Looks like a refreshing piece of reading for all whom liberation matters in all its nuanced ways and meanings!
On Sep 4, 5:11 pm, "Rajeev Ram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See this interesting piece by * Sarbani Bandyopadhyay*in the September > issue of HIMAL-Southasian The revolutionary patriarchs *An emancipatory > politics cannot liberate unless it confronts the patriarchy within.* > > Cath SluggetThe relationship between feminism and the left movements in > India has long been a contested one. Marxists accuse feminists of trying to > subvert the politics of class, while feminists criticise Marxists for > underplaying gender discrimination. But is 'class' itself an adequate tool > of analysis? Is an understanding of class that is divorced from extra-class > factors such as caste and gender really capable of handling the complexity > of today's reality? Such a question may be described as too broad, but it is > of particular interest with regards to the Naxalite movement in India. Let > us take a deeper look at this matter in the context of rural Bihar. > > For many, the mention of rural Bihar conjures up visions of inequality, > lawlessness and mindless violence. But there is a definite method to the > madness. The violence that wracks this part of the country has its basis in > the existing order, which is increasingly being challenged by the labouring > poor under the leadership of the Naxalites. Upheavals among the underclass > are not new here, and they have often failed in their campaigns. As far back > as in the 1930s, the Bihar Provincial Kisan Sabha (BPKS)-led movement failed > to address the grievances of the truly oppressed sections of Bihari society, > largely because it did not take into account the caste system that > structured agrarian relations. The BPKS was dominated by traditional > landholding upper castes, which did not move to organise landless labourers > and sharecroppers, who were mostly Dalits and Adivasis. It also failed to > take into account issues of gender discrimination, particularly the sexual > abuse of lower-caste women by the dominant-caste landholders. > > Reports show that even during the 1990s, control over land was vested in > only 10 percent of the population in rural Bihar, and that most of this > group was upper caste. The underclasses were forced to work as sharecroppers > or daily-wage labourers under oppressive economic and social conditions. It > is not surprising, therefore, that it was the Dalit, Adivasi and low-caste > sections – and women among them – who came to form the Naxalite backbone. > The issues they raised included the underclass's right to own land, to > minimum wages, to a life of dignity and, specifically for women, to an end > to sexual abuse perpetrated by the dominant-caste landholders. In certain > pockets of rural Bihar, such as the Bhojpur, Jehanabad, Gaya and Patna > districts, the Naxalite-led movements have indeed achieved a fair degree of > success in terms of economic and political rights, including the right to a > life of dignity. But how emancipatory are these politics? > > *Gender compromises* > The Naxalites use violent means in order to end what they term the 'violence > of the status quo'. So threatening is this challenge that it has invited > violent and organised reprisals almost unprecedented in India's history. > Unlike earlier movements, the Naxalites have not relegated caste to a > secondary level, and they have also to some extent addressed the question of > sexual abuse of women labourers. But while its members have demanded that > stipulated minimum wages be paid, they have not highlighted equal wages for > women and men. They are fighting for land-ownership rights for the labouring > castes, but entitlements in the names of women are not on the agenda. > > During the 1970s, women were in the forefront of the land-acquisition > movement being waged by Party Unity, at the time one of the main Naxalite > groups in Bihar, against the head priest or mahant of the Bodh Gaya temple, > one of the biggest landowners in the area. Subsequently, however, the > women's demand that these lands be registered in their own names aroused the > indignation of the male Party Unity cadres. The line of argument followed > the familiar logic that, since it was men who were the 'real' tillers, they > should own the land. When the women subsequently refused to be involved > until this demand was met, the party leadership compromised by registering > in the name of women 10 percent of the 1100 acres of land that had been won. > > Such tokenism on the part of male Naxalite leaders does not fit with their > analysis of gender inequality being rooted in the economic structure of > society. Although it has not been stated explicitly by the Naxalites, they > appear to have recognised that