WORLD OVER, tax is the highest source of government revenue. Even as the finance minister in India was raising the ceiling on taxable income for women, there was a petition in the Madras High Court questioning this. The petitioner alleged that the provision of taxing women less violates men’s constitutional right to equality. The HC, in turn, asked the Union Government to respond on why tax benefits should favour women. So why should men and women taxed differently?

I am not an economist but I know from experience and conversations with women about their lives and the economics of their households that taxing women less makes sense. While doing research on this, I came across an excellent paper called Gender impacts of government revenue collection: The Case of Taxation by Kathleen Barnett and Caren Grown, which was commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretariat as a part of its commitment to integrate gender concerns into economic policy. It gives some solid reasons as to why men and women should be taxed differently. I thought I’d encapsulate some of these for you:

Women’s work in the unpaid care economy

World over, women have the responsibility of caring for children and dependents. As a result, they do a lot of unpaid work like cooking, cleaning and caretaking which are vital services to the paid economy. This work, though time consuming and backbreaking in many cases, is undervalued and not remunerated. In most households, this is what enables men to go out and do productive work. Feminists have argued that this unpaid, unremunerated work should be factored in while calculating the GDP of any economy.

Employment differentials

Though women do more work (including unpaid), their participation in productive work is very low. Even within paid employment, women are concentrated in clerical, sales and service jobs and are underrepresented in administrative and managerial positions. Women also exit the labour force frequently implying that their jobs are discontinuous, seasonal or on contract. Overall, women earn less than men. Disparity in earning is a persistent gender equality issue.

Gender differences in property

In many countries women are frequently denied the right to own property because of social norms. The land asset-ownership gap between men and women is huge. This reduces women’s capacity for risk taking, securing a place to live and securing resources for a livelihood. For many women, the only income is their wages without assets or other social capital.

Gender differences in household decision making

Studies reveal gender differentials in consumption patterns. Women tend to spend more on food, education and healthcare which enhance the well being and capabilities of children. This kind of spending leaves very little for savings or asset building. For example, women have to spend on household help or nannies to look after children and accomplish household chores, or rely on parents and other support if they have to join the productive workforce. Taxing women would mean that women would either have to reduce these spends or to maintain them, would end up spending less on their healthcare, work longer hours and have less leisure.

Indirect taxes

Besides income taxes, another important source of government revenue is indirect taxes. Indirect taxes are taxes levied on goods we buy and consume. When items are taxed irrespective of who buys, uses or needs them, it enormously burdens women and the poorest of the poor. For instance, household items such as pressure cookers are taxed. Isn’t the pressure cooker a necessity? It reduces fuel consumption and hours of work. Isn’t fuel saving a necessity? Another vexing example is taxing and classifying sanitary pads as luxury items. Who decides that a sanitary pad is a luxury item? Bureaucrats in the finance ministry? These are everyday examples.

Though there are some initiatives being undertaken with regard to gender budgeting, there are more areas in finance, policy and planning which need scrutiny from a gender perspective to understand their impact on women. We cannot assess taxes only on the basis of income earned without examining other aspects of women’s lives. Men and women consume, spend and invest differently. They also have different work and responsibilities, and different levels of income, all of which significantly affects the impact of taxes and is a justification for differential taxation.

Digg This • Add to Del.icio.us • Technorati This • Stumble It!

ABOUT A MONTH back, we had an editorial meeting. Which is to say that the three of us sat around over chai and rusk at the HHS office and talked about UV, feminism, being women and other such. We took some decisions and tentatively started implementing them. Then some time back, we were approached by someone writing a book on international public relations who wanted to feature UV. Also, noted feminist writer Ammu Joseph informed me that she has written an article for Verve in which she has talked about UV — all good news that I was keen to share with you. This also gave me the impetus to share some of the changes that we’re hoping to make around here.

