It is customary to celebrate femininity on International Women’s Day. Promises are made, schemes announced, and at times tears are shed on the state of women. But have we ever paused and asked, “Why is there no International Men’s Day?”
The answer is simple. We built a world centred around men and created all institutions accordingly. We compelled women to be silent participants in that world. We assumed that silence was a weakness and that women hence needed a system to protect them. We understood the physical strength of men as the real power and the battles he waged and the empires he built as “real manliness”. We didn’t realise that given an opportunity, a woman, too, can display the same physical strength as a man. Instances like Golda Meir’s leadership during the Yom Kippur War in Israel in 1973 or Indira Gandhi’s role during the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 are seen as exceptions.
Story continues below this ad
Physical strength is not about gender. It is about the institutional structures we create. Since they are centred around men, we have armies of men. But in the past, women have led armies several times. Joan of Arc led the French forces in the Hundred Years’ War in the 15th century. Queen Isabella I’s support was crucial to the Spanish Army in the unifying war, the Reconquista. Catherine the Great led the Russian Army against the Ottomans and expanded her country’s territory. In India, too, there are several such examples. These include rulers like Rani Rudrama Devi of the Kakatiya dynasty in South India in the 12th century and Begum Razia Sultana (1205-40), the queen of Delhi, who defended their kingdoms efficiently from foreign invaders. Jijabai Bhosale (1598-1674) inspired her son Shivaji to establish Hindu Pad Padshahi — an independent Hindu nation. Tarabai (1675-1761), widow of Rajaram Bhosale, Shivaji’s son, took it upon herself to ward off the continued Mughal efforts to take over the kingdom. Rani Durgavati (1524-64), queen of Gondwana, fought against the Mughal invaders for several years. The Tuluva queen Rani Abbakka Chowta (1525-1570) defended Ullal in Karnataka from the Portuguese invaders for 40 years. The British Army had to endure the ferocity of several women rulers in wars. Velu Nachiyar, queen of Sivaganga (1730-96), fought and defeated the British. Rani Chennamma (1778-1829) of Kittur fought the British until death to defend her freedom. Then there were legendary rulers like Avanti Bai of Ramgarh and Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi.
The real power of a woman doesn’t lie in her physical strength, but in her role as the creator. Men assume that they are stronger. But the strength required for procreation, the struggle that a woman has to wage for months and the pain that she endures at the time of delivery is probably beyond men’s imagination. Khalil Gibran, the Lebanese poet, said that children are “the sons and daughters of life’s longing for itself”. When creation longed for its eternity, it chose women to uphold the responsibility for its perpetuity. In that sense, women are far more important and superior in nature’s scheme of things.
Traditional societies like India understood this and accorded a higher status of motherhood to women. Motherhood is not just about giving birth to children. It is about a woman’s higher power of creation. Gandhi’s wife Kastur was referred to as “ba” — meaning mother in Gujarati. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa regarded his wife Sarada Devi as the divine mother.
Story continues below this ad
Some women abhor this description because they look at motherhood from a Victorian prism. Victorian morality, the orthodox social order that was strictly implemented in England during the reign of Queen Victoria from 1837 to 1901, regarded women as mere procreative machines. Victorian men were supposed to be strong, ambitious and independent while women were weak, dependent and submissive. Women were seen as the property of men. They could neither own property nor have any political rights like voting.
Certain aspects of Victorian morality came to influence India, too, during the colonial subjugation. Women were confined to homes and limited freedoms were accorded to them. The freedom of women came to be identified with promiscuity. The birth of a girl became a burden and regressive practices like female foeticide became a norm among certain communities.
Gandhi was among the prominent men in modern times to reject that mindset. In a letter to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur in October 1936, he insisted that women themselves should resist being the “slaves” of men. “If you women only realise your dignity and privilege, and make full sense of it for mankind, you will make it much better than it is. But man has delighted in enslaving you and you have proved willing slaves till the slave and holders have become one in the crime of degrading humanity. I was once a slaveholder myself but Ba proved an unwilling slave and thus opened my eyes to my mission,” he wrote. Gandhi even upheld a woman’s right to live separately from an unjust husband.
most read
The “dignity and privilege” that Gandhi talked about is the key. It calls for a mindset change from a man-centric approach to a man-woman-centric one. Gender equality in actions and gender neutrality in perception is the need of the hour. The objectification of womanhood is a concern to be addressed seriously. Hillary Clinton once said: “If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle.”
The safety of women lies not in restricting their lives, but in according dignity and respect to them. Swami Vivekananda was once asked about his views on the protection of women. He laughed out loudly and said “Protection of women? You will protect her? She is Durga; she is Kali; Mahishasura Mardini and Sakshat Jaganmata herself. And you want to protect her?” “Respect her,” he said, “so that her safety is automatically taken care of”.
The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal
