When the President of India speaks

(March 21, 2017 marks the fortieth anniversary of the lifting of the Emergency in India)

We normally get to hear the President of India speak on three formal occasions: on the eve of Republic Day and Independence Day and at the joint session of both Houses of Parliament marking the start of the Budget session. Of course, the President of India also makes speeches on various other platforms over his/her tenure. But what marks all these speeches is their standardised nature – they are either listing the priorities and achievements of the government of the day or are exhortations to select audiences on specific subjects. Which is why the publication of the first of his three volume memoirs by President Pranab Mukherjee was interesting: it was the first by a President while still in office. More intriguingly, it dealt with his first fifteen years in Lutyens Delhi during the Indira Gandhi era.

Of particular interest to my generation, which received its political education from the Emergency years, is his analysis and understanding of the Emergency – the events that led to it, the rationale for the Emergency and the happenings during that period and the political resurrection of Indira Gandhi in the post-Emergency years. Even today, forty years on, I remember my feelings on the morning of 21 March 1977 – “Bliss was it that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven”- when a captive All-India Radio and Doordarshan had to admit that Indira Gandhi and her Congress Party had been decisively routed in the polls. At a juncture now in the country’s and world’s history when strong personalities bestride the political scene and when the tenets of liberal democracy are being seriously questioned by the inhabitants of such democracies, there is need to try and understand the social forces at work in a country like India and what these imply for a country which has defied its critics and sceptics by doggedly persisting with a democratic form of government, despite all its flaws and aberrations. A comparison of 1975/77 India and her offspring of 2017 bring out the bright and dark sides of present-day India and enable possible prognostications of what the future holds for us Indians.

1) The educated middle class expansion and its implications: Post 1991, the middle class population in India has grown significantly in numbers apart from being engaged in a variety of occupations. The 1975 Indian middle class was largely employed in government service and beholden to the rulers of the day. The present day middle class Indian could be an entrepreneur, one who works in the organised private sector or is self-employed, very often one with international footprints. She has had access to improved education opportunities, is far more aware of thought currents across the globe and has many more avenues to express herself openly. And yet, the educated middle class is today far more susceptible to the allurements of narrow nationalism, jingoistic pride and intolerance of the views of others, as evidenced by the vicious attacks on social media. The ideals which guided the framers of the Indian Constitution find little resonance with the millennial generation. The technocratic worldview has little patience for liberal, humanistic values. It is little wonder then that liberal democracy is facing an existential crisis today.

2) The explosion in mass media: Freedom of expression has been facilitated by the internet revolution and the humongous growth in electronic and social media. Those of us who had just All India Radio and Doordarshan for meeting our information needs during the Emergency find the current Babel Tower of the electronic media refreshing, even if somewhat irritating at times. Twitter trolls notwithstanding, there is opportunity for every Indian with digital access to put forth her views. And yet, the flip side can be disquieting. While print media in the past was privately owned, big business has now come to dominate both print and electronic media. Editors and news managers are under increasing pressure to conform to the business interests of their owners, unlike in the past. The dissemination of news is also coming to resemble a cricket Twenty-Twenty match, with inexperienced reporters (having little understanding of ground realities) excitedly putting forth garbled versions of the true picture. Even more dismaying is the tendency of news anchors (puffed up with self-importance) functioning as judge, jury and executioner, silencing all inconvenient voices and sending to the gallows those they consider lacking in patriotism and national pride.

3) The Big Brother syndrome – I am the State: We are now in the era of the strong man, whether in India, Russia, the USA, Turkey or the Philippines. Indira Gandhi in 1975 was strong in her own right but she did not have the wide, rapturous acceptance of her predominant position that a Narendra Modi enjoys today. The problem is that the person, party, state and nation are today all seen through the same prism. Criticism of any one of these is seen as opposition to the nation-state. An aura of invincibility is sought to be created around the superman, using the media and capitalising on an ineffectual political opposition. It is true that unlike 1975, when Tamil Nadu was probably the only prominent non-Congress state, today’s political scene is marked by a multiplicity of parties, especially regional formations, ruling in different states. Many of them are often hostile to the ruling party at the centre and lose no opportunity to oppose it on a variety of issues. However, with power and money rather than principles and convictions being the bases for political conduct, there is no certainty about the opposition either, as the recent events of manufacture of governments in Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Manipur show.