In a nutshell, we want UV to be more flexible and more varied — shorter pieces along with the long ones, the simple and direct alongside the complex, academic articles alongside pop culture, detailed info and brief vignettes. We know many of you enjoy the essay-type articles that have dominated the site so far, but we think it would be nice (and wise) to mix it up a bit. Over the last ten months, you may have become used to seeing a certain kind of post on UV. Be prepared for more motley colours.

The other thing that we talked about is that none of us have arrived at rigid destinations as feminists. There are questions, moments of indecision, the unfixed, the unsure, the unstill points. From now on, we hope to voice more of that on UV. What this also possibly means is more dissension. This is perfectly okay. We are not a school choir. We don’t need to sing in harmony all the time. Please feel free to argue. But please be respectful while doing so.

And if you have ideas that you want to share or would like to become a regular / guest contributor, write to me.

JUST POPPED IN to post this video from the Feminist Majority Foundation. The word ‘feminist’ comes with so much baggage and this is such a cool, smart way to dispel some ridiculous notions. It’s a simple concept but by visually representing the diverse kinds of people who are feminists, it busts some of the myths that swarm around us. I wonder what an Indian version of this would look like.

GIVEN ALL THE advantages of having the National Commission for Women (NCW) and the State Commissions for Women (SCW), what can one make of a news story such as ‘Operation Park’? The SCW Orissa, with cameramen and police in tow, went to a city park in Bhubaneshwar and descended on the boys and girls sitting there. The girls were roundly lectured and told that they should be sitting in class rather than wasting their time. They were also told that they could be victims of ‘cheat-rape’ cases. The news reports also quote the SCW Chairperson as saying she could not imagine how young boys and girls can be involved in such nasty and abhorrent activities in the open. Sounds familiar?

In fact, it is identical to the moral policing by the Shiv Sainik/Bajrang Dal brigade rampaging on Valentines Day and the DPI’s agitation against cinestar Khushboo’s remarks on premarital sex and virginity. The reactions have become so common by groups like this that one almost expects it off them now, but to see a SCW behave in the same fashion is downright scary. Apparently the Bhubaneshwar police too felt the same way and quickly distanced themselves from the incident. Bhubaneshwar Deputy Commissioner of Police Amitabh Thakur even went on record saying “I don’t think when grown up boys and girls meet in parks, there is any problem. There is no joint operation with the SCW.” Talk about role reversal.

The mandate of the NCW is to uphold constitutional and legal rights guaranteed to women, recommend amendments for the same, take up cases of violations of women’s right and take suo moto notice of non implementation of such laws and policies that deprive women’s rights. The Commission was welcomed by NGO’s and other activists as a nodal point within the government machinery which will work towards addressing various women’s issues and upholding our rights. But it is shocking that a Commission set up to uphold the rights of women has indulged in such a blatant and embarrassing display of hypocrisy, ignorance and a warped sense of morality. It would be funny if it were not so serious.

The logic provided by the SCW was that they want to prevent incidents of rape, unwed motherhood and trafficking of girls by increasing awareness amongst girls. The SCW thought the best way to do this was to shock them out of their wits on camera (which the Chairperson benevolently and thankfully decided against airing!). What did they achieve besides embarrassing and frightening a bunch of young people who were made to feel like criminals for no good reason?

Not that there is a lack of issues for the SCW to solve in Orissa. As per the National Crime Records Bureau 2006, Orissa is among the states to have reported the highest number of cases relating to importation of girls (relates to trafficking and prostitution). Witch hunting is a serious problem especially in the tribal regions of the state. Maternal mortality rates in the state continue to be among the highest in the country. These are just a few indicators. The SCW has a whole range of serious concerns that it should be actively pursuing. This is what it has been conceptualised and set up for. It is responsible to the women of the state and needs to step up to its duties immediately.

The SCW’s actions are only symptomatic of a larger problem. There is a lack of will and motivation across most such bodies. This coupled with frequent changes in leadership and political appointments take a lot away from what is expected of them. The Commissions also have their powers limited to only making recommendations. One way of addressing this problem would be to ensure that the leadership within these Commissions is chosen from women who have proven themselves — those who have actively worked on women’s concerns and who come with a strong progressive perspective. There also needs to be a system of accountability within such Commissions to ensure that incidents such as ‘Operation Park’ never occur again. Appointees should also undergo capacity building on gender issues, campaigning and advocacy, among other things.

