‘Keeping Our Daughters Safe Has Become A Herculean Task; It Wasn’t This Bad When We Were Younger!’

 [The focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman — the perpetrators and the infrastructure that are the problem. First published in Women’s Web]

“Keeping our daughters safe has become a herculean task. It was not this bad when we were younger.”

This is a statement we hear often- on social media (I have quoted directly from someone who said it on Twitter), on television, and even when people get together and chat at a party or in the office cafeteria.

The statement is wrong on several counts. Let’s break it up-

“Keeping our daughters safe…”

The moment we utter these words, we are focussing on the ‘victim’ of sexual harassment/ abuse. And as long as we continue doing that, we will not find a solution to the problem.

Shouldn’t we move beyond “keeping our daughters safe”, now?

The focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman. There can be no solution till we acknowledge the perpetrators, and focus on reforming them so it is safer for women.

This may seem like nit picking but it is not.

If we focus on the victim, we are looking at enabling conditions to keep them safe. That would include telling them what to do, how to dress, where not to go, and when to return home.

But restricting the freedom of women is not the solution.

The world needs to be made safer for women. And to do that, the focus has to shift to the causes which make it unsafe for woman.

We need to create conditions that make it difficult for the perpetrators through awareness, better vigilance, and a more accessible legal system. Till we acknowledge the perpetrators and work on the causes, there can be no long-term solution.

“.. our daughters…”

This is the obvious one.

Do only ‘our’ daughters, ‘our’ sisters, ‘our’ wives, ‘our’ mothers, ‘our’ friends deserve to be safe? Shouldn’t we be concerned about the safety of every woman? Why should there be an ownership or relationship with victims?

This feeling of ‘ownership’ itself is a contributing cause for the lack of safety for women. Since men feel compelled to guard the chastity of ‘their’ women, others have sought to assert their superiority by establishing their dominance over the women.

When we stop looking at women in terms of their relationship, and recognise them as individuals who make up roughly half the population, we will move beyond keeping individuals safe and towards making society safer.

“… herculean task”

Yes, ‘keeping’ women safe is a herculean task- it is attempted by policing women, by curtailing their freedom, by telling her what and how she should do.

But do you remember how Hercules cleaned the Augean Stables?

Hercules didn’t use brooms and shovels to remove the muck. He diverted a river to flow through the stables so all the muck was flushed away. The same solution can be applied here.

Instead of “keeping” women safe, if we focus on creating a safer environment, it would be far more effective.

“It was not this bad when we were younger”

Both statistics and anecdotal data may give the impression that women were safer earlier, but were they really?

Have crimes against women really gone up, or are they being reported more because of greater awareness?

Statistics show that states like Goa and Kerala have a higher incidence of reported crimes against women. What is more likely is that these states have better systems for women to come forward to report a crime, in which case, the growth in reported crimes is welcome.

There is also greater awareness among women about what constitutes sexual harassment/ abuse. Till the #MeToo movement gained momentum a few years back, women ignored a lot of inappropriate behaviour because we lacked the vocabulary to articulate the harassment.

Also, women are going out of the house more, which increases the probability of them being sexually harassed/ abused in public. This gives the impression that women are more unsafe today than earlier.

However, this is not the case.

Women (and children) have always been vulnerable to harassment and abuse. However, when the perpetrators are family or close friends, there is a greater chance of the crimes being ignored.

It is only when the perpetrator is a stranger that families recognise that women are unsafe.

Instead of worrying about “keeping our daughters” safe, we should work on creating a safer environment for women.

This can be done by- generating awareness on appropriate behaviour, incentivising calling out harassment and creating an environment for reporting crime. It cannot be done by locking up “our daughters” and mourning about how the world has become unsafe.

Who pays the price in the hijab controversy?

[In the ongoing controversy, the hijabis have become the battlefield, and no matter what the outcome, they are the ones who will lose.]

In January, the group of students at a government PU college in Udupi were prevented from attending classes unless they took off their hijabs. The visuals of these young women in full uniform, mask and headscarf sitting on the staircase of the building, studying for their exams captured the imagination of the nation. Almost everyone had an opinion on it, many even had more than one opinion, but you had to admire the almost Gandhian tenacity of the young women who turned up every day, hoping the school administration would relent and let them attend classes with the headscarf as they were used to doing.

There were essentially three positions that people took, depending on whether they were for or against- 

“School uniforms are sacrosanct; there has to be uniformity”.

“The hijab is symbol of oppressive patriarchy and should not be encouraged.”

“The hijab is an act of faith, and the choice of the young women should be respected.”

Each of these positions could be easily countered, because in a situation like this you do not have a single “right answer”. Yes, in a country like India, the uniform is necessary to reduce visible socio-economic differences, but should the uniform be imposed when it goes against personal faith? Yes, the hijab could be something forced on women by a patriarchal society, but can that be counted by forcing a ban or should it be dealt with through empowerment? Yes, the hijab is an act of faith, but the fact that many women do not practice the hijab shows it is not an “essential practice” the way a turban is for Sikhs. 

While people approached the court and debated the nuances of the case, the young women were being denied their right to attend classes- an outcome that nobody would consider desirable no matter which side of the debate they were on.

