Abortion may be Legal in India but are we doing any better than the US?

[First published in Women's Web]

When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overthrew the Roe v/s Wade judgement, women across the world drowned in collective grief because we realised that women have essentially been denied autonomy over our own bodies. Even those of us who are not directly affected were affected because we recognize this as yet another incident that takes the world further away from the dream for gender equity.

One section was, however, quite gleeful about the verdict. Cis-het men from India were gloating about the fact that since abortion is legal in India, we are way ahead of the United States when it comes to the reproductive rights of women. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is true that abortion under certain conditions has been legal in India for 50 years since the passing of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act in 1971, and this Act was further amended in 2003 and 2021 to enable women greater access to safe and legal abortion. On the face of it, the legislation is extremely liberal. Unmarried women have access to abortions, and married women do not need spousal permission for seeking medical termination of pregnancies. The law also has provisions for abortions till the end of the 24th week.

However, since the law was essentially brought in as a measure for population control rather than for the emancipation of women, there are restrictions. A pregnancy can only be terminated after receiving the opinion of one (two if the pregnancy is between 20 to 24 weeks) doctors. What this means is that a woman cannot, for instance, walk into a pharmacy and purchase a pill for medical termination of pregnancy without the prescription from a medical professional. 

This exposes the woman to the medical system, where she has to deal with the judgement and harassment of the medical professionals, especially if they are unmarried, or not accompanied by their spouse and mother-in-law. Women from vulnerable communities, especially poor, uneducated, lower caste or tribal women are entirely at the mercy of a system that systematically strips them of their dignity and subjects them to much physical, verbal and mental abuse.

The most recent amendment of the MTP Act specifically lists “contraceptive failure” as a valid reason for women, especially unmarried women, to seek medical termination of pregnancy. However, since the woman still needs the opinion of at least one doctor before she can go in for an abortion, she is at a mercy of an arbitrary system which works at the discretion of the medical professionals. This, obviously, reduces her autonomy over her body. Also, while the Act grants confidentiality to the woman seeking an abortion, since most women are unaware of that clause, they remain at the mercy of a system that chooses to harass them. 

Women who seek a medical termination of pregnancy in government hospitals or in rural hospitals, run the risk of unsafe abortions. Deaths due to post abortion complications is the third largest cause of maternal mortality in India, and over 10 women die every day due to unsafe abortions. Since the MTP Act is applicable only to pregnant “women”, transgender persons and gender non-conforming persons are excluded from the ambit of the Act.
The men who use the existence of the Act to prove how well India performs against other countries do not take any of these issues into consideration. While women in India have access to abortions, the conditions under which they can be accessed are far from ideal.

More importantly, access to abortions is not the only measure by which you can estimate the autonomy that women have over their bodies. In India, it is the spouse and the extended family who often take decisions regarding the reproductive rights of a woman. The sex ratio in India is one of the worst in the world, and this is driven almost entirely by abortions undertaken for the purpose of sex selection. The pressure for a male child is so prevalent in the country that sex determination is rampant, and women are often coerced to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy. In this case, the woman lacks autonomy over her own body, and is at the mercy of her man who takes decisions regarding her body.

Whether it is denying women the right to choose whether or not to abort after an unwanted pregnancy, or coercing a woman to abort a foetus of the wrong gender, it is the woman who lacks the agency to express her choice.

A third of female migrant workers working as sugarcane cutters in Bheed have had a hysterectomy so they can work without being hindered by periods or pregnancies. Many pathological labs refuse to perform PAP smear tests on unmarried women. Anecdotal evidence from oncologists shows that some men refuse to permit their wives to undergo mammograms or mastectomies because they want their women to be “whole”. All of this clearly shows that women do not have autonomy over their own bodies, and decisions around reproductive health are taken by other people.

Given such a situation, it is hypocritical to merely use the fact that medical termination of pregnancy is permitted in India to imply that the nation does better on reproductive rights of women than the United States. Across the globe, there is a growing trend towards reducing the autonomy women have other their bodies. Perhaps the reason why even women who will not be directly affected by the overturning of Roe v/s Wade are devasted by the judgement is precisely because we realise that every step taken towards curtailing the freedom of women in any part of the world eventually affects all womankind. 

