I was supposed to write this post yesterday but got home rather late last night. I am quite tired hence please forgive my typos and probably grammatical errors.
Those who are from India and those who aren't but read newspapers must be aware that yesterday, Pratibha Patil took reins as the first female President of the country. This is a landmark as next month, on August 15th, India will complete 60 years of independence. Last night Jay Leno made a crack about this by saying that India has the first female President and George W called India not to congratulate her but that he had a computer query. It is funnier when Leno says this than I recollecting and typing the punch line.
First of all the role of the President of India is largely ceremonial based on the model of the British monarchy. On the other hand the Prime Minister is elected by the electorate. Our first female Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, was elected in 1966. She was in power from 1966 till her brutal assasination in 1984, except of course the dark era of Emergency and the subsequent change in rule. So there is no big deal that there is a woman President. Does anyone even remember who all the President's were since the first President, Rajendra Prasad and the last President A P J Abdul Kalam? So incidentally this position is largely ceremonial and if I may say so, a token post. In fact this particular nomination has been riled with controversies as well which I don't want to get into especially since I am a simpleton with no aptitude for politics.
The BBC website states that her supporters suggested Mrs Patil's election would prove to be a landmark for women in a country where millions routinely face violence, discrimination and poverty. I take an exception to this assumption that this would empower women as incidentally India is a culture which worships women. There is this concept of worshipping Lakshmi (Goddess of wealth) and that a birth of a girl child should be treated like the arrival of Lakshmi in the parent's home and the newly wed bride is called "Griha Lakshmi" as she brings wealth into the house of the in-laws. Yet in parts of the country sex selection is being practiced where female foetuses are being aborted and there are dowry deaths as well. There are laws to protect women yet they are treated as secondary citizens. Therefore as this exalted status of women is just a token and not practised therefore it is hard to believe that a token female President would change this in any way and would aid in empowering women. Most importantly the status of women did not change drastically since the election of the first female Prime Minister 41 years ago!
PS: I would also like to note that India is a paradox and it would be incorrect to paint it with broad strokes of generalization. The status of women is more a socio economic situation which is not going to change overnight! Also women in urban and upper middle class situations are most certainly not disadvantaged or face the proverbial glass ceiling. Case in point being CEOs like Anu Aga, Lalita Gupte of ICICI etc.
14 comments:
You are spot on. I heard someplace that the President is often appointed to represent those sections of India that are under represented.
I have to say the Leno joke was very funny!
Sorry about your late hours.Hang in there ok?
I was thrilled to hear that too.Who cares if she doesn't have much power like PM but I am glad they selected a woman this time.
It's not a small feat when countries like US still struggles to accept a woman as a thinking and decision making being!!!
Hurray for Mrs.Patil!!I am proud!:))
Hi Sanjay:
I am not sure about representation of under representated section....I know that when state machinery fails like in the case of Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab a President's rule was imposed or during National emergencies.
The late hours are manageable as they come in waves so it isn't nonstop craziness which is good. Thanks for your kind words :-)
Hey Asha:
I agree with the fact that US still doesnt have a female at the highest position....hence made the remark that I wouldnt generalize about the condition of women in India and the fact that there is no glass ceiling as compared to the boys club in the US. I have worked in India as well and do know that it is more a socio economic situation than prevalent everywhere.
I am always happy to hear of women in any culture or country making strides. The more the better. Good for her. I went to the presidential palace while in India and was scheduled to meet the previous president, with my fellow students. It never happened because we showed up 2 hours late because of Delhi morning traffic. Oh well, we got to see the building and take a tour through the museum. Cool stuff.
Nice post, Sai. Pratibha Patil has large shoes to fill. Kalam was so loved by people. Although it is nice to see a female president I am not one to be swayed by gender...I always say may the best man win and if the best man is a woman, great! Pratibha Patil is actually quite a controversial figure, not because she is a woman, but because of some of the issues she has aligned herself with in the past, but we don't need to get into that now. Like you say, this is a ceremonial position so it's not like she will impact the country in a large way.
Have a wonderful Saturday Sai!
