(PDF) Perceiving Feminism: Some Local Responses

1 Perceiving Feminism: Some Local Responses Nilika Mehrotra This paper explores the responses of some women’s groups and women activists based in Delhi, during the late 1980s, to the concept of feminism. It attempts to understand how middle-class women and grass roots level women express their needs, aspirations and agenda in the context of women’s movement in India. The focus here is on their differential responses and how these can be grounded in the contexts based on caste, class, age, and political exposure and affiliations. These differences are reflected in the interpersonal behaviour of women activists and get translated into the way they understand women’s issues and evolve strategies to resolve them. Such an understanding is crucial for building a theory of women’s movement in India. ‘Feminism’ remains a controversial and misunderstood concept in the social sciences. It has been viewed both as an ideology of women’s liberation and a women’s movement aiming to create a world for women beyond simple equality. As a theory and an ideology, it remains inadequate in relating to life experiences of women cross-culturally. In its development as a theory, its meaning has undergone tremendous change historically (Offen 1992). French in origin, the term ‘feminism’ referred to what was called ‘women’s movement’ in 19th-century United States of America (USA), a movement which comprised diverse collection of groups aimed at advancing the position of women in society. In the early 20th century, it was used to refer to a specific group of women’s rights advocates, namely, that which subscribed to the idea of uniqueness of women, the mystical experience of motherhood, and women’s special Nilika Mehrotra is Assistant Professor at the Centre for the Study of Social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. <nilika@eudoramail. com> SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 51 (1), March 2002 58 Sociological Bulletin purity (Jaggar 1983). Later, many groups and individuals engaged in raising women’s issues came to be classified as feminists. Women’s liberation movement has been seen as the major version of feminism in the contemporary western society. Not only the concept of feminism but also its practice has changed over the last four decades (Threlfall 1996). For instance, in the 1960s and 1970s, in the women’s movement in the west, the term feminism came to symbolise the efforts to forge a collective identity of women supposedly sharing similar experiences of oppression. Simultaneously academicians were seen engaged in unearthing the causes of universal subordination of women. By this time political differences about conceptualisation of the roots and agents of oppression became apparent and developed as liberal, socialist, Marxist, and radical feminist theories. Nevertheless, the belief that women suffer injustice because of their gender remained the basic underlying assumption in all their interpretations. Linking to this notion, feminists offered different analyses of the causes or agents of female oppression, and worked at different strategies to counter them. These ideological positions inspired the women’s struggles in other parts of the world. In the 1960s, following struggles for civil liberties, women’s movement arose in the west as a strong critique of women’s role in society. Liberal theorists began with their critique of the sex-role stereotyping and discrimination within and outside home and advocated equality for women. Locating the causes for women’s subordination in the customary and legal constraints, they strategised to remove these blockades through political and legal campaigns within the existing set- up of society. Disaffection with the limited potential of the earlier approaches led to the radical exploration into the possible causes sustaining universal subordination of women. In the 1970s, Marxist and socialist feminists, drawing and critiquing heavily on Marx’s writings, emphasised the sexual division of labour as a major cause of oppression. They stressed the need to understand the complex relationships between class and gender, and the social distinctions between men and women. For Marxist feminists, gender oppression was an essential element of capitalist society, and women’s struggle for emancipation was a part of the class struggle. Similarly, socialist feminists, too, linked women’s oppression to the social and economic structures of the society, and Perceiving Feminism 59 called for transformation not only of the means of production but also of the social experience, as the roots of oppression lay in the total economic system of capitalism. They rejected the orthodox Marxist thesis that class revolution would ultimately result in achieving equality for women. For them, countering patriarchy was an equally important task. Radical feminism came in various shades of thought: Radical feminists, like Mckinnon, identified ‘sexuality’ as the instrument of male power. She argued that feminist theory must centre on the construction and social determination of sexuality, since to feminism, the personal is epistemologically, the political, and its epistemology is its politics (cf. Humm 1989:74). Radical feminism aimed to destroy sex-role system (Eisenstein 1984). Radical feminists used the rhetoric of women’s liberation which called for transformation of the social framework itself. Women’s liberation philosophy had far-reaching implications, as it did not address its demands to any external agency, but addressed itself to people in their most intimate relations: the relationships between men and women, and between women and women. Cultural feminism came to accept the differences between men and women as irrevocable, with men being ‘naturally’ more prone to violence and women being ‘naturally’ non-violent, nurturing and peaceful (Omvedt 1990). This approach largely sought to essentialise women’s existence and experiences. German feminists developed a theory called ‘eco-feminism’, integrating the role of women in reproductive labour with male violence and development issues (Mies 1987). They perceived women to be closer to nature, and they likened male violence to science and technological development. In the early 1980s, the mainstream feminist theorising came under the attack of ‘black feminists’, who alleged that issues of race and ethnicity had been ignored by the white, middle-class feminists (Kadiatu 1998). Meanwhile, the Third World feminists raised the dilemma of postcoloniality and questioned the representation of the Third World women as a homogenous category (Mohanty 1985). More recently, in the works of postmodernist writers questions are being raised about the politics of difference and the possibilities of working out of commonalties among women: the idea of unity of women and the belief in oppression as a universal experience have 60 Sociological Bulletin come to be increasingly