“Abortions Might Be Legal In India, But They Strip Our Dignity”

 [Published in Youth Ki Awaaz]

When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overthrew the Roe v/s Wade judgment, a section of cis-het men from India took to social media to talk gleefully about how India is way ahead of the United States when it comes to reproductive rights of women.

Yes, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 and its subsequent amendments provides a framework for married and unmarried women to access safe and legal abortions. However, in reality, women in India still lack autonomy in their own bodies.

The MTP Act of 1971 was brought in as a measure for population control, rather than for the emancipation of women, which places many restrictions on the ease with which women can access abortions.

A woman can medically terminate a pregnancy only after receiving an opinion from a doctor. The objective of this was to ensure that only qualified medical practitioners conduct abortions, under proper conditions. However, in reality, it means that a woman cannot purchase a pill for the medical termination of pregnancy unless she has a prescription from a doctor. This exposes women seeking medical termination of pregnancy to an unfriendly and judgemental healthcare system.

Unmarried women are exposed to the judgement of the medical system, and are often threatened with doxing. Married women not accompanied by their spouse (and/ or mother-in-law) are routinely harassed, and the fact that most of them are not aware that they do not need spousal permission to access a medical termination of pregnancy makes them particularly vulnerable. Women from vulnerable communities, especially poor, uneducated, lower caste or tribal women are entirely at the mercy of a system that systematically strips them of their dignity and subjects them to much physical, verbal and mental abuse.

The MTP Act has a very narrow definition of ‘women’ and transgender and gender non-conforming persons are excluded from the purview of the Act, making it close to impossible for them to access safe and legal abortions.

Essentially, though medical termination of pregnancy has been legal in India for over five decades, the conditions under which abortions can be accessed strip the dignity of the woman, and leave her at the mercy of an extremely judgemental and unfriendly medical system.

Indian Women Too Lack Autonomy Over Our Bodies

Access to medical termination of pregnancy is only one part of the picture. The reason why women are drowning in collective grief after the overthrow of Roe w/s Wade is that we have essentially been told that we do not have autonomy over our own bodies.

In India, decisions around the reproductive health of women are almost always taken by the spouse and the extended family, and not by the women themselves. The societal desire for a male child is so high, that women are forced to undergo multiple pregnancies till they deliver a male child. Though sex determination is illegal, a flourishing black market exists, and pregnant women are coerced to undergo medical termination of pregnancy if the foetus is found to be female.

The woman lacks any autonomy over her body, and it is the spouse and his family that take decisions around her reproductive health.

Whether it is denying women the right to choose whether or not to abort after an unwanted pregnancy, or coercing a woman to abort a foetus of the wrong gender, it is the woman who lacks the agency to express her choice.

Women are denied autonomy over their bodies in other ways too. Women, especially poor, uneducated, lower caste and/or tribal women, are often encouraged to have hysterectomies so they can work without being hindered by periods or pregnancies. Studies have shown that a third of female migrant workers working as sugarcane cutters in Bheed have had a hysterectomy, and are suffering the consequences of an avoidable surgical procedure.

Many pathological labs refuse to perform PAP smear tests on unmarried women, even if their doctors have advised them to undergo the test.

Despite overwhelming evidence that shows that vasectomies are faster, cheaper and safer than tubectomies when a family decides to stop having more children, it is often the woman who undergoes a tubectomy.

All of this clearly shows that women do not have autonomy over their own bodies, and decisions around reproductive health are taken by other people. It is thus hypocritical to assume that India does better that other nations in upholding the reproductive rights of women. Despite a reasonably liberal MTP Act, women in India too lack autonomy over our bodies, and we too are vulnerable to social and medical systems that are skewed against women.

Stand up. Speak up. Show up

 [I wrote this in 2019. That was the year when I stopped waiting for ‘someone else’ to do what had to be done. Looking back, I have continued to redeem that pledge I made to myself.]

