A First Woman President in India: So What?
Published on July 24, 2007
In light of the fact that right-wing and pro-corporate-America "experts" such as Drudge are glorifying the so-called election of a woman president in India (and liberal feminists are falling for it!), a dissenting point of view is in order.
The fact is, contrary to what the Western media and pro-West variety of Indian media establishments are advertising, it's not important whether a woman is India's new president or not. Important is to understand where this person belongs in terms of class, politics and/or modernity. That's what matters the most.
Does the new president Pratibha Patil represent the 10 percent, upper economic and social class, or does she represent the vast impoverished and ignored population? Does Patil believe in ecumenical, egalitarian politics, or is she simply an icon of the old-relic, conservative, pseudo-Gandhi'ite Congress? Does she believe in total, unrestrained empowerment of Indian women (of all races, castes and religions), or does she espouse the outdated, Gandhian concept of Hindu womanhood?
Further, in today's context, does she have any statespersonship to challenge the Anglo-U.S. global aggression on the economic, war or environment fronts?
Unfortunately, what we've learnt so far does not give us much to rejoice. Moreover, the Indian constitution does not provide any real power to its president, and history tells us that Indian presidents have not done anything significant to challenge the dictates of the all-powerful prime ministers.
A not-so-old example is Indira Gandhi who enjoyed such overarching power for two decades. After the death of India's first, post-1947 prime minister Nehru and a brief stewardship of Lal Bahadur Shastri, Jawaharlal's daughter was basically put to the throne in a monarchical way (a practice replicated by the Nehru-Gandhi family subsequently, and the saga is still on, courtesy Indira's daughter-in-law Sonia Gandhi and her aspiring, blue-blood children). Initially, centrist Indira Gandhi was supported by the subcontinent's left, hoping that her regime would bring in real empowerment of the poor, particularly the lower castes, religious minority and women, i.e., the traditionally ignored and repressed.
However, Indira did not bring about any major changes to the system, and turned out to be a power-hungry dictator in her later years. People like me who were deeply involved in Indian politics can remember how her promulgation of the 1975 Emergency, throwing of opposition leaders and workers in jail and imposed press censorship destroyed the Indian democracy as we knew it. Women and the minority kept facing the same stagnation. Only insider women like Pratibha Patil, with their unwavering sycophancy for the Indira Gandhi family, prospered.
(Of course, Indira was later killed by allegedly-CIA-supported, extremist separatists, but that's another story.)
At the end of the day, there's hardly any particular reason for celebration just because a woman is the new Indian president. This is because the new ceremonial leader is definitely not a departure from the Indian status quo, either social, political or economic.
Millions of Indian women -- Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, tribals and "untouchables" -- poor, marginalized, hopeless women -- will keep suffering due to the colossal status quo. Female infanticide will go on. Bollywood will continue its dark-age stereotyping of women. Corporations will keep discriminating against woman workers. Women's health, education and housing will remain a matter of privilege, and not a right. Indian patriarchy will keep flexing its arrogant muscles.
A non-leader President Pratibha Patil, with Sonia Gandhi's blessings, will likely promote and perpetuate that dismal status quo.
(I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong.)------------
Dr. Partha Bannerjee is the executive director of New Jersey Immigration Policy Network and a fellow of Independent Press Association (IPA). To learn more about him, visit his website at http://www.geocities.com/chokmoki/