The Cyclical Nature of Patriarchy: The Upper Institutions in India

I. Introduction

An Indian daughter chooses to focus on her education after high school, instead of dropping out to start a family. She is told that an ‘achhi beti’ does not act this way. An Indian wife chooses to work instead of staying home after her marriage. She is told that an ‘achhi biwi’ does not act this way. An Indian mother employs a nanny to focus on her career after childbirth. She is told that an ‘achhi maa’ does not act this way.

It was B. R. Ambedkar who once said that the progress of a country can be measured by the progress its women have made. Taking into consideration this mindset – a patriarchal mindset - that Indians are stuck in even today, how far have we come as per Ambedkar’s standards?

In this paper, I seek to provide answers for the same question, by delineating the trajectory of this patriarchal mindset, its impact on contemporary Indian society and its perpetuation via policy making and judicial bodies.

What is Patriarchy?

Patriarchy can be understood as a form of social organization within which cultural and institutional values and patterns accept, support and reproduce the domination of women (and younger men) by older or more powerful men². However, in contemporary society, sociologists are more likely to accept patriarchy as system that contributes to the cultural, social and economic superiority or hegemony of men.

The Origins and Development of Patriarchy

In India, the roots of patriarchy can be traced to the development of the caste system. While the status of men and women in hunter-gatherer societies were largely equal, with the introduction of the caste system – the Rig Veda, the Manusmriti – Brahmanical Patriarchy, a term first coined by Uma Chakravarti³, was developed⁴.

With its development, women came to be considered the gatekeepers of the caste system - a fact juxtaposed against their alleged, insatiable desire for copulation required men to assert their dominance and keep them in ‘control’ for their purity corresponded with the image of their men. It was the onset of puberty that marked the transition of the innocent girl into this ‘sex hungry monster’, and hence, pre-pubescent child marriages became one of the ways to control women, while another method involved the idealization of the ‘good Indian wife’ like Sita, Arundhati and Savitri. This restricted the thought processes of women by indoctrinating them to be chaste and pure. The entire female existence revolved around men, without whom their presence was ‘surplus’⁵ and hence, was to be disposed of – an idea which gave rise to the practice of Sati. Apart from getting rid of the ‘additional’ female, Sati additionally ensured that after a woman’s husband died, she could not ‘rebel’ and taint the system; she remained devoted to her husband all her life. This perspective of the ‘additional female’ is also visible in the practice of female infanticide – where it is a problem nipped in the bud.

The aforementioned molded a woman who was socio-economically dependent on a male and remained confined to the domestic sphere.

The Marxist approach⁶ to patriarchy was, however, more economic in nature. Engels argued that with the development of private property – men were desperate to hold on to their power, to pass it on to their children and in their attempt to assert the same, they confined women to the home which was the cause of their economic dependency.

The status of women only worsened with the expansion of the Mughal empire to India – women were enslaved or married into Muslim homes. Female infanticide was at an all-time high, while Akbar and Humayun failed at all their attempts to prohibit Sati. This brought the state of women to the worst it had ever been in India, when the British Raj entered the nation. The first attack on the existence of women, came when Warren Hastings established the Hindu texts as the sole legal authority, in 1772. While these texts had earlier been somewhat flexible and did leave the interpretation up to those who chose to follow it - primarily including the upper caste Indians, it now applied to all classes of women. This situation was exacerbated by the economic exploitation and depletion of the country, as the country was deindustrialized – it caused a collapse in the indigenous industries that the few, lower class women - who had the opportunity to work - were indulged in. Thus, the image of a meek women requiring a ‘big, strong man’ which is the root of the patriarchy can be traced back to ancient India.

As for the post-independence period – it was the colonial experience and the involvement of women in the independence or the nationalist movement which played a formative influence in facilitating the post-independence Women’s movement, bringing the legal position of women to level higher than it was in several western countries.

This was done in the form of the Indian Constitution of 1947, which incorporated the Fundamental Rights, in an attempt to end discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, color and sex. It mandated the states to secure to all citizens-men and women-equality, the right to education and to adequate means of livelihood, while women were provided full political rights – to vote, to contest elections and enter into administrative services. Additionally, several sets of legislation were passed between the years 1948 – 1952 to protect the interests of women. These attempts in totality, gave the leaders of Independent India the idea that they had succeeded in transforming the position of women in society. However, does the contemporary scenario reflect such a transformation or the erasure of patriarchy?

