The loss of trust between the genders in Bharat — what caused this divide and how to bridge this gap?
Recently, a case of harassment caught my eye. It was the case of Tushika Joshi, who when in the market shopping was poked from behind by a man unknown to her. When confronted, he denied this ever happened. Further, the crowd aroud him also did not believe the woman. It took her to ask the shop to open up their CCTV footage and record the incident to garner support, more so online.
This situation had me puzzled. I remembered when I was 12 or 13 years old. Then, the Nirbhaya case had just happened. I had gone with my mother for the protests there. I had seen the strong reaction against the case unfold on my brand new social media accounts. It led to a wave on interventionist men who would step in to save the day for any woman in distress. If the system was not working, the people surely were to overcompensate for the same. If anything exhibits Indian culture it may be this.
Still, what happened in the past 10 years that this trend is entirely reversed? Men and women trust each other lesser now, and there must be a reason for it. Let us try to understand this below, from a historical and a masculinist perspective.
History:
Exactly 220 years ago, Abbe Dubois, a French Missionary, had observed the following about Sanatani society: “A Hindu woman can go anywhere alone, even in the most crowded places, and she need never fear the impertinent looks and jokes of idle loungers”. Note that this observation was in specific about Hindu society. More Islamized societies had the problems of Heeramandi. There clearly was a gap between the two societies, at least in their treatment of women.
So what changed? Was it that secularism made us share each other’s cultures, for better or for worse? Or is the answer simpler?
Her Zindagi, a Female oriented magazine, rightfully identifies cultural attitudes, weak law enforcement, and a lack of education as the three big reasons behind this new attitude. However, her analysis that this attitude “has not changed” is absolutely wrong; it has gotten worse.
Until the economic reforms of 1991, it was common knowledge in the “real India (i.e. the villages)”, that one should not step ut when it gets dark or gets late. Women especially, had restrictions which prevented them from stepping out, and these were justified either socially or theologically. But these restrictions were almost never organic to the culture. As small sectionsof these villages got out of poverty, and the “American wave” of the 2000s rolled in (“hum hai naye, andaz kyu ho purana” messaging probably defining this generation), the aspiration for women to step out of the house returned, and their safety became society’s job, and not the family’s.
As safety in public became more gender-agnostic, intolerance agaisnt gendered crimes also increased. Houses had the internal debate on whether they should let a woman out of the house or not, but society had already geared up to answer how to make the public safer for women. Women had also not taken this freedom to explore for granted yet, and were more responsible about it as well. Public spaces like metros and buses being women only increased, and a lot of awareness was created to make society better.
Then the Nirbhaya rape case of 2012 happened.
This case reminded society that, no matter what the society will want, if there is government apparatus then these laws will fail the common people.
Many legislative changes were made in the policy of several governments. In the executive, a separate “mahila helpline” was introduced. Public spaces for women was further normalized. Society became more staunch in demanding protection for women.
Things looked great. There was a genuine upgrade in the lives of those women who had the privilege to be vocal, and they certainly expressed their feelings of happiness about these improvements. But something was missing. The law and governance.
While a separate mahila helpline was set up, it did not fix the fact that there was a lack of a general police to enforce anything. Cases became faster, but only for those who could access the police. The system became safer to approach with women-only cops in such cases, but they only served the population that paid taxes to subscribe to the system.
In general, and not just for gendered crimes, there is a lack of police apparatus for those who fall below the taxable bracket. This means, those who earn below 2.5L per year, or those who may be earning more but do not have a fixed source of income (thele waale, shopkeepers, freelancers, etc), do not officially subscribe to the system. This non-taxed segment makes up 98% of Bharat’s population. Instead, the items they buy or the services they take are what is taxed. This system is no different from the colonial system of taxing our own produce when selling it back to us. It can be traced back to our constitution.
So what does this mean? It means that, without expanding the police and the government’s tax apparatus, any changes in the legislation is only going to truly be executed for 2.2% of the Bharatian population. On the other hand, 97.8% of the population neither subscribed to this system, nor do they have a say in it, and nor do they have access to it when it is needed. These strata are where gangs run amuck and provide the real protection to the people. Meanwhile, the 2.2% is burdened with even higher taxes for this post-colonial project of oppressing the 97.8%. Where there is a bigger demand for police and administrators (and even of diplomats and revenue services), the number of UPSC seats are limited due to the questions of reservation.
