Sab Kaam Mummy Kyon Karti Hai?

Have y’all been seeing the new Moov ad and been as intrigued by it as I am? No? Ok, first go have a look here, and then you can read what I have to say.

For those who can’t follow Hindi, this is how it goes. Young boy sees mother struggling to cope with a heavy load of groceries and rushes to help her. Father sees this and runs down the stairs - focus on why his child is doing such heavy work. Then, son asks, “Papa, sab kaam Mummy kyon karti hai?” (Papa, why does Mummy do all the work?)

I found it interesting that finally, there is a brand that chooses to focus on something real in women’s lives - that housework can be drudgery and housework can be tiring. That it’s not all about women overjoyed to be serving the best parathas to their family or rejoicing at having saved the two rupees on that washing powder or superwoman holding up career and home like Hanuman carrying the Sanjeevini. And, it’s also interesting that this view is presented through the eyes of the kid, who sees it for what it really is, Mummy sab kaam kyon karti hai?

Now, camera flashes to the faces of two other women who’ve been shown before - one drying clothes and another serving tea. I wasn’t clear what this is meant to be; neighbours eavesdropping on the conversation? Other women in the family who are actually the ones being (subtly) chided for not helping in? If it is the first, then it’s a nuclear family, and it is really Papa who is not pulling his weight. If the second, well, then that’s an easy way to let the men off, isn’t it, and put the blame back where it belongs, on other lazy women.

In any case, the ad doesn’t dwell on it. So, we have caring husband bringing out the Moov and a voiceover tell us that it’s good to use Moov, lest, Aap ka dard apnon ka dard na ban jaaye. (So that your pain doesn’t become a pain for your loved ones).

It was too good to last of course. Homemaker couldn’t possibly use Moov to make herself feel alright; there has to be a ‘family’ pay-off in it. I wonder if the ad could have still been as effective and more women-friendly if they had atleast shown the husband picking up a bag at the end rather than the woman using Moov so that she can be a martyr to housework again? I think society is changing and the days when women would gasp at the husband doing household chores is gone, well, going slowly. Perhaps marketers actually don’t see this change, or just want to keep it to the most conservative level and play safe.

(In other news, the fiery tamilpunkster is back after a long break. And read Mrinal Pande’s column in the Mint earlier this week, Women still unhappy both in India and Bharat, where she talks about the challenges that working women, especially those from poor families face.)

Tags: indian advertising, indian society, indian women, Moov ad

Marriages, Live-ins and the Money involved

Reading Nita’s latest post on legalising live-in relationships  got me thinking about this whole concept of marriage and financial arrangements. First, the story so far. In January 2008, the Supreme Court of India ruled that live-in relationships (if stable over a certain period) were as legal as marriages, and the children of such relationships would have the same rights as those of married couples. As Nita says, Since then the National Commission for Women has requested that benefits such as maintenance also be extended to the female partner in a live-in relationship, “if the man deserts her”.

I think it’s important to take a step back and understand why maintenance benefits for women were instituted in the first place. Firstly, until the 1970s, working women in India (in organised jobs) were a rarity. Man = Breadwinner, Woman = Homemaker was the accepted equation. Most women therefore had not a penny to call their own. Secondly, even as women entered the workforce, few of them continued their careers up to retirement age, unlike men. Many women stopped (and continue to stop) working when they have children, or atleast take a break for many years. This leaves with with no financial independence, or earning less than they could have, as they lose seniority or take part-time, lower-paying jobs. Where the unorganized sector is concerned, many women work, but these jobs tend to be impermanent and low paying. Here too, women would find it difficult to improve their qualifications, say, by studying or learning a new higher-paying skill, because household and child-rearing duties are still mostly theirs. Also, by tradition, they do not work in relatively higher paying areas such as carpentry or masonry. So, when a marriage breaks up, Maintenance is therefore a compensation to the woman for the loss of economic independence and also in a sense, payment for the valuable social services such as taking care of home, children and the elderly that most women provide. Again, maintenance may also be needed because custody of small children may be given to the mother, and as a single parent, she may find it difficult to work for some time.

While a few marriages would not fall in this category, I think just a look around will suffice to show that most Indian marriages would still follow this traditional pattern. I don’t believe that women are eternally entitled to maintenance; the day women stop being the automatic care-giver at home, the equations may change. But society may take a long way to get there. Until then, maintenance is fair compensation. (Though I can’t stand the NCW’s ‘desertion’ talk; what, haven’t they heard of divorce or separation by mutual consent?!)