Last year, on my birthday, I promised myself that I would accomplish three things before I completed another revolution around the sun. I decided that I would learn a new language, get my Open Water certification and start on and complete one large craft project. I failed miserably in two, and barely made much headway with the third.

After struggling to fit the Open Water certification into my schedule, I put it aside for another day. I do still hope to get it someday, but when that will be, I cannot tell. [2022: paused indefinitely, but not yet abandoned.]

The crafting project didn’t ever go beyond the planning stage, though I did put in some effort into learning new techniques which I might apply in the future. [2022: I am not sure I even remember what the project was, though I still have stashes of craft supplies.]

For a couple of weeks, my Urdu lessons progressed well, till I reached a stage when I could make out parts of words in hoardings. But then the complexity got to me, and I stopped. Not gave up, not yet. But put on indefinitely pause. [2022: I made progress here.]

I should be disappointed because I fared so badly on all the three big tasks I set for myself; yet I am not. Because though I missed on on these smaller things, I did well on the Big Thing. The thing that I had chosen as the cornerstone of my life sometime during the course of the year-

‘Stand Up. Speak Up. Show Up.’

It was not easy. At times, it was actually pretty hard.

To stand up for what you know is right, even though almost everyone around you thinks otherwise. To risk antagonising family and friends who are living in a dimension very different from your own. To not let yourself be bullied into silence to keep relationships intact. 

To speak up is hard, when yours is a lonely voice. Staying silent is tempting when you know the hate that will be heaped on you for opening your mouth. Even if you know you are right, it is easy and tempting to attempt to negotiate an uneasy peace by staying silent..

To show up even when you believe that your presence doesn’t make a difference. To stand with a group of strangers holding a placard, to address that letter which may or may not be read, to speak to a stranger and try to convince them of what you are protesting for.

When your life is packed tight, and you don’t have the energy to ‘stand up, speak up, show up’, you can convince yourself that you are doing ‘enough’. That signing a petition on change(dot)org, or liking a post on Facebook is sufficient. That someone else can fight the battle you are too tired to take on. That you don’t have to be there doing everything.

But no matter what you do, it is never enough. Because there is so much to be done. So many battles to be fought, just to hold on to our heritage and ensure equal opportunities for all. Those battles will be fought. Because they must.

I am happy that to the best of my ability, I did stand up, speak up, show up. I could have done more, but at least I did as much as I could. And it counts for something. While I go around the sun again, I want to continue doing just that.

I also want to make more time for people; the people who matter, and the ones who need me. I want to spend more time with beauty; natural and man made. I want to continue living in joy.

And somewhere in all that, I hope I am also able to achieve the three things I promised myself last year.

In case of Women's Safety, Life imitates Art

[First published in Women's Web] 

A young couple who were sitting on a bed, presumably kissing, pull apart when the door flings open and four friends walk into the room. “Shot mara lagta hai”, says one. “Haan maara”, replies the boy who is with the girl. “Ab hamari baari”, says the first, striding purposefully towards the girl. She stares in fear and horror till he reaches for a bottle of deodorant and sprays it on himself.

This advertisement has been telecast on prime-time television during cricket matches which are watched by millions of young people. One can argue, as many on and off social media have, that “nothing really happens”, but the intent is very clear. The word “shot” is clearly an innuendo for taking a shot at the girl, and the advertisement plays on ideas of gang rape. It plays on the deepest fears of women- while indulging in a consensual sexual activity, the last thing she wants is for her partners friends to barge in and take their turn with her.

On the same day when netizens took to twitter to protest against the advertisement, another terrifying incident from Hyderabad made headlines.

A 17 year old girl who was returning home from a party was gangraped by a group of teenagers who had either attended the same party, or who offered her a lift while she was waiting to get home. Though details of the crime have not been released, if CCTV footage is to be believed, the incident happened in daylight, and the victim was on familiar terms with at least one of the perpetrators. Clearly, she didn’t think she was in danger when she got into the car, or she would not have gone with them. Yet, not one, but multiple teenagers sexually assaulted her and the incident was so traumatic that she didn’t even realise it was rape till she spoke to trained social workers and counsellors a few days after the event.

