The Women Who Disobeyed Civily

[When the men were behind bars, women came to the forefront. Where are they now?]

It was the Civil Disobedience Movement of 1930. The leaders of the freedom movement were in prison, along with tens of thousands of freedom fighters. The British thought they had been able to stamp out the movement, but then, something unexpected happened. In the words of Jawaharlal Nehru (as quoted in Discovery of India)- 

Most of us menfolk were in prison. And then a remarkable thing happened. Our women came to the front and took charge of the struggle. Women had always been there of course, but now there was an avalanche of the, which took not only the British Government but their own menfolk by surprise. Here were these women, women of the upper or middle classes, leading sheltered lives in their homes- peasant women, working- class women, rich women- pouring out in their tens of thousands in defiance of government order and police lathi. It was not only that display of courage and daring but what was even more surprising was the organizational power they showed.

That was the decisive moment when the British Government realized they could not hold India much longer. If women, who till a few years back were in purdah and were still not allowed to take part in public life, could come to the forefront to demand freedom, sooner or later they would have to leave the country.

But who were these women?

In the early days, it was only the wives, daughters and sisters of the leaders of the freedom movement who participated in the freedom movement. Since there were no women-only political organisations, it was difficult for common women to negotiate a place in the struggle, and the only women who could were women from elite families.

Though women were initially not allowed to participate in the Dandi March, two women, Sarojini Naidu and Mithuben Petit, stood behind Gandhiji when he violated the Salt Law. However, once the salt Satyagraha began, women from middle class families started pouring out onto the street. Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay led a huge contingent of women in Bombay who not only made salt at Chowpathy Beach, they even sold it in the city. The popular story goes that when Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay was arrested and produced before the magistrate, she held up a packet of salt and asked if he would like to buy the 'salt of freedom'!

Women, who started coming out in response to Gandhiji's call for the Salt Satyagraha, began coming out in droves once the men started being arrested. They were led by the wives and sisters of the leaders, prominent among whom were Kasturba Gandhi, Kamala Nehru and Nehru's sister, Vijaylakshmi Pandit, but many women also rose to leadership despite not being from political families.

Sucheta Kriplani, Aruna Asaf Ali, and Durgabai Deshmukh, among many others joined the Freedom Struggle during the Civil Disobedience Movement. They all married freedom fighters from different communities (even religion), and continued to serve the nation even after Independence. Sucheta Kriplani became the first female Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Aruna Asaf Ali was the first lady mayor of Delhi and did a lot of work in education. Durgabai Deshmukh was a lawyer who served as a member of the Constitute Assembly and later of the Planning Commission.

Initially, the police used only moderate violence against women, but when they kept coming out, women too were lathi charged and imprisoned for long terms. None of this, deterred the women, and despite having to manage the home in the absence of their menfolk, they continued being a part of the freedom struggle.

Some of them paid a very heavy price for their rebellion. Rani Gaidinliu, for instance, was arrested when she was seeking to drive the British out of Manipur and Nagaland when she was only 16 years old, and spent 14 years in prison before she was released after Independence.

There were other women who lost their lives in the Struggle. Matangini Hazra, the poor peasant woman who was also known as Gandhi Buri was shot dead by the police during the Quit India Movement when she was leading a procession of over six thousand people. Eighteen year old Kanaklata Barua was shot down while participating in the Quit India Movement.

Despite these setbacks, women were equal participants in the Freedom Struggle. They protested unjust laws, they sang patriotic songs, they hoisted the national flag, they ran radio stations and printing presses, and they provided shelter to freedom fighters fleeing the police. If India was able to gain Independence a lot of the credit should go to these women.

What after Independence?

Unfortunately, after Independence, women were not able to capitalize on these gains. Unlike in other countries, women were given Universal Adult Franchise right after Independence. Women also occupied positions of power, though in small numbers. There were fifteen women in the Constituent Assembly who helped draft the Constitution, there was one women in the first Union Cabinet of Independent India, and a woman headed the Indian delegation to the United Nations and was the first ever woman to be elected the President of the United National General Assembly.

Despite the early head start, even today, the representation of women in public life remains disproportionately low, which results in the framing of policies that do not adequately empower women. India attained her Freedom seventy four years ago, but we will be able to consider ourselves to be truly free only when we are adequately represented in positions of policy making.

Book Review- Landscapes of Loss

 I picked up Kavitha Iyer's 'Landscapes of Loss: The Story of an Indian drought' because someone I trust described it as "Superb reporting. Terrific writing". She was absolutely right. It is a brilliant book. One I wish everyone would read.

Kavitha concludes the book with ".... to introduce readers to real people, their very real everyday struggles, their occasional triumphs and their unremitting agitations requesting justice. The countryside has spoken. I hope urban India finds it in its heart to listen."