4) Diversity – of language, customs and religion: Running a subcontinent of India’s size and heterogeneity is no easy business, more so for a centralised, authoritarian government, as Indira Gandhi found to her cost in 1977. The multiplicity of tongues, religious beliefs and customs, cultural and dietary patterns render the enforcement of a uniform, majoritarian worldview well-nigh impossible. But, in recent times, efforts are being made to impose straitjacketed versions of history, culture and ideas that are drawn from the Gangetic plains. Conformity with the majoritarian mindset is sought to be ensured through indoctrination, legislation and government action and, where these prove inadequate, through resort to vigilante action, whether to dictate what women can wear and do or what people can eat, see and talk.

5) Institutional capture: The first attempts by the government of the day to bend institutions of democracy to its whims and fancies started in 1975 with the supersession of judges of the Supreme Court and the enunciation of the concept of a committed bureaucracy, apart from very crude efforts to muzzle the media. History seems to be coming full circle once again, with steps being taken to exert the influence of the political executive on appointments to the higher judiciary and with no clear system being adopted for appointments to the elite bureaucracy at the level of the Government of India (the media has already been tamed to a great extent, as mentioned earlier). Institutions of higher learning and statutory bodies are being packed with appointees beholden to the reigning political order.
It is impossible (and highly risky) to hazard any definite conclusions about the likely direction of politics in India in the coming decades. Inferences can at best be drawn from the straws in the wind as revealed by the actions of the government and the averments of its spokespersons. In totting up the balance sheet for India’s political system, what gives cause for some comfort is the resilience of the Indian people and their refusal to tolerate incompetent, corrupt and authoritarian behaviour on the part of those elected to represent them. In the first volume of his memoirs, Pranab Mukherjee has glossed over the rationale behind the Emergency, apart from sticking to the usual Congress line of opposition indiscipline, unrest and the call for the resignation of the Prime Minister: having been a loyal Congressman for most of his life, it would be too much to expect him to frankly analyse the inner motivations of the primary actor in first imposing the Emergency and then calling for the elections that led to its end. What is important is whether, forty years hence, we as a people understand the significance of a functioning democracy and the rules and conventions by which it should operate. Sadly, we, the so called “thinking classes”, are ready to hand over our powers (and even our freedoms) in our quest for security and certainty, forgetting that democracy is eternally a story that is in the making. It is we, the citizens of India, who have to write that story, learning from past mistakes. Else, there will be need to revert to a perennially favourite quote of mine “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Lipstick in a man’s world

Indian politicians have this amazing propensity to put their feet in their mouths. I remember the then Deputy Chief Minister and Home Minister of Maharashtra  lost his post because of his comment post the 26/11 Mumbai attack  “Such minor incidents do take place from time to time.
” The present Home Minister of Karnataka  stirred up a hornet’s nest after the horrifying incident of “mass molestation”  on Bengaluru’s Brigade Road on New Year’s Eve. He apparently said , according to newspaper reports, that the police force could not keep a watch on everyone and referred  to the “western ways” of youngsters as a corrupting influence.  More recently, he and his party men have tried to paint reports of the incident as a political conspiracy to tarnish  Bengaluru’s  image.  However, he has been outdone  by the Maharashtra Samajwadi  Party chief,  who has given a clear sexist  angle to the episode by claiming  that women  should  not draw attention to  themselves through their attire.   Not to be outdone in the misogyny  stakes,  the archaic Film Certification Board and its Chairman have gone one better : they have refused to certify for public screening a film titled “Lipstick Under My Burkha”,  ostensiblyon the grounds that the movie is ‘lady oriented’.

