|
Open Page
Women, freedom and what it means to them
SRIVIDYA SIVAKUMAR
I read Mudmayee Chaturvedi’s article “The bits and pieces of freedom” (Open Page, May 25), with a strong sense of déjÀ vu. A few weeks ago, a friend and I got into an interesting argument about ‘women’s rights’ and what it means in reference to the urban Indian woman. I put the term in quotes, partially because I believe the idea to be a myth and also because I believe the urban Indian woman has got it wrong.
The author used an apt term, pseudo independence. To the woman who is city bred and educated, the concept of rights seems to extend to her appearance and lifestyle choices. So rights mean wearing ‘modern’ clothes, even if the mind is old fashioned. It means reading a certain kind of magazine that stresses on being well groomed and anorexic at all times. It means staying out late, partying, smoking and drinking. Even if we work on the assumption that all these, by themselves, are not wrong and are a personal choice, it is still sad when these actions, and these actions alone, are seen as ‘independence.’
More actively felt
Should not rights and freedom be more profound? That is why I believe that the idea of rights is more actively felt in the life of the rural woman, who now has financial freedom (small savings scheme) and employment opportunities (Grameen Rozgar Yojna, Self Help Groups). She has the right to fight elections and be a panchayat member and can thus actively bring about change in her community or village.
This is not to take away from the urban woman any of the positives she enjoys, whether it is being her own person or taking care of members of the family or adopting a child. In fact, I endorse a friend’s idea that women be taught about finances and shares along with all the domesticity they are supposed to know. But I stand by my theory that the so-called backward unlettered woman understands freedom better. And uses it better.
Isn’t the idea of ‘giving freedom’ in itself ironic? Last that I checked, India has been a free country for over half a century. And yet parents talk about giving children their freedom and a spouse talks about giving the other the freedom to go meet friends, hold a job or travel on work. In-laws are wonderful when they do not protest against the woman having a mind of her own and the husband is wonderful when he is ‘supportive’ of his wife’s aspirations.
I registered for doctorate studies around the time I got married. Five years later I am at the fag end of my studies and I have lost count of the ‘well wishers’ who tell me that to have children is important and one must prioritise that over everything else. One of the ‘better’ suggestions I have received is to have a child and pursue my studies simultaneously — completely missing the fact that both, studies and a new born, are equally demanding!
A man may postpone marriage till such a time as he is ‘settled’ but a woman is expected to marry and bear children. If she is unmarried people ask her when she plans to tie the knot, if she is married, she is asked when she plans to have children and if she has a child, she is asked when she will have another.
Time and again the woman is given the impression that no matter how qualified or accomplished she is, she is a wife first, a mother first. Biology becomes her identity. And a woman who wants more is seen as lacking in values and culture. A cursory look at the matrimonial columns will show you that while the girl should be educated and qualified, she must not have any desire beyond paper degrees.
The yoke of conformity
We may soon have an entire generation of unhappy, accomplished women who are choking under the yoke of conformity, caught between chasing their own dreams and strangling them with their own hands.
And that would sound the death knell of freedom and progress.
bookofpoetry@gmail.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