questioned. In academic circles especially, the application of gender as a category has also shifted the focus of attention. Attempts are now being made to arrive at a compromise between feminism, on the one hand, and postmodernist and poststructuralist positions, on the other. Most feminists today agree that feminism cannot be one dimensional social critique; rather, it has to be a multi-layered, transformational, political practice and ethics. Furthermore, it is not a static political theory and that strait-jacketing of the feminist practices is not useful in understanding this phenomenon. Thus, the task of feminist theorising today is to understand the diversity between women and the complex changing world within which they are variously located. II This paper explores the linkages among ideology, class, politics, and gender with reference to some women’s organisations in Delhi. For analytical purposes, I take feminism as an umbrella concept, which is used to describe and understand ideologies and activities of women’s movements world-wide. In this sense, I explore the responses of women’s organisations and women activists, contextualised in a local situation of Delhi during the late 1980s, representing a vocal section of women’s movement in India. This analysis could be seen as a historiography of the women’s activism in a particular social and political milieu. As noted earlier, ‘feminism’ does not have a unitary meaning; its interpretations and the responses it elicits essentially emerge from specific contexts. That is, the identity of women is not separable from their nationality, race, region, culture, caste, class, and age. It is the task of feminist research to understand the material and cultural actualities of women’s everyday experience, and to examine the ways in which they represent and are represented. Feminist theory, thus, has moved away from making universal statements towards a socio-cultural milieu specific understanding. This paper relies on data collected from a sample of 10 women’s organisations in Delhi during May 1987 - December 1988 (see Mehrotra 1993), with special reference to four organisations, namely, Saheli, Mahila Dakshta Samiti (MDS), Janwadi Mahila Samiti (JMS), and Sabla Perceiving Feminism 61 Sangh (SS). Middle- and upper middle-class educated women from professional families constituted the leadership of the first three organisations. Located in a resettlement colony, Sabla Sangh is an offshoot of a development organisation - Action India - and its activists hail from the colony itself. The other three organisations are in south and central Delhi. Interestingly, all four organisations emerged in a span of 10 years in the post-emergency period.2 All are exclusively women’s organisations working for the improvement of women’s condition in society. JMS is an ally of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI [M]) and MDS is a front of the erstwhile Janata Party. Saheli and Sabla Sangh claim to be unattached to any mainstream political group. In trying to examine the status of the term feminism, we note that its usage still carried the pejorative connotation of being ‘western’, or even ‘bourgeois’, implying that it had no relevance to Indian women. People earlier recoiled from the feminist rhetoric, as feminists stereotypically were always the ‘other women’ - man-hating, ambitious, egocentric, individualistic, westernised and a careerist lot. Women often cited personal discontent, frustration, rejection or humiliation by males, because of their ‘ugly’ looks, as reasons for their joining the bandwagon of women’s liberation (Patel 1985). As a concept, feminism in India requires a much closer look at people’s perceptions and interpretations. Since the context is different from the one in which the idea of feminism was born, it has inevitably assumed a different character. As rightly pointed out by Sangari and Vaid (1989), the history of feminism in India has to be understood in relation to the history of anti-feminism. Chitnis (1990) has also called for a redefinition of feminism in the Indian context. She argues that though Indian women suffer from deprivation, exploitation, and oppression like their western counterparts, or sometimes even worse, there are basic differences in the historical circumstances and value systems between the two contexts. A series of monographs has been published clarifying the various feminist concepts and their implications in the Indian situation (see Krishnaraj nd). As a concept, feminism has not been much reflected upon by the women’s organisations in Delhi. There was no clear-cut understanding or agreement on its meaning in the late 1980s, though an attempt was made by an Indian and a Bangladeshi activist to evolve a South Asian perspective on this term (see Bhasin and Khan 1986). Many women 62 Sociological Bulletin activists did not know the differences among the various interpretations of the concept. It is true that there have been attempts to analyse the functioning of women’s organisations in terms of existing brands of feminism, and even to label them (Singh 1986). However, such a labelling exercise may be futile.3 Most activists in my sample did not want to be associated with the term, 4 as they feared being branded as too ‘western’ or even ‘amoral’. This problem is specially pressing when we as anthropologists deal with people who refuse to be treated as mere subjects of enquiry. 5 III Historically, women’s movement in India can be classified into two phases: First, as a part of the nationalist struggle - a period of reformist movements, when, first men and later women took up women’s issues. Many women’s organisations also emerged, spearheading the struggle against social evils, and advancing the cause of female education and female franchise. After a long gap, a second and more militant phase of women’s organisations emerged in the 1970s, which directly challenged the patriarchal social order while rallying around issues of violence against women, like dowry deaths and rape cases.6 The backdrop of this second wave was also constituted in a specific socioeconomic and political context. Civil rights, women’s and students’ movements in the west precipitated the situation. The United Nations’ declaration of 1975- 85 as the decade of women and the publication of the report of the ICSSR Committee on Status of Women in India also created a women- sensitive environment. Sampoorna kranti (total revolution) movement led by Jaya Prakash Narayan and the anti-price rise movement preceded the distinct rise of women’s organisations. However, it was the lifting of the emergency in 1977 and the consequent restoration of democratic rights that marked the turning point in women’s movement in the country. Writings on the abject condition of women brought like- minded educated women together and women’s collectives mushroomed throughout the country to protest against increasing dowry deaths and rape