Monday, 18 November 2024
Monday, 18 November 2024
At a recent event, Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman dismissed patriarchy as a “concept invented by the Left,” advising women to focus on standing up for themselves rather than getting “carried away by fantastic jargons.”
“What’s patriarchy, ya?” Sitharaman said.
Her words have sparked debate among experts who believe she has misrepresented a complex, centuries-old social structure.
Debdatta Chowdhury, from the Faculty of Gender Studies at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, argues that such remarks from women in power hold disproportionate weight.
“When women in positions of power say these things, it carries far more impact than when a common person says it. If you admit patriarchy exists and that women suffer because of it, you have to work to change it. But if you deny its existence, you conveniently reject responsibility. It’s irresponsible of her to say patriarchy didn’t stop Indira Gandhi from becoming prime minister,” she explains, emphasising how this denial dismisses the structural barriers women face.
Patriarchy predates the Left
Sitharaman’s assertion that patriarchy is a “concept invented by the Left” dismisses centuries of documented gender oppression long before the birth of leftist ideologies. Patriarchy, a system where men hold power and women are excluded from it, is as old as organized society itself. Ancient texts, from the Manusmriti in India to Hammurabi’s Code in Mesopotamia, codified the subjugation of women.
Sitharaman’s argument overlooks the systemic hurdles women face daily, from wage gaps to violence, from lack of representation to ingrained biases.
India’s history is rife with examples of women resisting patriarchal oppression. Movements like Nupi Lan in Manipur, the Chipko movement in Uttarakhand, and the anti-arrack agitation in Andhra Pradesh were responses to systemic male dominance and societal structures that marginalized women.
The Nupi Lan Movement (1904, 1939)
Manipuri women united against British colonial policies that exploited local resources and created food shortages. Their resistance wasn’t limited to economic rights; it was a fight against a patriarchal system that rendered them voiceless.
The Chipko Movement (1972)
Though celebrated as an environmental revolution, the Chipko movement was also about resisting patriarchy. Women from Garhwal hugged trees to prevent deforestation, challenging male-dominated structures controlling natural resources. Gaura Devi’s leadership in 1974, when she and 27 women confronted contractors to protect the Reni forest, underscored the power of collective female resistance against both ecological exploitation and societal biases.
The Anti-Arrack Movement (1990s)
In Andhra Pradesh, rural women fought against liquor consumption, a vice that fueled domestic violence and economic distress in their communities. Emerging from grassroots literacy campaigns, this movement questioned why the state prioritized liquor over essential needs like water and education. It was a response to systemic neglect and male dominance.
These examples highlight how patriarchy operates at every level—social, economic, political—and how women have had to fight it time and again.
Sitharaman’s remarks also ignore historical data and research that underscore patriarchy’s real, measurable impacts.
The Towards Equality report of 1974 shattered the myth of gender equality in post-Independence India. It documented the widespread economic, political, and social disadvantages faced by women despite constitutional guarantees. Practices like dowry, gender violence, and systemic marginalisation were identified as major concerns.
As of 1971 census, India had 18.7 per cent female literacy rate as against 39.5 per cent for males, a difference of 20 percentage points. As of census 2021, the literacy rate for males is 82.1 per cent and 65.4 per cent for females, a difference of 17 points. Over four decades have passed, but the gap between the two sexes hasn’t reduced much.
The core problems — such as violence against women and their exclusion from decision-making — persist even today, showing how deeply patriarchy remains entrenched. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, over 1,000 crimes against women are registered daily – from molestation, trafficking, and domestic violence to dowry.
Sitharaman’s reference to Indira Gandhi becoming PM as evidence that patriarchy is irrelevant fails to consider the broader systemic barriers that continue to hold women back. For every Indira Gandhi, there are millions of women denied education, employment, or basic rights.
There are two sides to Indira Gandhi’s story. Her ascent wasn’t marked through the prism of women empowerment given she was the shadow figure to her father Jawaharlal Nehru and also, it is true that she had to push her way through the Congress syndicate to get her place.
Indira herself faced sexist criticism throughout her career. Socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia called her “gungi gudiya” (mute doll) and even US President Nixon referred to her as “witch” and diplomat Henry Kissinger called her a bitch. But it was her sheer grit that pushed the way through.
By dismissing patriarchy as a Leftist invention, Sitharaman not only undermines the lived experiences of countless women but also absolves those in power of their responsibility to address systemic inequalities.
As Chowdhury aptly notes, “Admitting the existence of patriarchy is the first step to addressing it. Denying it only perpetuates the problem.”
