olice toAbstract: Both in the Colonial and Post-colonial history the voice of gender was suppressed, they were unheard in the patriarchal social structure and their presence was not recorded in the main stream history. Feminist approach is not sufficient to address the issues while it is embedded in the dominant and hegemonic discourse. The subaltern historiography as an alternative historiography against the colonial and nationalist historiography is an attempt to look at the ‘history from the below’. It addresses the saga of so many unknown lasses which is not recorded in the main stream history. The ruling dispensation and dominant discourse always deliberately avoided the subalterns and marginality, and emphasized on the glorious narratives; behind the backdrop, the issues of women and marginal are neglected. Our strategy in this article will be to examine the pattern of gender exploitation, violence and the intersectional differences exist in our society through the lens of post structural and postcolonial theories.
Keywords: Dominant Discourse; Gender; Historiography; Subaltern; Violence; Vulnerability
Introduction: The nationalist and colonialist historiography, written so far, has been dominated by elitism – colonialist elitism and bourgeois nationalist elitism.Theylargely emphasized on the glorious victories, national heroes, large political parties and mega narratives; naturally the margins have been neglected in their writings and research. On the other hand, the Marxist historiography was engaged in class and class struggle and that is why they failed to address the ‘gender’ as their subject. As an alternative historiography, the subaltern school has emerged by the initiatives of subaltern studies collective, mainly led by Ranajit Guha. The subaltern historiography mainly focuses on the margins as well as the voiceless women and tribals who are underrepresented in the main stream history. Subalterns should not be treated in its absolutist terms; neither they are fixed in a particular historical stage of development in the manner Gramsci stated that they are associated with the hegemonic relation with the elites. The subaltern, in the writings of scholars, is a heterogeneous category with multifaceted identities: She may be a Bagdi woman in the writings of Guha (1990) or Jitu Santal of Sarkar (1994) or the subjugated woman who cannot speak as depicted by Spivak (1994), even Indian history is subaltern in relation to World History ( Chakrabarty, 2000).
For an operational understanding, the term ‘Subaltern’ denotes the people, who are deprived, oppressed and exploited and, most often than not, are excluded from the din and bustle of the so called mainstream society. Being the subaltern subject a woman is deprived and subjugated twice; because of her social belongings and her position in the subaltern group.
The ruling dispensation always records the voice of elites, influential and the people those who are in centre; they are indifferent towards the periphery and the people living outskirts. The voices of oppressed Dalit, common woman have never been central attention to them. They have become peripheral because of the hegemonic social structure and patriarchal social influences. The feminist articulation in the feminism, sometimes, failed to come out from the hegemonic social influences; they are limited by the socio-cultural dominance. That is why the ‘gender’ as subject is revisited by the subaltern scholars. They have just deconstructed the articulation of nationalist historiography from the perspective of below.
Subaltern Historiography, Women and their Vulnerability:
In his oft-cited writing ‘Chandra’s death’ Guha (1990) has uniquely portrayed the interface between masculinity and religion, state and society, and the distress location of woman.
In a society abortion for the interest of male is permissible but as an ‘act’ it is a social taboo. If we find the confession of Magaram Chasha, one of the accused persons for Chandra’s death, it is so casual and careless and a sense of threatening:
I have been involved, for the last four or five months, in an illicit love affair ( ashnai) with your daughter Chandra Chashani, as a result of which she has conceived. Bring her to your own house and arrange for some medicine to be administered to her. Or else, I shall put her into bhek.
In the societal norms women have been projected as impure, weaker than the male; male centric moral code is also the guiding force of this society. If you are a woman, you should not laugh at high pitch, you are supposed to stay at home and be engaged in domestic work; sometimes, female members of the family promote these patriarchal values. In every walk of life a woman has to suffer and compromise as if it is their destiny sanctioned by the Almighty. In a binary vision the ‘gender’ has been constructed in such a way where the woman has to suffer, even, at the cost of her life. In the words of Simone de Beauvoir (1984, 509-10):
When man, the better to succeed in fulfilling his destiny as man, asks woman to sacrifice her reproductive possibilities, he is exposing the hypocrisy of the masculine moral code. Men universally forbid abortion, but individually they accept it as a convenient solution of a problem; they are able to contradict themselves with careless cynicism. But woman feels these contradictions in her wounded flesh; she is as a rule too timid for open revolt against masculine bad faith; she regards herself as the victim of an injustice that makes her a criminal against her will, and at the same time she feels soiled and humiliated. She embodies in concrete and immediate form, in herself, man’s fault; he commits the fault, but gets rid of it by putting it off on her …It is at her first abortion that woman begins to ‘know’. For many women the world will never be the same.
The subaltern as female cannot be heard or read. She cannot speak within this social framework. In this society, the Sati-suicide is an emblem of blazing, fighting and familial Durga, but the suicide of Bhuvaneswari Bhaduri is not portrayed as something glorious, it is a case of delirium rather than sanity. In her famous essay ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ Spivak (1994) showed how a female, being the subaltern subject, had to wait for her menstruation in order to prove herself against the charge of dubious accusation and she ultimately had to immolate herself.
She showed how a subaltern voice (women’s voice) is suppressed in the dominant discourse. It was a silent resistance of Bhuvaneswari Bhaduri against the prevailing patriarchal values of the society. A life of a woman is not for the consumption of male. Against the popular assumption, it is not a matter of illicit relation, the individual self of a woman is important here. She can resist or speak in her won way but this ‘speech act’ is incomplete due to lack of infrastructure. We cannot hear as it is not expressed like other protest on street. So it is unheard.