cases. Though consisting of ideologically different groups, a political identification among women constituted the unity of this new women’s movement. It was felt that women shared similar experiences of Perceiving Feminism 63 economic oppression, commercial exploitation, subjugation in the domestic sphere, and legal and political discrimination. It was also assumed that, as women, there was a shared internal response, reflecting a feeling of inadequacy, a sense of a narrow horizon and a bound feeling. Women’s politics and organisations came to be seen as a community of feeling and expression. There was a growing realisation that without traditional support structures, women in distress needed institutional support. I would like to argue, however, that not all women feel and respond in the same or similar manner; their responses are varied and are contextualised politically, culturally and historically. The differences in the perception of and ideological stand on the question of subjugation of women and the strategies undertaken to counter it reflect how women conceptualise ‘reality’ differently. The tendencies of dissension and fragmentation within the movement, noticed by Sharma (1989) and Kishwar (1990), could be attributed to the differences in perception. In retrospect, it is important to note that women who spearheaded this new wave of organisation come mainly from the middle class, educated background, who were disenchanted and disillusioned with the left parties and the political system. They called for a fresh examination of women’s issues from a ‘women’s perspective’. They formed exclusive women’s groups for early remedial action for women in distress and launched a separate struggle for women to understand and handle their problems. They called themselves autonomous women’s organisations by claiming their autonomy vis-à-vis men, state institutions, and political parties. Their understanding of women’s issues was heavily inspired by the writings of western feminists. Structurally, too, these groups were closer to their western counterparts (Sen 1990), and they viewed the politicisation of personal problems to be crucial for understanding women’s situation. Meanwhile, realising the urgency to address women’s issues, various political parties formed women’s fronts. Such fronts linked to the left parties drew from the writings of Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin and Clara Zetkin. Others were inclined towards the Indian brand of socialist philosophy. On the other hand, some women’s groups, who were critical of development processes, initiated programmes to mobilise women living in slums and resettlement colonies, thereby tapping their potential to act as catalysts of change in their communities. Thus, by the 64 Sociological Bulletin early 1980s, three major streams were visible in the new women’s movement of Delhi: the autonomous, the politically affiliated, and the grass roots level women’s groups.7 Besides, research-cum-project centres were also established in some universities and colleges and as independent institutions to carry out research on women’s issues. The organisations referred to above were essentially activist organisations or, in the words of Zald and Ash (1966), ‘social movement organisations’ (SMOs) which carry forward the ideology of a social movement. The term SMO is useful in distinguishing between a movement and an organisation: To describe a movement’s organisation is not to describe its totality, but the manifestation of certain beliefs and practices which are more or less present in the various segments of the movement. With the exception of women’s groups like Saheli, who considered themselves a part of autonomous women’s movement, none else proclaimed itself to be feminist in character.8 In fact, JMS and MDS took a very strong view of the term and accused Saheli of spreading distorted notions about women’s movement in India. Some vocal leftist activists even drew a distinction between ‘they’ (‘the feminists’) and ‘we’ (‘the women’s movement’) (Ranadive 1986). Whereas JMS identified women’s movement with the class struggle and the struggle of downtrodden of society, Saheli viewed its agenda as a separate women’s movement, which was willing to join hands with other democratic movements, but on its own terms. Being ideologically closer to Gandhian philosophy on women, MDS activists preferred to call themselves as either women activists or social workers. The divide between the leftist JMS and the autonomous groups, like Saheli, was much wider in the late 1970s and the early 1980s: whereas JMS mainly took up issues relating to the poor and working women - like discrimination in wages, and better facilities for labourers and for their political participation, the latter took up dowry deaths, rape, and domestic violence as key issues. In the 1990s this difference had largely blurred, and violence against women was taken up as a serious issue - no longer a bourgeois one - by all women’s groups. Economic issues, however, still found priority in the agenda of the leftist groups (see Agnihotri and Majumdar 1995). Akerkar (1995) writes about dissensions in the women’s movement leading to inclusion and exclusion of certain issues as women’s issues, thus creating a hierarchy of issues in the Perceiving Feminism 65 process. According to her, this has legitimated the affiliation of certain groups within the women’s movement while invalidating the affiliation of others. JMS and MDS activists have been taking a defensive position on the question of feminism. Some openly call themselves ‘Marxist feminists’, while others denounce the term. Kishwar (1990) observes that the general tendency in labelling women’s groups in India is to condemn women concerned rather than describing their work. Saheli is strongly opposed to any hierarchical structure, and it encourages democracy and equal participation of its members in decision-making, which, according to it, are the prerequisites to independence of women (see Mehrotra 1993; see also Gandhi and Shah 1992). It wants women to be treated as ‘persons’ and as full individual beings with rights over their life, body, sexuality, and other major areas of society. It seeks to understand the roots of oppression through politicising the personal issues by sharing experiences with other women and linking this knowledge with wider social issues. For Saheli, empowering women is an important step in countering patriarchy. It subscribes to women’s liberation theory and believes in a socialist- feminist framework of action. During the late 1980s, besides concentrating on case work, Saheli was strongly campaigning against promotion of injectable contraceptives like Net-En and Depo-Provera. MDS, on the other hand, reflects a conformist approach on the women’s question. Its organisational structure is conservative and bureaucratic, and its functioning largely revolves around its President and Secretary. It seeks to