The potential of the NCW and the SCWs is huge and a good amount of work has been done ranging from ensuring implementation of the new anti domestic violence act, setting up Parivarik Mahila Lok Adalats and the campaign on legislating for the anti sexual harassment at the workplace law. It is quite a shame when bad judgment and lack of perspective brings disrepute to such an institution.

Digg This • Add to Del.icio.us • Technorati This • Stumble It!

ON MARCH 28, Lalpari Devi, a 45-year-old Dalit woman was accused of being a witch by caste-Hindu, feudal villagers in Bihar who mercilessly beat her up, paraded her through the streets, tied her to a palm tree, cut her hair and smeared her face with limestone paste. She was saved from certain death by the timely arrival of the police. Lalpari somehow managed to survive the ordeal of social censure and hysteric, mob-driven humiliation. Many of her sisters have not been that lucky.

According to conservative (official, and outdated) estimates, 2,556 women were branded as witches and killed in India between 1987 and 2003. From 1991 to 2000, over 522 cases of witch-hunting have been registered in Bihar alone. In the same decade, about 300 people were done to death in the Telangana region in Andhra Pradesh on the suspicion that they were practising black magic. Bihar, for all its backwardness, was the first state in India to pass a law against witch-hunting in 1999. Jharkhand followed up with its anti-witch-hunt law in 2001, Chhattisgarh in 2005 and Rajasthan in 2006. An essential excerpt of the legalese: “a crime would be considered to have been committed when any person or community intentionally or inadvertently abets, conspires, aids and instigates the identification of a woman as a witch leading to her mental and physical torture and humiliation.” What is wonderful on paper rarely gets translated into something effective in practice. Besides, the threat of punishment and conviction hasn’t been a deterrent since the perpetrators of the crime (always male, almost always caste-Hindus who enjoy political clout) know that they will not be brought to book for what will be seen as an incidence of mob fury. Sometimes, it is the knowledge that the state will stand by them.

This free hand gives a free run to their imaginations, and witch-hunts have grown macabre by the day. The helpless ‘witches’ are hounded and punished by being stripped naked, paraded around the villages, their hair is burnt off or their heads tonsured, their faces blackened, their noses cut off, their teeth pulled out (they are supposedly defanged) so that they can no longer curse, they are whipped, they are branded, sometimes, they are forced to eat human faeces and finally, they are put to death (here again the Indian imagination takes over: the victim is hanged, impaled, hacked, lynched or buried alive). And you have got it all wrong if you assumed that such stomach-churning, toe-curling torture is done in dingy, shadowy places: vast, open village lands come in particularly handy as favoured locations, and the cheering crowd can fill a modest stadium. Where these women are left to live, they are considered inauspicious and malevolent, socially ostracized and forced to forgo their livelihood. Where they don’t end up losing their life, they are made to lose their mental balance.

It is no surprise that almost all the ‘witches’ have been Dalit or Adivasi women. Nowhere else in Indian history can we see such an explicit tie-up between patriarchal oppression and casteist subjugation. Witch-hunting is a powerful tool in the hands of caste-Hindu men who want to persecute assertive Dalit and Adivasi women who might directly challenge caste hegemony, or indirectly subvert local power equations.