Fast forward a few weeks. An incident that should have been sorted out without fanfare blew up. Schools and colleges across Karnataka started barring entry to students in a hijab. The video of a principal slamming the college gate shut on a group of burqa clad girls went viral, and the incident was even picked up by the international media. The next day, another group of young women marched to college wearing saffron stoles and demanded their right to come to college wearing kumkum, flowers and sarees. By the end of the week, it had spread across the state. Students trying to go to college in burqas were intimidated by groups of “students” in saffron stoles. 

Meanwhile, pending a decision, the High Court ruled that no religious symbols will be permitted in the classroom, unless expressly allowed by the rules of the institutions. Some schools and colleges took this interim order to the extreme and forced students (and even teachers) to take off the hijab even before entering the school premises. The videos of students and teachers being forced to take off their hijabs in public have gone viral, and they have touched a raw nerve with every woman who empathises with the pain and humiliation they are being put through. The students who insisted on continuing to wear the hijab have been forced to return home. The trouble is starting to spread to other states where educational institutions are unilaterally preventing the entry of students wearing hijabs. How this impasse will eventually be sorted out is anyone’s guess, but no matter what the outcome, it is young women who will suffer.

In this entire controversy, two essential points were overlooked- 

The first incident of turning back students in hijabs took place at a government run PU college. Unlike in private schools which implement the uniform with greater rigour, in the government school system, the prescribed uniform has always been indicative. Anyone who has ever been to a government school knows that while most of the students turn up in the uniform, they also wear anklets, bindis, hijabs, dangling earrings, bright coloured plastic hair clips, fresh flowers, strappy sandals, just about anything. Despite the stated purpose of the uniform being to ensure uniformity, Government schools always teem with diversity and colour. By wearing a headscarf in the same colour as the dupatta of the prescribed uniform, the students of the PU college were in conformance with the spirit of the uniform.

More importantly, the primary objective of an educational institution is to provide an education, and by depriving the young women the right to attend their classes, the school authorities were failing in their duty. With just two months left for the end of the academic year, they should have maintained status quo and if they really wanted to implement the rules differently, they should have done so from the subsequent academic year after giving due notice to the students and their guardians. By forcing the young women to sit outside the class, they were being denied their fundamental right to an education in a government run institution of their choice.

In the entire controversy, it is important to understand where the pushback is coming from, and how it does not serve the objective it purports to serve. 

There are essentially two seemingly progressive arguments being made in favour of disallowing students to wear the hijab in educational institutions.

The first is that educational institutions are secular in nature and should be free from all religious symbolisms and that personal religious markers should not be permitted. This argument is based on the French definition of secularism, or laïcité, which requires an absence of religion in public spaces. In India, however, Secularism has traditionally been meant to indicate that no one religion will be given prominence over the others. If teachers and students can adorn their foreheads with bindis/ pottus/ vibuti/ kumkum and if married teachers can wear mangalsutras, taalis, shakha or any other sign of a married Hindu woman, then why single out the hijab? More importantly, almost every programme starts with the lighting of a lamp, and Saraswati Vandana is sung during assembly- are these not religious in nature? Taken in this cultural context, the call for banning the hijab in classrooms doesn’t make sense.

The second argument is more insidious. It is the liberal narrative that draws a false binary between hijab and kitab. The proponents of this theory state that the hijab is oppressive and forced on girls, and that the only salvation for the girls will be after they cast off the hijab and embrace education. This argument is based on two contradictory statements- that the women is disenfranchised and is forced to wear a hijab, yet, she apparently has sufficient agency to cast off her hijab for the sake of an education. The argument falls under its own weight- if the woman lacks agency, how will she rebel? Isn’t it better to ensure she continues her education and becomes financially and emotionally independent after which she is empowered to make her own choices?

In all this controversy, who loses? The young women who want to study and better their prospects. For many of them, wearing the hijab is an act of faith and/ or a tradition, and the thought of taking it off in public is so inconceivable, that when they are asked to take it off, they prefer to return hone instead. While a few of them might be willing to remove the hijab in the classroom, the entire process is so disconcerting and traumatising that they hesitate go return to school. Given the atmosphere of hate and mistrust that has been built up, many families too might hesitate to let their daughters go to school or college where there is danger of them being subject to humiliation. All that banning the hijab will accomplish is to make it far more difficult for a woman to get an education.

If a hijab ban is enforced, many families will insist on taking their daughters out of school. Some may be home-schooled, or enrolled in minority institutions, but a large number may be forced to drop out of the education system. If minority institutions come up, even families of young women who don’t wear the hijab may be tempted to take them out of “secular institutions” and enrol them in minority institutions where they will not have to be defensive about their religious identity. This will eventually lead to increased ghettoization.

Even if the Court rules that there is no prohibition on religious symbols in public spaces and upholds the fundamental right of education, this controversy has once again exposed the fault lines in the secular fabric of the nation. Parents of young women may still want to take them out of secular institutions and enrol them in minority institutions where they will be shielded from similar attacks in future. This will adversely affect the diversity of classrooms and young people will grow up with a sense of alienation.

In a battle which is supposedly for their “empowerment”, the young women who wear the hijab have become the battlefield, and no matter what the outcome, they are the ones who will pay the price.

Should the legal age of marriage be raised?

 [On the face of it, Yes. But there are nuances that need to be considered.]

The Union Cabinet has cleared a proposal to raise the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 21, and will be introducing a Bill seeking the Amendment soon. On the face of it, it seems like a great move, but if you look at the ground reality, is it really such a good idea to raise the age of marriage for women from 18 to 21?

