply a methodology or does it have substantive ethical, political commitment? Is feminism exported from the west to east and is a tool of cultural imperialism? To establish that it is ours and not imported, we need to identify issues from the lives of the women in India from our own cultural and philosophical traditions which is not an easy task as there is no one tradition and it is ‘hopelessly patriarchal structure, any configuration of traditional materiel can hardly be seen as yielding a women’s philosophy.’  The low-caste, peasant, adivasi, women in different religious traditions and urban elite all are included in the category of ‘Indian Women’. Feminism in India is thus doubly subaltern. The basic patriarchal split between outer/ (public) inner/ (private) is interwoven with two other dichotomies-West/East (India) and modern/traditional as argued by Vrinda Dalmia. Feminist examine relation between theories of political questions in ethics such as justice, equality and rights. Thus feminist by implication is committed to redressing perceived male bias in Indian philosophy and religion, not an emancipatory agenda but taking women as subjects and their collectivities. Subjects as well as collectivities are necessarily dynamic agent(s) and not simply a passive victim of religious traditions and culture.

Key-words: feminism, indian, patriarchy, doubly subalrern.

Feminism acknowledges the basic distinction between sex and gender. ‘Gender’ is a much used and abused concept. Some explain it in purely naturalistic terms, some hold that gender is a pure construct; still others approach the notion phenomenologically.  Gender-understanding circumscribes one’s position as feminist- different explanations have different consequences for feminist thought. There is no such thing as the feminist position (Moitra Shefali: 2002: Introduction). The basic commitment of feminism lies in the centrality of values such as respect, autonomy and equality. Feminists acknowledge that values essentially differ from individual to individual, culture to culture and are often guided by conflicting interests of caste, class, race, religion, and politics and so on. Keeping these differences in mind feminists always refer to ‘feminism’ in the plural as ‘feminisms’ giving rise to ambiguities and heterogeneity. But such ambiguities are essential part of the feminist program.

Feminist tries to understand the social reality of gender and tries to get rid of the patriarchal mode of dominate culture. Ending sexual oppression and injustice is a moral imperative at the level of thought as well as practice.  At the level of thought we need to understand ourselves well enough -as human beings as normal females as part of reality. Subjects as well as collectivities are necessarily dynamic agent(s) and not simply a passive victim of religious traditions and culture. Thus feminist by implication is committed to redressing perceived male bias in Indian culture and religion, not as an emancipatory agenda but taking women as subjects and their collectivities. It examines relation between theories of political questions in ethics such as justice, equality and rights. Feminism as method of questioning and critiquing questions the presuppositions and concepts that are based on either an overt or a covert male bias. Feminist emphasize on recognizing women’s lived experiences.

Feminist philosophers point to the discrimination involved in the dualistic mode of thought. They are critical about the conceptual dichotomies such as nature/culture, self/other, transcendence/immanence, universal/particular, mind/body, reason/emotion, and private/public and so on. They argue that these dichotomies inform various types of theories of discrimination and exclusion and they facilitate the ‘justification’ of gender hierarchies. One major consequence of this approach is that the ‘private’ is no longer excluded from the domain of discussion. It has now been recognized that ‘the personal is political’ (Moitra, Shefali: 2002: p3). Therefore the ‘personal’ has to be addressed not only by ethics and politics but by all branches of knowledge including science. Further, commitment to feminism leads one to question the presupposition that woman’s capacity for reason is inferior to men and to question the moral and political theories which ‘treat women as instrumental to the interests of men’. Male-dominated institutions such as the family and the State also need to be scrutinized through feminist lenses.

