Random Thoughts

Mrinal Pande is not my favorite columnist. Normally I would not invest so much energy in reading and critiquing her column but this time what she spews would make every feminist, heck, any intelligent woman cringe. In her latest article on why Pratibha Patil's election to the President's office is a hurrah for feminism, she rambles about media's false image of feminism "taking the son to school on a scooterette as the ultimate act of self-assertion, diamonds as the real fire within a woman’s soul" and somehow ties it all to how electing a woman to power will help women break free of the said media image and gain true sense of self respect. It was truly my WTF moment of the day.

Let me tell you something, Ms. Pande,

Feminism believes in equal rights for men and women. So in essence having reservations or gender based nominations, by itself, voids the belief. Woman all over will agree that we do need reservation to break into places which for historical reasons have been denied to us, to give us a leg up, so to speak. But by nominating incompetent women, are we not basically handing over the case to our dissenters?

Most people are not arguing the case against Patil as a case against womanhood. It is a matter of what she brings to the table. Right now, she seems to be a woman who talks with the dead, is implicated in financial vagaries, has talked about forcible sterilization during the emergency period, and more. This does not smell like a competent woman being held down but sounds more like a rightful concern in a democracy. The Presidency might be just a ceremonial post in India but does that also mean that we should appoint any woman to that post? If yes, then you are really not advocating feminism, in any way.

More ever, it is not as if a woman has never been in power in India. As Confused points out, Indira Gandhi held power in India for 17 years! And while we can disagree on her politics, it is safe to say that she was the person in charge. Why talk about the past? Any desi will tell you who holds the reins in this age of , as you put it, Manmohanomics. It is again a woman, Ms. Pande, the "severely dressed Sonia". So why has not the image of the Indian woman changed? Women have held important, decision- making posts in the government (past and present) and yet, what you profess the men in charge really fear, the "33% reservations in the legislature being filled with women who have found true self esteem" has not been realized.

So explain to me again, why would electing an incompetent woman as the President who holds no real power change that?

You, Ms. Pande, have done immense disservice to all feminists who are actively trying to try to fight for equal rights for women in India by saying that a woman should be elected based on her gender and not her qualification. You see, we feminists, have been trying hard to prove that we are as good as our male colleagues - fighting for promotions by proving that we can do a job as effectively as they can, trying to prove our hecklers wrong by showing that we are indeed as competent as the males. By writing this column, you have, in effect become a voice for "feminist baiters". Since what you are preaching is the very image that we feminist have been trying to change. You see, Ms. Pandey, a feminist like me would rather a person be given a job because they are the best candidate rather than it be given to any person, of any sex, of any religion, of any caste, of any state, heck of any country who lacks credentials.

So, if you are trying to tell me how Pratibha Patil becoming the President is the best thing to happen to Indian Sisterhood, try again!

And lastly, can you please explain what do you mean by these words,

Both the small screen and glossy periodicals are also virtually crackling with advice to the newly arrived power women about shedding the careless comfortable feminist dress sense and embracing power dressing and hanging out in power eating joints.

So you are saying the the power dressing women are not 'true' feminist? Or that the feminism movement which resulted in women wearing the so called "sensible, comfortable attire" only goes so far? Please do elaborate on what you think feminism as it relates to Indian woman is all about, for I think your article reeks of anti-feminism, the very thing you accuse the Patil dissenters as being.

Labels: Opinion, Political, Rant