Feminism and Hindu nationalism

This is part III of my writeups on gender and hindu nationalism. By no means is this comprehensive. But I think I've covered the major issues at stake. Comments, additions and ideas are most welcome. As I keep warning you, I might go off blogging for a while, especially once my exams begin next Tuesday..so do be patient. I've also realised that even if I do enable comments for everyone on blogspot, it only allows to comment anonymously (and you must ignore the 'This blog does not allow anonymous comments' line). So please add your name at the bottom when you do comment. Thanks!

The feminist movement first clashed with the Hindu nationalists in the aftermath of the Roop Kanwar incident. As Amrita Chhachhi says, a number of feminists were horrified by the women marching against them claiming that it was their 'right' to commit sati. Feminists were accused of being deracinated, Western educated middle class women, completely divorced from the reality of most Indians' lives.

The next clash that came was related to the Shah Bano case. I've argued in an earlier post that all that Rajiv did was to empower the more fundamentalist elements through the Muslim Women's Bill, in a piece of legislation that was blatantly against the interests of Muslim women. Now in the recent past the BJP/NDA has demanded that Shah Bano was an 'appeasement' of the minorities (never mind the fact that it pandered to the most fundamentalist of Muslim sentiment, and inconvenienced more Muslims than it helped) and that India needs a Uniform Civil Code. Actually, the idea in itself was not new. Many feminist organizations had been demanding a Uniform Civil Code (India has a uniform criminal code, but religion based civil codes apply for issues such as property disputes, marriage/divorce, inheritance and adoption) which would remove various inequities against women that almost all the current civil codes contain. But the BJP has hijacked the agenda and argued for a Uniform Civil Code, that would then, presumably include, a pro-Hindu tilt. This put many feminists in a quandary, and many withdrew their support to the Uniform Civil Code.

Personally, I think the UCC is a fantastic idea. Laws in India are very anti-women in indeed. And please ignore those men who say that rape laws can be used to victimize men...how many Indian women would actually stand up and say that she's been raped only for vengeance. If you merely compare numbers- you'll probably find that there are far more cases of rape being unreported, because we don't have the structure to deal with it, rather than women misusing rape law. And even the judiciary is complicit in this. In the famous Mathura case, a 16 year old tribal girl, who was raped by policemen saw her rapists go scott free because the judges felt that since she had a 'boyfriend' and therefore had 'habitual sexual intercourse', she was probably lying about being raped. When Mathura argued that the policemen had frightened her into almost passive submission, the judges ruled that this constituted willing sexual intercourse.

Anyway, rape laws fall within the sphere of criminal, not civil law. But even her, as Mary Roy's lifelong crusade has shown, there are gross inequalities. And these will only be removed if women's organizations can re-hijack the UCC agenda from fundamentalist forces, create their own agenda and space and fight for a uniform code that is fair to women, rather than being biased towards any religion. But since almost no women's organization that I know of, is willing to take up this fight, I fear this might either remain a pipe dream, or if ever enforced will have a communal tinge to it.