Culture Worship by Indian Feminists is Killing India’s Women
In three generations, India has systematically targeted & annihilated more than 50 million women from its population – a number which constitutes the sum total of the populations of Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Portugal put together. In 20 years India will have methodically annihilated 20% of women from its population. They have been eliminated through the rampant practices of female feticide, female infanticide, killing of girls under 5 years through intentional neglect, dowry murders, “honor” killings, and endangerment of women through multiple and forced female fetal abortions.
http://genderbytes.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/culture-centrism-in-indias-feminist-movement-is-hurting-indias-women/
Why Kali Won't Rage: A Critique of Indian Feminism.
by Rita Banerji, Calcutta, India
http://genderbytes.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/culture-centrism-in-indias-feminist-movement-is-hurting-indias-women/
Why Kali Won't Rage: A Critique of Indian Feminism.
by Rita Banerji, Calcutta, India
1/ Two unique factors
distinguish Indian feminism from the feminism in the west. One, it
rejects the notion of a deep-rooted, tradition-fed gender hierarchy in India,
defined, dominated and exploited by men. Secondly – it does not ascribe
the abysmal state of women in India to longstanding patriarchal oppression, and
hence sees no reason to rage against it. While to western feminists, these
factors might seem oddly perplexing, there is within Indian feminism a
rationalization of these outlooks.
2/ Suma Chitnis in Feminism
In India, a compilation of “some of the most influential writings on the
concept of feminism in India” (Chaudhuri 1), describes how once, while
attending an international seminar on gender roles in Canada, she was acutely
conscious of the fact that while the western feminists there launched an “angry
tirade” against the patriarchies in their countries, she felt no such anger
towards the patriarchy in her own country. She goes on to elaborate on
Indian women’s general “disapproval of [the western] feminist anger” and their
“confused reaction to the [western] feminist emphasis on patriarchy […]
particularly on men as the principal oppressors” (Chitnis 8-10).
3/ Chitnis muses that
this might be because history and culture render, “the women’s issues different
in India from the issues in the west.” She points out that historically
India has “always been [a] highly hierarchical [society]” with the hierarchies
maintained through customs and social behavioral codes. She also notes
that unlike the west where individuality and personal freedom are emphasized,
Indians cherish values like submission to superiors, “self-denial” and
“sublimating the [individual] ego.” In other words, Indian society is
sociologically and psychologically acclimatized to the notion of a stratified
social order, and what may appear as gender hierarchy to an outsider, is simply
regarded as cultural observances by Indians. Also, what westerners may read
as a forfeiting of the individual self is regarded by Indian women as a
prioritizing of family and community over the individual. Hence they see it as
making a choice in favor of the larger good.
4/ Chitnis further
justifies this perspective of Indian feminism by arguing that after
Independence the Indian constitution “granted women political status fully
equal to that of men. [And] thus Indian women did not have to bear the kind of
injustices that women in the West had to suffer because of the […] gap between
political ideals and realities.” She contends that since Independence in 1947,
the Indian government has through its series of Five Year Plans provided for
the “welfare of women” such that if countries are compared in terms of legal
provisions for women, India “is likely to emerge as one of the most progressive
countries.” Chitnis feels this is one of the main reasons why Indian women are
not as agitated as their western counterparts. She concludes that Indian women
“see that the legal safeguards and equal opportunity facilities that are being
fought for [by western feminists] […] are already available to them in
principle” (Chitnis 9, 11, 17).