When the Nirbhaya case happened, most governments doubled down on the legislation alone. They made a separate helpline, made new systems for buses and metros, new schemes and guarantees. This has even matured ito reservation for women in parliament.
But the core issue, that of an underweight executive, still remains unanswered. And this is causing a new set of problems.
Weak Enforcement
Women in the 97.8% of society continue to suffer without any police or administrative reach, and are left to the mercy of politicians and gangsters. This means that the fate of women is not agnostic to ideology, and their fortunes can change as parties and people change their opinions as well.
The definition of government is “monopoly on violence”. This 97.8% of Bharat is where the monopoly of the government has not yet reached. The mindset of fear from the colonial times, of “hide your women before someone takes them away” continues to pervade this strata.
Meanwhile, the plethora of laws made in light of so many atrocities against women, only helps the women in the 2.2%; those who are paying for the monopoly of violence to a provider whose main selling point is being just and fair.
This, combined with a weak judicial system, has enabled women, now much more confident in the society they peruse in, to misuse these laws. From the sudden rise in false cases to overbearing benefits given to women, there is a gradual disenfranchisement of men. While some temporary affirmative action is needed for upliftment (and here the upliftment is for the deterioration that may have happened over 200 years at most), there is an awareness that this solution is not permanent. Where the voting laws have been amended to be gender neutral, laws on rape specifically have the wording “rape on a woman”.
This one sided bias is causing mass disenfranchisement of 2.2% of men, and is also unfit to protect the 97.8% of women of our country. In other words, it is useless.
… back To The Narrative/Story
Back to the Tushika Joshi case, where this story began. Men and women do not trust each other anymore. There is a larger emphasis in society on “malehood” and “femalehood” as identity (as something we are, not as something we do). Where 2.2% of men did protect women once, they were returned the favor with false cases and disenfrachisement by 2.2% of women. Meanwhile, 97.8% of women still do not see true justice, which becomes the justification for the 2.2% of women to further oppress the men in their strata. 2.2% of the larger society is unable to change the mindset of the 97.8% men permanently; as they are still “outsiders” to the system due to their inability to pay taxes. This has widened the trust deficit between the genders, and is creating more gendered conflicts between households across stratas (across 100% of people).
The Way Forward
Feminists have a huge role to play here when it comes to mobilizing people. The era of “intellectual feminism” in Bharat must be put to the side in kartavyakaal; this is the era of action. Women must be mobilized to vote for a larger police apparatus and a bigger administrative apparatus. More IAS and IPS officers will make women safer, and ensure the law and order reaches ever single woman, even those in the 97.8%. Women have to stop accepting appeasement and short term solutions, and orient themselves towards long term solutions alone. That combined with further neutrality of laws for genders can benefit society and help rebuild the trust lost between the genders. While it may be right to make a law that only protects women (like say, a law against dowry), it is wrong to word it without neutrality (it should also be illegal for reverse dowry, if such a case hypothetically happens).
Conclusion
We already see cases of divorce on the rise. We see society believe women lesser when injustice happens to them. We see men being tortured and beaten and even raped more and more.
As gender becomes more identarian, it is the responsibility of the law to remain as neutral as possible. There is urgency as well to this. Without gender neutrality in law, one gender is bound to be disenfranchised, and this will eventually cause a staunch chauvinist wave to counter the same. Rises in divorce may only be the beginning, the situation may get worse, and if it does it will be worse for both genders.
Hence, it is an urgent and important matter to bridge this gap of trust between the genders. And the real solution will always be to bring more tpes of people into the mainstream, and to ensure a gender-agnostic government apparatus reaches the last man. The monopoly on violence of the government must not be on 2.2% of the market alone; it should reach 100% of the market of the nation we call Bharat. And while the conversation on a societal level continues and it should, the results of this conversation will only be permanent if the monopoly of violence over 100% of the population lies with, not men or women but with, the government.