preserve social institutions, like the family and marriage, as essential aspects of social experience. It believes in changing the attitudes of men and women through social awareness, education, and ‘proper socialisation’, and it stresses the importance of gender neutral socialisation in breaking the sex-role stereotypes. It talks of eradicating social evils, like dowry, Sati, etc., by changing people’s beliefs and through social legislation. In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, MDS was very effective in protests against dowry, and in pushing government to amend in the dowry prohibition law. JMS’s organisational set-up was dominated by the President, Secretary and a few other members, who took all the important decisions. Its functioning being in line with the Marxist ideology, class issues and political visibility through mass struggles are high on its 66 Sociological Bulletin agenda. JMS blames ‘feminists’ (read autonomous women’s groups) for overlooking the socioeconomic problems which have emerged as a result of the transition from feudal society to capitalism. It holds that by focusing on narrow issues like rape, amniocentesis and wife-beating, feminists are thwarting the class struggle. Viewing women’s struggle for emancipation as a part of a larger democratic struggle for structural transformation, JMS mobilised a large number of women at the grass roots level on issues like right to work, wage discrimination, civic facilities, political participation, etc. SS came into existence through the mobilisation efforts of some activists of a non governmental organisation (NGO) called Action India. It functions on the principle of collective decision-making to promote flexibility, internal democracy, and confidence building of its members. It regards empowerment of women as the key to their emergence as important agents of socioeconomic change. For SS, survival issues are crucial in determining the specific character of gender oppression. Accordingly, its major activities related to income-generation programmes, health, and civil rights of women (see Mehrotra 1997). During my field, SS was actively participating, along with other women’s groups, in the campaign against atrocities on women. It also rallied for better housing and civic facilities. On the issue of health, it regularly held discussions and exhibitions, and disseminated knowledge. All these women’s organisations were also concerned about individual women in distress, generally trying to resolve the problems arising out of marital or domestic discords. However, their perception of the problem and its handling varied. For JMS, it was a short-term strategy, with an eye on the long-term goal of socioeconomic transformation by equalising gender roles in family economy, increased female economic participation and equal rights in property inheritance. Saheli holds the asymmetrical patriarchal relation between men and women as the reason for the maintenance of status quo. In its view, the only way to make women independent-minded, is to make them aware of the links of their oppression to broader structures of society and to empower them to choose the alternatives, even if that meant leaving a violent home and standing on their own. I call this approach ‘clinical’ 9 in nature, where women, irrespective of their background, are treated as individuals and are offered similar alternatives. Perceiving Feminism 67 MDS, on the other hand, tries to save the marriage at all costs, as it views this institution to be crucial for a woman’s existence in society. In SS, community pressure and social ostracism are used effectively as deterrents in countering marital violence. As a group of local women, it could also force the police to take action against the culprits. The attitude to state is another critical area of difference among the women’s groups. Autonomous groups are suspicious of the state’s patriarchal role in perpetuating discrimination against women at different levels, but in their struggle they did not always name it as the major culprit. For them, patriarchy, operating within the family and at the community level, is more crucial to handle. MDS, on the other hand, believes that change in the sphere of law and its implementation would help in achieving equality. Along with JMS, MDS strongly favours greater political participation of women at different levels of governance. However, JMS’s policy vis-à-vis state is largely concurrent with or subservient to its political interests. A survey of its journal, Women’s equality, revealed an offensive stand against the then Rajiv Gandhi’s Congress government. Later, however, when V.P. Singh, whom the CPI (M) supported, came to power, its critique became mild. Similar shifts were also observed during 1990-95: it was then very critical of the Narasimha Rao’s Congress government’s economic policies; but, with the United Front Government assuming power, its offensive got diluted. During the late 1980s, Sati emerged as a burning issue, and almost all the groups rallied around it. Over a simple matter of whether or not the groups should display their banners, MDS and JMS activists clashed and parted ways. As a result, two separate rallies were held. Thus, groups aligned according to their convenience and ideological biases. In the late 1980s, and more so in the 1990s, most of these groups got united against the state on the question of communalism and women, and lately they have joined hands against the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies’ ideology of ‘Hindutva’. Nevertheless, sharing an understanding on a particular issue or participating in a protest together does not mean that they would dissolve their basic differences. An analysis of the ideological stance of these women’s organisations suggests that they are not interested in the polemics of the concept of feminism; rather, they emphasise the empowerment of women as an essential step in the emancipation of women. Empowerment10 was 68 Sociological Bulletin understood in two ways: One was the politicisation of women, to make them realise the complexity of the linkages between gender oppression and social-economic-political context. The other was to make women conscious of their oppression through sharing personal experiences and by discerning the role of social factors in such oppression. Divergent understandings led to dissimilar strategies for women at different levels of society. The other important aspect of ideology of these women’s organisations was the belief that there was a strong need for solidarity with the struggles of other underprivileged groups. This reflected their understanding that women were not the only subjugated group in society. Interestingly, this view is in contrast with the second wave of women’s movement in the west, wherein the main emphasis has been on specific solidarities based on gender.11 The perceptions and the strategies of the women’s groups varied largely