But, what about live-in relationships? Are the premises the same? For one thing, live-in relationships where two single people decide to live together, are still a rarity in India, notwithstanding the media hype. Such relationships are likely to happen only when both partners are financially independent; few women are likely to get into such a relationship when they don’t have their own money. In the Indian context, I think many long-term live-in relationships will eventually end in marriage, succumbing to pressure from family. But what of the small percentage who don’t? Where kids are involved, women may still take the larger share of responsibility. But otherwise, where women are completely independent, and in a sense, both parties have made a conscious choice not to get into a traditional marriage, is not maintenance again succumbing to the same premise of man, independent, woman, dependent? Infact, this is true not just of live-ins, but of some modern marriages too.

On the other hand, certainly, women who have compromised on their own career (or never had one to begin with) need this protection. And they will be the majority. And it is not fair to discriminate among them, based on whether they have a marriage certificate or not, if in every other way, they have been living as partners. For a small number of high earning and fully independent women, perhaps it is not as relevant, but then, since laws will need to be made keeping in mind the good of the largest number of people, I think I am more or less in favour of women in long-term relationships, whether marriage or live-ins, being entitled to maintenance.

What I find difficult to digest, is such protection being extended to another type of live-ins, which is not really a live-in the Western sense of the word, but what is traditionally called a ’second marriage’. Now, bigamy in India is illegal (except for Muslims, which frankly is ridiculous, and for once, I support the BJP’s demands, for a uniform civil code; it could protect women in many ways). If a woman has been duped into believing that she is the first wife, and is unaware of the man’s first marriage, certainly she deserves all the rights conferred by marriage, and moreover, the man should be prosecuted. But women who enter willingly into such a situation, knowing fully well that the man is already married? I honestly don’t see why they deserve any benefits. Well yes, one can point out any number of extenuating circumstance, but effectively, bigamy is illegal, so I don’t see any someone who knowingly breaks the law should be offered a safety net. So, I think cases of bigamy should be dealt with differently, on a case-by-case and not be clubbed with live-in relationships between single people.   

Overall though, I think as a society, atleast we are making a beginning by admitting that marriage need not be the only form of partnership. While societal acceptance of alternative relationships is very far away, giving them legal sanction is still a good start.

Tags: feminist, indian laws, indian society, indian women, live-in, maintenance in divorce cases, marriage laws

Only the virtuous can cover up

Politicians and political types in my home state of Tamil Nadu are quick to pounce on women for alleged acts of disrespect to Indian culture, with dress codes often being the first line of attack. So, some time ago, we had these self-proclaimed defenders of culture attacking actress Shreya for wearing skimpy attire at an industry function. Never mind that these people (among thousands of others) probably enjoy watching the same actress prance around on screen wearing even less. Oh, because of course, the heroine in Tamizh movies exists only to sing, dance, reveal her body and provide a few jollies to male viewers, so then it’s all ok. But otherwise, our delicate sensibilities are offended. We can’t have it in ‘real life’, you see.

But, in what is probably a first even for good-at-offence-taking politicos, the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), a party that claims to stand for Muslim aspirations, has now taken offence at a woman wearing too much. Yes, you heard that right - there is apparently such a thing as a woman covering up too much - if that woman happens to be soft-porn star Shakeela. Shakeela who attended a court hearing wearing a burkha, was pulled up by this outfit on the grounds that she had no right to wear a burkha since it is the symbol of ‘decent’ Muslim women. (I can’t find an English media reference, but for those who can read Tamizh, there is some info here).

Where do I even start dissing these people? For starters, there is the blithe acceptance of two distinct categories of women - the virtuous ones and the whores. The burkha is meant for the virtuous (who keep themselves shaded from men’s eyes), while the whores, because they have already exposed themselves to the public eye, have no claim to honour left. This dichotomy doesn’t of course take into account the reasons why many women in India take up occupations such as porn or prostitution. Certainly, few women would venture into these occupations, unless compelled by financial necessity.

Even the few women who enter it willingly, what’s so dishonourable about them? Yes, they play a role on screen or in the bedroom, but that’s where it ends. Our prudish attitudes to sex combined with the whore-madonna way of seeing women, makes us condemn them when we should be seeing it as an outcome of a fundamentally unequal world, where women are valued for their bodies more than anything else.