What Lotus said. We would all prefer ideally to be gender blind, but there are situations where we do need to make sure more women are represented and this may not be one of them.
And as Lotus says Pratibha Patil as President will have no impact on the horrible practices of dowry or the gender selection that is causing the number of females in the population to drop.
Have a good weekend.
Hey Beenz:
Thanks for your comments.
Hi Lotus:
I absolutely agree with you about Kalam's popularity. I am his huge admirer as well! He was not a politician not unlike Patil.
I am aware of the political issues and controversies involving her. Besides having lived in Maharashtra all my life I am well aware but hate discussing anything political on my blog.
Have a wonderful Saturday as well.
Hey Sanjay:
I agree with both you and Lotus have written.
The fact that her nomination as a president will have no impact over the gender selection or drowy issues as implied by her supporters and reported by the media, was the basic reason for writing this blog post.
Enjoy your weekend
Yes I have read the news too .. hope she brings some kinda good to all the women in India .. some kinda reform for their better prosperity .. and then to all.
Hi Sai,
I'm with Lotus on this one. I don't really care whether a man or a woman is in this position. And for that matter Prathibha Patil is a controversial figure. A female president will be landmark for women in US but for India which already had a female prime minister 41 years ago and where the role of president is ceremonial(as you aptly pointed out), this does not really mean much.
Well I disagree, it does mean a lot. Don't take credit away from her. She's a female in a society where females are suppressed. And now she is the president .. so that is an achievement and one should be proud.
Let's see if you could keep your non-gender views if a man, tomorrow on national TV, says that he doesn't care that she's female and women shouldn't feel any different.
It is indeed nice to see empowerment of women but I'm not gender biased. I believe Presidents should be elected on basis of merit than on gender. When Pratibha Patil's name came up in the running, almost everyone I know around here had never heard of her before. And the first thing we did hear about her were some controversies that came up! Anyway, I hope she makes a mark as President.
I am afraid but I disagree with Nabeel. I don't think anyone is unhappy that she is President or taking credit away from her. I think what I (speaking for myself) am trying to say is that other than being a first there is nothing landmark about this.
The office of a President is purely ceremonial and once someone is nominated it is pretty much a given that they make it thru.
Now how in the world does that help a woman being married against her wishes or under pressure to bear a male child (or reverse the falling number of females compared to males in parts of India), deal with the peculiarly desi phenomenon of "eveteasing" or with the harassment for dowry and physical and mental abuse, not to mention having to look fair and a host of other things?
It really does not, and mind you not all females are suppressed in India, although there is much progress to be made. I worked at a place where a lot of the heads of departments were all successful women scientists, in fact the current director of one of India's premier cancer reserch inst is a woman.
If you are looking for role models who are women there are a lot of them and with good public profiles too. As high profile as the Presidential office is she has no power to write legislation nor can she influence it. She maybe able to be an advocate but I am not sure how effective she can be.
As for Nabeel's statement about a man saying "says that he doesn't care that she's female and women shouldn't feel any different". That is not a straightforward argument. The only way a statement like that can be made is if you are in a truly egalitarian society where there is gender equality and a level playing field and no discrimination and you are not even remotely close to that in India. To make it in a patriarchial male dominated society would smack of arrogance but one would be woefully out of place in a more equitable society.
Hi NainaAshley, Nabeel, Sanjay and Jyotsana:
THanks for all your comments.
I must say her position will not matter one way or the other. Besides there are a lot of controversies surrounding it as well so it is tainted with that.
On a national level, although women are suppressed in India, at the same time there are women who have had a lot of independence. Sanjay has aptly pointed out and I have as well about all the women who are CEOs or women like Illa Bhatt who started an organization like Sewa. THere are a lot of feminist organizations in the country as well. Yet all the evils happen and would not change with at all. Like I said in my post the situation is more socio economic. In fact this suppression is very cultural and if I may say so very regional as well. India is a paradox and describing it is like seven blind men describing an elephant.
On a personal level, as a woman and a female professional, I like my work to speak for itself. I don't ever want gender to come into the picture!
Post a Comment