Sabotage in the guise of support?

By Madhu Kishwar

THE ARTICLE ``Women and Political Power'' by Gail Omvedt published in TheHindu on May 19, 2000, is an apt example of the systematic distortions fairly typical of leftist feminist historiography. One characteristic feature of many feminist writings on social movements is that momentous events in the history of contemporary India are assumed to happen only when the author herself is either present as a participant or at least appears as a patron of some group's effort. Ms. Omvedt begins her article by informing us that ``the drive for women's political power had its beginning in the rural areas''. But in the very next sentence she goes on to convince us that the quest for women's political empowerment found the first-ever expression only in 1975 as an offshoot of her involvement in a feminist rally. To quote her: ``Even in 1975, when we had the first major feminist rally, a Samyukta Stri Mukti Sangharsh Parishad in Pune, a group of rural women afterwards went back to their village and decided ... to put up women for the village elections.'' The next momentous step according to her was in 1985 when women of Indoli village, led by Stri Mukti Sanghatana, (expectedly an organisation that Ms. Omvedt was once associated with) decided to organise an ``all women'' panel for the panchayat elections. Thereafter, the next momentous step is taken in 1986 at the founding conference of the Shetkari Mahila Aghadi, women's front of the Shetkari Sanghatana, when a resolution was passed to sponsor all women panels for the upcoming zilla parishad elections. Needless to say the Shetkari Mahila Aghadi finds a place of honour in Ms. Omvedt's version of history because it was precisely in 1986 that she decided to associate herself with the Shetkari Sanghatana - a mass organisation of Maharashtra farmers. Prior to this tilt, the various writings of Ms. Omvedt in Economic and Political Weekly and elsewhere presented the Sanghatana in the most negative light.

For Ms. Omvedt, the history of women's quest for political power begins and ends with the few instances in Maharashtra with which she had personal association. But even in those instances, her account is far from accurate. It is absurd to suggest that the two villages that she cites as examples of women's resolve for power, were the only ones in all of India, where some women dared stand for elections. Even in these cases, the role of male activists in encouraging and lending support to women candidates was crucial. Likewise, the Shetkari Sanghatana's move to field women candidates is not an appropriate example of women providing a ``push from below''. Since I myself was closely associated with the Shetkari Sanghatana work in promoting the political participation of women, I can say with a great deal of certainty that women of the Sanghatana did not press on their own to get representation in panchayats and zilla parishads. The move came from the farmers movement leader, Mr. Sharad Joshi, who worked hard to instil political ambition among women and make politics more woman- friendly, though with limited success. It is also noteworthy that for several years the male cadres of Shetkari Sanghatana accepted this pro- women thrust very gracefully and worked hard to secure the success of women candidates.

It is absurd that Ms. Omvedt should forget that the process of bringing women into contemporary politics began in the early decades of 20th century. As soon as Mahatma Gandhi assumed leadership of the Indian National Congress, he worked tirelessly to get women to play a leading role in the freedom movement. This was not confined to getting a few high profile women such as Sarojini Naidu, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyaya, Hansa Mehta and Muthulakshmi Reddy included in the deliberations and mass actions of the Congress party. Hundreds of thousands of women in small towns and villages were galvanised into action as a result of Bapu's efforts to link women's rights issues with the struggle for Indian Independence.

Even in post-Independence India, there have been numerous local upsurges in which women came to play an important role, often with the encouragement of men. Starting in the early 70's, men such as Sunderlal Bahuguna and Chandi Prasad Bhatt encouraged women to play an active role in resisting Government-sponsored deforestation in the Himalayan hills of Uttar Pradesh. The long- drawn out struggle of Manipuri women to control drunken, violent behaviour by males involved women wresting control of decision- making powers in their respective areas, though with cooperation from some men. Similarly, men such as Shankar Guha Niyogi played a historic role in the Chhattisgarh region of Madhya Pradesh in organising women for taking an active part in determining trade union agendas, and also managing the internal health of the working class communities.

The crucial initiative in women's political empowerment came from Ramakrishna Hegde's Government in Karnataka in the mid-1980's. Along with a new and radical Panchayati Raj Act, Mr. Hegde also enacted a law providing 25 per cent reservation for women in panchayats. It was this move which inspired Rajiv Gandhi to attempt a similar reservation for women at an all-India level. It is noteworthy that both Mr. Hegde's vital move and the historic 73rd & 74th amendments brought in by Rajiv Gandhi's Government were implemented before women's organisations lobbied to have such a law enacted. Thus, in this whole process of women's political empowerment, certain men have played a pioneering role in giving women new aspirations. They did not respond to women's ``push from below'' but initiated moves which generated a new ferment and facilitated women's entry into politics. But feminist writers are extremely reluctant to admit the fact that most important initiatives for strengthening women's rights, especially in rural India, have so far come from men.

While all of the above could be attributed to partisan selection of facts, the most inexplicable distortion is in tracking the origins of the Alternative Women's Reservation Bill. Ms. Omvedt confidently asserts that this was `` originally proposed by the Samajwadi Party's Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav, endorsed by many leading citizens and now backed by the Chief Election Commissioner.'' Anyone even peripherally involved with the reservation debate knows that Mr. Mulayam Singh has only tried to sabotage the Women's Reservation Bill by insisting on a quota for OBC women, within the women's quota. He has made no alternative proposal.

In actual fact, the Forum for Democratic Reforms (initiated by ``Manushi'') is responsible for drafting the Alternative Bill and mounting the campaign for its adoption. Ms. Omvedt is well aware of this because she sent her endorsement signature to our Alternative Bill several months ago. All the arguments, figures and statistics she musters in support of the Alternative Bill are taken verbatim from the campaign document prepared by four of us - Jayaprakash Narayan, Yogendra Yadav, Dhirubhai Sheth and this writer. The attempt to attribute the Alternative Bill to Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav, when he is widely known only for obstructing the Bill rather than suggesting improvements, is the surest way to destroy the credibility of the alternative proposal and prevent it from being taken seriously.

For years, dominant sections of the women's movement were unwilling to allow any discussion on the merits and disadvantages of the Women's Bill. This is an important reason for the ugly stalemate over the Bill, for the last four years. Now that our Alternative Bill is beginning to get a hearing among women's groups and among parliamentarians; instead of sabotaging its validity by attributing its origins to suspect and discredited sources, those interested in women's political empowerment should be using their talents to disseminate the right information about the Bill's lineage and intent, so that we can finally witness a well-informed debate about its actual contents and long-term advantages.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Vajpayee brings back the PM
Next     : Murky business