the withdrawal of women from the production > process is legitimised by the institution of caste, which prescribes that > because women embody the honour and prestige of the family and community, > they should be closely monitored, kept behind the purdah, and must not work > outside the home. According to this approach, the lower castes also occupy > lower positions because their women are 'visible', as they work outside the > home. By extension, a woman who transgresses the patriarchal norms is not > considered worthy of respect, and thus can be used and abused in various > ways. > > Understandably, the Naxalites have focused on this aspect of gender > oppression. But can revolutionary politics stop here? The sexual abuse of > women has significant bearing on caste honour and prestige. Naxalite > politics seem to have accepted this understanding, and acknowledged that any > economic reductionism of this phenomenon is more likely to dilute than > enhance an understanding of the contradictions. However, Naxalism neither > questions the patriarchal ideology of feminine modesty, nor that of seeing > women as embodiments of community honour. The Naxalites have clearly been > looking at the sexual abuse of women in terms of feminine modesty and > community honour, rather than in terms of violation of women's rights. The > radical Naxalite demand of a labouring woman's right to a life of dignity > gets blunted due to patriarchal assumptions built into it. By incorporating > patriarchal ideology into their understandings and theories, the Naxalites > have given a new lease of life to patriarchy. > > The Naxalites have steadfastly refused to acknowledge the possibility of the > existence of patriarchal ideology and practices within their own assorted > movements. This externalisation has inevitably weakened the overall fight > against patriarchy: only sexual abuse of labouring women by the dominant > classes can be legitimately challenged. This means that the domestic sphere, > as well as that of the Party, is not seen as a legitimate arena of struggle > against patriarchy. Documents produced by Naxalite groups, even those of > their women's wings, clearly state the primacy of class over gender, that > only a classless society can decisively solve the 'woman question'. Any > politics that questions this suggestion is seen as a conspiracy to subvert a > progressive, class-based politics. The only special problem confronting > labouring women is seen as sexual humiliation from upper-caste landholders. > Some Naxalites are even against the setting-up of a separate women's wing, > the argument being that such a policy would create division in the ranks of > the movement. > > *'Bad' women* > *How do Naxalites conceptualise the issue of feminine modesty and honour? > Feminine modesty in India has been viewed in terms of Brahminical > patriarchy, and the Naxalites seem to have accepted this framework as > legitimate. In one incident during the 1980s, reported on by journalist > Manimala, an activist with the Mazdoor Kisan Sangram Samiti (MKSS, the Party > Unity mass front) from Aurangabad, Bihar, was killed in a police encounter, > and the organisation declared him a martyr. His widow, also a party worker, > was subsequently revered as the widow of a martyr. Meanwhile, she developed > a relationship with another party worker, and the two decided to get > married. Thereafter, the Aurangabad villagers complained about the situation > to the MKSS leadership, which formed a council to decide on the case. The > woman was denied permission to remarry, and the man was expelled from the > organisation for harbouring 'immoral' thoughts. > > The situation did not end there. The woman refused to accept the verdict, > and instead resigned from the MKSS. Deeming this action an insult to the > memory of the martyr, the organisation expelled both the man and the woman, > and, to add insult to injury, ordered them to leave the village. Initially, > the villagers' complaint had been that allowing the widow to remarry would > 'pollute' the village, and affect its reputation. In turn, the Naxalites had > justified their decision with the logic that the organisation needed to be > at one with the masses. That it was a patriarchal decision forced on the two > comrades did not seem to matter much. > * > It must be noted that the incident described above was not out of the > ordinary. There have been incidents of direct sexual violence perpetrated on > women by the Naxalites themselves. Manimala also refers to an MKSS action in > June 1988 against a Yadav criminal gang. The MKSS kidnapped the new bride of > a Yadav man (possibly with links to the gang) and attempted to sexually > abuse her. This was seen as the easiest way of taking revenge on the entire > gang. The young woman was saved when neighbours intervened. Five days later, > the Yadav gang tried to retaliate in a similar fashion. This time, it was > the wife of an MKSS activist who was saved, again by the villagers. > > This incident was condemned by Tilak Das Gupta, a Naxalite leader > interviewed by this writer. 