 |
Gender, Nation, Religion: The Discursive Construction of Identities in India's Democracy, 1952-1956
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
66
K. Madhava Menon, CSD (11 December 1954), 1516.
67
Pataskar, CSD (22 March 1955), 2732.
68
Parmanand, CSD (7 December 1954), 1085.
69
Nehru, Lok Sabha Debates (14 September 1954), 1858. Emphasis added.
70
H. V. Pataskar (Minister for Legal Affairs), CSD (6 December 1954), 2351-2.
71
Nehru, Letters, Vol. 4 (10 May 1956), 369.
72
H. V. Pataskar, CSD (1 October 1955), 5538.
73
Pataskar, CSD (22 March 1955), 2732.
74
D. P. Karmarkar (Minister for Commerce), CSD (11 December 1954), 1563.
75
Nehru, Letters, Vol. 4 (10 May 1956), 384.
76
H. V. Pataskar, CSD (22 March 1955), 2732-3.
77
Yuval-Davis, 67.
78
Menon, 82-3.
79
Joane Nagel, Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers (New York: Oxford, 2003), 159.
80
Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments, Ch. 5.
81
Yuval-Davis, 60.
82
Yuval-Davis, 60.
83
Nadje Al-Ali, “Review Article—Nationalisms, National Identities and Nation States: Gendered Perspectives,” Nations
and Nationalism 6:4 (2000), 631. See Yuval-Davis, 21-25.
84
Williams, Ch. 3.
85
For an exposition of mass versus elite politics, see Ashutosh Varshney, “Mass Politics or Elite Politics? India's Economic
Reforms in Comparative Perspective,” in Jeffrey D. Sachs, Ashutosh Varshney, and Nirupam Bajpai, eds. India in the Era of Economic Reforms. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
86
Williams, Ch. 4.
87
All three of these religions had originated as reform movements within Hinduism, but certainly by the 1940s had evolved
separate customs, traditions, and objects and methods of worship, and were widely accepted as separate religious traditions. Indeed, the Census Bureau of India continued to collect data by the following religious categories: Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain and “Other” (defined to include “all other religions and persuasions”). Census of India 1991, Part VB(ii) – Religion. Table C – 9.
http://www.censusindia.net/
88
Flavia Agnes, “The Hidden Agenda Beneath the Rhetoric of Women’s Rights,” in Madhushree Dutta, Flavia Agnes and
Neera Adarkar, eds., The Nation, the State and Indian Identity (Calcutta: Samya, 1996), 78.
89
Sheila Allen, “Identity: Feminist Perspectives on ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Nationality” in Nickie Charles and Helen Hintjens,
eds. Gender, Ethnicity and Political Ideologies (New York: Routledge, 1998), 57-8.
90
Nehru, CALD (28 November 1949), 6.
91
These concessions accumulated over the life of the HCB, and included the following changes: (a) the original HCB
abolished the Mitakshara joint family system and replaced it with the Dayabhaga joint family system (which was widely seen as more progressive) for all Hindus. Progressives even argued that the joint family system should have been abolished altogether. The final version reestablished the Mitakshara system. (b) The original HCB provided for separation or dissolution of a Hindu marriage. The final version included a restriction allowing divorce only after three years of marriage. (c) The original HCB abolished custom altogether; the final version included the reestablishment of customary law. (d) The rights of women to adopt children were severely restricted, as was the option of adopting girls rather than boys. (e) The original HCB had given daughters a full share equal to sons in intestate succession. This was already a very limited property right, as it by definition excluded agricultural land and joint family property, and included only self-acquired property and, of course, property that had not been otherwise willed away. The final version of the bill reduced this to a one-half share. In addition, an amendment was added that allowed the sons to buy out a daughter’s share of inheritance with her “consent.”
92
Seeta Parmanand, CSD (28 and 29 November 1956); Smt. Pushpalata Das, CSD (23 March 1955); Smt. Bedavati
Buragohain, CSD (24 March 1955); Smt. Lakshmi Menon, CSD (23 March 1955).
93
Mildred Stroop Luschinsky, “The Impact of Some Recent Indian Government Legislation on the Women of an Indian
Village.” Asian Survey 3:12 (December 1963), 575. Notably, upon having the provisions explained to them, many women of the village responded in ways that echoed the arguments of conservative opponents of the bills. They thought the provision of a share of inheritance would cause discord between brothers and sisters; and high-caste women were unlikely to use the provisions of divorce or those of absolute property rights.
94
Srimati Basu, “Indian Women and Inheritance Law,” in Larson, ed., 166-67. See, for example: Srimati Basu, She Comes
to Take Her Rights: Indian Women, Property and Propriety (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999); and Bina Agarwal, A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
95
Basu, “Indian Women,” 164.