As per current statistics, upto 30% of women in India were married before the age of 18*, despite the fact that the legal age for marriage was set at 18 years in 1978. This conclusively proves that the law alone is not a deterrent against child marriage.

Many of us believe that child marriage is due to lack of awareness about the minimum legal age of marriage. However, the causes are actually much deeper. It is for convivence, out of concern for the safety of the child, or because of societal pressures.

In families/ communities where women are not encouraged to go out to work, there is little to be gained by educating a girl beyond a certain level. Such girls are married off as soon as a suitable groom is found. Typically in these families the search for a groom begins after the girl attains puberty, and she is often married soon after completing her class 10 board exams.

In households where both parents engage in labour, even if the girl is sent to high school, she is forced to stay alone at home for a few hours every day after school. Parents perceive this as a risk, so unless there are safe after school activities, they get the girl married off as soon as possible. Typically, such marriages take place after the girl graduates from the local school, and needs to travel to another village for further studies.

In many communities, traditional livelihoods require a woman to assist her husband in a part of the livelihood process (to give a few examples- toddy tappers need wives to make jaggery, weavers are assisted by their women in the preparatory process, sugarcane harvesting requires a couple to work in tandem). In such communities, girls are necessarily married off early since their economic value is unlocked only after marriage (in some communities which rely on entertainment as a source of income, even girls as young as 14 are married off).

Once a girl attains puberty, her “safety” becomes of prime concern to the family. If the family suspects she may be in a relationship, or that someone “unsuitable” is interested in her, she is typically married off to the first man the family can find. The legal age of marriage then works against her, because she needs to wait to attain that age for fear her parents will have the marriage annulled otherwise, but the family has no such fear.

Though we often think that child marriage is a product of poverty, it is not. Even in “well to do” and “well placed” families if a suitable match is found, the girl is engaged to be married, and the wedding solemnised as soon as she turns 18. If the match is extremely “good”, and if the groom’s family is unwilling to wait, the wedding takes place even before the bride turns 18.

All these factors ensure that the rate of “child marriage” in India is between 27% (UNICEF) to 47% (ICRW), despite the fact that the legal age of marriage was set at 18 more than 2 generations ago.

What, then will happen if the legal age is raised to 21? It will not necessarily delay marriages. All that will happen is that the percentage of women being married before legal age will shoot up, making the woman far more vulnerable than she now is.

Assuming a family allows the girl to study upto Class XII, she will graduate high school at the age of 17/ 18. What after that? Most families do not want their girls to travel long distances either to work or to go to college, so unless there is a college that is perceived as “safe” in the neighbourhood, she will be kept at home for 3 years.

OR, she will be married off. Regardless of what the law says.

If the law refuses to recognise a union conducted before legal age, then the “child-bride” will not have any legal rights in her marital home. She will be far more vulnerable to emotional, physical and sexual abuse than she is now where the law is on her side. In case of pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies, she will be subject to unnecessary harassment, and this could even lead to unsafe abortions.

The law will also work against women who want to marry partners who are deemed “unsuitable” by their families. They will necessarily have to wait till she turns 21 for fear of the family using the law to pull them apart. But if the family suspects such a union, they will get her married before legal age since they do not have any such fear.

What then is the solution?

Education

Awareness

Empowerment

What is needed is to work at the community level to create awareness on why child marriage is not desirable both from the health perspective and from a social perspective.

What is needed is for the community to recognise that a woman is as capable as a man in creating economic value, she will no longer be seen as a burden which is to be set down at the earliest possible.

Once this happens, the age of marriage will go up organically.

I have personally witnessed this in two communities where we worked over a sustained period.

In one rural community, the average age of marriage for girls was 14, which coincided with the end of schooling in the local government school. Once the community realised the value of continuing the education, and began sending them to high school in the nearest town, the number of child marriages dwindled. After graduating from high school, many of the girls who would otherwise have been married at 14 enrolled in technical/ vocational courses, and the community was determined to not get them married till they were economically independent.

The experience in an urban slum community was equally dramatic. Girls were earliest married at the age of 15 or 16, but after a few years of intervention, the average age of marriage shot up to above 20. In that community it is common to see families where the first born girl(s) were child brides, but their younger siblings are in college, and where the mother proudly declare, “we will get our daughter married only when she wants it.”

History has shown that enacting a law alone has not been enough to deter child marriage. What is needed is sustained behaviour change communication at the community level to ensure that the community recognises the value of educating and empowering the girl child.

Lokmanya Tilak exemplifies this contradiction between the legal and the personal. At a time when girls were married before puberty and many died at childbirth when the marriage was consummated, he opposed raising the legal age of marriage to 14. It was his belief that the law should not “meddle” in the personal life of people, and that we should, instead, focus on changing behaviour. He followed up by ensured that his own daughters were not married before the age of 16.

One can challenge Tilak’s position on the grounds that a law was needed to save the lives of the child brides who’s bodies were ravaged by pregnancy and childbirth before they were ready for it. However, that is no longer the case today. While it is desirable for a woman to get married at 21 rather than at 18, the lower age of marriage is not a health risk. Hence, it is better to lead the change from the social perspective.

Before talking of raising the legal age of marriage for girls, let us first ensure that the existing law is implemented.

* this is an approximation. Studies from reputed agencies show the figure as anything between 27% to 47%.

Behold, I Shine

 [Q: How do you review a book which taught you so much?

A: You don’t even try.]