Because names and places and stories speak stronger than statistics, here’s a sample: A Dalit woman, Badam Bai was beaten to death by four men at Bhunein village in Sultanpur in Kota district. Lajwanti Harijan of Kamolar village in the same district met with a similar fate. When a Dalit woman in Tarra village in Raipur district claimed rights to her dead husband’s land, she was killed after being branded a witch by her brother-in-law. Memki Bai Bhajaat of Varlipahada village and Sakri Bai Meena of Sailana village of Udaipur district were branded witches because of property disputes. Subhadra Basumatray, a 40-year-old Bodo woman in Tilapara village of Goalpara district in Assam, denounced rituals conducted by witch-doctors. Just as she started to voice her dissent, she ended with a fractured arm, broken ribs and bruised legs. Her own family members colluded with others to declare her a witch because she had demanded a share in her father’s property. An Adivasi woman panchayat president in Udaipur district in Rajasthan was declared a witch by caste-Hindu villagers who wanted to settle political scores. In neighbouring Nepal, a 52-year-old Dalit woman Dayawati Urab and her daughter Sunita Kumari Urab of Sunsari village were stripped naked, beaten, and forced to eat human faeces because villagers suspected them of indulging in sorcery.

Such humiliations, lynchings and killings, done with nauseous ingenuity haven’t spared old women either. In November 2004, Dhoopi Raigar, a 70-year-old Dalit woman from Jita Ka Dalda in Tonk district was forcibly dragged out of her son’s house by some villagers who cut off her hair and attempted to immolate her. Her son’s increasing prosperity infuriated the ‘upper’ castes who sought to prevent it by accusing Dhoopi of being a witch. A 65-year-old Dalit woman labourer Pochamma and her 70-year-old husband Sailu were burnt to death in Ulitimaipalli village near Hyderabad because they were suspected of using black magic to kill cattle. In Gaandi village in Angara Block in Ranchi, two old Dalit widows Jeetan Devi and Dubhan Devi were tortured and held responsible for the death (due to malaria) of two children. The women were tonsured, beaten, paraded and burnt to death. Before the final disgrace, earthen pitchers were broken on their heads. As recent as August 2007, Bali Bharu Doli, an 85-year-old Dalit woman in Rajasthan was mercilessly beaten and forced to keep a burning coal in her mouth on the suspicion that she was a witch. Barely a month later, on Sep 2, 2007, two elderly women in their 60s were murdered by their sons in Orissa’s Keonjhar district for allegedly practicing sorcery.

Where do these cruel and perverse caste-Hindu witch-hunters get the moral high ground to condemn Dalit and Adivasi women? Revolutionary Dr. Ambedkar observed that the Atharva Veda itself is “nothing but a collection of sorcery, black-magic and medicine,” so witchery is not something new to the ‘upper’ castes. And shouldn’t the caste-Hindus be reminded of Joan Mencher’s sociological insight into sorcery in Travancore, that “some social control over the excesses of the high-caste landlords was exercised through the thread of Pulaya black magic” since Pulaya medicine men and witch doctors were believed to possess the “powers of bringing malaise and misfortune on wrongdoers, especially the cruel landlords and wicked bossmen.” Shouldn’t the oppressor caste-Hindus be ashamed that Dalits could have come up the idea of black magic and communion with the spirit world only in order to subvert the caste system where the priestly caste alone enjoyed the hotline to God?

It is true that lack of adequate health care systems have spawned the growth of alternative beliefs and faith healing, and consequently witch-doctors. But that is not the reason why Dalit and Adivasi women have been singled out for public humiliation. By punishing those who are seen as vile and wild, oppressors want to send a not-so-subtle message to the women of their own castes: docility and domesticity gets rewarded, anything else gets punished. This has been the legacy of violence against women.

When sin meets superstition, as in witch-hunting, the victims are also single (read widowed / deserted / divorced) women of a certain age who are no longer burdened with reproductive duties. The word ‘witch’ is thrust on these ‘dangerous’ women who asserted their entitlement to rights and thus challenged patriarchal and caste supremacist diktats. Dalit or Adivasi women who dared to contest elections and directly challenged the political power of the landed caste-Hindus have been labeled hags. They have been accused of exercising black magic when in fact they have only been exercising their fundamental rights. Witchcraft, when used by brutal caste-Hindus in the modern context, has come to signify women’s resistance to oppression, and the price they have paid for it.

Digg This • Add to Del.icio.us • Technorati This • Stumble It!

WHILE THE FEMINIST movement may have focused more on the right to abortion than other reproductive rights, there is a growing acknowledgment in the US and elsewhere that women’s right to safe, natural childbirth is being severely threatened by the imposition of the medical model. In the medical system, pregnant women are treated as ’sick’ and childbirth as a dangerous event deserving of any and all intervention designed to make the process as ’safe’ as possible. A spate of blogs and books written by moms, midwives and other reproductive health advocates indicates that women aren’t taking this lying down. (Pun intended–research has shown that giving birth while lying on one’s back is detrimental to the labouring woman). A couple of books are: “Birth: The Surprising History of How We Are Born” by Tina Cassidy (see her blog here), and “Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care” by Jennifer Block. On the movie front, there’s Ricki Lake’s “The Business of Being Born,” “Home Delivery,” and “What Babies Want.”

Ironically, in this time where the use of technology is at an all time high, maternal mortality rates in the US are also abysmally high largely due to the increase in c-sections. Not only are women questioning births attended by doctors, but by midwives or any trained person. To quote an excerpt from “Pushed”:

Unassisted birth isn’t new. In the 1960s and 1970s it was often the only alternative to a hospital birth—a strapped down, separated from husband, guaranteed episiotomy birth—and the women who did it also gave birth to organized midwifery. “That’s what we were doing in the 1970s before there were any midwives,” says Peggy O’Mara, editor of Mothering. “It was part of the whole back-to-land movement and commune movement.” It was also a natural extension of the early feminist, grab-a-speculum-and-mirror-and-reclaim-your-body ethos, she said. “And I consider it a really legitimate response to certain environments. Where I lived in southern New Mexico, for instance, the choices were so poor that we just wanted to figure it out ourselves.”…For O’Mara, unassisted birth was the best women could do under the circumstances.

Until recently, most women in India had homebirths, usually assisted by a dai (traditional midwife) or other woman experienced in childbirth. But now, urban middle-class women are expected to birth in hospitals and the rate for c-sections among this strata is virtually the same as that of the industrialised countries. Still, dais do deliver 70% of India’s babies, given the fact that the same percentage of the population is rural. Yet the role of dais is ever-changing due to the state’s insistence upon training in medical standards of care, and their traditional knowledge is not respected (see the book “Birthing with Dignity” by Diane Smith and Jagori).

Newindpress.com has just published the story of Reba Daniel, who chose to give birth with only her husband present. Unassisted birth must happen all the time here to women who don’t have other options. But this is the first story I’ve found where an educated, professional woman did this of her own accord. Equally as impressive is that the article’s author is appreciative, and not critical, of the mother’s choice, since that is not how unassisted childbirth is being portrayed in Western media. The website Ms. Daniel got her idea from is here: http://unassistedchildbirth.com/

Yes, it is true that India has the highest rate of maternal mortality in the world, the main reasons being poverty, hunger and disease. But to those women who are physically fit and considering a hospitalised birth, I ask: why not give a thought to unassisted childbirth or homebirth with a dai?

Digg This • Add to Del.icio.us • Technorati This • Stumble It!

THAT VIOLENCE against women rarely grabs any attention except for in the presence of gruesomeness, sensationalism, drama and tragedy is already known. But more disturbing by far than the fact that the murder of a teenage tourist in Goa last month has been making headlines precisely due to its cocktail of all the above elements is the level of moral sanctimony that accompanies the media coverage, the ensuing debates, and even what are ostensibly the responses of those who knew Scarlett Keeling and her family.

On February 18, the body of 15-year old Scarlett Keeling, a British national, was found on a Goan beach. Police initially chalked up her death to drowning after consuming too much alcohol, despite evidence of severe bruising and rape. But investigations and post-mortem investigations revealed contradictory facts, as did eyewitness accounts by people who had seen the girl during her final hours. Scarlett had been in India with her mother Fiona MacKeown, MacKeown’s boyfriend, and her siblings. They were frequent visitors, and on this instance were on a six-month-long trip.

Allegations were quickly leveled against MacKeown for her negligence of Scarlett. The moral higher ground was quickly swamped by those chastising her for her irresponsible behaviour. One whiff of scandal led to another, and details about MacKeown’s private life were dug up. Scarlett’s diary entries were exposed in the media. The bottomline message was that somehow, by choosing to lead lifestyles that included partying, sex and substances, they had asked for the tragedy that befell them. Terms like “alleged murder” were popular, as though it could have been anything else, until today’s gruesome revelation: Scarlett was murdered by having her head held underwater for between five and ten minutes. She asphyxiated to death.

It is alarming to watch the cruelty of the media – from possibly every newspaper in the country to even NDTV’s usually fairly progressive We The People to the blogosphere – and what can be gauged of common opinion by it. Despite the horrifying brutality inflicted on a person who by Indian standards was still a child, and the overwhelming confusion and despair her loved ones are no doubt experiencing, the attacks made against the victim and the family censure them with only superficial demonstrations of sympathy. Political officials in Goa are calling for the revoking of MacKeown’s visa and a ban on her entering the country again, blaming her for maligning the image of the state. She has since gone into hiding, fearing for her life from both the drug mafia and state officials whom she has linked to them.

Scarlett’s boyfriend, an Indian citizen named Julio Lobo, has been taken for medical tests to see if he is “sexually active”. A DNA test of substances found on or in the victim’s body would not be unreasonable, but pray tell, what does his being or not being sexually active reveal about the horrific tragedy? Is it necessary, given that in her diary, Scarlett had written not only that she had sex with him, but that she felt he used her for it? Is there a test that proves sexual activity in males? Or is this like one of those repressed, backward ideas about broken hymens and being able to pee in a straight line? That this person’s private life is being pried into in a manner that is unlikely to shed any light on the senselessness of the incident is nothing more than one of the many ways in which the blame is being pinned on “the wanton Western way”. The boyfriend, we are to assume, has sinned by his affinity to this lifestyle of debauchery, which – we are also to assume – is imported to India by the likes of the Keeling family. But even that doesn’t quite crack it: Lobo is being tested not because of his character – but because of what the conclusiveness of science is meant to tell us about hers.

Lobo, in turn, has retaliated by attacking MacKeown because she had been aware of Scarlett’s lifestyle (but she says Scarlett was neither a binge drinker not drug abuser, to her knowledge). This, too, is reprehensible. At 25 years old, a decade older than Scarlett, his relationship with her could amount to statutory rape. Clearly, prior to the murder, MacKeown’s liberal parenting style benefited him. His attempt to deflect attention from his actual law-breaking by ganging up against the bereaved mother with the rest of the patriarchy squad is sickening.

In other words, the condemning of the murdered girl, her family, her friends, their lifestyles and their choices is a typical misogynist response – the wicked woman gets her dues. And this time, there are not one but two “wicked women”: Fiona MacKeown, mother of not just the victim, but of several more children of “varying paternity”, and Scarlett herself. That the women in question happen to be from the West (that corrupter of our chaste and virtuous ways of life!) is icing on the cake.

Rape, murder, the works – apparently, under the right (or wrong) circumstances, they can all be justified.

Make no mistake. What we see in the media today is not an enquiry into a crime. It is slut-shaming, plain and simple. The nation is not in shock because a 15 year old has been so brutally treated. Those are not the sounds of protest and outrage; they are the sounds of many hands rubbing in glee, so thrilled to be vindicated of their position that women who break the rules deserve what’s coming to them, and what’s coming to them is exactly what happened to Scarlett Keeling.

But what happened to Scarlett Keeling has nothing to do with if she had sex, if she did drugs, if she drank. What happened to Scarlett Keeling has nothing to do with why her mother so frequently chose to travel to India or lived a bohemian, unconventional lifestyle. What happened to Scarlett Keeling has only one reason: some places in the world are not safe for women, not because of culture or tradition, but because of an absence of respect for them as individuals. India is one of them. India killed Scarlett Keeling – and every day, kills many less sensationalized individuals. That Fiona MacKeown has seen this is not delusion on her part.

