Woman and home

In the good old heyday of male chauvinism, a common quip by people usually categorised (or caricatured) as MCPs ran as follows: A man occupying a socially exalted position is challenged by a woman journalist for having a bias against women. He refutes the allegation strongly, adding for good measure, "I assure you I have nothing against women. Why, some of my best friends and relations are women. In fact, even my wife is a woman!"

Lest I be clubbed with such unreformed chauvinists, let me start with some categorical disclaimers. Far from holding chauvinistic views, I have championed the cause of gender equality on numerous occasions, as regular readers of this column will testify. I paid fulsome compliments to the gradual dismantling of the glass ceiling that prevented women professionals from rising to the top of corporate hierarchies including media organisations. Writing in these very columns in defence of the much-maligned cricket entertainer, Mandira Bedi (whom I interviewed recently for our sister publication Darpan), I even predicted that some day we could see mixed cricket teams. Many brickbats followed in the wake of that article, but my views haven't changed.

I over-rode internal opposition to commit The Pioneer to supporting women's reservation in legislatures, pointing to the success of reserved panchayats in empowering the hitherto weaker sex in rural India. Although I need not bend backwards to prove my credentials on this score, I am disturbed by the growing intolerance of a section of urban women and their enslaved jholawalas to anything that critiques their growing shrillness. Utter a word against the prevailing media tyranny of uncritical promotion of the cause of an undifferentiated category called "women" and you are reviled for being politically incorrect, as if one has ended up defending sati or female foeticide!

The celebrations to mark International Women's Day on March 8 this year, in my opinion, crossed all acceptable levels of a sense of proportion. We were deluged with reports on how women were being denied combat roles in the armed forces, regaled with lists of women's role models, dollops of crocodile tears were shed for the unborn girl child and all predictable subjects (strangely enough, including alleged atrocities on women during the Gujarat riots) were regurgitated ad nauseum. It cannot be anybody's case that women are not discriminated against in most societies, and that includes India. But the manner in which the print and electronic media, with the active financial support of our current woman-dominated regime, went about promoting these issues would make any outsider think that no other form of discrimination exists or that no other section deserves empowerment. In a country where 30 per cent of 110 crore people live below the official poverty line, will empowerment of women by enlisting them for combat duty in the armed forces, help alleviate the larger social malaise?

I find it particularly offensive that deeply ingrained cultural traditions of Indian society are blissfully ignored by this group of rootless activists in the alleged pursuit of the "cause". I must point out that the liberation of women from the bondage of a male-dominated social order cannot be accomplished through some visible and demonstrative symbols alone. While upholding the right of women to do most things that men do, such as smoke in public, drink in bars, travel at night without fearing assault by sex-starved men, I insist these behavioural freedoms are not the be all and end all of women's rights.

It is often overlooked by the rabid champions of feminism that the most important aspect of women's liberation lies in the home and that cannot be achieved in confrontation with men. Unfortunately the leadership of women's advocacy groups, at least the visible section among them, has been usurped by those who either do not have a marital home or are emotionally estranged from their male partners. They do not represent the typical woman whether in India or abroad.

Even more unfortunately, the vocal champions of women's empowerment have pitted themselves against the family. It appears from their rants and writings that women can become self-assured only if the family and all the values this system encapsulates, is destroyed for good. It is the acceptance of this flawed logic that made the Government bring forward the pernicious Domestic Violence Act. Anybody in his right mind would not believe that after complaining against her husband or in-laws to the police a woman can continue to live in her marital home with safety or dignity.

Arguably, women are often pathetically maltreated in their marital home by rapacious and violent husbands, their parents and other relatives. So it is essential that a social security net is provided for women who are turfed out of such homes, sometimes with children, and driven to destitution because they are often not welcome to return to their parental or fraternal abode. In other words, it is the absence of social security that prevents divorced or deserted women, especially single mothers, from leading a life of dignity. The solution to this problem does not lie in enacting a totally unenforcable Domestic Violence Act, but in introducing a special scheme for women in such situations.

I also wonder why the thrust of so-called gender equality and women's empowerment is directed only at Hindu society. Divorced Muslim women have been denied alimony by a change in the law following the Shah Bano judgement. Has the Domestic Violence Act been able to ensure a life of dignity for Imrana in her marital home? These questions are conveniently shrugged aside in the anti-male tirade unleashed by the jhola brigade.

And then there is the draconian Anti-Dowry Act. Undoubtedly well intentioned, it is however widely acknowledged now that cases of its misuse by women and their relatives are multiplying constantly. Meanwhile, prosecution of genuine victims of dowry harassment is so tardy that most of the bride-burning criminals either go scot-free or manage to drag the cases over a decade or more. However, in the enthusiasm to promote a distorted idea of empowerment, rampant misuse of the anti-dowry legislation is frequently encouraged by publicity hungry NGOs. Interestingly, the fewest cases of bride-burning or dowry harassment are reported from States that are considered "feudal", such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and eastern parts of UP, or from "enlightened" States like West Bengal, Kerala, Assam and even "backward" Orissa.

The point, therefore, is that celebration of the "rebellious woman" out to wreck the family system, actually hinders rather than helps enhance their status. We should stop creating gender stereotypes and instead of aping the West, focus on observing something on the lines of Gender Harmony Day instead of Women's Day or Men's Day. The Indian ethos, which revolves around the union of genders through the concept of the ardhnarishwara, enjoins us not to promote divisiveness between man and woman for none can be a complete individual unless conjoined, in keeping with the law of nature.