“It is often assumed that the women of Kashmir have not suffered the brunt of direct violence as much as the men there have done. But is that really true? Or is the scale of their suffering underestimated because it is difficult to access women’s stories? Also, what of the indirect violence that has been inflicted on them- shouldn’t that be accounted for?”

Freny Manecksha’s “Behold, I Shine” attempts to document the voices and narratives of the women and children of Kashmir. She examines the ongoing conflict in Kashmir through the gender-sensitive lens, and through stories attempts to answer questions like- has militarization hardened existing patriarchal structures, how do notions of security interact with the patriarchal belief that the rights of a girl child are less than those of the boy, how do young women cope with the overwhelming restrictions in the Valley, how women who are victims of sexual violence also need to deal with the reactions of society, are women in Kashmir supressing their fight for gender rights because of the larger fight for azadi. With sensitivity and grace, Manecksha examines each of these issues, and more.

There is an overwhelming number of “half widows” in Kashmir- women who’s husbands have “disappeared”, and they do not know if he is still alive or dead. Not only is the “half widow” left in an emotional limbo of not knowing what happened, she is forced to fend for her family financially. More importantly, she is often required to negotiate the spaces between her natal and marital family, neither of which wants to acknowledge her agency. Her quest for justice can only continue after overcoming all those other factors that seek to derail it, and the quest itself opens her up to further vulnerability.

The book examines how a woman’s body is converted into a battlefield. Of how victims of sexual abuse have to deal not only with the violence of the act, but the violence of a society that continues to shame her, the victim. Manecksha talks of how by articulating the question of why a woman who was raped is not accorded the same status as a martyr, people are forcing society to acknowledge that rape is a political weapon, and thereby delinked from shame and loss of honour.

The book describes how mothers of sons who have disappeared use their conventional and highly personal identity as a mother to draw attention to the deeply political issue. Manecksha describes how some women have used their personal loss to transform themselves into activists drawing attention to a larger cause.

However, it is not only those who have suffered direct losses who are impacted. Manecksha talks of how minimization has reduced access to public spaces. These shared public spaces were spaces where women could meet other women and have everyday conversations. How does losing them impact women? The chapter on how Sufi shrines become a safe place for women has a particularly poignant statement- “Shrines are radical spaces where women can experience spirituality, chat with a friend and even have something to eat afterwards”. These are words that will resonate with many, not just from the Valley.

Manecksha discusses how “care”, “control” and “concern” often overlap. Women, particularly, are subject to restrictions, including restrictions on behaviour and clothing. What do women in a conflict zone like Kashmir think about gender rights- does the fight for azadi mean that gender issues should take a backseat?

Though the book begins with a brief introduction to the “Kashmir problem”, what it does not do is to go into the details of the struggle or the reasons behind the rise of militancy. Instead, the book focusses on the women who bear the double burdens of patriarchy and being caught in the crossfire of militarization.

The book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the gendered aspects of the conflict in Kashmir. Manecksha has done a brilliant job in weaving together the diverse narratives of women from Kashmir to bring out the picture of the double burden that women carry. ‘Behold, I Shine’ is a tribute to their unwavering spirit, which is summed up in one Facebook post-

“Some want to put the hijab on me and save me. Some want to take the hijab off me and save me. Just give me a break, man! I can save myself.”

Dear Men

[An Open Letter to Men who don’t like it when women call out men]

Dear Men,

I am tired. Tired, not of what we are subject to everyday, but tired of listening to you calling us “toxic feminists” who keep “cribbing about men”. I am tired of listening to your unsolicited advice about how we should “take care and be responsible” for our own safety. Tired of how our very presence as a “feminist” triggers you.

So let me tell you what it is like to be a woman.

Do you know we never step out of home without something with which to defend ourselves in case we are attacked? It could be pepper spray, a Swizz Army knife, or a key held as a knuckle duster; we are always prepared.

If someone taps on your shoulder, we’ve seen you turn around to with a smile to greet a friend. Never do that to a woman- her nerves are so taut in public spaces, she may just swing around and punch you.

While using public transport, a woman is constantly on guard. If a man is making her feel uncomfortable, she often strikes up a conversation with a random woman so it appears neither is alone and vulnerable. She is also constantly looking out for other women- for that slight change in body language that tells her that the other person is uncomfortable with the attention she is receiving from a man.

Before getting into a cab at night, a woman almost always makes a call to a friend and passes on the license number. Sometimes she even conducts a one-sided conversation so the cab driver doesn’t try any fancy tricks with her.

You might have seen those “independent women” enjoying a night out together. The last thing they tell each other before leaving is not “tonight was fun, we should get together again”, but “message me after you reach home”. None of them relaxes till all the others confirm they reached home safely.

Before using an empty public washroom, a woman checks that the outer door cannot be locked from inside (in case a man traps her in alone with him), that there are no open windows (from which someone can come in) and that the cubicle door bolts securely. If she doesn’t feel safe, she doesn’t use the washroom- she holds it she finds another one.

When she is traveling alone (whether on work or pleasure), a woman checks out reviews from other single women travellers before making hotel reservations. However wonderful the hotel, she doesn’t make bookings unless it is certified “safe” by others of her gender.

Do you know how many otherwise independent women have NEVER dined alone at a restaurant because of how uncomfortable it gets. You know many restaurants have a separate “family room”, ever wondered why?

