Three cheers for the 'weaker' gender
Prof. A.C. Bose
Though never given a chance I have always looked upon myself as the fittest person to address any gathering of women on the Women's Day. This is primarily because after 79 summers I have ceased to have faith in a late 20th century myth that men and women are equal. I am firmly of the opinion that women are superior. For the last few thousands of years it is only the men who had indulged in fighting, killing not only their male opponents but also thousands of innocent women and children, burning down cities, and leaving a trail of destruction and desolation. None has so far accused women of indulging in massacres and mayhems. One can go round the prisons of the world to find that women constitute hardly 10% of all the inmates, while still fewer of them have been accused to any serious heinous crime.
In most Western countries women constitute around only 25% of the care drivers in their streets, but in less than 10% of accidents are they usually hauled up as the accused. Even at home it is their men folk not the women who indulge in domestic violence, and as officers they are believed to less corrupt and more sincere toward their job. So, by almost all the indices for judging goodness, women are superior. Then, why should they be regarded as the weaker gender occasionally deserving special protection or reservation? Is it only because usually they are weaker and more vulnerable than men, physically, physicologically, and, because of their commitments and social conditioning, also emotionally? So what? In terms of the aforesaid criteria a doctor is much weaker than a dacoit, and a professor weaker than a porter. Yet, neither of them is referred to as belonging to any weaker group. Then, why is an exception made for women even when they are so important and better than men? (Is not without women childhood inconceivable, youth unenjoyable, and old age unbearable?)
This is essentially because as human society evolved through wars, fires, famines, and floods security increasing became the major concern of our specie, and for obvious reasons women gradually left power and duty of protection with men, and concentrated almost exclusively on their biological duty of bearing and rearing the human specie by ensuring peace for them while they took the path of progress. Unfortunately, for the above reason, women came to be viewed as powerless and weak who could be ignored, exploited, and dispensed with. It is no certificate of commendation for our man-dominated civilsation that it values strength more than sobriety, sweetness, and sacrifice--the ability to protect and to punish more than those who embody love, care, service, and sacrifice. In short, goodness is at a discount.
One is not valued or taken seriously as long as one is incapable of harming you or helping you, in a big way. Hence the neglect of women almost from the day she is born. They are usually respected in traditional societies as mothers, aunts, and grannies. But, that is usually as long as they do not assert themselves. What they almost always miss is power, which unfortunately in human society determines ones status. Therefore, if we are concerned with giving women their due, obviously in the over all interest of us all, then one must start with empowering them. True, empowerment covers in its sweep many other factors, like education, skill, economic independence, equal share with others in political power, and acceptance by the society in general that they are equal to men in the jobs they chose.
In the past it used to be argued that, since women in general are less educated, less ambitious, and usuallyless ready for out-door life like men, their claim to equality should wait till they catch up with men is most fields. They, the male chauvinists, shout from the roof-top, "first deserve, then desire". However, the experience of most west European countries, and of Britain in particular, suggest that those, usually men, in power seldom take serious interest in educating or training women or, for that matter, any social group as long as it does not pay them economically or politically. When the 19th century industrial revolution suddenly widened the labour market women were sought by different industries in large numbers. But, neither they nor the poor workers, in general, were taken seriously.
Little effort was made to educate the common worker or to train them for skilled jobs. However, the entire attitude of the society changed as soon as large numbers of the so-called poor were politically empowered by the Second Reform Bill of 1867. Since their votes came to be valued the new political slogan that was coined was "Educate our masters". Still, for years women in general were neglected because, as a rule, they remained without any vote till the Fourth reform Bill of 1918.
In short, the lesson is that whether they be women or scheduled castes, or tribes, few take serious interest in their welfare as long they remain politically empowered. Political parties started taking interest in Dailts, Jan Yatis, and now in OBCs only after their electoral importance was realised. That is why it is imperative to ensure that many more women are seen in different legislatures and other positions of power so that their interests are attended to, their work, both within and outside their homes, is valued, and their views are taken seriously like those of their menflok. That is why reservation of seats in legislatures for women is essential for their empowerment in whose absence their achievements in other fields are delayed or remain under-valued.
Much to our shame, however, not only is South Asia, along with West Asia, behind all other regions in extending to women the equality they demand and deserve, Mera Bharat Mahan is behind most of our neighbours in this field. Though we look down upon them as politically and economically behind us both Pakistan and Bangladesh are way ahead of us in having many more women in their national legislatures. While in India only 11% of our M.Ps are women they constitute 22% of the total (17.5% is the statutory minimum) in Pakistan and 19% in Bangladesh. Nepal has already prescribed 33% seat reservation for women. In fact, the Asian average is 18.5% of women in national legislatures. Only Sri Lanka, though otherwise more advanced than us economically and educationally, has women only in 6% of seats most sub-Saharan countries have a better record of female representation in their national legislatures. For instance, in South Africa the figure is 45%, in Angola it is 37%, and in Sehagal it is 40%. Rawanda is the only country in the world where women out-number men in their parliament with 56% of seats they occupy. Advanced countries, like Norway, Sweden, Holland, and Argentina, have more than 40% of seats occupied by women, while a minimum of 30% has come to be accepted world-wide as the desired proposition. By now 21 nations have crossed this benchmark, and most of them done to by adopting, either legally or informally, reserving seats for the required number of women legislators.
While we want India to flow suit, at least, to catch up with other Asian countries in empowering women it will be appreciated if similar reservations are also kept apart for women in many other job sectors, as well. That will not only infuse other women with the desired ambition and self-confidence, but will slowly accustom men in general to accept women as welders of authority and, hence, their equals. Let liberty, dignity, and opportunities be equally shared by all Indians irrespective of ones caste, class, creed, colour, and gender.
(The author is retired Head of Department of History in Jammu University).