I strongly recommend that all these gentlemen (and the ladies on the Film
Certification Board), and others of their ilk, read an incisive analysis by three women researchers on what it means to be a woman in Mumbai
“Why Loiter?: Women and Risk on Mumbai Streets”. What this book brings
out clearly is the attenuated access of women to public spaces even in that supposed haven of liberation, Aamchi Mumbai. Women are allowed to enter
the public space on terms that are decided by a patriarchal society. What
is particularly significant is the classification of the woman when the public gaze falls on her. As long as she is in a bus, a local train  or in a public park with  a specific ‘respectable’ purpose, preferably with an accompanying
male and with the necessary accoutrements of mangalsutra and vermilion
mark (in case of Hindu women) as also ‘acceptable’ attire, in case of all women,  she is deemed to be the property of another male and is not
considered ‘easy game’. But let her venture forth in a public space on her own or in a group of female friends, dressed according to her  own desire and seen
at ‘inappropriate’ hours of the day in the vicinity of ‘undesirable’ locations and
she becomes the object of unwanted male attention or moral policing,  either by  the custodians of law or by self-appointed moralists.
The nukkad or the street corner cutting chai shop will never be the haunt of women; you will always see apparently idle men engaging in desultory chatter,
accompanied by puffs of cigarette/beedi smoke or vigorous mastication of tobacco.  Obversely, look at the village ghat or the local water standpost/
handpump and men will be conspicuous by their absence. The division
of leisure and labour in a gender-unequal society is painfully clear.
The gender discrimination is even more painfully obvious where issues like access to toilets and breastfeeding of infants are concerned. Public conveniences  in cities, where they exist and are tolerably clean, are weighted in favour of male use. A vicious cycle operates here: since women are seen less
in public places, urban planners skew such construction in favour of the male sex,  thus discouraging women from venturing forth in public. Even such conveniences  as are constructed for women do not take care of their
specific biological needs. It was heartwarming to learn that specific rooms have been set aside in bus stations in Maharashtra to enable nursing
mothers to breastfeed their children.

What is becoming painfully obvious is that, notwithstanding some progress in
women’s access to social equality and opportunities, Indian women are still at a disadvantage compared to their sisters in many democracies of the world,
including those of developing and emerging economies. Apart from the aspect of  human rights (which is undoubtedly of paramount importance),  India will
also suffer economically if she does not harvest the benefits of what I would term  the “gender dividend”. Significant movement in this direction will be possible when the following issues are focused on and tackled, at both the policy and societal levels:

Gender equality must begin at home

It was shocking to hear that 19 aborted female foetuses were recovered from a
stream in Sangli district, one of the more economically advanced regions of Maharashtra state. This is of a pattern with the Indian scenario where prosperous  states and the better off areas of India (especially urban concentrations)  display dismayingly low female-male sex ratios. Prenatal
sex determination tests are still in vogue, with the subsequent abortion of female  foetuses or murder of female babies. With the lower status  of women
established even before birth, it follows that the girl child represents the unwanted component of the family. Not surprisingly, the girl child,  who is
often healthier than her male sibling at birth, comes out worse in health
and nutrition status by the end of the first year of life. Nutrition, healthcare
and education opportunities are lavished on the male heir, this discriminatory notwithstanding  enough evidence that girls outperform  boys in scholastic
abilities and in perseverance. Children also imbibe the ingrained  attitudes
towards women in the home, which are reinforced by the latitude given to boys as compared to girls. Gender roles are also sought to  be cemented
in children’s impressionable minds to fix their future life trajectories.
Unless a ‘Dangal’ is created in age-old attitudes and prejudices right at
the family level, gender equality will remain a myth.

