Beyond Symbols: India's Women Need Real Policies, Action & Change

[Guest guest]

[An editorial in The Hindu of July 1, 2007, on the pending ascendancy

of a woman, Pratibha Patil, as next president of India. - DB]

 

MOVING BEYOND SYMBOLS: Women need real policies, real action and real

change

 

By Kalpana Sharma

 

In the 60th year of India's Independence, a woman becoming the

President of India is symbolically important. So we are told. Leave

aside the politics surrounding the forthcoming election to the post of

President. Forget that electoral mathematics ensures that the United

Progressive Alliance's choice, Mrs. Pratibha Patil, will indeed become

the next President of India. The question before us women is whether

her election to this high office has any meaning for us, whether it

will make any difference to women in India, and whether we should

welcome such a symbolic gesture on the part of the ruling alliance.

 

There is no doubt that symbols do have a place. They hold a meaning if

they are backed by efforts to bring about changes that go beyond

symbols. They are important at times when such a change seems

difficult but is part of a struggle. But if they become an excuse to

postpone what can and should be done, then they become empty symbols.

Uneven progress

 

Sixty years after Independence, it is true that the lives of millions

of women in India have been transformed. They are now more educated,

many of them have skills and economic independence, many have reached

high positions and entered careers their mothers could never have

dreamed of. But there are also millions who remain as badly off as

their mothers, women who have no education, no life skills that can

pull them out of poverty, no access to decent health care, often not

even a roof over their heads.

 

For these women, such symbols have no meaning. They need real

policies, real action, real change. They need to see and believe that

a free India will also mean they can dream of a different life, one

that is not crushed under the burden of unrelieved poverty. They need

to know that their children have a future where they can aspire for a

better existence. They need to hear that their daughters will be able

to survive and be valued as human beings.

 

Instead of holding sms polls on television on such issues, it would be

instructive for the media to talk to the women who have lost their

husbands to the spiral of death that has taken the lives of so many

farmers in Vidarbha, to the women of Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur who

live each day under the shadow of violence, to the women living in the

slums and pavements of Mumbai where the monsoon rains bring with them

another kind of hell. Ask them whether a woman as President means

anything, whether they even know that such an eventuality is imminent.

Why now?

 

If symbols are considered that important, then the other question to

ask is why has it taken 60 years before the idea of having a woman as

President has finally struck our politicos? Surely, in a country where

women have played a central role in the struggle for freedom, where we

have had icons like Sarojini Naidu and Sucheta Kripalani, to name just

two, we did not have to wait this long to find a suitable candidate

for President.

 

Of course, we know that Mrs. Patil's name was pulled out of the hat

when no agreement was possible on other male candidates. The " woman "

aspect was merely the spin given to a clever political ploy that

achieved the immediate goal of upstaging the opposition and getting

support from the allies of the Congress Party.

 

When it comes to real power sharing, the reality is that this is just

not happening. The Women's Reservation Bill, for instance, has still

not been passed by Parliament. Whatever its shortcomings, this Bill

represents an effort at creating avenues for meaningful power sharing

at the very top, in Parliament rather than just at the panchayat and

municipal level. But mysteriously, despite promises and pro-women

rhetoric by political parties, this Bill never seems to make it to the

statute books.

 

REAL POWER SHARING

 

One could argue that some women in India are powerful and that we

should not complain about power sharing. Congress President Sonia

Gandhi, for instance, wields tremendous power in government and in

politics. But apart from her, where are the women holding important

portfolios in government? One Sonia Gandhi, or even a Mayawati who

stands out for her remarkable electoral victory in the recent Uttar

Pradesh elections, does not mean women have a share in political power

and decision-making. If women can head banks and corporations, why do

we not have women who run important ministries, such as Defence, Home,

Finance, Commerce, Agriculture and even Human Resource Development? In

60 years, not a single woman has made it to these ministries. Are

women only competent to hold ceremonial positions?

 

Indian women have had enough of symbols. A token Dalit, a token

tribal, a token Muslim, a token woman — those days are gone when these

would satisfy or make a difference. We need to make the kind of

changes that will result in real power sharing with those who have

been excluded and marginalised. And that includes women.

 

SOURCE: © Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu. July 1, 2007. Moving beyond

symbols by Kalpana Sharma. More than symbols, women need real

policies, real action and real change.

URL: http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/07/01/stories/2007070150070300.htm