There is a clear co-relation between the two incidents. Both involve teenagers- one female and five male. In both, there was some element of consent on the part of the girl, but the boys presumed that since she had consented to a bit, they had the right to do much more. The emotions portrayed by the girl in the advertisement would have been exactly the same as the girl experienced in the real life incident. The only difference is in the real life incident, the boys finished what was implied in the in advertisement.

The advertisement didn’t spring from a vacuum. It was conceptualised by someone in the creatives department of the advertising agency, approved by account management department and presented to the client. The client approved it. The script was written, the actors hired, the film shot and edited. Someone in the television network must have the seen the movie before airing it. Clearly a long chain of individuals, none of whom thought to call the advertisement out for the allusions that promote gang rape.

That the client, the advertising agency and the network knew exactly what they were implying is clear from the other advertisement for the same product. A young woman is pushing a shopping cart in a supermarket when four men come behind her, stand menacingly and say, “We are four and there is only one. So who will take the shot?”, before grabbing the bottle of deo and spraying it on themselves. A supermarket with it’s CCTV coverage should be a safe place for women, but there is palpable fear on the face of the woman- she is clearly terrified of what might happen to her when she steps out of the supermarket weighed down with shopping bags.

Both the advertisements certainly propagate the idea of gang rape. They play on the paralysing fear that grips women whenever they find themselves alone surrounded by men. In both advertisements, the remark of “taking a shot” is addressed to the woman, even if it eventually turns out that it is directed at a bottle of deo. The advertisements normalise making women feel unsafe and insecure, and they create an environment where men do not think it is wrong to “take a shot at a woman”.

In the real life case of the 17 year old who was gang raped, a section of people are indulging in victim blaming- why was she at the party, why was she alone, why did she get into a car with four boys, what was her relationship with them- but none of those questions are valid. Yes, she got into a car with four boys, but she could have been sexually assaulted in a cab also. Even if she was sharing a cab with another girl, one of them would have got off first, and the other would have been alone in the cab with a (male) driver. Even if she was in a relationship with one of the boys, that certainly does not give the other boys the right to sexually assault her. (Importantly, also, the age of consent for women is 18, which is a fact that many couples indulging in consensual sex ignore.)

That the gang rape happened in the manner in which it did is proof that the culture of rape has been normalised to an extent that men think it is their right to make suggestive remarks at women, and to sexually harass them. Consent is something that is unknown to popular media- countless movies, TV shows, music videos, and plays have driven home the message that ‘No’ doesn’t mean ‘no’, ‘No’ only means ‘try harder’

After receiving complaints from netizens, including many Bollywood personalities, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) took note and wrote, "Thank you for tagging us. The ad is in serious breach of the ASCI Code and is against public interest. We have taken immediate action and notified the advertiser to suspend the ad, pending investigation." Despite this, the advertisements are continuing to be aired.

While we know that the advertisements will eventually be taken down, the damage has already been done. One 17-year old has come forward and registered a case of gang-rape. How many more have suffered the same fate, but haven’t come forward we will never know. Until equally strong measures are taken to counter this narrative in unequivocal terms, women will continue living under the fear of sexual harassment or worse.

 

Is Women's Sport more accepting of homosexuality?

[First published in Women's Web]

“Our warmest congratulations to Katherine Brunt & Nat Sciver who got married over the weekend” tweeted England Cricket, the official home of all of the England Cricket teams on Twitter. The two all-rounders who were a part of the team that lifted the World Cup in 2017 and reached the Finals this year, have been a couple for over 5 years, and announced their engagement before the pandemic struck and derailed their plans for a 2020 wedding.

While there were a large number of people who were genuinely happy for the couple, a large part of subcontinent Twitter, quite predictably, had a meltdown. Comments ranged from the innocuous sounding, “both got married on the same day? Where are the husbands?” to the “How they'll have babies?” which presumes that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. There were comments which could have been just smart word play- “Please tell me there was a slip cordon for the bouquet” or “Well, someone certainly bowled a maiden over” (though technically both did)- or may have hinted at worse.