I wonder if the TMMK has issued a similiar condemnation of all the men who frequent Shakeela movies. Surely there must be a percentage of Muslims among them. Why doesn’t the TMMK bar them all from wearing skull caps or going to Friday prayers? But oh no, it’s only the actress who must be blamed - Men of course will just be men, men are not responsible for their actions, men are enticed by ‘loose women’ yada yada yada.

So, the TMMK feels free to say, “This woman, who appears half-naked before lakhs of people for the sake of money now wants to wear a burka when she appears in court; by this, she has angered Muslims”. Apart from the self-righteousness, there seems to be a very real inability to separate an actor’s personal and public life. So what do they expect? That Shakeela should appear half-naked everywhere? Taken to an extreme, do these morons expect Prem Chopra to start raping women or Amitabh Bachchan to spend his days clearing the streets of crime?

Lastly, these goons seem to lack an understanding of something known simply as freedom. What Shakeela wears is no one’s business but her own. No one else has any right to interfere with it. But then, understanding of individual rights has never been strong in India; we are always concerned more with the right of others to take offence.

Tags: indian society, indian women, muslim women, political

Rape and Harassment in India

4 years ago, Australian tourist Emilie Griggs was raped and murdered on her visit to India - infact, before she even had seen anything of the country, on her way out of the airport itself. Yesterday, a Delhi Court sentenced the 2 accused to death, on the basis of forensic and circumstantial evidence. This may of course, not be the end for these heartless criminals; since this was a sessions court, it’s quite likely that they may appeal, and the case go on to the High Court or even the Supreme Court. Still, 4 years of legal proceedings is not a long time by Indian standards- and while I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, I am glad that the court has decided to give the harshest penalty to these scum. Perhaps more judgements like this will create some fear in the minds of such depraved elements? It is too much to hope that harassment and rape of women will stop on any moral grounds, but atleast fear may make some think twice.

Let’s look at some statistics. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, there were 18,359 rape cases registered in the year 2007.  The NCRB records mention that this translates to 4 incidents per lakh of population. I’m not sure if this refers to female population, since most rape cases involve women as victims. While 4 per 100,000 may look not very high (and it isn’t compared to many other countries), we do know that rape cases are chronically under-reported in India.

First, there is the stigma of having been raped. I’ve heard the most sympathetic of people sometimes condemn rape in the harshest terms, and then turn around and provide some explanation as to why this particular victim shouldn’t have been there, at that particular time, on that particular day. Somehow, there is always something the woman did, which led to her being raped. Maybe she was too friendly, maybe she was wearing a short skirt, maybe she was in the wrong locality, maybe she had a drink, hey, maybe, she existed, that was the problem! The ridiculous obsession with virginity, can make young, unmarried women, feel ashamed of having been raped. She may prefer to bury it rather than pursue the culprit in court. Also, family support to pursue a case may not always be available.

Then, as anyone who has tried to file an FIR at a police station for any reason would know, the cops are very reluctant to take on cases that don’t interest them. Often they suggest that both parties settle it among themselves. Finally, there is the headache of seeing the case through in court, often over many years, with no end in sight. Often, no care is taken to ensure the victim’s privacy. She has to get used to seeing her name splashed in print. Many Indian families will consider this a continuing shame. So, it’s reasonable to assume that the 4 in 100,000 figure is quite low. How much lower than reality, is anyone’s guess.

It’s not just rape. I can’t find the 2007 statistics, but the NCRB statistics for 2006 show another 1,64, 765 crimes against women reported - including kidnapping, molestation, harassment, cruelty from husband/ family and importation of girls. These form a total of 8.8% of all reported crimes for that year.

For these crimes to come down (and I’m talking actual numbers here, not these under-reported ones), we need a combination of three things:

• Public Attitudes to women must change : women are not objects to exert power on, nor are men animals who cannot ‘control’ themselves; It is no woman’s responsibility to make men think decently - men can and should do that themselves.
• Better Policing: Sure, it is impossible for the police to be everywhere, but having a better emergency response system may mean that atleast some victims can be saved. The police also have a big role to play in filing cases properly, and collecting evidence before it is damaged or erased.
• Faster and better enforcement of law; Laws against rape and harassment serve both as punishment for the culprit and as deterrent to potential criminals. But the speed at which cases in India move, means that few victims can see them through. The evidence gathering and prosection in many cases, is also shoddy. Are such cases really likely to serve as a deterrent? On the contrary, most culprits perhaps feel quite immune, especially the ones with political power or money behind them.

