Update: I have been persuaded by my Significant Other (without physical violence I swear!) to add a disclaimer to this post. Namely that this is a theoretical discussion – in practice, I acknowledge that the provision of a separate coach for Indian women in trains is probably the best solution to prevent harassment as of now.
If there’s one thing our government’s good at, it’s legislating morality. Whether we’re talking about time restrictions for bar dancers, homosexuality or gambling, our “leaders” in Delhi feel that it’s their job to ensure that we follow their morals. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they don’t. The point is, what is the use of legislating morality if the people themselves don’t feel that way?
Take women’s equality for example. The government feels (and rightly) that women must have the same essential rights as men. So it goes about legislating it. How does it do this? By implementing reservation in parliament, providing separate seats in buses and separate coaches in trains. And still women face discrimination from men. And far from making them “equal”, measures like this only strengthen the bias against women since the men feel that they’re getting a raw deal.
Image Credit: takomabibelot
How would I like women to be equal? Well for one, I wouldn’t like to talk about women at all. I don’t care about women. I only see people. Me no care if thee is woman, transsexual, black, white, old, or have pins in thy head. Wtf is women’s rights anyway? I just want all adults to have the same rights and opportunities. Is that so hard to understand? Damn, why should people have to fight separately for “gay rights” and “women’s rights” and “lower caste rights?” – can’t all you guys just gang up and say “treat everyone the same?”
Of course if my way of thinking goes through, we’ll have to put an end to reservation for all lower castes. How d’you expect lower caste people to improve if you keep reinforcing the feeling that they’re different? 60 years down the line, and all the reservation in the world hasn’t helped. The original intention was to get rid of reservation a few decades later – and now because of reservation, the caste system in still alive and thriving since people now see that being of a lower caste actually has an impact on their life instead of being a useless badge.
It’ll also mean an end to all sorts of special privileges for women. By legislating morality in this way, the government has generated nothing but anger and has widened the gap between the sexes. Many people are now angry with lower caste people because they have reservations and many men are now pissed with women because they get to have special seats in a bus.
I understand that women have a tough time traveling in crowded buses and trains – well, I can try and imagine it, not understand it since I haven’t felt it – but surely pinching a person’s butt is a crime even if the victim is a guy. I’ve been hit on a few times by gays in Delhi since I’ve been told I look “chikhna” – apparently that’s hot in gay land. I feel that by providing a separate coach for women, you’re kind of saying that pinching a girl’s bottom is ok if she’s in front of you.
It’s this sort of piecemeal legislation which doesn’t address the fundamental issues that will prolong the time necessary for women to achieve true equality. Deal harshly with discrimination of any sort of person – only then will it get into the thick skulls of people that life is life irrespective of the form it’s in.
What’s your take?
[poll id=”11″]
It is nice to talk abt such utopian ideas …. But we live in no utopian land..
One can only understand discrimination of any kind only when one has experienced it ..
I have been highly thankful for those authorities who separated a section of pallavan bus for women… It is almost like a battle out there from the moment you step out of the house and reach it destination without being molested in the crowded 21g or A18 … Unless you can afford your own vehicle which most of my fellow women travellers in the said buses can’t afford ..
We don’t care abt parliament or rights but we care about our bodies and an affordable way to travel safely…
@Sakthi
I understand you point – believe me I really do. I want to know however, how far we can go. If the motive of a separate coach is to prevent harassment only, then ideally we should allow those men who are more likely to behave themselves.
I’m sure you’ll agree with me that the men who usually pinch girl’s bottoms in trains are young people. So how about allowing men over 50 into the coach? Or to make it better, men who’re above a certain economic level (again I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s the lower economic class who indulges in such activities).
Also, I’m sure that foreigners won’t misbehave. Do you agree to allowing foreign born men into this coach? Or those men who have a foreign degree?
If we can identify a demographic of men that doesn’t harass women with a very high degree of certainty, can we allow those men on the special coach? If not, why not?
Young people?!!!!!
Thats y I said you need to experience it.. It ranges from young to old and most times its Men who seem to be in their 50s… And most youngsters would just stop with whistling or passing comments and dont dare to go beyond
So the point is no one can differentiate.. young and old, educated and uneducated, posh looking to the most disgusting..