Do you know women sometimes book two tickets at the theatre only to ensure that someone obnoxious doesn’t sit in the next seat. Do you know how often a woman in the middle seat on the plane has men leaning into her from both sides?

Have you ever wondered why women who are jogging in a slightly deserted park only have their headphones on in one ear?

Do you know almost every woman pushes the desk against the door when she is staying alone in a hotel?

Do you know there isn’t a single woman who doesn’t have an SOS number on speed dial on her phone?

Do you know we have escape plans in place whenever we are alone in an unknown place?

These are just some of the things you do not know, dear Men.

But now that you do know, instead of accusing us of cribbing, do you think you could do something to make things a teeny bit safer for us?

Warm regards,

An Extremely Tired Women

Why I support the Doctors..

 […. and why I believe you should too]

There is a lot of debate, primarily on social media, on how many of the more vocal protesting doctors didn’t join in any previous protests and why it is not necessary to support their protests.

Here are five reasons why I support the demand of the protesting doctors for expedited NEET-PG Counselling, and why I think you should too.

One:

Doctors often take time off to prepare for NEET-PG. If the exams and counselling are delayed, in addition to the anxiety the opportunity cost goes up. This will particularly hit the doctors who are not well off.

Two:

We need doctors in our wards.

Doctors doing their PG are the ones on duty in Hospitals associated with Medical Colleges. One batch has already passed out. Unless a new batch is taken in, there will be only 1/3rd the required number in the wards. And this at a time when COVID cases are on the rise, and will certainly stress the system.

Three:

Yes, aspirants who do not qualify under any quota are questioning the increase in reservations. Yes, they have sought legal recourse. But isn’t that best addressed by improving facilities and increasing the number of seats available, so despite reservations, the number of seats in the ‘general category’ remains the same, or goes up.

Four:

Yes, most doctors didn’t support the Farmers’ Protest; many of them spoke against the anti-CAA-NRC movement. However, our support need not be conditional. If we stand for justice, we will support the demands of the protesting doctors.

Five:

Doctors are essential workers. Especially during the pandemic, we saw how hard they worked under extremely difficult conditions to save lives. We owe the profession a debt of gratitude. This is the least we can do to support them.

Does ‘merit’ have much merit?

 This would probably be controversial, but it still needs to be said. A lot of people oppose reservations, and I often hear "I worked hard, nobody handed things to me on a platter" to justify removing/ revoking reservations. They may think they have a point, because what they see is some people getting a coveted seat they couldn’t get despite having lower grades. Yet, is that how it really is?

I am born to Brahmin parents, and I topped every bloody exam I wanted to top. Through all my school and college days, I too opposed reservations "on principle"- I genuinely believed it was my hard work that got me where I was. And I expected others to put in the same amount of work to get there, instead of seeking reservations.

But guess what. I was wrong.

It didn’t happen overnight, but gradually I came to realise that while I had brains, and worked extremely hard (and smart), I also had a privilege that I was blind to.

I had access to the best education my parents could afford. Nobody questioned me when I aspired to occupy a place of excellence. My family supported me.

While I certainly had good brains, and worked extremely hard, it wasn’t just "my" hard work and "my" brains that got my where I was.

What got me there was generations of being at the apex of an inequitable system. A system that empowered and enabled me to compete on what I thought was a level field, but actually was one that was stacked in my favour.

There are many who are as intelligent as me. And are willing to work as hard. But at every stage they are denied opportunity.

They struggle to find teaches willing to teach. They do not have access to libraries. They do not have a family that can sustain their curiosity. They are constantly derided by the education system. Even after they get admission into good educational institutions, they are often no accepted as equals by the faculty and other students. Their competence is questioned, even though there is no reason to presume they are in any way not equal to the rest. In short, the field is stacked against them.

Till those inequities are removed, let’s not even think about passing a value judgment on people who do not have the benefits that we do.

Access to education, healthcare, livelihoods and social acceptance should be universal.

Only then will there be equity. And only when there is equity, would there no longer be any need for reservations.

Can we even Lockdown now?

Given how the number of cases is rising, it is tempting to demand a Lockdown- even Dr. Fauci recommends it. But clearly, those asking for it have no idea about the ground reality of the country.

Our healthcare system has totally broken down. We do not have sufficient hospital beds, we do not have sufficient oxygen, we do not have sufficient life saving medicines. The State does not have the resources to treat everyone who needs to be treated. In such a situation, how will Lockdown help?

Take the hypothetical case of one 47 year old who tests positive. The person is kept under home isolation, but the moment her SPO2 drops below 90, the drama begins. Her family starts the hunt for an oxygen cylinder which will keep her oxygen levels up. They run between dealers to procure oxygen and/ or medication.

When there is a Lockdown, will they be allowed free movement? Will the resources magically get procured and delivered in a contactless manner by vaccinated delivery staff?

The patient’s oxygen levels continue to drop. The family hears of a potential lead in a hospital, and bundles her and her oxygen cylinder into an auto to take her to the hospital. If she is lucky, she is given a gurney and with her oxygen cylinder she waits for a bed to become available. Her family is with her, waiting.

As long as the hospital infrastructure is absolutely inadequate to meet demand, and there remains a severe lack of confidence in the medical system, will a Lockdown prevent people from rushing their severely ill relatives to hospitals, and waiting with them till they get support? No Lockdown will contain people indoors while their relatives are dying.

The patient doesn’t recover. There are 24 hour long queues at crematoria.