'G M', a Party Unity activist who did not want > to be named, wondered about the political efficacy of such actions, and > termed it as a deviation from the 'real' struggle. 'C R D', an MCC leader, > said that he "did not see any difference between what dominant-caste > landholders do to labouring women and what the Naxalites did in this case", > the patriarchal mode of action evidently did not bother him. The issues > raised by this incident are political ones, because they question the > revolutionary agenda and the transformative capacity of the Naxalite > movements. Here, the party has become the new patriarch – one that controls > its members, their desires, their bodies and sexuality, and punishes > deviance accordingly. > > How do male comrades, reared in a male-dominated society, view women's > participation in the Naxalite movement? A female Naxalite activist's answer: > "As a group that must necessarily be led by men." Among the leadership, > there is hardly any female presence. Meanwhile, although exact figures or > even estimates are hard to come by, it is evident that the presence of women > at the grassroots has been overwhelming since the late 1960s. The absence of > women leaders is justified by the suggestion that women eventually become > mothers, and in the course of things take up responsibilities in the > domestic sphere. Even otherwise, there is a patriarchal allocation of roles: > the task of nursing an injured comrade, for instance, and providing > emotional support, falls solely on women cadres. > > Yet police records prove and testimonies of the women themselves > consistently claim that, without them, the Naxalite movement would have > faced a significantly more difficult task. From the snatching of weapons, > giving shelter to revolutionaries, acting as couriers, to spying and dying > for the 'revolution', women engaged (and engage) in some of the most > dangerous tasks. While the male Naxalite leaders agree, they simultaneously > persist in the argument that women should ultimately take up the traditional > feminine roles of household work and motherhood, so as to prepare the next > generation of fighters. Indeed, there exists strong pressure on women cadres > to bear children. > > *Intimate enemy* > One of the four pillars of oppression identified in Chinese society by Mao > Tse-tung was the patriarchal authority of the husband. But revolutionary > males in India, as elsewhere, are not ready to give up the privileges that > come with authority. Besides being good wives and mothers, women are > expected to build an environment in which the men can work for the > revolution unhindered – in the process, appropriating women's labour. > "Naxalite men are unable to give an equal measure of respect to their fellow > women compatriots," says Krishna Bandyopadhyay, a Naxalite. > > Evidently, fighting against the state and 'class enemies' is easier than > questioning the foundations on which the revolution stands, for both men and > women. It was easy to prioritise the prevention of sexual abuse of labouring > women; much more difficult is questioning the patriarchy present within the > Naxalite organisation, as well as the patriarchal grooming of the Naxalites > themselves, including of the women comrades. After all, doing so would > inevitably lead Naxalite men to give up many of their privileges. But even > the women would be faced with the uneasy task of questioning the ideology > and practices of men who are very close to them: fathers, brothers, > husbands, sons, comrades and leaders. > > In these ways, feminism comes to be seen as an enemy not only because it > gives primacy to gender, but also because it enters the most intimate > domains. It brings into focus the politics of personal life, and how power > operates in the 'non-political', private arena. Ironically, Naxalite women > also seem to have internalised patriarchal hegemony within the movement, and > appear to have some hostility towards the raising of gender (read: feminist) > issues. Those women revolutionaries who challenge the patriarchy currently > prevalent in the movement are very often labelled as deviants – as immoral, > 'loose' women. Liberation politics cannot be deemed truly liberatory until > it frees itself from patriarchal ideology. It must break the dichotomy > between the private and the public spheres, challenge the ideology that sees > women as embodiments of community honour, and debunk the ideology of > motherhood and the gendered division of labour. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
