Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:18:01 -0700 (MST)
From: Rinita Mazumdar <rinita-AT-nmt.edu>
Subject: Re:  Harvard dowry conference -- some comments


 >From owner-third-world-women-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Thu Dec  5 11:04:07 1996
 >Mime-Version: 1.0
 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 >To: third-world-women-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
 >Subject: Harvard dowry conference -- some comments
 >Sender: owner-third-world-women-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
 >Reply-To: third-world-women-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
 >
 >At the just-finished "dowry conference" at Harvard Univ. (which was otherwise a
 >dismal conference because of its extremely poor turnout and lack of
 >direction), a small group of Hindu fundamentalists tried to defocus the issue of
 >dowry deaths in India upon the excuse that oppression on women is a global
 >phenomenon -- thus there is no need to blame Hinduism or India for these abuses
 >(Read: Don't rock the socio-religious status quo in India). The rising number of
 >dowry deaths in Pakistan was frequently cited by one such speaker.
 >
 >With the absence of participants from Indian women's groups (from either
 >USA or India) with knowledge about Hindutva movement and the undertone of
 >Hindutva-peoples' message on subjects such as dowry and dowry deaths, it was not
 >easy to convince the other women present at the meeting that their "global
 >phenomenon" excuse was just a ploy.
 >
 >In India, now the Hindu groups such as BJP and VHP are trying to
 >indoctrinate women along the line of Hindutva (The term "Hindutva" could be
 >summarized as resurgent revivalist Hindu movement) . In the absence of any
 >parallel *nationwide* organized women's movement in India, chances are that
 >they will be successful -- unless progressive Indians and especially
 >progressive women around the world take the time to find contradictions
 >among the women leaders of Hindu groups and their men counterparts and use
 >the contradictions to demystify their "pro-women" sentiments.
 >
 >I look at it this way: one day it's a Hindu problem in India, the other day
 >it's a Muslim problem in Bangladesh or Sudan -- before you know it, very
 >soon it's going to be you -- that is, unless you do something about it now.


I agree with what Partha has to say about a ``women's
movement''. Nonetheless, in India (and probably in all third world
countries) ``women'' do not and more importantly CANNOT form a category by
themselves. There has to be a total subaltern movement towards
democracy. This is why, while I am ardent supporter of ``women's
movement'', I am NOT a supporter of so the so-called ``feminist''
movement. One might question, have not we seen enough subaltern movements
where women's voices are suppressed? One good example is the sharecroppers
and landless peasant movement in Eastern India (generally known as the
TEBHAGA or three way division of crop movement).  One typical anecdote is
that the wife of a peasant stood up in a congregation and said that
although in PUBLIC she is fighting side by side with her husband, in
PRIVATE, she asked, why does he still beat her up.  My answer is this:
women's movement should be part of a subaltern movement which places equal
emphasis on both the PUBLIC and the PRIVATE.  Only then can a ``national
women's movement'' gain some merit; but to do that women have to de-class
and de-caste themselves first just as all other subalterns have to
de-gender themselves.


Rinita Mazumdar.