II. The status of women in contemporary india

While the rest of the world powers on – including not only developed countries, but also those like Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka - India’s female literacy rate rests 22 points behind the world ⁷. This comes as a surprise, as the Right to Education Act mandated that every child be provided education a long while back, in 2009⁸ and is a situation that has only been exacerbated by the Covid-19 crisis – with an estimate of 10 million girls dropping out of secondary school⁹. The lack of access to technology and funds are only secondary causes for this education crisis, with the patriarchal belief that girls are to be restricted within the domestic sphere to be bred as a bearer of offspring being the primary.

This patriarchal mindset also affects women’s nutrition and health - the meagre leftovers that the ‘ghar ki baahu’ is expected to consume, only after her husband and elders have fulfilled their needs, can be expected to adequately satisfy her nutrition necessities¹⁰. In 2020, India ranked 94^th out of 102 countries¹¹, with government figures from the year 2015-2016, establishing that 22.9 per cent of women in the 15-29 age group are underweight, as compared to 20.2 per cent of men in the same age group¹².

Not only are basic resources kept from Indian women, but they are also deprived of a peaceful existence - India’s average rate of reported rape cases is about 6.3 per 100,000 of the population¹³, with landmark cases of Hathras, Unnao, Kathau acting indicators of the dismal state of women in the nation today.

III. Patriarchy in policy making and judicial institutions

Up until now, I have delineated the trajectory of patriarchy within India – but where do aforementioned upper levels of the government come in?

As explained above, nor do women have socio-economic independence from men - whether father or husband - neither are they provided basic education so that they may be able to fend for themselves. It is a commonly known fact that political campaigns are an expensive affair, the financial insecurity that women experience leave them helpless¹⁴. In another struggle, political campaigning involves smearing the opposition’s image, which is significantly easier in the case of women as the patriarchal mindset already facilitates the notion that women do not belong in politics, that it is a primarily ‘masculine’ task. In turn, even during the process of voting - the dominating male vote goes to the male candidate, and the woman is left out.

This is reflected in the dismal numbers of women in politics: a study by the Hindu revealed that with all the state assemblies put together, only 360 of the country’s 4,120 MLAs - or nine per cent - are women¹⁵, while the Lok Sabha is occupied by 176 males MPs as compared to the 78 woman MPs, 20 out of the 240 MPs women in the Rajya Sabha¹⁶. One may here argue the case of Sonia Gandhi, who is a frontrunner in politics notwithstanding her gender. However, considering the influential family dynasty her roots lie in, there can be no doubt as to why it has been easier for her to make it in the field.

Similar is the case of the judiciary, where there have been zero out of thirty five female chief justices of the country, with only eight women being appointed judges of the supreme court since its inception. K. K. Venugopal, the Attorney General of India pointing out this discrepancy, highlighted that notwithstanding the equal enrolment rates in law schools, there are only 17 women senior advocates in the apex court as opposed to 403 men¹⁷. Hence, it is obvious that in the case of the judiciary, educational and financial resources is not a constraint - women make it halfway, but not all the way to the top. Why is it so?

For this, let us consider the toxic work environment at the courts.

“When I was practicing in the Madras High Court, a judge commented about female lawyer, short haircut, which I couldn’t tie. He said, ‘Your hairstyle is more attractive than your argument,” wrote Kiruba Munusamy, a female lawyer¹⁸. She additionally alleged that she was once fired her from the office of a Supreme Court advocate for taking a day off on the first day of her period. In a similar vein, Indira Jaising highlighted an incident from the Supreme Court where a senior male lawyer referred to her as ‘that woman’ while referring to all his male colleagues as ‘my learned friend’. Further, she claimed, that instead of reprimanding the male lawyer, the presiding judge smiled and said, “Madam, you don’t need any protection, you are overprotected.”