This is one end of the spectrum..
And u say allow only foreigners and people of higher economic level into the coach… Are we living in Victorian England or some other Feudal society????
This is democracy and when we say separate coach for women it ends there… I would feel shameful to live in a country which has such kind of discrimination..
Typed a huge rambling comment in fury after I read this post. But we wont get anything across in rage now, will we? :) So here are my thoughts – organised and coherent (I hope).
1. First of all, my comments are not with regard to the views expressed in this post on the reservation system based on Caste. I merely wish to discuss the principles behind the idea of “discrimination” where separate compartments/seats are reserved for women in public transportation.
2. I have to assume that this is a purely theoretical and “principle-based” view point that you present. For you can have no personal experience with regard to the issues which have lead to separate compartments for women in public transportation. So you probably cannot imagine how disturbing it can be.
3. If you feel that we can demographically segment out men who are “likely to pinch women’s bottoms”, then I must say, I disagree. We have all heard of affluent men abusing domestic help.. college professors abusing female students.. I am sure there are cases of old men who like to “play with” the young girls around.
But for the sake of argument say that we DO arrive at a segment of men who are less likely to indulge in such acts. I see two problems here. One, there will always be a scope for error in the segmentation. Compartments with the chosen male population will still not be a 100% secure for the women. Second, I think it is personally more insulting (to men) to have a law specifying which kinds of men are considered decent enough to travel with women.
Say the law claims that only men with PhD’s and residing in Anna Nagar (for the sake of an example) can ride with women. You, an MBA graduate, living in Nungambakkam, are considered not good enough. Imagine that. The LAW stating that there are some men who are civil and decent, but you are not one of them. Doesnt it feel particularly insulting? More insulting than a law that just keeps all men in a different compartment from women?
4. The most important point over here, is that of practical implications. By assigning one or two compartments to women in a whole train, no one is being deprived of anything. Women’s compartments are no less crowded than the regular compartments. No less smelly either. With BO, hair oil, flowers and other such smells floating about, it is far from a highly comfortable experience. The ONLY convenience of a women’s compartment is the guaranteed sexual safety. No butt pinching. No boob grabbing. And for that, I as a woman, am thankful to the Government.
So my point basically is – due to this particular reservation, we have eliminated the threat of unpleasant experiences for women at absolutely no practical cost. No one is worse off. No one has been denied anything.
Other than the perverts who derive pleasure from bottom pinching, of course.
I agree with Sakthi and Anupa.
I also feel equality does not mean uniformity – everybody need not live, travel, work like the adult human male does. He should not be the criteria.
Equality simply means that all the members in a society have an equal chance at leading happy lives.
Equality would mean if one member is suffering it is taken as seriously as any other member suffering.
A child, a woman, the differently-abled, a man, an old woman, a hijra or a homosexual citizen – each one’s happiness is valuable to the society. Each deserves respect and consideration.
Our's is a failed civilisation – where it is taken as normal that half the population is expected to lock themselves inside their homes after dark. (An organisation in Delhi had protested against this.) We still justify some kind of killing and abuse against half the population, and we still have parents killing their own female children (born or unborn).
Men cannot(and need not) be equal to women, in the sense that they can't learn to face, fear and avoid molestation and rape; they can't get pregnant (so equal job opportunities can't and needn't be the same opportunities); men can't be expected to understand how impossible it is for a woman to sing a song while cycling on Indian streets; or to enjoy a sunny day flopped in a park; or to expect rightfully that when the spouse comes to live with her family, he is instructed,
"From now on, he(she) is everything for you. Whatever happens, be patient. Even if someone hurt you, don't reply. Ensure you respect your husband(wife) and his parents. Behave properly so that they are happy." (http://brindhaseshadri.blogspot.com/2009/11/happy-beginning.html)
All the citizens need not live like 'men' to have equal rights. For example, some citizens might choose motherhood – and if the society wants babies (and a new generation of citizens), then they must ensure mothers are not deprived of self reliance or else accept that they will eventually decide against motherhood (which is happening in many countries). When we glorify motherhood, we don't realise it's not just about bringing up a baby and loving the children, but all that is given up in having children. It's not a sacrifice for the child – it's a sacrifice for the society. (So when we aren't providing creches or maternity leave to women we are not doing them a favour, we are ensuring that they are not treated unfairly – for everybody's welfare). Same rule applies to reserved seats and coaches in buses.
