Ladies, just shrink; Don’t disappear

It is imperative to treat women as the agents of equal and equitable change, writes Preethi Nagaraj

In the most famous song of the 70s that emerged from the stable of the Eagles, Hotel California speaks of the dark underbelly of the American dream and about the excess in a dream called America which attracted all those who wanted an escape from their menial identities. The fresh nation served as a notion of a beautiful dream come true, but not long enough. A line from that song seems to be a metaphor to everything we are going through now.

‘You can check out any time you like

But you can never leave…

Welcome to The Hotel California

Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)

Such a lovely face’

Imagine this in India. What the heck! Civilisations responding their governments are bound to be a thorn in the flesh. They do create shock waves into the socio-political sensory faculties.

Two significant things happened in the recent past. The most recent one is that of the farmers from Punjab that have staged an agitation outside the power corridors of Delhi. They are facing everything that’s thrown their way by nature and governments. Bone rattling temperatures, cannons showering steely splinters of water, barricades in their way and a long walk to the headquarters of politics.

While some parts of the media have been showing men (mostly and only) and women (sigh! Thank you!) facing challenges bravely, the women are displaying an unusual grit. Even when they know once things return to normal, their lives will also return to the rut they are in this. Because, a woman agriculturist has it tougher than her urban counterpart when it comes to accessing knowledge, government systems, and asserting her existence by digging her feet into the ground. For, a woman farmer hardly makes it into the government records as collateral damage when her helpless farmer husband/father ends his life owing to rising debts or losses.

And yet, she will walk shoulder-to-shoulder; face the bullets and cook rotis too; be the much-needed succour that the man wants. Because she is a number and not a member. Once she returns home, whether the government pays heed or not, she will still be (mostly) denied a rightful share in the property by her father and brothers. One of the main reasons for consanguine marriage to have thrived across communities is the need to preserve the ‘family wealth’ within the confines of families.

If you are a data cruncher. Here’s something for you. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey 2017-18, while a good 73.2% women are engaged in agriculture or related activities; ONLY 12.8% women have lands in their name. Add to this a layer of caste and other entitlements that are used as soft powers against women who want to use the legal recourse to claim a rightful share of property, the battle would have just gained a few layers of intricate and extremely inhuman and difficult complications that will never end. Also, the rural women barely have the wherewithal to even wage a legal battle against their own relatives who turn oppressors at the sight of even a small piece of land she owns.

Now on to the second part, the Uttar Pradesh Government has passed an ordinance against ‘unlawful religious conversions.’ Most media outlets have called it a massive step against ‘Love Jihad’ — a term that is widely used by the Hindutva forces.

Whether ‘Love Jihad’ or something else, marriage is an institution that’s complex in any form because it involves two grown people of different genders, privileges and social conditioning trying to live together as the smallest unit of the society. ‘Love Jihad’ — the term places the woman with no agency in her choice of a partner or marriage. At the face value even if we think the ordinance is not against a particular faith, can ‘any’ religious conversion of women for marriage be challenged under this? How does that change the woman’s position?

It is imperative to treat women as the agents of equal and equitable change. An evolved society that boasts of women breaking many glass ceilings should not break under the weight of women asserting with their own courage and representation. More than an ordinance for conversion, we need an ordinance for increased political participation. But the alleys to power corridors are filled with only (well-meaning?) men who want to play protectors, and cover the road ahead with bricks. All because they ‘care’. Would the women rather do well without such care?

(The author is a journalist deeply seeped
into the theatre of (&) politics.)