Will a Lockdown help? Can mourners be kept away from cremating their own?

In the current situation where numbers are rising drastically, and the public doesn't have confidence in the system, even Lockdowns will not keep people indoors. And these are the people who are in contact with the severely ill patients, and are therefore most likely to be spreaders.

By declaring a Lockdown, all that will happen is that the families of those who are sick will be harassed even more than they are now. Last year, we saw how the Lockdown affected the socially and economically marginalised. Does it make any sense to repeat that, when the category of people who are most likely to be spreaders (the family of severely ill patients) cannot be contained by a Lockdown?

At this point, the best that the government can do is to mandate that all business that can shift to a work from home model do so. Exams can and must be cancelled. Restrictions placed on all unnecessary gatherings. Greater precautions be taken on public transport. A lockdown is neither feasible, nor possible- we need to do the best we can.

Saree-clad Superhero Army

 "Not all superheros wear capes. Many wear sarees."

The line stuck in my head the moment I heard it.

ASHA workers, Anganwadi workers and other field level volunteers have emerged as true heros in the pandemic.

When I heard that two districts in Andhra Pradesh were running out of vaccine doses, my first thought was for my friend's octogenarian father. His second dose of CoviShield was due, and I hoped he would be able to get it.

Unfortunately, my fears were well founded. 

In the heat of an Indian summer, he travelled all the way to the PHC where he'd taken his first shot, only to be told that they had run out of doses.

My friend was worried- what if he didn't get the second dose at all?

"Don't worry about Tatagaru", the ASHA worker assured my friend. "I'll make sure he gets his second shot."

Two days later, she kept her promise. Through informal networks she came to know a PHC had received vaccine doses, and she took him there and got him vaccinated.

ASHA workers have a long list of duties to perform. They are constantly busy conducting awareness campaigns, monitoring expectant and new mothers, ensuring care to patients and dealing with emergencies.

Ensuring that residents receive COVID vaccination isn't one of them.

Yet, many of the ASHA workers have voluntarily taken on the burden of creating awareness, mobilizing people and taking them to PHCs to get them vaccinated.

They also end up tracking the second dose much more effectively than COWIN.

This is nothing new for them.

ASHA workers played a significant role in the success of the Polio Eradication campaign. 

People in rural areas trust ASHA workers. That can be leveraged to conduct community level vaccination drives to ensure optimal coverage.

Will it add to their existing burden? Not if the number of ASHA workers is increased. Right now, there is one ASHA worker for every 1,000 population (less if the habitations are small). That ratio can be improved by adding more ASHA workers. At this moment, there is more than enough work for all of them, and even after full vaccination, there will continue to be new things that come up to keep the additional ASHA workers engaged.

We do have a Superhero Army in Sarees. Why not use them?

Enforcing the Mask Mandate

 A year after the WHO advisory to wear masks to prevent transmission, people still don't mask up. It is frustrating to see people brazenly flout the masking mandate. And one of the solutions has been to enforce by pretending to beat up people who are not masked. But is that what should be done?

However tempting it may seem, beating someone up for not wearing a mask is not the way to enforce mask wearing. Using violence to enforce anything is cannot be justified. Because once you normalize it, it will almost certainly be used to target the most vulnerable.

The vegetable vendor sitting on the pavement who pulls down her mask for 30 seconds to sip water gets beaten up.

The lady sipping a Starbucks venti is allowed to move maskless.

The driver who pulls down his mask because he is getting baked in the car park is beaten up.

His employer attends a meeting with 15 other maskless individuals in an air conditioned Board Room.

The orthopedically challenged person who's mask slips while he is trying to maneuver her wheelchair over a too narrow ramp is harassed.

The dude checking out his reflection on a storefront is ignored.

We are an inequitable society. It is the most vulnerable who are targeted.

Adhering to the mask mandate is important. But it is equally important not to give another reason to attack the marginalized.

"Sama, dama, dada, bheda", is the advice our ancestors give us. Though we had a year to communicate it, we have still not done a good job. Let us first exhaust the first two- awareness and incentives, before we think of moving to the next.

Freedom to be Free

 This weekend, I met some amazing young women who were all pursuing undergraduate / technical course in the city. Each was from a marginalised background, and had overcome almost unimaginable obstacles to get here.

Many had lost one or both parents, some had escaped child labour or child marriage, all were from socially and economically backward communities.

Yet, they had prioritised the need to get an education, and were hoping it would help them break the poverty cycle.

Since I always land up early for any event, I was able to spend time with some of them. The stories they told about how the survived the lockdown were horrific- stories similar to the ones we read about, but chilling since they were recounted by people who had survived it.

The other thing common to them was that they were all ambitious. Though most were first generation school graduates, they all dreamt of clearing the competitive exams, or getting jobs as teachers.

Reservations were created to help people like this, and it made me happy to know that at least some of them would be able to avail them, and achieve their ambitions.

I couldn't have asked for a happier #WomansDay 

They inspired me to keep doing what we do because it matters.

When the time came to address them, I was at a loss for words. What advice could I give to a group of women who had overcome obstacles I cannot even comprehend. They didn't need me to tell them they are already winners; they know it.

In a voice choked with emotion, I could just remind them that after what they have overcome to get this far, nothing could be beyond their grasp. That they should continue to dream, and make those dreams come true.

