The
following are a few thoughts provoked by a WhatsApp forward featuring 2 women
ministers of Indian government. The post claims allowing women to enter places
of workship (Sabarimala, Shani Shingnapur) does not amount to as much women
empowerment as 2 ministers in positions of power.
Please do understand
that this note is not to offend anyone… but this forward, is this kind of a
serious joke? Or, the message was just forwarded without any further thought
and deliberation? I mean, we all forward without lending any serious thought
about the content of certain messages, and I hope that this forward was done
that way i.e. in an effortless manner, devoid of reflection. However, if it is
not, I would like to point out the problems in your line of thought.
According to the post
and the forwarded photo (Ms Swaraj and Ms. Sitharaman), (idea A) having 2 women
ministers in positions of power within an army of men (within the same
government or with their counterparts from other countries as shown in the
photo) is equivalent to Women empowerment. The post also mentions that (idea B)
such women empowerment (ie 2 ministers in power) is more enabling, uplifting
rather than the entry of women in temples like Shingnapur or Sabarimala. I
think both these ideas (A and B) are deeply problematic and fallacious for
multiple reasons. In other words, I want to point out the importance of the SC
verdicts while showing the fragility of a certain idea of women empowerment, a
perception created by the mere presence of two women ministers.
Debunking
Idea B. - Notions of sacred and desecration have travelled
over time in varying speeds; many have been omitted, erased, modified and
certain like menstruation have travelled mostly and unfortunately unscathed. At
various points in history and even, within our own life frames, we have changed
ourselves, adopted and at times, adapted numerous rituals and their protocols
to suit our prevailing conditions. If that is the case, all of a sudden, why
shouldn’t we accept women’s entry to temples on the basis of menstruation as a
natural life process of a women’s body? Menstruation as a form of impurity must
have entered our religious system at some time in history, which is to suggest
that the current practice of forbidding women from the temples is man-made and not divine. Even if one was
to accept forbidding menstruating women’s entry into temples, the idea would
fail if put to further logical line of action which is as follows. Until now, we
have kept menstruating women out of the scope of rituals and all that is
religious, then what about such ‘impure’ (ie menstruating) women offering
prayers in their minds? A menstruating woman not allowed to enter
Sabarimala/Shani Shingnapur could always meditate and pray in her mind for the Lord
- “Swami”. Prohibiting women from temples is only an action – a visual way of pursuing
and safeguarding our notions of what is pure and sacred. I therefore feel that
something that is permissible in our minds, should also be made possible in our
material life and hence, the importance of the SC verdict.
Then, there is this contradiction
about people like us (by us I mean – people with reasonably or superiorly good
living conditions). Women’s entry is not a big deal for us, we don’t care about
it as much, and yet, we accept that protocol benignantly. On the one hand, we
trivialize the issue of women entry as something insignificant and yet, when we
take our women to temples, we ensure that our women are in the state of purity.
So, either let’s continue to trivialize the issue and then, importantly, let’s also break the rules,
because what’s not important can be handled recklessly, without caring for
much. Or, then, let’s be serious about the implications of the temple entry and
act as per the demands of reason and rationality, as echoed by the honorable
SC. By the way, no one is forcing the entry of women. It is one’s freedom (read
women’s) to enter the temple whenever she wishes.
The denial of
menstruating women in temples is often accepted and proudly asserted as part of
our culture and religious protocols. Those closed doors hardly matter to our
women and us (men) because our material conditions, our strong social backups, networks
and financially robust positions don’t make us vulnerable to precarious life
situations. It will be unimaginable for us that our home has perished or been washed
away along with our dear ones by floods or any natural calamity and that we are
left with nothing but wreckage, memories and strong belief in the Almighty that
he will restore all that’s disappeared. We are lucky to be not caught in such
unfortunate and tragic scenarios. However, when such things happen or when
man’s conditions are miserable, faith works as a savior. The power of prayer
can especially be felt by those destitute, hopeful of future but living in
despair. (Again, I am not questioning our faith) Irrespective of one’s
physical, mental and other conditions, entry to temples should be allowed, no
matter what.
Further, it is indeed
worthwhile to remember Justice Chandrachud’s thoughts on Sabarimaa case where
he points out that menstruating women/ menstruation is a form of
untouchability. We should be rather grateful that our Supreme court has given such
path breaking and progressive verdict for the Verdict allows women of all ages
to enter temples. After all, why should the ‘Darshan’ be reserved only to Men
and not to women? All men and women should have the right to worship and
religion must not serve as a cover to deny this right. It is a huge step in
negating that historical injustice/indiscrimination meted out to generations of
women until now.
Debunking
Idea A – Now, let me turn over to the other idea. The
perception or the understanding of women empowerment thanks to the elevation of
2 ‘women’ MP’s to important posts in the Indian cabinet.
First of all, empowerment
is relative and by that I mean, on one level, for instance - my wife will be or
will feel more empowered than my mother who didn’t have a career, but that
doesn’t take away the empowerment of an educated, literate woman. On another
level, it would be very difficult to scale the empowerment of an erstwhile
illiterate woman who has learnt to read and sign her documents with a woman,
married or not, pursuing her career alone in some faraway place. Hence, it becomes
very difficult to compare empowerment of two women.
It is beyond doubt that
both the above ministers have faced or are still facing a lot of challenges as
women. Let it also be noted that I am not questioning the talents, the
capabilities and the commitment of the said ministers. However, praising them
for their current designations and considering their positions in cabinet as the
parameters for empowerment is incomprehensible to me. And all the more baffling
is the jibe/post about Shani Shingnapur which belittles the SC judgment. It is
indeed sad and unfair that the SC verdict - that in fact ensures that
empowerment and right to dignity arrive at the doorsteps of those poor, needy
and oppressed women never to be talked about or seen in media, is refuted in
face of two women ministers.
We are glorifying the
above said women ministers, not really for what they are, but for the ideology
that carries them. Ms. Swaraj is the second
woman External Affairs minister. Would you like to credit the first woman
External Affairs minister for women empowerment or may be, someone like
Mayawati, Phoolan Devi, Savitribai Phule? Would you forward with as much
enthusiasm a post bearing a photo of Ambedkar or Savitribai Phule? I wonder if
you will because our political unconscious works in such a seamless way that
once we like a colour, no matter how dilute it is or it becomes, we are carried
away by its lustrous display and this is a danger signal for our quality of
commitment. Most of you are in professions relating to money, commerce,
trading, etc. Once you choose a brand name for investing money, don’t you
reconsider investment depending on the performance of that brand? Isn’t it
reasonable to account for one’s promises, failed policies of an investment
banking firm, etc.?
In my opinion, empowerment
lies in rendering strong those women who have been socially, politically,
economically oppressed, sidelined, marginalized or ostracized by society. I
feel that figures like Pandita Ramabai Joshi, Sindhutai Sapkaal, Sudha Bharadwaj
to name a few could be great ambassadors as either they have themselves
underwent struggle to become agents of change or changed the world of women by
working and fighting for their causes. In fact why should we eulogize only
women as ambassadors for women empowerment? Why can’t we think of Men like
Maharshi Karve, Phule and others as icons for women empowerment? For those who
think that India and its women are progressing, look at the increase in hate
crimes, violence and crime against women. Are our memories so weak to forget
what happened to Ashifa a year ago, when noneless than lawyers prevented police
from even filing a charge sheet against the accused? But that doesn’t matter as
long as we have a couple of ministers here and there for the sake of tokenism. Women
Empowerment??? Vah.. Beti vah!