96
On the 1980s, see Williams, Ch. 5; on the 1990s, see Williams, Ch. 6.
|
| |
| |
|
|
66
K. Madhava Menon, CSD (11 December 1954), 1516.
67
Pataskar, CSD (22 March 1955), 2732.
68
Parmanand, CSD (7 December 1954), 1085.
69
Nehru, Lok Sabha Debates (14 September 1954), 1858. Emphasis added.
70
H. V. Pataskar (Minister for Legal Affairs), CSD (6 December 1954), 2351-2.
71
Nehru, Letters, Vol. 4 (10 May 1956), 369.
72
H. V. Pataskar, CSD (1 October 1955), 5538.
73
Pataskar, CSD (22 March 1955), 2732.
74
D. P. Karmarkar (Minister for Commerce), CSD (11 December 1954), 1563.
75
Nehru, Letters, Vol. 4 (10 May 1956), 384.
76
H. V. Pataskar, CSD (22 March 1955), 2732-3.
77
Yuval-Davis, 67.
78
Menon, 82-3.
79
Joane Nagel, Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers (New York: Oxford, 2003), 159.
80
Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments, Ch. 5.
81
Yuval-Davis, 60.
82
Yuval-Davis, 60.
83
Nadje Al-Ali, “Review Article—Nationalisms, National Identities and Nation States: Gendered Perspectives,” Nations
and Nationalism 6:4 (2000), 631. See Yuval-Davis, 21-25.
84
Williams, Ch. 3.
85
For an exposition of mass versus elite politics, see Ashutosh Varshney, “Mass Politics or Elite Politics? India's Economic
Reforms in Comparative Perspective,” in Jeffrey D. Sachs, Ashutosh Varshney, and Nirupam Bajpai, eds. India in the Era
of Economic Reforms. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).
86
Williams, Ch. 4.
87
All three of these religions had originated as reform movements within Hinduism, but certainly by the 1940s had evolved
separate customs, traditions, and objects and methods of worship, and were widely accepted as separate religious traditions.
Indeed, the Census Bureau of India continued to collect data by the following religious categories: Hindu, Muslim,
Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain and “Other” (defined to include “all other religions and persuasions”). Census of India 1991,
Part VB(ii) – Religion. Table C – 9.
88
Flavia Agnes, “The Hidden Agenda Beneath the Rhetoric of Women’s Rights,” in Madhushree Dutta, Flavia Agnes and
Neera Adarkar, eds., The Nation, the State and Indian Identity (Calcutta: Samya, 1996), 78.
89
Sheila Allen, “Identity: Feminist Perspectives on ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Nationality” in Nickie Charles and Helen Hintjens,
eds. Gender, Ethnicity and Political Ideologies (New York: Routledge, 1998), 57-8.
90
Nehru, CALD (28 November 1949), 6.
91
These concessions accumulated over the life of the HCB, and included the following changes: (a) the original HCB
abolished the Mitakshara joint family system and replaced it with the Dayabhaga joint family system (which was widely
seen as more progressive) for all Hindus. Progressives even argued that the joint family system should have been abolished
altogether. The final version reestablished the Mitakshara system. (b) The original HCB provided for separation or
dissolution of a Hindu marriage. The final version included a restriction allowing divorce only after three years of marriage.
(c) The original HCB abolished custom altogether; the final version included the reestablishment of customary law. (d) The
rights of women to adopt children were severely restricted, as was the option of adopting girls rather than boys. (e) The
original HCB had given daughters a full share equal to sons in intestate succession. This was already a very limited property
right, as it by definition excluded agricultural land and joint family property, and included only self-acquired property and,
of course, property that had not been otherwise willed away. The final version of the bill reduced this to a one-half share. In
addition, an amendment was added that allowed the sons to buy out a daughter’s share of inheritance with her “consent.”
92
Seeta Parmanand, CSD (28 and 29 November 1956); Smt. Pushpalata Das, CSD (23 March 1955); Smt. Bedavati
Buragohain, CSD (24 March 1955); Smt. Lakshmi Menon, CSD (23 March 1955).
93
Mildred Stroop Luschinsky, “The Impact of Some Recent Indian Government Legislation on the Women of an Indian
Village.” Asian Survey 3:12 (December 1963), 575. Notably, upon having the provisions explained to them, many women
of the village responded in ways that echoed the arguments of conservative opponents of the bills. They thought the
provision of a share of inheritance would cause discord between brothers and sisters; and high-caste women were unlikely
to use the provisions of divorce or those of absolute property rights.
94
Srimati Basu, “Indian Women and Inheritance Law,” in Larson, ed., 166-67. See, for example: Srimati Basu, She Comes
to Take Her Rights: Indian Women, Property and Propriety (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press,
1999); and Bina Agarwal, A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1994).
95
Basu, “Indian Women,” 164.
96
On the 1980s, see Williams, Ch. 5; on the 1990s, see Williams, Ch. 6.
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
