Ishika Agarwal
Dr. Ambedkar always strived to make the world a better place for all humans, no matter white or colored, rich or poor, man or woman. His goal was to unite the human race and make us realize that we all are living human beings. It doesn’t matter what we look like or what we practice. And after the civil war, in 1865, people had finally stopped counterparting each other on the basis of color. Of course, it hasn’t ended completely. Once in your life, you will always feel repulsiveness against someone for completely irrational reasons, such as the way they look. Somedays, I feel that myself. But, I keep reminding myself that the human race would be so boring if we were all the same. God must’ve made us all unique for a reason. And I am sure that the reason was not to undermine each other.
These days, how much does it matter if the person in front of you is a girl or boy? In the 21st century, everyone has almost equal rights, but it wasn’t always like that. The ‘olden’ days were much more prejudiced. Let’s go pay a short visit to the year 1956. Until then, only sons were allowed to inherit belongings after the deceased father. The wife and daughters had no right. But, in 1956, this was altered and the Hindu Succession Act was brought into action stating the following law:
- If a woman passes away, her property is divided equally between her daughters and sons. If she has no children, it is passed onto the husband.
- If a man passes away, his property is divided equally amongst wife, daughters, and sons.
The act was passed to amend and codify the law relating to intestate or unwilled succession among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. The act focuses on reducing gender imparity and levels the playing field for everyone. Though this is a controversial act, it has helped reduce domestic violence and exploitation of women, because now, they have something that they call their very own.
This act is a part of the Hindu Code Bill, established in 1955. It includes 3 other acts: Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The Hindu Code was first drafted in 1941, and in 1948, the draft was revised under the chairmanship of law minister Dr. Ambedkar. This edition had eight sections: part one delineated who would be considered a Hindu and did away with the caste system. Significantly, it stipulated that the Hindu Code would apply to anyone who was not a Muslim, Parsi, Christian or Jew, and asserted that all Hindus would be governed under a uniform law. Part two of the bill concerned marriage; part three adoption; part four, guardianship; part five the policy on joint-family property, and was controversial as it included the nontraditional allocation of property to women. Part six concerned policies regarding women’s property, and parts seven and eight established policies on succession and maintenance. By allowing for divorce, Ambedkar’s version of the Hindu Code conflicted with traditional Hindu personal law, which did not sanction divorce (although it was practiced). It also “established one joint family system of property ownership for all Hindus” by doing away with regional rules. Finally, it allotted portions of inheritance to daughters, while giving widows complete property rights where they had previously been restricted.
For a long time, the bill was stalled by the parliament, especially by the male members of the Congress party who thought the idea was absurd. They believed that the code bills would institute reform that strayed too far from the classical Hindu social order and were too radical. They argued that practices such as divorce were absolutely not condoned by Hinduism. “To a Hindu the marriage is sacramental and as such indissoluble.” They also felt that should equal property rights be given to women, the concept of a joint family would crumble, as would the foundation of Hindu society. They also insisted that if daughters and wives were given inheritance, more conflicts would arise within families.
Now, I’d like you to take a moment and think that is this not patriarchy? What these men wanted was that women sit at home, as a mere appendage to a man’s boastful ego. They disagreed with the fact that women should have their own rights. Back in the mid-20th century, domestic violence took place everywhere. Women didn’t have any authority, so how could you expect her to fight back. Every time a woman stood up, the man would say, “You should be lucky that you have me to take care of you. Else you would be on the streets.” And he wasn’t wrong. When a woman doesn’t have a house, money, self-confidence, or supporters, how do you think people won’t walk all over her. The initiative that Dr. Ambedkar wanted to form was to promote self-confidence. He wanted a woman to take a stand for herself. If a man said, “Get out of my house,”, she should have the audacity to say, “Okay, I don’t need you as a benefactor. I can earn for myself. I have shelter for myself.” But, the old-fashioned and bigoted mind of males refused to sanction the bill.
One large reason that the act was refused was that it lacked any public support. Women’s voices were suppressed, and mainly women’s organizations voiced their support. Everyone else was largely against the idea because the thought to provide a financial backup to women was ‘horrible’. Disappointed at the response from the parliament, Dr. Ambedkar resigned from the cabinet. After a period of 4-5 years, the Act was acknowledged and published in the legislature, granting women considerable freedom and equal rights.
Once the law was passed, female education slowly became a priority. Though it was not acknowledged much then, a few daughters were sent to school. The old African proverb “If you educate a man you educate an individual, but if you educate a woman you educate a family (nation)” was a pioneer in its time for realizing the importance of women’s education when men predominated education opportunities. Even nowadays, the situation has ameliorated, but not erased stereotypes completely. In government schools, there are more girls than boys, but in private schools, there is a higher count of males than females. This shows modern discrimination between a son and daughter, and it also exhibits that parents consider private schools to be better than public schools.
The Indian women’s movement began in 1975, working toward intersectionality and catapulting gender violence into national discourse. While a barebones women’s movement was being carried out in India since the 1920s, it only served as a complement to the political revolution taking India by storm.
