 |
Gender, Nation, Religion: The Discursive Construction of Identities in India's Democracy, 1952-1956
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
underpinning their concerns: many opponents feared that the HCB, if passed, would accelerate land fragmentation in the countryside and generally “upset the whole economy of the country.”
33
Yet they rarely expressed their objections in these terms. Discursively, their opposition was expressed in terms of the expected impact on Hindu socio-religious tradition. As one opponent insisted, “I oppose this Bill from the purely religious point of view.”
34
What exactly constituted the Hindu “tradition” that opponents so feared would be
destroyed by the HCB? The vision of Hindu social and religious tradition outlined by opponents was a thoroughly gendered one. It began with the premise that men and women were different, and had different roles to play in society.
35
Because men and women had different
responsibilities in society, they had different rights. According to this argument, sons rather than married daughters were obliged and expected to care for the parents and the natal family, and that was why sons rather than daughters got—and should get—family property. Accordingly, one major objection was to the clause granting a share of inheritance in intestate succession to daughters. Opponents feared that by this provision, the very “concept of joint family would be dealt a crippling blow which in turn would break the basic fabric of Hindu society.”
36
Opponents
argued that giving daughters a right to natal family property would be “creating tendencies towards the disintegration of the traditional Hindu family,”
37
causing family relations to
degenerate into bickering, conflict, and controversy. One opponent, noting that women were “not going to be benefited by inheritance in this way,” asked, “[w]hy destroy the peace of the family, why destroy the greatest asset of the Hindu society that has existed for centuries—the love that subsists between brothers and sisters?”
38
Another opponent declared, “this is the last nail driven
in the coffin of the happy Hindu family in the shape of the HCB.”
39
According to this view, then,
granting greater legal and property rights to Hindu women would literally destroy Hindu society at its base.
Opponents also argued that the HCB had no public support. They held that women
demanding equality and greater legal rights comprised only one small class of Hindu women: overeducated, westernized, and unrepresentative of Indian women at large. Opponents drew distinctions between educated women and orthodox women, between women within Parliament and those without, and between fashionable city women and simple, traditional women. The “educated ladies may rejoice that they will have their way, but then there are millions and millions of orthodox sisters and daughters who would not like this measure to be passed.”
40
According to opponents, if these few modernized, westernized women insisted on pressing their demand for equal rights, the peace and stability of family relations would be destroyed. They held that
the support to this Bill that has come under the garb of modernism is really an attempt to disrupt society, an indirect attempt to bring religion into contempt…we should carefully consider, when we are examining this Bill, whether the clauses [are eventually] going to lead to the disruption of Hindu or more correctly the Indian society.
41
Conservative opponents thus made extensive use of arguments based on gender
difference in constructing their conception of Hindu socio-religious tradition. Their construction turned critically on the role of women in defining, creating, and upholding that order. In the conservative view, family unity and social peace could only be attained or sustained within the context of traditional Hindu society. The very constitution and survival of that order, by definition, were dependent on placing and keeping women in particular roles within the larger structure.
42
Women held a fixed place within this (idealized) larger system, and could alter their
own status only at the risk of upsetting the entire order. Women, in this formulation, became “responsible” for the family and finally society—they could either think of the greater good, or selfishly press for their individual rights, sacrificing family and social harmony in the process.
9
|
| |
| |
|
|
underpinning their concerns: many opponents feared that the HCB, if passed, would accelerate
land fragmentation in the countryside and generally “upset the whole economy of the country.”
Yet they rarely expressed their objections in these terms. Discursively, their opposition was
expressed in terms of the expected impact on Hindu socio-religious tradition. As one opponent
insisted, “I oppose this Bill from the purely religious point of view.”
What exactly constituted the Hindu “tradition” that opponents so feared would be
destroyed by the HCB? The vision of Hindu social and religious tradition outlined by opponents
was a thoroughly gendered one. It began with the premise that men and women were different,
and had different roles to play in society.
Because men and women had different
responsibilities in society, they had different rights. According to this argument, sons rather than
married daughters were obliged and expected to care for the parents and the natal family, and
that was why sons rather than daughters got—and should get—family property. Accordingly,
one major objection was to the clause granting a share of inheritance in intestate succession to
daughters. Opponents feared that by this provision, the very “concept of joint family would be
dealt a crippling blow which in turn would break the basic fabric of Hindu society.”
Opponents
argued that giving daughters a right to natal family property would be “creating tendencies
towards the disintegration of the traditional Hindu family,”
causing family relations to
degenerate into bickering, conflict, and controversy. One opponent, noting that women were “not
going to be benefited by inheritance in this way,” asked, “[w]hy destroy the peace of the family,
why destroy the greatest asset of the Hindu society that has existed for centuries—the love that
subsists between brothers and sisters?”
Another opponent declared, “this is the last nail driven
in the coffin of the happy Hindu family in the shape of the HCB.”
According to this view, then,
granting greater legal and property rights to Hindu women would literally destroy Hindu society
at its base.
Opponents also argued that the HCB had no public support. They held that women
demanding equality and greater legal rights comprised only one small class of Hindu women:
overeducated, westernized, and unrepresentative of Indian women at large. Opponents drew
distinctions between educated women and orthodox women, between women within Parliament
and those without, and between fashionable city women and simple, traditional women. The
“educated ladies may rejoice that they will have their way, but then there are millions and
millions of orthodox sisters and daughters who would not like this measure to be passed.”
According to opponents, if these few modernized, westernized women insisted on pressing their
demand for equal rights, the peace and stability of family relations would be destroyed. They
held that
the support to this Bill that has come under the garb of modernism is really an attempt to
disrupt society, an indirect attempt to bring religion into contempt…we should carefully
consider, when we are examining this Bill, whether the clauses [are eventually] going to
lead to the disruption of Hindu or more correctly the Indian society.
Conservative opponents thus made extensive use of arguments based on gender
difference in constructing their conception of Hindu socio-religious tradition. Their construction
turned critically on the role of women in defining, creating, and upholding that order. In the
conservative view, family unity and social peace could only be attained or sustained within the
context of traditional Hindu society. The very constitution and survival of that order, by
definition, were dependent on placing and keeping women in particular roles within the larger
structure.
Women held a fixed place within this (idealized) larger system, and could alter their
own status only at the risk of upsetting the entire order. Women, in this formulation, became
“responsible” for the family and finally society—they could either think of the greater good, or
selfishly press for their individual rights, sacrificing family and social harmony in the process.
9
|
|
 Convention | | Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting. | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