The first one will be slow in the making - public attitudes to women are still very, very primitive, on the whole. To deserve respect (and protection), women need to fit a whole lot of criteria. Certainly we condemn rape, but in a qualified way. Infact, even in the Emilie Griggs case, the judges seem to have been influenced by the fact that she was 59 years old and ought to have been viewed as a motherly figure. I don’t per se have an issue with respect for older women - in our country, it is common for any older woman to be seen as a mother and accorded that respect; But, did the judge need to make that a criteria for determining the gravity of the case? Surely younger women are no less deserving of respect. The Court of course, I presume, didn’t mean that, but the remarks on older women points to an uncomfortable hierarchy on the respect scale. It is going to take a long time to reach a state, where no woman, irrespective of age, economic status, manner of clothing and past sexual history, will be seen as a victim who ‘asked for it’. I am hopeful however, that we will get there one day. Perhaps the spread of education will play a role in it.

The second one will be slow to come about too. India’s police forces vary enormously across states in their evidence gathering and crime solving abilities; they are also often under-staffed, have poor infrastructure and little training. In some states, issues like militancy, naxalism and terrorist strikes take up most of the police’s resources - crimes against women are not likely to figure high on the radar.

Which leaves us with the Judiciary. In general, many of us repose a lot of faith in the Indian Judiciary. This seems to be the one arm of the administration, that hasn’t yet been totally corrupted - especially at the higher levels. The system is clogged of course, with far too few cases being seen and disposed, and many more awaiting their turn endlessly. Still, high profile cases are often reported extensively by the media, and judgements in the cases could serve as a warning. It won’t deter criminals completely - perhaps nothing will; but judicial aggressiveness in handing out punishments will help.

Depending on the judiciary alone is not a panacea for the sickening crimes against women. In the long term, it is social change that we need. Even if the majority of citizens are decent and law-abiding, there will always be some monsters around. Let’s not support them even a inch, by providing details of why certain women shouldn’t have been there.

Tags: crimes against women, harassment, indian society, rape

60’s Society in Chithira Paavai

A couple of weeks ago, I read the extremely well known Tamizh novel “Chithira Paavai”. This was written by the eminent writer, Akilan, sometime in the 60’s I think. I read novels mainly for their entertainment value - I am one of those terrible readers who is always impatient to know ‘what happens’. However, I enjoyed Chithira Paavai as much for the language and story, as I did for the window it gave me into life in Madras a.k.a Chennai at that time.

As a Madras girl, some of the stuff was really funny to me. Did you know that in the 50s, the road from Madras to Mahabalipuram was still being laid? The ‘regular’ way to travel was by boat, an overnight journey on the Adayar! Today we race to Mahabs on the swanky ECR Road in 2 hours, while the Adayar river is a stinky mess that no one in their right minds would really consider a river.

The price of a ground (a 60*40 sq.ft piece of land) with a built house, in the Mylapore Tank area, was about Rs. 50,000. Shock, shock, naturally - since at the rate Chennai land prices are moving these days, soon a few feet of land is all that will be available for 50K.

Many of the characters, especially the older ones, still view the city suspiciously - their rural roots are still very visible. I suppose this was the time when the first large scale migrations out of agriculture happened. That’s very clearly reflected in the novel. 

Young girls wore saris, and men still wore the traditional veshti (dhoti), some even to college. While I know from my mom that even in the 70s, wearing saris to college was very common, I thought Indian men had already moved to Western clothes.

Some spoilers…

One of the main characters, Anandi agrees to marry a man she feels little for (and dislikes in some ways), because he forces a kiss on her and she has been “spoilt.” Anandi is depicted as the “ideal” Tamizh woman - graceful, soft-spoken, cautious, helpful, sacrificing, ever thoughtful of others. A reflection of the social milieu? The good thing of course is that though she goes through enormous hardship as a result of this marriage, eventually she has the courage to break it up. Commonsense and the emerging feminist stance is showcased through another character, Anandi’s friend Sarada, who declares that it is stupidity to sacrifice oneself to another’s idiocy.

In every sense, I got the feeling that we’ve come a long way.

* When a novel from the 60s could end with such a progressive declaration of Anandi walking out, I wonder why Tamizh films today persist in portraying rapists as just-too-passionate gentlemen who make everything all right when they marry the victim. Grrr.

Tags: books, feminist, indian society, tamil culture, tamil society, tamizh books, tamizh society, women