due to their structural and political divergences.12 In the functioning of an organisation, their ideology is usually an ideal proposition, and the actors, that is, the women coming from different backgrounds, followed it. Saheli, for instance, had a fluid structure based on its belief in collective functioning. In such an organisation it was common to find a woman with a conservative outlook toward family and marriage. Nevertheless, she still felt comfortable being a member of a militant group, as here she got autonomy in ideology and action. Ideologically, Saheli members sounded more like radical feminists, but in actual life none of them denounced men or their support. Feminism, as practised in Saheli, gave a lot of space to different women to think and play with ideas, and for expression of their individuality. Though JMS did not proclaim solidarity based on gender, women nevertheless found space in its rather informal internal structure to give a vent to their problems. Here, the commonality among women was more due to the belief in the left ideology and the acceptance of a common political orientation. Many of them, in fact, have been friends since their student days at the Jawaharlal Nehru University or the University of Delhi. In MDS, on the contrary, it was mainly a show of the few women who ran it, made decisions and enjoyed power as leaders; others usually just followed. All that they shared was a similar Perceiving Feminism 69 background of political exposure by being part of a political climate or politician families. Ideology and politics of these groups, however, restricted and shaped the ways in which women responded to feminism. Though autonomous women’s movement has been able to make women’s issues visible and important in their own right, it was the politically affiliated groups who, by virtue of their number and strong structural base, pushed their agenda. Women’s reservation bill in the recent years, is a case in point. Conceptualisation and articulation of ideological principles are thus the tasks of the leaders of an organisation, and others simply follow them. In case of any ideological clash between members there is often a split and new groups emerge. In the 1980s, funding was one such issue on which ideological clashes occurred in Saheli, while in Manushi serious personality differences with the editor led to a split in the core group. Since the 1990s, many women’s organisations - popularly known as NGOs - have been floated with the help of foreign funding bodies that also set their agenda for action. The older generation of activists resents this development, as they feel that the ‘NGOisation’ has dampened the spirit of activism and has sold the feminist spirit to the money power. IV Responses to feminism as an ideology or the practice of its ideals on an individual level become manifest when we explore the reasons about why certain kinds of women join the women’s movement. For exploring the career of activists, I had done 35 case studies of middle- class activists belonging to different organisations in Delhi and eight cases from a grass roots level organisation, namely, Sabla Sangh. What follows is a brief account of these middle-class13 women activists. These activists, whose average age ranged between 30 and 40 years, were all well educated and belonged to upper caste professional families staying mainly in the ‘posh’ areas of south and central Delhi. Three main factors are found to have motivated these women to become activists:14 (1) political affiliation or political background; (2) victimisation - either themselves or those close to them being victims of gender oppression; and (3) idealism of young women, and altruistic 70 Sociological Bulletin motives of housewives. In actual situations, these factors often overlapped, and a single factor was difficult to be isolated. The path to activism was, no doubt, both difficult and complex in the context of patriarchal social order and middle-class morality. 15 Initially few Indian feminists realised the radical potential of their organising around issues like rape, dowry deaths, and the like. Early mobilisations show great deal of idealism, feeling of discontent, confidence and euphoria. Writing about the example of the world-wide anti-rape campaign, Mies (1987:41) argues that By focusing on the male violence against women, coming to the surface in rape, and by trying to make this as a public issue, feminists have unwittingly touched one of the taboos of civilised society, namely, that this is a peaceful society. Many women when they begin to understand the depth and breadth of the feminist revolution, are afraid of their own courage and close their eyes to what they have seen because they feel powerless vis-à-vis [the] task of overthrowing several thousand years of patriarchy. Yet the issues remain. The problem with feminist ideology is precisely this. Its conceptualisation in the western context and its association with the left ideology made it difficult to inspire middle-class women. They were initially scared and then tried to negotiate at different levels within the family and outside. P, an activist, reminisced, ‘I always lived in a cocooned atmosphere, was not exposed to any ideology. I suffered humiliation but had no courage to break’. The temptation of the construct of ‘good womanhood’ was too strong to reject. So they shunned some aspects of traditional womanhood, but not totally. They suggested others to be courageous. As K said, ‘Don’t be complacent. If you want to be heard, be assertive. Don’t let others treat you like a doormat’. Though perceptions differed, attaining socioeconomic independence and development of a strong personality were seen as ideals across all organisations. They wanted more say in family matters, especially decision-making, property rights, and respect as a human being. S, talking about her struggle in marital life, recollected, ‘If I have survived, it is only due to my courage to stand up and shout at others who bitched behind me. I no longer fear anything’. Marriage and family were Perceiving Feminism 71 perceived as difficult areas to deal with. Most activists saw them as oppressive; therefore, some of them chose to opt out of it or remained single, especially in the younger age group. Talking about a victim, H said, ‘I always tell her to come out of her shell, be bold and have confidence to face the world. She does not listen to me. After all, years of socialisation have not gone in vain’. Many activists were married with children. They described their lives as very happy, though with the grudging acceptance that they had to make more compromises than their husbands. Restructuring gender relations in terms of choice of a marital partner, equality in decision- making, and shared division of labour were their desired goal. Career- building, and delay in marriage and childbearing were also perceptible trends. Single living, or living with a male partner or