In 1983, Section 498A was adopted into the Indian Penal Code, which made “cruelty” toward wives a criminal offence that could be punished with up to five years in jail. The law, which soon fell flat when cases under its purview were put under the jurisdiction of family courts to resolve marital disputes instead of punishing perpetrators, was still the first major legal victory since women started mobilizing at a large scale for change.
But these attempts at unity were also fraught with deep schisms over class and religion. There has been some criticism of feminist movements in India. They have especially been criticized for focusing too much on privileged women, and neglecting the needs and representation of poorer or lower caste women.
From rallying to urge the government to recognize the term ‘domestic violence’ in the early 2000s, to facilitating anti-rape laws after the 2012 Nirbhaya case, a fearless, mobilized women’s movement has been trying to effect change in an intensely patriarchal Indian society. While sexual assault and gender violence are still grave threats to women in India, a survivor and activist, Bhanwari Devi, perfectly embodies the attitudes of Indian feminists from decades past, “I will not be silenced. I will continue to fight till my last breath until I get justice.”
In 2005, an Amendment was made in the Hindu Succession Act, clarifying what it means for women, and making it impossible for families to violate the Act. Recently, pleas have been raised in the Supreme Court questioning the validity of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act. The suppliant said that upon the death of a female Hindu, the first rights are of the husband and his family, then the husband’s extended family, and finally the deceased woman’s family. But, on the death of a male Hindu, the rights are to the latter’s children, wife, and family. This depicts differential treatment as the husband and his family have stronger claims on the deceased woman’s property than the wife’s family, even if the property was acquired by the woman using her own skill and equity. The parents of the deceased daughter are given such a right only after the parents and even the distant relations of the man. The panel said that it agrees that the issue may require consideration but since Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act is an old provision, it would like to have the benefit of the High Court’s opinion in the matter. The petitioner then sought permission of the court to withdraw the plea to which the bench agreed, while giving them liberty to approach the High Court.
While the 2005 law granted equal rights to women, questions were raised in multiple cases on whether the law applied retrospectively, and if the rights of women depended on the living status of the father through whom they would inherit. Different panels of judges of the Supreme Court had taken conflicting views on the issue. Different High Courts had also followed different views of the top court as binding precedents.
India has closed 62.5 percent of its gender gap till date. The country had ranked 112th among 153 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index 2020. If we compare India to Iceland, which is known as the most gender equal country in the world, we can see how many opportunities women are missing in India. Women’s suffrage was introduced in Iceland as early as 1915 and it was the first country in the world to elect a female Head of State, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir (1980). During the last decade, the country has passed, among others, laws to ensure gender balance on boards. In 1850 women gained the same inheritance rights as men; until then daughters only had the right to one third of the inheritance.
India has only had one female president and one female prime minister till now. Iceland has given thousands of posts to women and made it a law to have 40% women in any company or board. Females do not have many choices when it comes to jobs in India, while in Iceland, men and women are treated equally.
The success of Iceland can be attributed to women taking power and creating alternatives to the male dominant “truths” and making the invisible realities of women visible, most importantly discriminatory practices including sexual harassment and abuse. Lastly, Iceland’s progress can be attributed to women and men sharing power with each other as decision-makers and gradually having more men supporting the give and take of gender equality.
Between India and Iceland, our country doesn’t trust women to govern or lead any multinational company. Indian women are forced to accept a role as housewives, but are discouraged and daunted for working out of the house.
It isn’t so that any country is fully gender equal. Even Iceland has a 12.2% gap, and by estimating, it will take Iceland approximately 100 years to achieve 100% equality, even at its current rapid growth. But, it is growing less and less every single minute. Why cannot we achieve the same in India? It requires the collective action and solidarity of women human rights defenders, political will, and tools such as legislation, gender budgeting and quotas. Maybe, if we stop undermining women for a minute and examine their potential, we will be able to see that women are just as good as men, if not better.
She who moves forward four steps, is pulled back two,
He who moves forward two steps is pushed to five.
Why is it so that the burden is only in a girl’s life?
A paved sidewalk for a boy, a rocky hill road for a girl.
An encouraging journey for him, a sorrowful journey for her.
Why is it so that the burden is only in a girl’s life?
And to the man who thinks women are weak,
When you were born, who did you seek?
For those who push women back,
It is just common sense you lack.
A sow lives under the ground, have you ever thought why.
She can’t handle the cultural norm pressure that makes her cry.
For those who push women back,
It is just common sense you lack.
If it was so that in the world there are only superior men.
Have you ever thought about what would happen without women?
People only think about them when the matter comes to the kitchen,
Why is it that only a man has the power of a decision?
A man can have several wives,
But for a woman, only coming out of the house leads to humiliation.
He has the power to do whatever he wants.
Then why does she have to take one’s permission?
Let us move forward against this stereotype!
Let children understand this while their mind is still unripe!
English