Digg This • Add to Del.icio.us • Technorati This • Stumble It!

]]> http://youngfeminists.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/the-shaming-of-scarlett-keeling/feed/ Ranya http://youngfeminists.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/points-of-intersection-gender-and-other-identities/ http://youngfeminists.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/points-of-intersection-gender-and-other-identities/#comments Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:43:45 +0000 Usha B N http://youngfeminists.wordpress.com/?p=124

IT WAS DURING the anti-Mandal protests that many young, urban women from universities held up placards saying that an increase in reservation for the Dalit and OBC population would harm their chances of getting qualified men as husbands. During the riots in Mumbai after the Babri Masjid demolition and in the Gujarat pogrom, many Hindu women from right wing organisations actively aided the men in their attacks against Muslim women. These and other examples such as the burning of churches or the Kambalpalli incident speak volumes on how religious and caste identities are ‘markers of discrimination’ in our society. It makes me think about how gender intersects with these other identities, and how such interplay manifests in reality.

Identity politics has emerged as a core issue in many ongoing debates. For hitherto silenced communities like Dalits, Adivasis, minorities and LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) groups, the question of identity has become a crucial axis for political questions and social justice.

In the 70s and 80s, the women’s movement in India focused on mobilising women across caste, class and ethnic background against violence and discrimination. Women were seen as a single political category. So there was a universalising approach which held that all women were in powerless positions regardless of their background. But in fact, women are placed in different locations in our social hierarchy. Social context and institutional structures around them play a large role in determining their rights. Their location determines their control and power over public and private resources, political participation, concepts of womanhood and notions about body, sexuality, work and family. So we need to understand gender in conjunction with other identities that are important in the daily lives of women.

For instance, people are seeking discussions on categories within the 33% reserved seats for women in parliament. This has brought issues of caste and gender to the forefront. Those arguing for categorisation feel that if there is no reservation for Dalit and OBC women, the upper castes will dominate the political scene. Then, when BJP proposed a uniform civil code, many women’s groups protested because they feared that this would only exacerbate the marginalisation of women from minority communities. State-sponsored development projects often come under fire from Adivasi and environmental groups because they cause multiple displacements and loss of livelihood for women from the most powerless sections of society.

In a society like ours where there is such plurality of caste, community, languages, and economic backgrounds, gender does not function in isolation. It is always intersecting with the other identities that define power and powerlessness. The question of who speaks assumes crucial importance. It is necessary to recognize and address the differences between various groups of women and to understand the specificity of experience. Exploring the categories of women, gender and feminism through this lens will perhaps extend the potential of what we can achieve in the future.

Digg This • Add to Del.icio.us • Technorati This • Stumble It!

MY FIRST BRUSH with feminist theory was at the ripe old age of 23, when, as a volunteer to a visually disabled PhD student, I read aloud portions of Black Feminist Thought and unabashedly displayed my ignorance. But way before that time of unknowing, began a journey of imbibing a belief system, questioning existing patriarchal norms and learning to negotiate for space in the world.

If I had to think back and wonder where my brand of personal feminism springs from, I’d say it is a direct outcome of growing up around strong female role models. My mother. My paternal grandmother. Both educators, income-generators, women with voices loud and determined who, despite the battles they faced, made it seem so easy. Some others I know actively sought feminism because it empowered them to be unlike their female role models. Yet others took an academic interest in the subject. But this is not a post about what kinds of feminist roots work best.

What I ask today is: what spurred you to feminism? Was it a process of becoming, of gradual realization, or was it something you had known all along, before you could even give it a name? Was it people, events or the ideology that made you identify yourself as a feminist? What is your feminism story? Your own personal history?

Even for the folks out there who don’t particularly identify yourselves as such, what meaning does feminism hold for you? Do you give it a place in your life at all, or is it something that’s best read about on this blog and forgotten when the browser clicks shut? It’s open house, people. Write in. I’d love to hear from you, so do share.