female friends were the experimented alternatives mainly among the activists of feminist organisations. While most women activists valued motherhood, they saw it also as a constraint on women’s mobility. A few of them also talked of having a child outside wedlock, but fear of society kept them away from doing so. Discussions on sexuality were rare, and none of the activists openly advocated the cause of lesbianism, due mainly to the fear of a traditional backlash. In recent years, however, more openness is visible on the subject. This could be attributed to a general sense of social acceptance of sexuality as an issue, owing to the explicit messages and images in films, TV serials and advertisements. In 1998, some women’s groups held demonstrations against assaults on Fire, a feature film that boldly justified lesbian relations. An analysis of the structure of households from which these activists come, reveals that their background was unusual from a middle-class point of view. Instead of staying amidst large kin groups or even extended families, they usually lived in nuclear households with a ‘progressive’ outlook. Their husbands and children were largely supportive of their activities. Single women did not have much encumbrance, some having either walked out of families or chosen to stay separately. This does not imply that they did not maintain any relationship with relatives or neighbours, but that they could secure and live more or less independent life. Economic independence was crucial in achieving this. Many activists reported that neighbours and others in 72 Sociological Bulletin their social circle were always curious about their whereabouts, and that pressures of singleness were many in India. Middle-class women’s activism, especially in the case of feminists, could be seen as an opposition to male hegemony and cultural definition of gender. Feminists usually played with a range of choices in the process of self-representation, registering a relation both to the body and to the social meaning of womanhood. Construction of a new image was both conscious and unconscious. Historically also feminists have wished to be different, and behaved differently. Keeping in line with the Indian and Gandhian traditions, activists in relatively traditional organisations were clad in handloom or khadi sarees, though their preference was for salwar kameez. In fact, plain and simple handloom, or the so-called ‘ethnic’ wear, a Tilonia leather-bag and kolhapuri chappals were typically characteristic of most activists. Some Saheli activists came in casual clothes, like jeans and long kurta or long skirts with loose tops. Vermilion or mangalsutra or other gold ornaments (signs of a married woman in most parts of India) were usually disregarded. T was critical of the officer at the airport who ‘would not believe that I was married. He needed a mangalsutra to be assured of my marital status’. Application of cosmetics or any attempt to beautify the body was often abhorred. Many, though, wore bindi. Preference for silver or ‘ethnic’ jewellery was evident. Younger ones insisted on being called by their first name with the prefix ‘Ms’, and they maintained their maiden name after marriage. Public smoking was an acquired feature of a large number of activists, and some also consumed liquor.16 As R said, ‘Oh! I have got so used to smoking that now I can’t leave it. Initially it started as an urge to be equal to men. But it now has become like a disease’. Their mannerisms were fairly westernised and they usually conversed in English. These features often acted as an unconscious barrier between the activists and the middle-class women approaching them. Middle- class activists differed largely in their age, class and family status. On an individual level, each of them displayed a remarkable zeal to break through the caste rigidities and restrictions on them, to emerge as individuals with a greater sense of self-worth and confidence. Almost all of them professed a ‘secular’ outlook, and did not see themselves as religious persons. Perceiving Feminism 73 Class consciousness played an important role in determining their behaviour and interactions with others. While studying the Centre for Women’s Development Studies (another women’s organisation at Delhi), I observed how class differences structured relations between superiors and junior workers in the office, despite the Centre’s professed ideal of democratic functioning. Superiors definitely enjoyed the advantage of their better socioeconomic background in the recruitment of personnel, allotment of work, and assessment of reports. Caplan (1985) has also talked of women’s organisations playing an instrumental role in the reproduction of class structure. Most activists were outwardly extrovert, mobile, independent minded and ambitious, qualities that they had cultivated gradually through conscious as well as unconscious imitation of men. Refuting the stereotype that two women cannot see eye-to-eye, D said, ‘after all if women fight or compete, is it not natural? If men compete, it is politics or competition. If women do, they call it jealousy’. A, on the other hand, was proud of the non hierarchical nature of her organisation: ‘Men by nature believe in hierarchy. They always want power to dominate others, we did not want the same tendency among us’. At an ideal level, the activists talked of shunning the culturally prescribed masculine attributes, such as dominance and hierarchy, and the so-called feminine qualities like compassion and nurturance. Personally, however, those whom I encountered lacked traditional warmth, hospitality, and tolerance. At a professional level, mistrust prevailed, and the tendency to decry each other’s work or achievements was noticeable. In the pursuit of power, they consciously or unconsciously competed with each other. Many activists shared strong friendship bonds, which often helped them to struggle and rebuild their lives, and also helped their career in activism. Age and similar experiences often facilitated rapport among them. Majority of the activists claimed to be deriving a great sense of involvement in and satisfaction from their work. As V averred, ‘it is a sense of belonging, a place in history, collective strength . . .’