Regressive rhetoric

The BJP leader and Madhya Pradesh chief minister, Mohan Yadav’s rhetoric at a campaign rally at Myana town in the state’s Guna Lok Sabha constituency on Saturday was directed towards the Gandhi family. Targeting Congress general secretary, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, he said she was still using her maiden surname in spite of being married so that she could garner votes. He laced his speech with a homily that a woman post-marriage is supposed to change her surname to that of her in-laws.

Political leaders seem to be normalising chauvinism. Misogyny also acquires the most dreaded angle when communalism weaves itself into that ugly thread.

It is a known fact that election rhetoric in India often transcends political, social and economic issues and gets personal. Leaders spewing chauvinistic venom on women colleagues has time and again challenged the sanctity of democracy.

The case of Mahua Moitra being asked, to quote her, “indecent and unethical questions”, by the Lok Sabha ethics committee members adds credence to this fact.

Women leaders have been subject to personal attacks and even abuses. One cannot help but think about the humiliating incident in the Tamil Nadu Assembly on March 25, 1989, when a dishevelled Jayalalithaa came out of the democratic institution with her saree torn. In what has often been referred to as the darkest day of Tamil Nadu politics, Jayalalithaa had allegedly been attacked, both physically and verbally, by DMK legislators.

It is distressing that this incident happened in the land of E V Ramaswamy or Periyar, the social reformer, who pioneered the self-respect movement and advocated gender equality. The Dravidian stalwart had consistently fought against regressive rituals that women had been subjected to. In fact, he had said a woman wearing a mangalsutra was akin to slavery and had led a movement to abolish such practices.

Now, the current Lok Sabha poll campaign speeches have been liberally hyperbolising the mangalsutra, ostensibly to address the concerns of the Indian women. The BJP has been asking women to hold on to their mangalsutras as it may be “snatched” by the Congress if it came to power. The alternative narrative is that the saffron party has “misunderstood” the Congress manifesto and quoted it out of context. Then, we had Priyanka screaming from the microphone that her mother had “sacrificed” her mangal sutra for the nation.

The most regressive part of this exchange is that the ‘mangal sutra’ has been hailed as sacrosanct in a woman’s life, both by the BJP and the Congress. The marriage ritual of the groom tying the mangal sutra around the bride’s neck is being glorified by the political dispensation, both men and women, with repeated references. All this, when women are trying so hard to break the shackles of subservience.

And, regressing further, we now have a political leader talking about how “mandatory” is for women to change their surname. We are yet to hear a voice in the campaign din that is countering this mindset; we are yet to hear a murmur against this patriarchal campaign narrative. 

Women vs women

Another obnoxious chapter in this democratic saga is women leaders exchanging sexist barbs. When the Lok Sabha elections were announced, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) media and communications chief, Supriya Shrinate had allegedly made an outrageous comment on X (formerly Twitter) against actor-turned-politician, Kangana Ranaut, when she was given a BJP ticket to contest from Mandi in Himachal Pradesh. The post alluded to the Hindi meaning of the town, Mandi, which also means market.

Shrinate later clarified that someone else had hacked into her account and made this comment. The Congress reacted fast and pulled out her name from the list of candidates.

But Ranaut, herself, has made a nasty comment about her film industry colleague, Urmila Matondkar, in 2020. The 2024 Mandi candidate had called Matondkar, who was contesting the 2019 elections on a Congress ticket, “a soft porn star”. She had questioned Urmila’s credentials of entering the election arena, saying, “If Urmila, who was only known for her ‘soft porn films’, could get an election ticket, why can’t I?”

This is the level our electoral representatives have been stooping down.

Our democratic exercise has been reduced to a scummy, vicious carnival. The oratory only seems to be nosediving to new lows with every election campaign, where women are either belittled or patronised in the garb of a subtle glorification of their position in the family, as a wife, mother or daughter.