Even after years of awareness campaigns, both by governments and activists and even after much criticism in the past, our elected representatives just don’t get it—talking about a woman in terms of just her looks or skin colour is simply unacceptable. Politicians are not very different from the rest of us, in that they too emerge from the same social milieu, but as important people and figures of authority, they are expected to be good role models rather than just reflect popular prejudices and mindsets.
The comments made by Janata Dal leader Sharad Yadav about Smriti Irani and about women in general are a good example of what not to say and do. There is no point in repeating those comments here – they are available for all to see on the Internet – but suffice it to say that while not crude, they were certainly out of place. That he chose to justify his remarks and proclaimed that he was actually praising darker women makes the whole matter even more unedifying.
It only suggests that not only was Yadav wrong, he did not know he was wrong. Clearly, Yadav and many others of his ilk are out of sync with changing social attitudes. However, it may not just be that. It is not as if Yadav does not know the world has changed. Two other possibilities exist. First, he may be pandering to his own constituency who could (or at least he thinks so) still harbour older notions of how to talk to and about women. Second, and that is even more worrying, he actually believes that only a small elite section of society is really concerned about such niceties; the rest of India continues to be conservative.
Some years ago, while debating the women’s reservation bill, Yadav, along with others, had disparagingly spoken of how such a move would bring in “par kati” (wingless) types, a reference to modern, city women who wear short hair. It was a bid to distinguish them from “authentic” Indian women and a not-so-subtle attempt to say that the latter would not be adequately represented in the legislature.
In essence, it was nothing but a reassertion of patriarchy. The opposition to the women’s reservation bill was primarily because menfolk were resisting the entry of women into politics where they could contribute to the decision-making process. Such attitudes towards women are reflected in several ways, from the khaps who try and control what women can and cannot do, from the maulvis who are quick to issue fatwas about women and from politicians who make the most outrageous statements. Not so long ago Mulayam Singh Yadav, another socialist stalwart, said, in the context of a rape, “boys will be boys” or something along those lines.
The irony is that these leaders come from the socialist tradition that owes its inspiration to Ram Manohar Lohia, who had advocated progressive ideas about caste and gender. The younger socialists, including Nitish Kumar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Ram Bilas Paswan, among others, were to continue this legacy, but over the years, became mere casteist leaders who carved out their own, narrow caste bases which worked well for them in every election. The more liberal ideas of Lohia were forgotten and discarded.
As is obvious with just a casual look, this resistance to women is hardly the prerogative of these socialists. In Mumbai, the clergy at the famous Haji Ali Mosque are not allowing women to enter the sanctum santorum. Many temples prohibit women from “defiling” the place if they are menstruating. Violence against women is a fact of life and only appears to be growing.
Why, even in the private sector, instances of discrimination against women abound. At the top, women directors are rare and companies are scrambling to meet deadlines to install women on the board. At the mid-level, women often lose out because they take time off to bring up their children and find it very difficult to rejoin the job stream. Sexual harassment in the workplace is common.
Not that the laws don’t exist–they do. But while laws can be changed, social attitudes remain rigid for years, even generations. And when influential people, such as top politicians, air their prejudices, the message goes down the line that it is okay to speak like this.
The socialists, now known as the Janata Parivar, are among the worst in terms of the presence of women in their parties. Tragically, they have retained a feudal attitude the most. Every other party has women – not as many as there should be though – except for the Janata parties. Going by what the likes of Sharad Yadav say, this is not going to change soon either.
Yadav has made some mealy-mouthed comment about how he respects Irani, but has not apologised. This is hardly surprising. He probably thinks that it is a lot of fuss about nothing. Quite possibly he might have more to say on these lines in the future. And then, when he is elected, he can easily point out that his constituents do not care for such matters. It is clear that the battle to change age old mindsets is going to be a long drawn affair.