. Some of them were emotionally involved with their work. For instance, R expressed, ‘It has become my kind of life, it has given meaning to my life. It is a process, an on going process. It cannot be attained once for all . . . It has to answer to a situation and to different problems and 74 Sociological Bulletin different goals’. Engagement in women’s movement has helped many a woman to acquire social power and position. Having emerged as ‘elites’, they gave lectures on women’s movement and initiated talks between the government and NGOs. The class make-up of these women activists and their perception of reality of women were visible in their dealings with their colleagues and the women victims. It is also interesting that feminism as an ideology was an inspiration for a certain age group of women who enthusiastically opted to struggle. However, as the time passed by, with the change of the political climate, their activities have changed dramatically. For instance, most of them today are engaged in research, film-making and so on. The spirit of voluntarism is also on the wane. In fact, in the liberalised economy, due to growing ‘NGOisation’, their activities have become more professional. Younger generation of activists, who mainly work for wages, lack the commitment and ideological fervour for the cause of women. V Grass roots level activists, on the other hand, largely came from uneducated lower-class and lower-caste migrant families engaged in unskilled occupations and living in a resettlement colony of north-west Delhi (see Mehrotra 1997). Back in the villages, they had worked as unskilled workers. After coming to Delhi and acquiring a little affluence, they became housewives. Nevertheless, the economic issues were primary to them, as they had no permanent source of income. The ideology that governed the lifestyle of the grass roots level activists was in contradistinction with that of the middle-class values. Traditionally, their families depended on their economic contribution, and hence they were mobile, aggressive and vocal. Life in the resettlement colony exposed them to a different kind of gender oppression and sexual assault. Interestingly, they were initiated into activism by the middle-class women and, as such, their exposure to ideology was only indirect. For grass roots level activists, the path to activism had been more even than that of their middle-class counterparts as the idea of morality was not a hindrance. Rather, their initial work in income-generation projects, health work, etc. was seen to be financially beneficial for the Perceiving Feminism 75 families. They had no problem with the middle class as a reference group, as its lifestyle was looked upon, even if somewhat ambivalently, as a marker of social mobility. In the case of grass roots level activists, both personal crises of women and economic issues were important in motivating them towards activism. Career in activism gave a new avenue to these women through which they aspired for better things in life. Linking economic stabilisation with gender consciousness made them confident to struggle at different levels. For instance, R said, ‘I could never face the babu log (officials) earlier, I was scared of them. I can now confront them’.17 She also mentioned that ‘He [her husband] dare not scold or beat me now’. S, who had struggled a lot to establish herself and her family expressed, ‘I did not feel weak, I knew I had to work and look after my family. Women are not ablas (weak) but sablas (strong)’. It is noteworthy that these women did not take to any overt symbolic form of protest against men and community. Nevertheless, the change was visible in their behaviour. Their reference group was the middle-class activists themselves: they even desired to dress like the latter - wearing handloom saree with pleats, carrying a jhola (bag), etc. However, there was a common feeling of deprivation; they wanted to be fluent in English to deal with public officials in a confident manner. R, who was more vocal amongst them, said, ‘How I hope . . . to be educated. I want to learn English so that I could talk like Didi (a middle- class activist) and impress others as she does . . .’ To be educated and to become professionals like their middle-class counterparts were the common aspirations, which all these grass roots activists nurtured. VI It is important to recognise here that this case study has sought to analyse responses emerging out of an urban-based context, albeit in a separate social world. We have seen how women, in articulating their concerns, responded differently to the concept of feminism. It was clear that middle-class women themselves did not constitute a homogenous category; in fact, their social background, political exposure, age and individual personality affected their world-view. Nevertheless, women’s movement has created an atmosphere within which women across these 76 Sociological Bulletin differences have tried to understand their problems and look for solutions. The contrast between different categories of activists was mainly due to the economic and structural differences in class status and cultural traditions. Their class situation, caste ideology, and the nature of households they came from, explain the specificity of cultural construction of gender. Their political ideological affiliation further explains the differences in their world-view and their social position. Such diversities in perceptions of feminism and its practice persuade us to think of plurality of feminist thoughts and strategies. Such attempts become necessary in systematically analysing the points of intersection, dialogue and differences arising out of different socio-historical locations, while also providing a sense of history for contextualising the contemporary and future social processes. Notes 1. This paper originated as a Research Colloquium presentation at the Department of Sociology, University of Delhi, in October 1995. I am thankful to Prof. André Béteille, the then colleagues in the Department, and the anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions, and to the late Prof. J.S. Bhandari, Soumendra and Nita for their constant support. 2. The emergency (1975-77) has been a watershed in the history of contemporary India, lifting of which was marked by the celebration of democracy and mushrooming of the voluntary sector in the country. The democratic forces brought to the centre stage repression of marginalised strata of society, and women were just one of them. 3. All types of women’s groups may or may not have ‘feminist’ goals, for example, women’s friendship clubs, women’s specific interest associations, etc. Martin (1990) suggests that an organisation is feminist if it meets any of the following criteria: (a) it has feminist ideology, (b) it has feminist guiding values, (c) it has feminist goals, (d) it produces feminist outcomes, and (e) it was founded during the women’s movement or as a part of women’s movement. Mies (1987) and Gandhi and Shah (1992) also opine that labelling does not serve any purpose. 4. Madhu Kishwar (1990), a leading woman activist, refuses to be called as a feminist. While identifying the reasons for such a stance, Pathak and Sengupta (1997) argue that feminism as a concept is divorced from the strength of tradition. 5. In my doctoral thesis, I have detailed my dilemmas and conflicts in being a researcher of women’s movement (Mehrotra 1993). 6. It has been observed that from 1950s through 1970s many women struggled as part of mass movements in different parts of the country; gender issues per se, however, were not their concern (see Sen 1990). Interestingly, it is always the middle-class issues which get the attention of the media. Perceiving Feminism 77 7. Besides these three streams, there have been in existence women’s organisations whose orientation was mainly social welfare. For example, the All India Women’s Conference has been active since pre-independence days, and the National Federation of Women has been actively engaged in working-class issues. 8. Organisations such as Kali for Women, Shaktishalini, Manushi, Karmika, and Jagori could be said to form a part of the autonomous women’s movement. Centre for Women’s Development Studies, Joint Women’s Programme, and YWCA do not subscribe to the views of these organisations. Manushi, which was born as a part of autonomous women’s movement, however, denies that it is a feminist group (see Kishwar 1990). 9. I am thankful to Prof. J.S. Bhandari for suggesting me this term. 10. On the meaning of empowerment, see Mehrotra (1997). 11. In traditional Indian set-up, owing to strict gender segregation, only gender specific groups have existed. Women often came together as part of bhajan mandlis and social work organisations (Caplan 1985), clubs and kitty parties. Since they conformed to the accepted social norms, these groups never posed any threat to patriarchal structures. Under analysis, however, are groups which challenge patriarchy, thereby raising fears in general public. In the west, on the other hand, gender specific groupings are seen with suspicion, as they go against the dominant heterosexual social norm. 12. There are many instances in which women activists came together for a common cause but later disagreed on issues like funding, ways of functioning, etc.; consequently, new groups were formed (Mehrotra 1993:Ch.3). Manushi is an important case in this regard. 13. The term class here connotes the lifestyle of people with reference to their income, education level, and access to housing, health and other areas of life. 14. For details, see the chapter on ‘Women Activists’ in Mehrotra (1993). In the early 1990s, a new category of professionals engaged in women’s movement emerged, like researchers, full-time paid workers etc., who were not voluntarily working for women’s issues in the true sense of the term. 15. Many studies on the position of women in India document the number and level of restrictions on upper-caste women. Ideology of seclusion and control over their sexuality are the predominant themes used in the explanation of their lower status, and docility and self sacrifice are the expected virtues of women (see Dube 1996; Liddle and Joshi 1986; Mehrotra 1993; Sharma 1980; Wadley 1990; Yalman 1968). 16. Significantly, smoking and consumption of liquor are proscribed for women in traditional upper-caste/middle-class set-up. 17. This and other narrations to follow are free translations from Hindi. References Agnihotri, I. and V. Majumdar. 1995. ‘Changing terms of political discourse: Women’s movement, 1970s - 1990s’, Economic and political weekly, 30 (29): 1869-78. Akerkar, S. 1995. ‘Theory and practice of women’s movement in India’, Economic and political weekly, 30 (17): WS 1-23. 78 Sociological Bulletin Bhasin, K. and N.S. Khan. 1986. Some questions on feminism and its relevance for South Asia. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Caplan, P. 1985. Class and gender in India: Women and their organisations in a south Indian city. London: Tavistock. Chitnis, S. 1990. ‘Feminism - Indian ethos and Indian convictions,’ in R. Ghadially (ed.): Women in Indian society (81-95). New Delhi: Sage Publications. Dube, L. 1996. ‘Caste and women,’ in M.N. Srinivas (ed.): Caste: Its twentieth century avatar (1-27). New Delhi: Viking. Eisenstein, Z.R. 1984. Feminism and sexual equality: Crisis in liberal America. New York: Monthly Review Press. Gandhi, N. and N. Shah. 1992. Issues at stake: Theory and practice of women’s movement in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Humm, M. 1989. The dictionary of feminist theory. Wheatsheaf: Harvester. Jaggar, A.J. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Sussex: Harvester. Kadiatu, K. 1998. ‘Black feminisms’, in S. Jackson and J. Jones (eds.): Contemporary feminist theories (86-97). Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press Kishwar, M. 1990. ‘Why I do not call myself a feminist’, Manushi, 61: 54. Krishnaraj, M. (ed.) nd. Contributions to women’s studies (Series 7). Mumbai: RCWS, SNDT Women’s University. Liddle, J. and R. Joshi. 1986. Daughters of independence: Gender, caste and class in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Martin, P.Y. 1990. ‘Rethinking feminist organisations’, Gender and society, 4 (2). Mehrotra, N. 1993. A study of women’s organisations and women activism in Delhi. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Delhi. -----1997. ‘Grass roots level women activism: A case study from Delhi’, Indian anthropologist, 27 (2): 19-36. Mies, M. 1987. Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale. London: Zed Books. Mohanty, C.T. 1985. ‘Under the western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses’, Boundary, 3 (2): 333-58. Offen, K. 1992. ‘Defining feminism: A comparative historical approach’, in G. Bock and S. Jove ( eds.): Beyond equality and difference (69-88). London and New York: Routledge. Omvedt, G. 1990. Violence against women: New movements and theories in India . New Delhi: Kali for Women. Patel, V. 1985. ‘Indian women on warpath’, in M. Desai (ed.): Reaching for half the sky (11-16). Baroda: Antar Rashtriya Prakashan. Pathak, Z. and S. Sengupta. 1997. ‘Between academy and street: A story of resisting women’, Signs, 22 (3): 545-77. Ranadive, V. 1986. Feminists and women’s movement. New Delhi: All India Democratic Women’s Association. Sangari, K. and S. Vaid (ed.). 1989. Recasting women. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Sen, Ilina. 1990. A space within the struggle. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Sharma, K. 1989. Shared aspirations, fragmented realities: Contemporary women’s movement in India - Its dialectics and dilemmas (Occasional paper 12). New Delhi: Centre for Women’s Development Studies. Sharma, U. 1980. Women work and property in north -west India. London: Tavistock. Perceiving Feminism 79 Singh, I.P. 1986. ‘Ideological positions on the women’s question’. Paper presented at the National Conference on Women’s Studies, Chandigarh. Threlfall, M. (ed.). 1996. Mapping the women’s movement: Feminist politics and social transformation in the north. Verso: New Left Review. Wadley, S. 1990. ‘Women and the Hindu tradition’, in Women in Indian Society, in R. Ghadially (ed.): Women in Indian society (23-43). New Delhi: Sage Publications. Yalman, N. 1968. ‘On the purity of women in the castes of Ceylon and Malabar,’ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 93 (1): 25-58. Zald, M.N. and R. Ash. 1966. ‘Social movement organisations: Growth, decay and change’, Social forces, 44.