“I Want To Be Like You”: That Woman Who Inspires

[Every young woman needs that someone who shows her what she can be. Each of us has it in us to be that someone who shows another what they can be. First published in Women's Web]

I was in grade 5, when Lekha joined as a Management Trainee in the Company where my father worked. Till that point, I had been an overachiever academically, but I had only the vaguest idea of what I could be.

Lekha changed that.

Lekha dressed differently from the other women. She laughed with more confidence. When men spoke about her, they spoke with a deference not normally accorded to other women. When women spoke about her, it was with a tinge of envy. Above all, she lived alone in her own tastefully done up studio apartment with white net curtains.

I had no idea what Lekha did. But I wanted to be like her.

I wanted to be independent.

I wanted to take my own decisions.

I wanted to be someone in my own right.

Like Lekha.

“The idea of possibility, the idea that I get to live my dreams out in public, hopefully, will show to other folks that it’s possible.” – Transgender activist Laverne Cox

Lekha is an engineer. I didn’t follow her career path. But she showed me what I could be.

She was the inspiration a pre-teen me needed.

Many years later…

I was staying in a guest house while advising a PSU on its potential divestment. In a place reserved for middle and top management, I was the object of curiosity both because of  my relative youth and because of my gender.

One night, at dinner, a family that was also staying at the guest house befriended me. I was bombarded with the usual questions – why was I there, who was I with, where did I work, was I married. After fielding the questions, more out of curiosity than anything else, I asked their teenage daughter what she wanted to be.

“I want to be like you”, she said.

Life had come a full cycle.

She had no idea who I was, what I had studied or what work I did. All she could see was an older woman who was someone in her own right, undefined by her relationship to a man.

That independence appealed to her. And she wanted to be the same.

“You cannot be what you cannot see.”

Female role models are important. When young girls see women doing well on their terms, it empowers them to work harder against gender biases, institutional barriers and negative stereotypes and achieve more.

Be that role model if you can.

Should the legal age of marriage be raised to 21?

 [On the face of it, Yes. But there are nuances that need to be considered. Published in Women's Web]

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%.

Annihilation of Caste- a critical review

 [My impressions after reading Annihilation of Caste, by Dr. Ambedkar]

I first read Dr. Ambedkar’s essay a few years back when I had just started thinking about caste and how it is important to acknowledge caste exists and working to dismantle it, instead of sweeping it under the rug of poverty alleviation.

Why did I re-read Annihilation of Caste?

In the years between the first read to now, I have sharpened my own thinking. Had numerous discussions (often acrimonious ones) with Ambedkarites who speak glibly about “destruction of Hinduism” without getting into how they propose to do it, or what they will replace Hinduism with. I have witnessed Amebdkarites lock horns with Communists and as a keen but dispassionate observer seen how each calls the other casteist for approaching the issue of casteism from different directions (I also saw how at Gail Omvedt’s funeral, chants of “Jai Bheem” and “Lal Salam” were raised in tandem). Above all, I have seen how everyone who quotes AoC seems to have no clue about how to go about doing what they want to do.

I picked up the “Annihilation of Caste: with a reply to Mahatma Gandhi” with the full weight of expectations on it. I had already internalised the issues relating to caste privilege and of how relative economic affluence does not necessarily translate into lack of social oppression. I had no doubt that “….the real method of breaking up the Caste System was not to bring about inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages but to destroy the religious notions on which Caste was founded”. I recognise that what is needed is “social reform in the sense of the reorganization and reconstruction of the Hindu Society”. What I really expected from the book was the “how”. How does one bring about the destruction of a practice sanctioned by religion.

Unfortunately no solutions are offered

Alas, no solutions were offered. Dr Ambedkar says, and rightly that “To ask people to give up Caste is to ask them to go contrary to their fundamental religious notions.” Since caste system is a hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other, when people seek the annihilation of caste, they stand to lose as much as they gain. There is a great incentive for preserving the status quo, especially since to get out of that, you need to take on the entire nation.

Dr. Ambedkar calls for the “ancient rules of life be annulled” and that “its place … be taken by a Religion of Principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true Religion.” Drawing a distinction between principles and rules, he rightly points out that “the principle may be wrong but the act is conscious and responsible. The rule may be right but the act is mechanical. A religious act may not be a correct act but must at least be a responsible act.”

However, he leaves it at that. He urges Hindus to take on the task of overthrowing the religion which has too many inflexible and inhuman rules, and replacing it with “a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” But he doesn’t tell us how to make that happen.

In the context of 1936, and given the fact that the address was to be made to a society which was working towards annihilation of caste, the fact that he doesn’t offer solutions doesn’t matter. What is disappointing is that today the work is selectively quoted, and his vague calls for action are offered as solutions. Which they are not. I felt let down because the book did not address what I sought.

Which should come first- political reforms or social?

There was a long analysis on the order in which political reforms, economic reforms and social reforms could take place. How a person addresses that question depends on where they stand. Someone from a privileged social position will prioritise political reforms since that affects them most deeply. But post-Independence history has shown that unless one continues demanding social reform after attaining political reform, it gets missed out. In the context of today, in my opinion, since the prevailing political ideology is pushing society towards greater casteism, political reforms will need to be dealt with on priority, though social reforms continue in parallel.

Read the book if you are looking to learn about caste system

If you are looking to learn about the caste system, and why it should be weeded out completely, this is the book for you. To illustrate how petty the upholders of the caste system could be, one example from the book would suffice.

In November 1935, some untouchable women of well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to their dignity and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence.

Similarly, people from the lower caste were not permitted to consume ghee, wear gold bordered clothes, or gold/ silver jewelry (things have not changed much- even today they are not permitted to ride horses during wedding celebrations or style their moustaches in a way deemed inappropriate).

As Dr. Ambedkar puts it, caste system is not, as popularly thought ‘division of labour’. It is the division of labourers, in a tightly controlled and static manner.

However, if (like I did) you are seeking answers to questions you are already asking, you may be disappointed because he too is asking those same questions.

The distinction between rules and principles

Dr. Ambedkar made a distinction between rules and principles. Rules are practical, principles are intellectual.

“Rules seek to tell an agent just what course of action to pursue . Principles do not prescribe a specific course of action. A principle supplies a main head by reference to which he is to consider the bearings of his desires and purposes , it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the important consideration which he should bear in mind.”

He rightly points out that even when a rule is right, the act of obeying it is mechanical, and even if the principle is wrong, the act is conscious and responsible. Since a religious act should be a conscious act, “Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only . It cannot be a matter of rules.” Unfortunately, however, as Mahatma Gandhi points out in his response to the essay, by this rule, most religions will fail.

Why did I give the book 4 stars and not 5?

I would have still given the book five stars- that the author offers no solutions does not in any way take away from the phenomenal work done by him in explaining the intricacies of the caste system.

The reason I gave the book only 4 stars was because I did not find him a totally unbiased observer. For example, a lot of what Dr. Ambedkar said about Hinduism holds equally true for all religions. Almost all religions are dogmatic, almost all religions discourage reasoning, almost all religions are a collection of static rules. Yet, only Hinduism was singled out for criticism. Since it was about the caste system, I can understand why that might be so. However, in other sections of the book, Hinduism was compared to other religions and found wanting. Since they were brought up as a contrast, for the sake of neutrality, they should have been mentioned in other contexts too. Either keep it about one religion only or criticise all- selectiveness shows a marked bias.