@indianhomemaker
I agree with your definition of equality. We cannot obviously be equal in every literal way. I just want to reply on one part of your comment:
<blockquote cite="#commentbody-4739">
indianhomemaker :
Our’s is a failed civilisation – where it is taken as normal that half the population is expected to lock themselves inside their homes after dark.
I don't agree with this. Of course we have many problems, but not only are we much better off than much of the world, we're doing great even in historical terms. My wife and I were discussing just this yesterday and it turns out that India's current state of development (on the basis of women's rights, economic strength, infant mortality and life expectancy) is around equal to what a country like the US was in the 1950s. Seems strange, but it's true. It's a myth that women were always properly treated in "other" countries and India is the mean bad place that shit happens. All countries go through this phase, but Indians seem to make it a point to diss their place and compare it unfavorably to any other place in the world (well, apart from Pakistan :) )
Of course I take your point that we have much to improve on – clearly we do. The fact that we're doing good (from a historical perspective) doesn't mean it's good enough, but only by seeing how far we've come, can we look ahead and get motivated to go on further without just giving up in despair.
Bhagwad I didn't mean India is a failed civilisation! I meant the entire world, and I guess you are right, the term is too strong. And I also feel very strongly, that this is the best time in History so far as human rights and human values are concerned.
Just like Anupa, I had typed up what became a huge, anger-driven rant before I had to back up and start over. I got way off track with my original post.
Let me start by saying that, while I don't fully understand how these things work in India or any country outside of the United States, I can see strong similarities between what I experience in the U.S. and what you describe in your blogs. There are many references to the differences between the U.S. and other nations. For the most part, I tend to agree with you when it comes to comparing the general American mindset as compared to the mindset of some from, say, Europe.
In the United States, we have a related problem of our own in regards to the Equal Opportunity and Equal Rights laws. I am delighted that we, as a country, have come as far as we have on the issue – and I believe we stand to progress even further – but I am ethically adverse to some of the concepts and checks and balances that the U.S. government has put into place when it comes to these issues. Let's look at Equal Opportunity for a moment.
The implementation of Affirmative Action – which I understand to be the rough equivalent of the reservation you mention in your blog – forces companies to maintain a specific (or roughly specific) percentage of diversity amongst its employees. I have personally been witness to at least 2 distinct instances where someone I knew was passed up for a job position in favor of someone with far less qualification in the name of Affirmative Action. I'm not anti-Affirmative Action or racist, but I believe Equal Opportunity should be just that… the chance to have the opportunity of getting a job based upon your merits and not your race or gender.
Assuming a hypothetical situation, let's take it for granted that anything considered equal for races X and Y are also equal for races A and B. Let's assume that there is a company with 40 employees. This company exists for the sole purpose of providing temporary, personal translators. Due to the location of this business, the only specialty required for employment is to be fluent in both English and Spanish. Providing the 40 Mexican employees are living in the country legally, why should this company be required by law to employee at least 2 people of non-Hispanic race? Does that even make sense to anyone here?
I've said my peace. I believe it all falls back to the government trying to maintain control over the situation, instead of letting the people decide for themselves and have a free-thinking mind.
I AGREE WITH ALL YOU SAID..Sigh..And its frustrating because I am a woman, and I am not supposed to right?>?
rem how you totally agreed with me on the tipping post?? thats how vigorously I am nodding my head now…
One fine day, I am going to write my views on this, when I can make my points more coherent..right now its just a gut feeling-that this is not right.I dont want you to reserve a seat for me in the bus.and as u said..JUST LOOK AT ME AS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING..forget my gender.
@lostonthestreet
I would love to live in a world where people (men, specifically) could just ignore my gender and treat me as just another human being.
In such a world I would protest against any kind of special privileges for women as it would be patronising… and unfair.
But since we are no where close to this idealistic scenario, what do we do in the meantime?