I learnt a couple of days back that the Mumbai High Court has asked the Womanist Organization of India (WOI) to prove that men and women are equal. Apparently according to Maharashtra law, women cannot work in shops and bars after 9:30 pm and the WOI says that this is discriminatory and prevents women from obtaining employment on the same footing as men.
The Senior inspector of Police has told the court that waitresses and singers “can never be equated with women in other fields.” He’s also said that these women can be exploited and this goes against public interest and society (he forgot to mention the women in question though.) Now here’s the interesting bit: The court has asked WOI to “provide documentary evidence” that men and women are equal.
This is very unusual. The organization will of course have to decide which aspect of “equality” it wants to prove. Women and men are of course not equal in everything. Physically for example. Even in non discriminatory physical sports, men and women tournaments have different rules. Like tennis for example. But in my view, the particular sort of “equality” in this case is the right to opportunity. The law effectively says that women cannot be offered the same opportunities that men are offered and are thus placed at a disadvantage.
Also, the inspector’s comment is outrageous. What the hell does he mean by saying that waitresses and singers “can never be equated with women in other fields?” Are they some inferior sort of women? In what way? Do they deserve less dignity? And who is he to decide? In my opinion, he has to provide documentary evidence that they are not the same. The burden of proof is his.
It’s also an insult to women in that it implies that they can’t take care of themselves. We’re talking about adults here and no one is forcing a woman to work after 9:30 pm if she doesn’t want to. If it’s risky, then as an adult she has to make the decision as to whether or not she wants to go ahead. This is like the health department making a law saying “you cannot touch fire. It’s risky.” We already know that and can take care of ourselves thank you very much. And of course, we’re back to the old inanity of “public morality” which was touted during the hearings for the reading down of Article 377.
As usual, I had a devil of a time trying to find the case on the Mumbai High Court’s website – mainly because you have to search with exactly the right parameters and they’re so many of them. But I managed to at last. Here’s the screenshot of the case (Click to Enlarge):
The case will next be taken up on the 16th of October 2009. At least I think it is. The official listing says 16/10/2008 which I presume is some sort of typo. Here it is:
Am I happy that the court has asked the WOI to prove that men and women are equal (In whatever sense of the word)? Yes and no. Yes because once the concept is proved in court, it’s set down in black and white for all time and can be quoted in every case from this case forth without further argument. It will help expedite the removal of many more discriminatory laws. No because it seems that the right to equal opportunity is obvious and the court needn’t ask for it to be proved.
Unfortunately, “equality” isn’t something that is taken for granted in Indian society. Look how much Naz had to fight for the decriminalization of homosexuality when it should have been obvious. It’s possible that the court is trying to cover it’s tracks by being impartial and taking up the case from first principles to create an unassailable position. If so, then it’s the right thing to do. I hope it’s not because the Judges are prejudiced and have decided to try and make a fool of WOI and brand them a nuisance. But given the high credentials of our High Courts in general and looking at historical evidence, I’m inclined to think the best of them.
I’ll keep you guys updated on this case as and when court proceedings take place – and if they get delayed to a future date, I’ll post a brief note for that as well so you won’t be left hanging.
What do you think about this issue? Take the Poll:
[poll id=”7″]
I dont quite understand why the burden of proof lies with those who claim equality. Since in principle, it feels right that there should be no discrimination based on gender when it comes to employment, (isnt it part of the constitution or something??!) it seems like the onus of proof should lie with those claiming inequality.
Something just doesnt seem right about the court formally asking the WOI to prove that women are equal to men. But I guess if we're done with it then the question need never arise again.
@Anupa
It's not that simple. Men and women are legally treated differently in many walks of life – in many cases where the woman is favored. Examples:
1. Special train coaches
2. Special bus seats
3. Evacuation procedures necessitate women to go first etc.
It'll be interesting to see how the judgment affects the way women are treated overall.
It makes so much sense to me.
The state government says that these women 'are from the poor strata of society and are prone to illegal exploitation at the hands of the male customers, hotel staff, etc.'