 Some feminist see feminism as celebration of ‘being a woman’ as an overreaction towards the male domination and bias and consider ‘being woman’ a virtue.  Not all feminist agree that there are distinctive feminist virtues and/or values. Some are even sceptical regarding the traditional positive virtues such as willingness to nurture or affinity with caring. Still, some others consider ‘feminism more than a voice of protest or questioning. It is moral self-reflection, a conquering on inner fears and realization of self-worth… It does not abandon values or relationships, but goes on to create new ones.’ (Jasbir Jain: 2011) The diverse forms of feminisms also have some core and focal points. ‘There is a rejection of the apriori premise of male superiority. There are distinctive women’s social experiences which are worthy of exploration. Social and cultural women issues which were at the periphery have become the prime issues of discourse in feminism such as bodily self, social and moral connectedness, care, trust, friendship, nurturing, emotions, etc. Thus the need is felt of delicate balancing, on the one hand the social reality of feminity which is a part of our own experience as a social being and on the other, we must avoid so called ‘feminine’ roles traditionally assigned to us that are sources of oppression. (Mukherjee Asha, Bhattacharya, Kumkum: 2004: Introduction p. 17)

How can we have a feminism of our own? We must include our own experiences as Indian feminist. On the face of it, the categories such as “Feminism” and “Indian” are highly problematic and various juxtapositions of these categories lead to further complexity. It is argued by some scholars that ‘no non-contradictory or ‘pure’ feminism is possible in India’. Black and Dalit feminism are taken as product of critique of main stream feminism. And need for more self-reflective and objective methods of critique and their politics of alliance is often been felt. (John Mary E.:1996) 

Further, the woman with their identities become especially important in Indian context because of the fragmentation of the universal category of ‘woman’, which makes it impossible to speak of woman without reference to their class, caste and community. There is no one Indian tradition and the structure is fundamentally patriarchal. Any configuration of traditional materiel can hardly be seen as yielding to a form of feminism.  The low-caste, peasant, adivasi, women in different religious traditions and urban elite all are included in the category of ‘Indian Women’. It is often argued and rightly so that ‘feminist philosophy in India is doubly subaltern.’ In the context of India, the imputed incoherence is also between “Indian” and “feminism” and, more insidiously, between “Indian” and “philosophy”.

[…] “What emerges is  a meta-philosophical terrain where the basic patriarchal split between outer/(public) inner/ (private) is interwoven with two other dichotomies-West/East (India) and modern/traditional. (Vrinda Dalmia:1998 pp.118-119).

Some questions are being eagerly debated again and again– ‘Is feminism simply a methodology or it has substantive ethical, political commitment?’ ‘Is feminism exported from the West to East and is it a tool of cultural imperialism?’ To establish that our feminism is ours and not imported, we need to identify issues from the lives of the women in India, from our own cultural traditions, which is not an easy task. Further, as a feminist one faces a paradox. On the one hand, our feminism has to be Indian and indigenous, rooted in our own culture and history taking care of the complex mosaic of Indian social structure and traditional values and on the other hand, it has to be against the patriarchal mode of dominant culture. How one joins these two opposite ends and remains committed to the feminist cause is the basic question- a way to solve the paradox. 

Nandita Dhawan in her article (included in this volume) goes deep into how Hindutva ideology effect ways in which women, religion and politics are interlinked. The article focuses on the challenges posed by ‘Hindutva Feminism’ to the Indian women’s movements and the limited space provided within ‘Hindutva Feminism’. One needs to look deep into the claim that ‘there is a major change in the trajectory of feminism and its politics from the 1990’s’.

We also need to ask ‘Does Western feminism object to the institution of marriage as such?’ Is taking marriage as natural, eternal unit of society and family as primary unit to import good sanskars really problematic from feminist perspective? Scholars are arguing that Sangh Parivar and its women organizations pose new problems for feminism in India as they support globalization and liberalization and yet remain ‘new Indian women’. Middle class and its values have been defined by economic liberalism and sexual illiberalism, with television representations shifting their focus from social development and nationalism to politics of family, sexuality and intimacy (Smriti Irani and some other women in T.V. serials). It remains to be analyzed in what sense these women are projected as ‘feminists’? How and on what grounds, if any,  we can say that Sangh Parivar and their organizations are misusing feminism as a tool? Promoting good sanskaras through family ties and keeping family as a primary unit need not necessarily be problematic from feminist perspective as long as woman has the freedom to decide what she wants to do and what she wants to be. How far it is possible within a family structure for an individual is left to the individual to work out in a delicate and strategic manner.

