STAMPED IMPRESSIONS
Who has gained by the feminist movement?
Reeta Sharma

Professor David Rubinstein’s lecture at CRRID in Chandigarh on feminism was a hard-hitting reminder of the fallout of the feminist movement that began about four decades ago. According to this UK-based research scholar, the movement did help women to claim equality with men but it benefited only the middle class in the UK. Though he restricted himself to making observations on the situation in the UK, they hold true for India as well.

English men got the right to vote in 1924. It is significant to note that the upper class English and America women were also demanding this right ever since 1854. However, it was opposed tooth and nail and atrocities were inflicted on the lobbyists. American activist May Woltenscroft had taken the lead in this movement by chaining herself on the road to spread awareness about women rights. Despite the strong sentiment and protests, English and American women got the right to vote only after the 1940s.

Indian women, on the other hand, got their right to vote after Independence. Interestingly, at the All-India Congress Committee meeting in Kolkata a resolution of only partial franchise for Indian women was put forward. But Sarojini Naidu opposed it, saying that Indian women would not appeal to the chivalry of men but to their sense of justice. She said the fundamental right of franchise was a human right and not the monopoly of only one gender. Finally, the then political leaders had to agree to full franchise.

The feminist movement emerged during the early ‘70s in India when burning of brides and increasing demands of dowry had reached unprecedented levels. It activated various women organisations and activists like Madhu Kishwar, Brinda Karat, Oshima Reikhy, Sheela Didi, Deena Pathak, etc, who forced the government to make new laws to deal with cases of bride burning and dowry demands.

Interestingly, India remains divided into two classes even today — rural and urban. Since rural India still constitutes at least 70 per cent of the population, an overwhelming number of women continue to live in villages. The socio-economic life of these women has largely remained untouched by any of the feminist movements. This also proves Professor David’s conclusion that the feminist movement, whether in Europe or in India, has largely affected only middle and upper middle class urban women.

He also concluded that while the feminist movement gave freedom, both social as well as economic, to women, it also broke up the family as an institution. He said children no longer have their mothers at home to look after them. This is true both in the West as well as in India. However, in India, the middle class constitutes a very small percentage of the population and, therefore, the number of broken homes are comparatively few. As such the overall impact is not as devastating as it is in the West.

But the liberation of women leading to the break-up of family raises a series of questions. After all, why were women forced to step out of the family? Why was the West so desperate on industrial revolution, which inflicted irreparable loss to the environment apart from forcing women to join the race? Wasn’t the feminist movement a fallout of repression, subjugation and discrimination at the hands of men?

In India, women belonging to lower middle class and the poor section of society have always been working. It was only the privilege of the middle and upper middle class women to not work outside the home. However, they too had to eventually carve out a path for themselves in the face of mounting subjugation and atrocities.

However, judging by the experience of the West, it is clear that the role of the mother is invaluable. It is she who provides emotional strength not only to her children but also to her husband, in-laws, brothers and sisters. Family bonds are thus dependent on the mother and she is the pivot on which is balanced the harmony of a family. But she has not been given due respect and rightful status, thereby forcing her to find her own identity, irrespective of the repercussions it might have.

Today, we are faced with upheavals in the urban society too. The goddesses of Indian civilisation are being burnt alive for not bringing sufficient dowry. These very goddesses are also being killed in the womb itself. In such a depressing scenario, women have been left with no other option but to step out of the four walls of not only their in-laws’ house but also of their parents’.

It is for the human race to decide what kind of society it wants. If women are not threatened about their status as individuals — as mothers, daughters and daughters-in-law — they surely wouldn’t like to break the family system. I have come across many women who have been given every opportunity to educate and mould themselves whichever way they wanted and yet they have opted for only flexible hours of working as they wanted to provide a sound family life to each member of their clan. These women do not mind sacrificing a few years of their career in the larger interest of the family. But then, such women are in insignificant numbers.

This feature was published on December 6, 2003