But a large majority of comments (thankfully hidden) were extremely homophobic. The couple were deemed “ugly” and their sex called “unnatural”. They were told that they were sinners and that they would go to hell. There were the comments on how they wanted to convert innocent children to homosexuality, and of how parents should be extremely careful before letting their young daughters play a sport. There were also the comments which spoke of how both of them needed a few nights with “proper” man to sort them out.

This, unfortunately, is the kind of hate all homosexual couples attract. Though homosexuality has been legalised in India, it is still frowned upon and common notion is that it is something that can be “put right”. Lesbian couples, particularly, attract a very different kind of hate from cis-het men who deliberately misconstrue it as “rejecting men”, and also secretly worry about how their position might be eroded if women band together and shut them out.

The subcontinent is known for its homophobia, so it is not a surprise that there are no openly lesbian cricketers from these countries. However, England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have a large number of openly lesbian or bisexual cricketers. It is hard to believe that it was barely a decade back, in 2013, that the Australian cricketing great Alex Blackwell became the first person to come out as openly lesbian. At that time, she had been dating England’s Lynsey Askew for several years, and they got married to each other in 2015.

Following Blackwell coming out as lesbian, many other cricketers did too, so much that senior women cricketers were accused of predatory behaviour, and the presumption became that if you played international cricket there was a high probability that you were either lesbian or bisexual. This, however, is just another manifestation of homophobia. You can no longer “convert” a person to homosexuality than you can “cure” a person of homosexuality.

While there are many lesbian couples in international cricket- Marizanne Kapp and Dane van Niekerk (South Africa), Amy Satterthwaite and Lea Tahuhu (New Zealand), Lizelle Lee and Tanja Cronje (South Africa), Maddy Green and Liz Perry (New Zealand), Rachael Haynes and Leah Poulton (Australia) to name just a few- there are no gay couples playing international cricket.

Football throws up similar statistics. In the 2018 World Cup, none of the players identified as gay. However in the 2019 World Cup, 38 of the 552 women identified as either lesbian or bisexual. Is this because professional sport is an attractive career for lesbians, or because professional sportswomen who are homosexual feel more comfortable coming out? People who have tried to study this say that it is more likely the latter. Homosexuality is frowned upon in male locker rooms, but not in female locker rooms. Heterosexual women cricketers have said, “I don’t feel uncomfortable walking into a change room knowing that most of my teammates are lesbians.” With men, however, there is the pressure to conform to the heterosexual norm, which could be the reason for the marked difference in numbers of homosexual and bisexual sportspersons in team sports. The fact that there is only one (retired) international level cricketer who openly identifies as gay might also be a factor in ensuring people who are bisexual or gay remain in the closet.

 

How will they have babies, is a question easily answered. Adoption is an obvious route that lesbian couples can take, but IVF makes it possible for them to have a biological child also. After New Zealand cricketers Amy Satterthwaite and Lea Tahuhu got married in 2017, Satterthwaite who always wanted to have a child chose to become pregnant. The couple welcomed their first child in January 2020, and in the process, she also became the first cricketer to benefit from New Zealand’s maternity leave provision which allowed her to earn her retainer without needing to train or play with the team. The baby travelled with the couple to the World Cup, where, in their words, the baby had “15 aunties” who were happy to pitch in with babysitting duties. All of this points to greater inclusion and acceptance of lesbian couples in the New Zealand team, which will hopefully percolate to other teams too.

Are we likely to see a lesbian cricketer come out about her sexuality in India? It is only recently that homosexuality has been legalised in India, and even today homosexual marriages are not allowed. More importantly, society does not accept homosexuality, and even people who have come out to their families do not talk about it openly. In such a climate, a cricketer could also legitimately fear that if she comes out as homosexual, it may affect her chances of being selected for the team. However, with athlete Dhuti Chand coming out about her sexuality, the conversation has started, and one hopes that in time, it will spread to team sports too. However, a lot of headway needs to be made in accepting homosexuality before that day will come.

One can hope that one day, an Indian will write a post similar to this one-

“Disgraceful, shocking & plain wrong! What self respecting cricketers get married during the season? Seriously though two England greats. Congratulations”

A couple falling in love and getting married is a wonderful thing. We should cherish that.