Equal opportunities and freedoms for children of both sexes at adolescence and beyond

Attitudes to girls harden as they enter the critical years of puberty and adolescence. The girl is now seen as a liability whose ownership must be
transferred at the earliest to another patriarchal set up. Leave alone actualisation of the girl’s innate potential, even education at the secondary school or higher levels is considered an unnecessary luxury, given the fixed ideas about her destiny as wife and mother, mingled with fears about her discovery of her sexuality. To add fuel to the controversy over certain institutions of higher learning circumscribing freedom of access of girls
to libraries (after certain hours of the day)  and wifi facilities as also interaction with the other sex, we have no less a person than the Minister for
Women and Child Development of the Government of India counselling girls
that restrictions are essential to control their “hormonal outbursts”.
Apparently, only girls, not boys, need to be protected from their hormones.

Equal workplace opportunities and home/childcare responsibilities for both sexes

Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, in her thought-provoking book, “Lean In:
Women, Work and the Will to Lead”, talks of how, when a woman executive is planning a family, the discussion moves immediately to what she is
contemplating about her career, a question that is never asked of a male in a
similar position. Granted, the woman has to carry the child for nine months,
deliver the child and undertake nursing in the succeeding period. Companies and governments have taken many steps to ease the pressure on women through longer periods of maternity leave and arrangements for working from
home, apart from paternity leave, so that the father can share the child-rearing responsibilities. In Sandberg’s case, her husband left his job at
Yahoo and set up his own company so that he could devote time to  the children at home, enabling Sheryl to devote time to her career. While the modern  Indian urban family is slowly moving towards joint gender management  of domestic responsibilities, social and familial pressures still
constrain women’s choices. Even when the woman and her partner work out
arrangements which enable her to fulfil her aspirations, she still has nagging feelings of guilt, a reminder of a society which still operates in stereotypes.

Make cities/towns truly smart to enable women to utilize opportunities

The real killer for the aspirational Indian woman is the environment in which she has to function. Forget rural India, where gender equality is still a distant
goal. The urban woman has to negotiate a nightmare of situations in her day
to day life, occasioned by apprehensions about personal security (especially after dark), creaky transport systems, inadequate toilet facilities, poor lighting
and the male-dominated perception that she has no right to be on her own
at the wrong times in the wrong neighbourhoods. India is proudly
touting its smart cities. But a city that does not cater to the needs of half its population is not smart at all. Urban planning in India is in a shambles,
with outmoded management systems and failing infrastructure.
Women will bear the brunt of these deficiencies till governments get their
acts together. Till then, we have to continue to live with privatised solutions
to public problems in the areas of security, transport and sanitation, to name just three.

Need for social movements to create in women awareness of their rights and
entitlements

As Paulo Freire, the Latin American educationist, observed in a different context, the oppressed internalise the values of the oppressor,  enabling
subjugation by the powerful for long periods of time. Indian women are
no exception to this generalisation. Adopting the patriarchal set of values, women are often hostile to members of their sex perceived as deviants and not
conforming to prevailing social mores and traditions, as evidenced by the ubiquity of the  saas-bahu syndrome. There is also the fear in women of confronting a male-dominated society, with few support systems for women who stand up for their rights. Social change will come about only when
women support each other and assert their rights to participation as equals in
all aspects of social, political and economic life.

As the International Women’s Day rolls around once again, one is overcome by
feelings of déjà vu. Two years ago, I wrote on the issue of the status of women in India in the context of the furore over the telecast of the Nirbhaya
documentary (Cry, the BelovedCountry). Mindsets change slowly in the wonder that is India,  whether they be of Film Certification (Censor?) Boards or
Vice-Chancellors of Universities. The good news lies in the rapidly growing access  of women to education and economic empowerment and the increasing
readiness of educated women (and their not so fortunate sisters) to confront
misogyny in all its perverted forms. Applying lipstick will then be a matter of free personal choice, without any need to resort to covert stratagems.