Not only the people, but also the amenities, or lack thereof, in the courts contribute to this toxicity. A Rainmaker study identified poor sanitation in toilets in courts, lack of formal support mechanisms, such as paid maternity leave and crèches, gender bias, discrimination and sexual harassment as some of the factors that result in a female advocate’s contempt towards the judiciary¹⁹. Hence, it is unsurprising that women choose to take the corporate path, where there are strict regulations in place to protect them instead of climbing up the judicial ladder.

How does a woman’s absence in these institutions contribute to the perpetuation of patriarchy?

It has been previously found that a woman’s perspective has not only provided policies greater attuned to women’s choices and needs, but has had palpable effects such as reducing infant mortality rates, better education outcomes in urban areas, etc²⁰. Similarly, a woman’s perspective is particularly valued in judicial pronouncements as a fresh take – for example, Gita Mittal J., is the one responsible for designing the Vulnerable Witness Project, which ensured that witnesses would not have to face the accused and could share their testimony in a comfortable and confidential space and as a result – would be more likely to testify in courts²¹.

The absence of this female presence, has resulted in inherently patriarchal policies like the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 2021.

This act was passed by the Rajya Sabha within 15 days, without taking into consideration any opinions of the shareholders which were of prime importance considered the sensitive nature of the act²². This act was met with great appreciation for raising the limit for termination up to 24 weeks - a relief only provided to a ‘special category of women’, and masking the failings of the Act. The necessity for abortion - the inclusion of the woman desiring the same under this category - is not left up to the discretion of woman and her doctor, but rather a ‘medical board’, whose approval is required to ‘legitimise’ the need for abortion²³. Thus, this system still does not provide women a rights based approach to abortion, it keeps the choice within the hands of third parties and requiring her to ‘justify’ her need for an abortion²⁴. Not unlike the judiciary and political parties, the medical profession is also dominated by men²⁵ - this medical board is likely to be constituted by males members. As a result, it is yet again, a male who is able to control the existence of a woman.

When we talk about the judiciary, let us consider the problem of victim blaming by judges in the cases of rape. In a 2020 judgement, the Karnataka High Court held that it is ‘unbecoming’ of an ‘Indian woman’ to sleep after she has been ‘ravished’ by a man, with which the anticipatory bail plea of the accuser was granted²⁶. In deciding said case, the fact that the victim agreed to consume alcohol and stayed out post eleven at night was considered while disregarding the horrendous acts of the man, the acts ought to be kept in the spotlight. Similarly, in the Vikas Garg case, two of the accused were acquitted because the victim had a ‘promiscuous attitude’ and ‘voyeuristic mind’²⁷. Here, the question that comes to mind is why does the victim’s attitude, the victim’s thought process matter? Why is the man not questioned for his wrongs? The patriarchy of the society is held up, as a matter of fact it is renewed in the minds of those who hear or see these kinds of words and actions. By shaming a rape victim, the courts ensure that the status of women is further weakened, that they lose out on opportunities to break out of their domestic confines in the fear of their safety as they no longer can trust the system to mete out justice. Similarly with policies which are constructed for women but by men, only facilitate the narrative that a woman does not deserve bodily autonomy and ought to be controlled, preferably by a man. This keeps the cycle of patriarchy going, when the law and policies exist to break the chain.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, the patriarchal mindset was a spark set off centuries ago, which today has been kept going every time that a woman’s autonomy is invalidated via a misogynistic comment, act or thought. Women have been kept out of the very institutions that craft laws and judgements for them, which has in turn, allowed these institutions to play a part in the facilitation of the patriarchy – has added fuel to the ‘fire’. However, it is not to say that bringing women to the forefront will dismantle this mindset – Maneka Gandhi, the Minister for Women and Child Development was the one to say that marital rape cannot be criminalized considering the nuances of the Indian culture²⁸. Bringing a woman to the front will benefit the society by sensitizing the change makers of what changes are required in the first place instead. However, it is a cycle to which is there is no start or end to break off the connection - dismantling it is a task which will take effort, time and perseverance but is not impossible. Today, there does exist 33% reservation for women in the upper echelons, but unless we facilitate an environment for women to seize the opportunity, it is likely to go wasted. Women have time and time again shown us how they can take society by storm, with the limited opportunities they receive, it is time to provide them with those they deserve.

*****