If we look at the Indian tradition and culture focusing only on Hinduism we find two conflicting picture of women in India. On the one hand she is always a second or last choice and has to follow her father or brother or husband or son and has low status in Indian society to the extent that her status becomes almost equivalent to shudra.

On the other hand, she is mother-goddess, she is symbol of power, productivity, determination and welfare. She spreads happiness and nullifies both wrongs and the wrongdoer and thereby having a highest status.  Woman is either presented as “Devi” or “Dasi” (Goddess or mistress). Mythological image of women establishes her as an all-powerful entity, while the realistic image of women considers her as ‘parai’ (not our) and a burden to the family who has to go anyway (Either by infant death due to malnutrition, or by marriage or by death at old age) and always have to submit to someone.

But it is difficult for a middle class, educated working woman to be either of the two images. Women today realize that they neither want to be Kali or Durga nor want to be Roop Kunwar or Nirbhaya (rape case victim in Delhi, 2012) she wants some space to be treated as human being, a dignified person who would have power to decide to be and to do. (Mukherjee Asha  “Women and Social Justice: Theory and Practice”)

Further, if the main feminist objective is democratic gender justice, providing equal opportunities to women to choose to be and to do then we need to ask what the women/woman of India choose (s). If they choose the traditional roles such as respect, self-sacrifice and care as a virtue then how do we get what justice demands? 

Thus we find it problematic at two levels. One, at the level of state and its legislation of laws as the law enforcing authorities are also part of the traditional value system. Two, even when the opportunities are provided by the state, it hardly gets translated as ‘functioning’ due to not exercising the choices or exercising choices in such a way that it goes against what justice demands.  So if Martha Nussbaum’s theory of development is aiming at developing the capabilities of women in a nation and providing opportunities and if, the opportunities are not taken by women in a nation due to their choice for mothering, nurturing and caring as the Indian traditional roles and values demand then, the Capability Approach does not help us much. (Martha Nussbaum: 2003).

Even if women are fully, morally and genuinely aware of the choices as Martha Nussbaum would ideally like them to be, they still may freely sacrifice their interests for the family and others as care givers within the traditional roles prescribed by the patriarchy structure. There always remains a danger of being stamped as stereotype but we will have to give moral credit for doing so as conscious moral choosers. I am afraid, Indian Women are more obliged to listen to the voice of care than justice.

Women in India today negotiate their identities and assert their choices through the dynamics within their family relations, religious tradition and culture or within the institutions which is often not very easy. It often disturbs the family equilibrium and social equilibrium giving rise to conflicts. The divorces, separations, broken marriages, single mothers and remaining unmarried are some of the consequences.

The emerging feminist movements in India are no doubt, influenced by Western ideals. The call for education in colonial India and equal rights, also adapted their appeals to local issues and concerns, such as dowry-related violence against women, Sati, sex selective abortion and custodial rape.  Patriarchy is just one of the hierarchies there are many other major hierarchies with social fabric in Indian context. Relational hierarchies between women within the same family are even more adverse. In a family a girl when becomes mother-in-law becomes powerful and exercises power over the daughter-in-law. Given all these complexities one wonders who the ‘Indian woman’ is.

Often the feminists are blamed of aligning themselves with communities on caste lines with a communal agenda as it is evident from the Sati case in Rajasthan (1987) and Shah Bano case as argued by Arvinder Ansari and Rekha Pande (in this volume). How one identifies oneself and how the self-identity is constructed, difference between the society “marks” on an individual as belonging to it, forming of body and collective identity  through ‘public rituals of mourning and celebrations? How in case of marriage, widowhood and Sati individual’s sense of belonging to a society one preserves one’s individual specificities are all deep philosophical questions.

The Constitution of India provides gender equality right from its Independence in 1947. Still, gender justice remains a myth in India. Our legal system and policies also provide right to equality, bodily integrity, sexual autonomy, and freedom of speech, including sexual speech, safe mobility etc.  India is committed to UN declaration for equal rights. But the incidents of gender injustices are rampant and part of day to day life.