DR GAIL OMVEDT (1941) is an American-born Indian sociologist and human rights activist. Some of her notable books are: We Shall Smash This Prison: Indian Women in Struggle (1979), Gender and Technology: Emerging Asian Visions (1994), Dalits and the Democratic Revolution (1994), and Dalit Visions: the Anticaste movement and Indian Cultural Identity (1994).

In this short, email interview, Gail responds to questions on caste and gender.

Meena Kandasamy: In our interview-series we had Ruth Manorama speaking to us of her setting up the National Federation of Dalit Women. And your name Gail, was mentioned incessantly as her source of inspiration, her guiding spirit. What made you play such a pivotal role and be so encouraging to establishing a Dalit Women’s movement? How do you historically view this?

Gail Omvedt: I was also interested and involved with the Black movement (that was before they started calling themselves African-Americans; in the 1970s “Black” meant pride) and although I’m a “honky” — that’s the nasty term that used to get used for “whites” — I made a lot of friends. Black women’s writing was always an inspiration, from Angela Davis through Toni Morrison and Alice Walker….beautiful stuff. I can’t read Marathi or other languages quite as well, but I know that you all have so many things to say. bell hooks (another Black woman — she spells her name without capitals) — wrote a book Feminist Theory from Margin to Centre, meaning that people at the margins, the edges, can actually see the farthest and the best. I think she’s right. So who else but Dalit women? So many obstacles and barriers to overcome, so much to do — but I know you can do it!

Another friend here was recently telling me how, in spite of being a Christian, she realized finally that she was being treated as a Dalit and dark — I find the obsession in India with light skin to be ridiculous. All the goddesses are black, aren’t they?

Meena: Today, Mayawati is seen as once of the most powerful symbols of Dalits, as well as women. But otherwise, how do you think the electoral success of the BSP, and the enormous popularity of Mayawati, has influenced Dalit women in general?

Gail: You can answer that better than I can. I suppose women must have identified with her! I liked Kanshi Ram better as a person, but Mayawati also had a great image; I liked her short hair for instance. I had a fight about that with Madhu Kishwar because I said “upper-caste” Hindu women politicians couldn’t get away with short hair but Dalits didn’t mind — I was thinking of Sushma Swaraj and all — she denied it, but I still feel I am right. The “caste-Hindu mind” still wants women to fit the traditional image. Dalits are more open generally, I hope, especially the women.

Meena: Dr Ambedkar said that women were the gateways of the caste system. What are the various dimensions in which caste and sexuality are inter-linked?

Gail: Caste can only survive if women’s sexuality is controlled! To keep the jati identity you have to keep marriages within the jati. In Marathi it’s said roti-beti-vyavahar, “exchange of bread and girls” has to be within the caste. For that to happen, girls have to be guarded and married off when they’re pre-puberty, so there’s no danger to the caste. The man is not polluted if he has sex with anyone, because the semen goes out; the woman is polluted because she takes it in. (This is the way many anthropologists analyze it). So — Manu says, “Women when young must be under control of their father, when adults under control of their husbands, when old under control of their sons, women must never be independent.”

Meena: Dalit women’s autobiographies have made a mark in Marathi literature. Gail, how do you view literature as a liberating tool for women who are otherwise denied the public (political) space?

Gail: Literature has to reach people — it can reach people — and we can make it a “public” space. The political space is only one of many; it can even be damaging to women if the political women support tradition. Individual women can be freer than political women, and they can through writing express revolutionary ideas. The problem we have now is “publishing” — in every sense: how to get our ideas out, how to communicate.

Meena: What is your message to all the young Indian women out there?

Gail: Ambedkar’s words, “educate, agitate, organize” – still hold good for all of us. And women should fight for their land rights; the only reason they don’t have these rights is that the whole system is so patriarchal that only men are viewed as heirs of names, property, and land. This is part of caste-patriarchal oppression and we have to fight together to end it.

Digg This • Add to Del.icio.us • Technorati This • Stumble It!