V for vote, W for women

Look! What have we here? Ah, a votebank. So the suave finance minister has been eyeing the Indian woman surreptitiously, eh? Women as a votebank.

And why not? In spite of our determined efforts to weed them out — through female foeticide, infanticide, malnutrition, intense neglect, dowry murders, honour killings and other such gallant activities — women still make up about half our population. The finance minister has every reason to cast covetous glances at these lovely ladies. And behind him is a frantic government equally focused on furtive looks at 600 million women, hoping to swing to safety in next year’s polls by clinging to their apron strings.
And that is precisely where I have a problem. The concept of women as a votebank is as curious for us as the idea of women having apron strings. Concepts that work in the West may not work here. There is a certain gender equality in the West that allows women to be treated as one cohesive bloc, a certain similarity in their needs, aspirations, demands. There is a certain acceptance in their societies of women’s basic rights and privileges. These underlie other demographic details like race, class, ethnicity, age, the urban/rural divide or the married/unmarried divide, for example.
Not so in India. Where several centuries and several cultures co-exist and make diverse, conflicting demands on women. Where you can kill women branded as a witch or for not bearing children and also sell vagina whitening and tightening creams. Where the needs of an illiterate, poverty-stricken, dalit village woman are dramatically different from the needs of an educated, middle-class, upper-caste city woman. Where a tribal woman in a remote area shares very little with a high-flying woman professional in cosmopolitan India. There is hardly any similarity, let alone unanimity, in the needs and aspirations of Indian women around the country. Religion, caste, clan, community, class, ethnicity, region, habitat and other demographic separators make it impossible to even approximate a one-size-fits-all platform for women. And our deep-seated prejudices, ignorance and a deliberate disinterest in the other makes it impossible for us to act or think as a harmonious whole.
When you lump half of such a diverse population together and treat it as one unit the vulnerable lose out. I fear that in wooing women as a votebank, the demands of the empowered will take precedence and the less empowered will gradually be further marginalised. In this giant game of tokenism and electoral politics, most of government attention and funds will focus on improving the lives of urban, upper/middle class, possibly upper-caste women. Which is fine, but not at the cost of the further silencing of the voiceless who may be given stuff that they neither need nor care for, while their genuine needs are ignored.
Take this Budget. It has allotted `97,134 crore for schemes to benefit women. One highlight: `1,000 crore for a women’s-only bank. This public sector bank would be operated by women, for women, to address “gender-related aspects of empowerment and financial inclusion”. Excellent. But wouldn’t making all banks across the country more gender-sensitive and woman-focused work better? And give more access than just one women’s bank?
Besides, having more women’s toilets, for example, would help even more. Having toilets in village homes, schools, on the roadside and in workplaces would contribute immensely to women’s overall wellbeing. So would having more women’s doctors in rural areas. Improving the abysmal conditions of women’s shelters, and homes for children, beggars, elderly women, widows and other vulnerable women and girls would help too. Even if these do not directly boost the economy as loans to women entrepreneurs might.
And for women’s security — perhaps putting more police on the streets would help? And having street lights that work? A more accountable police may be nice. Maybe it’s time for the extensive reforms that several committees and even the Supreme Court have been suggesting for decades. Perhaps a Nirbhaya police reforms?
But we are scared of upsetting the apple cart. See how the government rejected the Justice Verma Committee’s recommendation that marital rape be treated as a criminal offence. The dear government was shocked at the idea that a husband can be accused of raping his wife. But marriage presupposes consent, no? Criminalising marital rape would destroy traditional Indian values and the very institution of marriage, it gasped. Now, a parliamentary review committee has accepted that absurdly regressive view.
This inability to differentiate between rape and consensual sex and prioritising an abusive marriage over a woman’s wellbeing reveals the deep sexism and patriarchal prejudices that govern us. Given this mindset, I seriously believe that treating Indian women as a votebank will be a meaningless exercise. Like gifting pre-poll saris and pressure cookers, instead of genuine tools of empowerment.
If you seriously want to woo women, throw out netas charged with crimes against women. All our political parties, including the Congress and the BJP, field candidates accused of rape, kidnapping, molestation etc. According to reports, 369 of our current MPs, MLAs and other politicians have been charged with rape and other crimes against women. We, even women, vote for them. Because part of being a good bharatiya nari is that you do what the men of the household ask.
No, being a votebank may not help. Because we never come together fair and square. Even the massive protests following the horrendous attack on Nirbhaya, our most widespread women’s protests in decades, remained largely an urban, upper-middle class, upper-caste affair. It did not speak on behalf of hundreds of dalit women who are often killed as horrendously by upper-caste men. Like Surekha and Priyanka Bhotmange. It did not demand an end to similar sexual torture by the police and security forces on tribal women — like Soni Sori — in “disturbed” areas. It remained limited to privileged women’s safety concerns in cosmopolitan cities. As a votebank we may help pamper the most powerful and protected.
Besides, let’s not forget that women are not that different from other, superior, human beings. They too have brains that usually work, capabilities that could be honed, interests that could be encouraged, minds that could decide. Focusing on their human rights and opportunities may be more constructive than launching yet another sop-opera.

The writer is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted at: sen@littlemag.com [2]