And doing so, she sets 'Landscapes of Loss', her detailed chronicle of ongoing struggles in drought prone Marathwada within the much larger context of the ongoing Farmers' Agitation in the country.

Marathwada is one of the most drought prone regions in the country, and most of us hear of it when there is a spate of farmer suicides which make it to the headlines. The book goes much beyond that.

It takes us through how the drought affects entire communities, how relief measures fall short of expectations. It breaks down caste dynamics, and looks at how women are affected even worse than men.

Importantly, the book looks at the reasons for the water crisis, and analyses how the proposed measures might only delay the crisis by a few years. She shows us how what is needed is not annual relief measures, but a systematic change in how we view water as a resource.

Above all, the book introduces us to the people of Marathwada- their distress, their successes, their hopes and their reality. Though their stories, she inspires us to do more. 'Landscapes of Loss' is a MUST read.

The Objectivisation of Women in Sport

 [This article has been published in Women’s Web under the title “2021 Olympics, When Women Athletes Refused To Play By Objectifying Rules Made By Men”]

Think gymnastics, and the first image that comes to mind is of a young woman clad in rhinestone studded leotards performing gravity defying moves. Her make-up is prefect, her hair neatly coiffured, and her leotards cut suggestively to make her look sexually attractive. Think specifically of the male gymnast, and he is either in a full body suit or shorts. When routines are rated entirely on the complexity of the move, and the skill in performing them, why is the female gymnast expected to look pretty and smile, while her male counterpart can get away with just executing the routine.

The rules of the International Gymnastics Federation clearly specify that female gymnasts can wear full body leotards which cover the legs, yet sexy leotards are so normalized that regardless of what they wear while training, every gymnast picks one for competitions. You could argue that she is “choosing to wear” leotards with a racy cut, but the reality is that most people find it hard to go against what has been deemed acceptable traditionally. Recently, the German gymnastics team made headlines when they chose to wear full body suits in competition to unitedly take a stand against the overt sexualisation of the sport. Had only one gymnast attempted to do so, she would have certainly faced a lot of pushback.

Beach handball and beach volleyball, unlike gymnastics, do not even attempt to hide the fact that the female athlete is sexualized. The rules clearly specify that while the can compete in shorts, women are only permitted to do so in bikinis. When the Norwegian beach handball team chose to swap their bikini bottoms for thigh length shorts, they were fined and threatened with expulsion. This despite the fact that many women who play the sport have said that wearing shorts instead of bikinis will permit them to concentrate on the game without worrying about the uniform slipping.

The official stance by the authorities is that the uniform specifications have been framed in order to ensure that the athletes have the full range of motion. But when men can play in loose fitting knee length shorts and tank tops, why can’t the women? Clearly the guidelines on competition wear have been framed presuming that spectators are more interested in watching beautiful women in bikinis than in watching competition level sportswomen in action.

In case we think that beach volleyball and beach handball are the only sports that blatantly sexualize and commodify the bodies of women athletes to boost viewership, think again. In 2011, when professional badminton saw a decline in interest and viewership, the regulators came up with the perfect solution to bring back spectators- show more skin. The Badminton World Federation passed a decree that ‘to create a more ‘attractive presentation,’ women must wear skirts or dresses to play at the elite level.’ This was revoked after major push back from female athletes, especially Muslim athletes who compete in professional badminton in large numbers.

Tennis has similar rules. Many tournaments specify that women should wear skirts or dresses, even though most women tennis players train in shorts. A top ranked player, Eugenie Bouchard, was asked to twirl and describe her outfit after she demolished her opponent in less than an hour; is a male tennis player similarly asked to flex his muscles?

This sexualisation is not only at the elite level. It permeates all the way down. A couple of years back, when I went to the showroom of a popular sports brand to buy running shorts, I was asked to choose between itsy-bitsy ‘barely there’ shorts, and skin tight cycling shorts. The male section had the loose fitting shorts I wanted, and I have stopped even stepping into the ladies section now. Yes, there are women runners who genuinely like the racy shorts and tank tops and believe that they aid their performance, but shouldn’t the women who are not comfortable wearing those clothes be offered a choice without having to sneak clothes out of the men’s section?

The overt sexualization of sportswear is symptomatic of a larger issue. Instead of respecting the talent, hard-work and dedication of the sportsperson, the worth of a woman is reduced to the viewership she can draw on the basis of her physical appearance and her on and off court personality. There has to be a change in how the media portrays womens’ sports- the focus has to shift from overt sexualisation to sporting prowess.

Also, all sports should offer a broader variety of uniforms to choose from, so all sports persons can choose the one they are most comfortable with. This would empower women to choose how they present themselves to the audience.