Women often do not consider them as problems or injustices. Sexism pervades at home, school, workplace and public arena. Boy and girl grow with sexism. One hardly is aware of one’s deep rooted exclusivism. The existence of sexism in daily life, a part of the life style basically due to the long history of males being in charge and heads of office and households, women do not exercise the constitutional rights and power. Most of the Indian women do not take advantage of the opportunities and power sometimes due to lack of awareness and sometimes due to the stigma and fear of being marked as “bad women” going against the established norms of the society.

 The country is by and large still male-dominated and unwelcoming to feminist movements that go against the sex-gender traditions of India. Even if one is aware, it is taboo to raise a voice. Silence and tolerance are traditional virtue for women. Thus most of injustices go unnoticed. But when some incident gets focused by the media, sometimes “un-proportionately” we try to reform the laws. Rape, gang rape, female infanticide, violence against women, sexual harassment at work place, domestic violence, gender discrimination dowry deaths, suicide due to atrocities and gender discrimination, bride burning, honour killing etc. are  getting reported more and more but most of them are lying in the courts, in spite of best efforts (fast-track courts) not much has been achieved.

 Criminal law to prevent violence against women keeps telling that it will take time to achieve the end of justice. Although change is taking place, and the status of women is much better than before, women are exercising their rights much more than before.  But the recent incident of 23 year old student Nirbhaya in Delhi in Dec. 2012 proves the failure of the whole law and order system and the social evil which is deep rooted in Indian society. Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013, equating justice with death penalty and imprisonment, is not a solution.

The deeper question is how do we discipline the sexual behaviour of individuals and monitor, conduct and enforce laws in a democratic system like India. How to eradicate the sexism which is so deep rooted in Indian society, which has a history of more than 2000 years? The focus on deterrence which has been the main focus for gender justice does not eradicate sexism nor provide dignity and respect for women, it does not provide choices to Indian women what they ‘want to do and to be’, not even freedom to walk on the streets without fear of sexual violence and rape. The foreign women visitors also become victim of such sexism. One can only hope that gradually things would improve and the feminist movements can play very important role.

Even today, most Hindu women believe, live and lead their life with Hindu ideology. The “new Indian women” after getting various degrees goes to the office, earns money becomes doctor, engineer, pilot, army officer, police officer, professor, teacher but in her daily life she is still guided by the traditional values of sacrifice, not raising voice even when she becomes victim of discrimination and injustice.

 Silence and tolerance and many other traditional values are the values she lives with. She finds her identity in her connectedness; her family, her friends, her society, her religion and her culture. If the media targets this connectedness and uses this for promoting a form of ‘feminism’ why this is considered basically wrong? One cannot throw everything in a moment to become feminist. There would be some courageous ones who perhaps would choose the difficult path and the others would be influenced by looking at the changes. Critique and questioning the tradition and culture is always a difficult path.

Feminism as a critique of tradition and patriarchy has to be a difficult path, if adopted will often lead to bitter consequences and uneasy relations in family, society and state. But, feminists also have their weaknesses. For strategic reasons, they could use politics as a tool to make their path comfortable to attain their goal. But this does not make them necessarily against feminist goals. Narimukti or Narishakti, both, may be considered as feminist movements and can be considered as exercise of power politics of some kind or the other. ‘New Indian women’ are also exploring various kinds of power, may be within limited space. Almost every Indian feminist does this balancing at every step in her life and is not new. Each one of us tries to achieve the balance in our everyday life as a feminist. New women’s movements have also been able to achieve intellectual, institutional and political transformation perceived as feminist goals and therefore one could welcome the change. The ‘strategic’ gender interest works differently for women from different caste, class, communities, sexuality depending on the context. The agent would know the best how it works for the individual in a particular context and would be left to her to work out the strategies for the feminist goals.

India strives to remain a just society with a proud tradition of diversity. No doubt, there is a Western baggage in India’s liberal democratic experiment rooted in assumptions about reason and progress. But clearly, one can notice in recent times the tension and confusion within the liberal commitment to pluralism and diversity in India giving rise to the question what brand of liberalism India needs for delivering justice. Can liberalism be both substantive as well as negotiable due to diversity in India?