That is the true meaning of #WomansDay

Love Is Love

 

Your child brings home
     His Love.
     Exposing
          Layers of bigotry
Caste
   Language
      Class
         Nationality
      Colour
   Religion
         Gender

Why must it be so?
When Love is Love.

~ Tai ~

 

I was 14 when my husband died

A man I barely knew.

A man who’s life mine was linked to.

I was forced to 

    climb

      on

        his

  funeral pyre.

She rescued me. 

Allowed me to have my child.

She taught me to read

Made me a teacher.

Stood me on my feet.

Helped me marry the man I loved.

I owed everything to her

I would have given my life for her.

But the guilt remained.

One day, it burst forth- 

“Tai, I silently watched

    while my sisters 

       threw stones at you”,

           I confessed.

“I know”, she said.

And smiled.

[Savitribai Phule was born on Jan 3, 1897.

An illiterate girl from a lower caste, married off when still a child, she went on to become one of modern India's first female teachers, and founded a school for girls which rivalled those run by the government by young boys.

A staunch feminist and an anti-caste advocate, she dedicated her life to the upliftment of women and to the abolition of the caste system. Her protests earned her the active animosity of Brahmins, who saw her as a threat to the privileges they took for granted. Yet, most of the battles she fought were against unjust practices that affected Brahmin women the most. She could have chosen to look away, and only work to benefit the women of her caste. But she didn’t, because she realized that women couldn’t be free, unless all women were free.

Long before the term ‘intersectional feminism’ was coined, Savitribai Phule was one.]

You want papers?

 

You want papers?

What papers?

The aunt who eased me out of my mother’s womb

as the candle spluttered and died in the wind; she

couldn’t read or write. She knows I was born

on the day of the heaviest rains.

That is my birth certificate.

Will that do?

No, I don’t know the day, 

or even the year when I was born.

It may have been fifteen years back, 

Or sixteen

Time has little meaning for us , you know.

What?

Who are my parents, you ask?

That stone you see there? 

That’s not a stone. That is my mother.

My mother who died giving birth to me. 

My father, his father,

his father’s father, 

his father’s father’s father,

our fathers, all the way to the first man-

We were all born here.

We belong here.

Every stone in this valley is us.

You want papers?

Why do I need papers?

This is my legacy. 

These trees, these hills, these streams.

Every plant in the forest, every stone on the hills. 

It is mine.

I don’t need no papers

This is my land.

The land of my forefathers.

The land where we’ve always lived.

The land where my children,

and grandchildren and great grandchildren will be born

Everything you see around me is mine.

These are my papers.

You cannot displace me from my land.

Not even if you find bauxite under the ground

- natasha ramarathnam

[This poem was written during the protests against CAA+NRC. Indigenous tribals will be most affected by NRC.]

Of What use Dharma?, Janaki asks

Magnolia champaca

You talk of Dharma, Ramchandar.

Rajyasi Dharma. Is that the only Dharma 

There is?

Are you not required, as a husband,

To protect your woman? Your wife. Well,

You failed.

Even if I had been violated, 

It would still not have been my fault.

Would it?

I did not ask to be abducted, did I?

Why must I be asked to prove

My chastity?

Do you not have the courage

To stand by me. Is it not your Dharma to 

Defend me?

You can keep your Dharma, 

It is of no use, if when I most need you, 

You fail.

The Babies never came

Jasminum sambac

“When are you giving the good news?”

her nosey relatives would ask.

Did they not realize she was 

in no hurry to start a family?

The curiosity soon turned stringent,

“Don’t delay or it will be too late.”

They gave her names of IVF specialists,

told her which temples to visit.

They didn’t hesitate before throwing 

barbs of ‘carrier woman’ at her.

Choice or not, they never knew,

but  the babies never came.

“We told you not to delay,

now look at you”, they said cruelly.

Shouldn’t there be more for a woman 

than to be reduced to her ovaries?

How Patriarchy affects Men

 Men often feel threatened when we speak about the political, economic, social and personal equality of the sexes. Secure in the privilege that their gender confers on them, men do not realize that they too are victims of the patriarchal mindset.

Yes, Patriarchy does benefit men. It confers the title of “superior” gender on men. It empowers them to dictate how women behave. Their bodies aren’t policed, and they are certainly not in as much danger of sexual, physical or emotional abuse.

However, even though Patriarchy favours men over women, it does extract a price from men (and boys).

[I shouldn’t need to say it, but to avoid being accused of drawing false equivalence, I will specify that the price is not comparable to what it extracts from women]

Patriarchy confers the title of “protector” on men, which restricts their professional choices, and often requires them to give undue weightage to financial considerations while making decisions. This puts severe pressure on men, affects their sense of self-worth, and leaves them exposed to societal expectations.

A man who chooses to step back professionally and support his more successful partner is often subject to derision, because he chose to go against societal norms.

[women suffer more by being forced to be “homemaker” despite having a career, but men suffer differently]

From birth, boys are discouraged from showing emotion. They are brought up to believe that “boys don’t cry”, and if they show emotion are silenced by being told to “stop behaving like a girl”. This doesn’t allow them to give vent to their emotions.

Forcing men to be stoic, often results in them either turning to substance abuse or overcompensating by acting aggressively towards women/ non-binary men/ children. Men would be better off if they were permitted to display their feelings.

The cult of masculinity, which abhors any sign of weakness, also ensures that men are less likely to seek help for emotional problems.

[though the strict gender norms imposed by patriarchy affect women much more, they affect men too]

While motherhood is excessively glorified [to the detriment of women], fatherhood is not considered on par with it. This forces families to conform to patriarchal stereotypes and discourages fathers from taking on the role of primary caregiver. This works against both genders.

Though both male and female children are victims of sexual assault, the family considers the girl child to be more vulnerable and is more likely to take steps to protect her. Boys who are abused often do not know where to complain and are left to process the trauma on the own.

Adolescent girls are sexually violated much more than adolescent boys. However, while the girl can tap into the moral support of her female friends, no such support system exists for the boys, and those that are abused are compelled to suffer in silence.

Adult men, particularly homosexual or non-binary men, do not even have an adequate legal structure to protect them from rape or sexual assault. Male sexual assault is almost always subject to derision or dismissed outright.

[again, not drawing any equivalence with what women go through]

The patriarchal mindset barely acknowledges female-on-male domestic violence. While such incidents may be low, they do exist, and the victims struggle to even admit to themselves that it is possible, much less seek redressal.

Another case of Patriarchy letting men down.

By definition, Patriarchy is stacked against women. However, by placing financial expectations on the men, denying them the right to express their emotions and leaving them open to abuse, men too can become victims of patriarchy.

It is in everybody’s interest to dismantle Patriarchy and replace it with a system that ensures and enables everybody to reach their full potential in an equitable manner.

That is called Feminism.

Our Cultural Diversity

 

To me, Navratri has always been associated with Maa Durga. Though born in a Tamilian household, my childhood and youth was spent in communities with a predominantly Bengali population, so Durga Puja is a part of my cultural heritage, not Navratri golu.

The frenzied beat of the dakis. The sound of conch shells being blown. The smell of camphor and flowers, mingling with the tantalizing aroma of street food. New clothes and conversations. And reigning above it all the benign face of Maa Durga, who’s come on a visit with her four children.

Dashami was the day when all the excitement came to an end. Ma Durga would leave her earthly home, and return to her heavenly abode. For us, the excitement would come to an end, and we would be left with three words on our lips, আবার এসো মা/ come back soon, Ma.

If you asked me my family’s traditions for Vijaya Dashami, I wouldn’t be able to answer. Perhaps even my parents didn’t know; they had both grown up in other states and had most certainly picked up traditions from the places where they lived.

Dussehra assumed significance after I married into a North Indian family. But I was never comfortable with interpreting the epic battle between Rama and Ravana as one where Good triumphs over Evil. Rama spoke about the moral code when it came to others, but he was not above breaking them if it suited his purpose and Ravana often conducted himself with more honour than did his antagonist. As I saw it, in that particular battle, good and evil were labels reserved for the victor and the vanquished.

I am not the only one who thinks that way. There are communities which mourn the death of Ravana, just as there are communities that celebrate the victory of Rama.

And that is what makes Hinduism unique. There is no common ‘Hindu’ culture or tradition. There is no single version of Hinduism. There is no one God all Hindus worship. There is no one way in which all Hindus worship a particular God.

In the last few years, there has been a strong attempt to homogenize Hinduism. One deity has been given prominence over the others. A deity that in my part of the country is worshipped in a benign form has metamorphosed into one who is ready for battle. A singular narrative is being thrust on the country.

The essence of Hinduism has always been its plurality. It has been the ability to assimilate and cherish different cultures and traditions. To cherish our differences, and to take pride in our collective tradition. It would be a shame if that is lost.

In my tiny home, we cling to the plurality. Though none of us is a practicing Hindu, and only my husband even identifies himself as one, we carry forward parts of the traditions of our families. On Ashtami, I make kala chana, sooji halwa and poori for lunch because my mother-in-law always did so, and requested me to keep the tradition going. But I soak a larger quantity of kala chana than required, and keep some of it aside to make shundal and payasam the next day because my mother wants that I celebrate Saraswati Puja on Navami. And I am hoping that neither of the kids comes to know about the tradition of smashing a pumpkin on Dashami day, because they will most certainly want to adopt that tradition, and I don’t particularly want to clean up after them!

Navdurga- Durga

 

She clasped her palms in prayer, closed her eyes.

Unbidden, the images came rushing in.

Uncle taking her dress off.

Uncle rubbing her body.

Uncle pushing his fingers into her.

Pain.

She opened her eyes; pushed the pain away.

She looked around. Nobody had heard her cry.

Except Ma Durga. Ma’s eyes were on her.

Her kind, compassionate eyes.

Ma knew. She understood.

Don’t leave me, Ma, she pleaded.

You aren’t alone, Ma whispered. You are Durga.

She nodded with comprehension.

Tonight she will tell her mother.

They will force Uncle to stop.

She is Durga. She will vanquish Evil.

-------

She is everywoman, she is every girl

Navdurga blooms- Siddhidhatri

Plumeria rubra

The oldest child. The eldest daughter in law. She always had things under control.

Every birthday party was meticulously planned. Every wedding went off without a hitch.

She helped pick out engagement rings. She knew where to hire a Spiderman costume.

Even for her own farewell party, she was the one who ordered the cake.

When they saw her, people relaxed. They knew nothing would now go wrong.

They depended on her. It was flattering, but sometimes she longed for more.

She tucked a plumeria behind her ears. Rolled down the window. 

Long drives is where she could be She.

_____

Siddhidhatri, Goddess of the Supernatural Powers

Frangipani. She keeps the world moving