As a solitary crimefighter for justice, I have found that the government prefers to punish the victim rather than the perpetrators of the exploitation. Why root out evil and corruption when you can simply add to the oppression and look the other way? To protect the poor we must subjugate them. It's for their own good. Don't they understand this is better than equality?!
After reading your article, I think their should arise a question to Rani of Jhansi-Lakshmi Bai, Sonia Ghandhi, Girija Vyas, Kalpana Chawla, Anni Besant, Arundhati Roa, Sunita Williams and host of others that why they have taken up those task that are supposed to be undertaken by their male counterparts? I am very much against the idea of confining women behind a kitchen.
I will long to see the result.
I agree of course – the question is what sort of equality should be applied here? Women are clearly not physically equal, but that's not what this is about…
Are you against women getting special seats in trains and buses? Does that mean that men are not equal?
I agree with you when you say, "No because it seems that the right to equal opportunity is obvious and the court needn’t ask for it to be proved."
"In my opinion, he has to provide documentary evidence that they are not the same. The burden of proof is his.
And
It’s also an insult to women in that it implies that they can’t take care of themselves. We’re talking about adults here and no one is forcing a woman to work after 9:30 pm if she doesn’t want to"
I am always puzzled by objections to women having ladies special trains or seats or coaches. Do men want this option? Well, in many way custom does provide most of these to men – and women are said to be 'conquering male bastions', roads after dark, public parks in small cities, most theaters in all small cities, playgrounds, a lot of careers, the right to inheritance (even today, despite the law), right to better nutrition, health-care, to live their parents as long as they wish to (even if their spouse doesn't), often the right to expect obedience, even the right to be born are all reserved for men. WHat I mena is this does not mean men and women are not equal.
This reservation of seats and coaches and providing of girls-only educational institutions has more to do with segregation and some control on sexual harassment… though a lot of men think of it as a luxury, it isn't. Luxury would be to be able to travel comfortably by any available train like most other people do (other than the women that is).
Also a lot of families won't 'allow' their female members to go to work or study without this option.
@Indian Homemaker
I think we must distinguish between legal and social inequality. The references to parks and theaters after dark are social inequalities. Meaning that no one is legally preventing a woman from taking a particular career for example.
I feel that legal inequality is a more important first step towards removing discrimination. The women in taliban ruled areas for example are legally prevented from attaining education, and wearing what they want. It's not a social barrier which can always be broken.
Legal barriers cannot be violated, and I personally feel that they're more important. What the court is deciding for example is a legal question.
When women get a special coach etc, that's legal discrimination. What should the position of the law be on this matter?
@bhagwad
Oh I hope providing better security and everyone travels together, but I fear many women will be made to stay at home then!!
I always thank our Constitution, what religion/social customs/traditions etc took away, the Constitution restored. For e.g the right of Hindu widows to live or remarry. The law is a very powerful tool for empowering women (or anyone) and setting right many terrible discrimination.
I did not know or think about the difference between legal and social equality. Aren't men and women – all Indian citizens legally equal anyway? I thought this was accepted as a fact. Is this debatable?
<blockquote cite="#commentbody-3408">
Indian Homemaker :
@bhagwad
Aren’t men and women – all Indian citizens legally equal anyway? I thought this was accepted as a fact. Is this debatable?
Unfortunately such things aren't obvious to everyone. You sound shocked that it's debatable, but we just finished a 7 year legal battle to make homosexuals equal. That was not debatable from my point of view either but we needed to have it proved.
It's not just India or the developing nations either. Texas legalized homosexuality only in 2003! Race apartheid was abolished in the US only in 1965 – 200 years after America's independence. We've achieved the same in just 63 years with a poorer and less educated population that is more diverse and segmented. It's actually nothing short of a miracle.
Indeed the idea that all humans are equal regardless of age, sex, gender, color, language, sexual preferences etc etc. is still not fully comprehended anywhere in the world.