Deciding on the question of secular gender justice in accommodating diversity has been a big challenge for Indian democracy. The task of where to draw a line between competing constitutional claims in such a diverse democracy is not easy to solve. Often the democratic ideal and liberal demands of justice lead to tension between individual rights and group rights, posing dilemma of conflicting equalities for secular gender justice. In Indian context it leads to more complexities due to India’s vast mosaic of caste, creed, religion, political ideologies just to name a few. How does a feminist scholar respond to this is the biggest challenge today?

Biography

Dr. Asha Mukherjee is Professor in Philosophy, Former Chairperson (2005-2008) at the Department of Philosophy and Religion, and Founder Director, (2009-2012) Women’s Studies Centre, Visva-Bharati Central University, Santiniketan, West Bengal, India.She received her PhD in 1983 from Rajasthan University, Jaipur Rajasthan, India. Professor Mukherjee received Fulbright Post-Doctoral Fellowship during 1984-85 and was at Indiana University, Bloomington, US. She also has been Research Professor at Catholic University of America, Washington, Visiting Professor at Gothenberg University, Sweden and delivered lectures at Lausanne University and Tel-Aviv University, Toronto University, Metropolitan University, Prague, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, University of Wroclaw, Poland, University of Gothenberg, Uppsala, Lund and visited several foreign universities in various capacities.

Her areas of specialization are Analytic Ethics, Applied Ethics, Logic, Jaina and Buddhist Philosophy, Religion and Gender Studies. She has edited number of books including Civil Society in Indian Cultures, (Co. Edited), RVP, Washington, 2001, Cognition, Man and the World: Jaina Philosophical Papers (Ed.) Kalinga Pub. Delhi, 2004, and Conditioning and Empowerment of Women, (Co. Ed.) Gyan Pub. Delhi, 2003. Dr. Mukherjee has published more than 60 articles in Indian and international journals and anthologies. Professor Mukherjee has been on editorial committee of number of national and international philosophical journals, advisory committees of Indian universities as an external expert and member of various academic bodies in universities.

She is invited to edit a special volume of Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research (JICPR) on Feminist Thought beside a forth coming collection of essays: Tagore on Women and Creativity and a special volume of ARGUMENT on Academic Study of Religion in India published from Krakow University, Poland.

References:

Ansari, Arvinder “Muslim Women’s Activism in India: Negotiating Community Dictates and Feminism” included in this volume of Labrys.

Dalmia, Vrinda. 1998, “The Indian Subcontinent” in A Companion to Feminist Philosophy Ed. A.M. Jaggar and I. M. Young, Blackwell, pp.118-119.

Dhawan, Nandita “‘Hindutva  Feminism’? Challenges to the Indian Women’s Movements”, included in this volume of Labrys.

Jain, Jasbir 2011, Culture, Subjectivity and Agency, Sage, India.

John Mary E., 1996, “Gender and Development in India 1970s-1990s: Some Reelections on the Constitutive Role of Contexts” in EPW, 31.47, 3071-3077.

John Mary. E. and Nair, J. eds. 1998, A Question of Silence: The Sexual Economics of Modern India, Kali for Women, New Delhi.

Moitra Shefali, 2002, Introduction: Feminist Thought, Munsiram Manoharlal, New Delhi

Mukherjee Asha, Bhattacharya Kumkum, eds. 2003 Conditioning and Empowerment of Women: A Multidimensional Approach, New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.

Mukherjee Asha  “Social Justice in India from Gender Perspective: Utopia and Reality” forthcoming in Society, Development and Empowerment of Women eds. Nasreen Tanveer
and Kuri Pravat Kumar.

Nussbaum Martha, 2000, Women and Human Development- The Capability Approach, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pande.Rekha, “Mapping the terrain of activism in the Feminist and the Women’ Movement in India” included in this volume of Labrys.

labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministas
julho/dezembro 2015 - juillet/décembre