In 18th – 19th century India, the practice of Sati was a symbol of patriarchal domination manifested through socio-cultural hegemony. In her essay Lata Mani (1998) argued, in order to justify the colonial rule in India the Britishers constructed and misrepresented the ‘Sati’, and simultaneously it was perpetuated and legitimized by patriarchal social structure. Both the nationalist and women agency were silent about it; rather it was negotiated as a symbol of cultural identity and tradition.
But, the abolition of Sati is not the ultimatum, what for Sati was abolished and the position of Sati (woman who is supposed to be Sati) after abolition is important. Ironically this phase of discourse is left out from the mainstream. We consider, after the enactment of the Prevention of Sati our duty towards them is completed. The saga of Roop Kanwar (1987) is a crucial caution towards this end.
Challenging the dominant narratives of Hindu nationalism, Tanika Sarkar (2001) showed how because of Hindu identity women have become subject of oppression and, the Hindu nationalism reinforced the patriarchal social structure.
Society, Culture and Law: The shastric injunction showed and condemned woman’s body as impure during child birth, menstruation etc.; so the stereo type image of gender is in that sense is pre-historic. Then, the historical evaluation about the ‘subject’ is not at par with the regular projection of history. Sometimes, it is avoided or sidelined as a ‘subject’ of feminism. Spivak argued that the women, especially subaltern women are denied autonomy and voice, making it impossible for them to self advocate.
Representations of women in various contexts often reflect and reinforce patriarchal norms and power structures. Let me cite an empirical data which will clarify the subordinate position of woman in a society. In a traditional tribal society, during the child birth, the woman is kept in a separate place and a separate entry is provided for her; where a separate door is not available the door is symbolically divided with a wooden stick. So, this kind of gender perception in the past and present, more or less, remains same. A gender bias milieu of social structure is embedded with the male dominance mediated by religion.
The sacramental nature of Hindu marriage also subordinated the position of women and established the social dominance while it is believed that marriage is a sacramental tie which would last even after death. It is the irony of fate that they have born as female and they have to suffer as desired by destiny. As a consequence, the widows in our society faced miserable conditions even after enacting the Widow Marriage Act of 1856. Widow marriage is still a social taboo is our society. They are still stigmatized because of their social position. On the other hand polygamy is not treated equally ominous when it happens for the male members of the community. The polygamous nature of Hindu marriage was restricted by the codification in 1955. Before this, both polygamy as well as concubinage were permitted and recognized under the Hindu law. In spite of legal predicaments, because of plurality of customs and rituals the Hindu male has a scope to validate the bigamous marriage. In contrast, while the Islamic law permits polygamy the right of women is deliberately avoided from the mainstream discourse. The custom of Talaq or Khula inIslamthat pretends to be neutral has made the gender discourse controversial. On the contrary, the remedy from judicial process is so prolonged and complicated that has paved the way of unnatural violence and intolerance.
The dichotomy of space can be of two types- where a woman can express herself without any hesitation in another place she is prohibited to say anything. It is not any interpersonal matter. It is the societal discourse. Bina Das (2010,185) observed, in general Hindu family a woman learns to hide so many things; the speech which cannot be shared in father in-laws house that can easily be expressed in her own father’s house. In fear of dignity, she knows to keep silence about many private things. She learns to be tolerated.
In case of sexual violence, the consent of a woman plays a crucial role, but problem arises while and how the consent is measured. There are so many anomalies in this regard. The legal age of majority and marriage is 18 years in our country. But, as exception of section 375 of IPC reads, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, , the wife not being under 15 years of age, is not rape. It is obvious from the provisions of law that there is a legal permission and the husband has the ‘licence to rape’ his wife who is above 15 years of age.
By virtue of various anomalies, despite of having prevention of Child Marriage Act, the child marriage and their distress are no more recorded in this society.
Again, because of plurality of social customs and personal laws, the marital age differs from community to community, as for example, in Muslim society there is no fixed age of marriage, after attaining the age of ‘puberty’a Muslim girl is entitled to get married.
As a custom or tradition the girl child is taught that they have born as ‘girl’ and it is the irony of fate. In many rural and under privileged communities, the girl child is treated as 2nd class citizen in comparison with male child of their family. Because of abject poverty, the married and unmarried women are compelled to take house hold activities, Beedi sramik, Brick workers, helper of mason, small-scale manufacturing etc., which is a place of abuse or sexual violence, as reported by NCRB. Apart from this, they face poor working conditions, safety risks, verbal abuse, intimidation and social insecurity. Though, most of cases, because of financial insecurity and dignity of woman the cases are not registered; most often, the registered cases are not appropriately addressed by the concerned authority.
However, in a patriarchal society the women’s consent has a minimum role to play, particularly in matrimonial relations; they are not treated equal with men either before marriage or after they enter into conjugal relations. In most of cases, they have no choice and their consent is not considered to be necessary. After marriage the wife has no right to say ‘no’ for the inter-spousal sexual relationship. ‘Marital rape’ is a rhetorical use in Indian legal system; whereas the socio-economic vulnerability of victims is so miserable that they cannot think of this which results a lifelong process of compromise with the ‘god gifted fate’. As Nibedita Menon (2000, 88) says, ‘Marital rape does not exist except within feminist lexicon, unless it is sodomy, in which case both husband and wife consented, and the husband alone, if she did not.’
So in order to judge the consensual sex, both in marital life or an organized working sector where socio-economic compulsion plays a crucial role, the vulnerability of women should be taken into account. A seductive atmosphere always subjugates the voice of oppressed women.
It is another regular phenomenon that a married woman is psychologically, sometimes, physically tortured because of nonpayment of dowry. The application of Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 has become almost rhetorical and it has become a social practice of which the woman of underprivileged communities is the worst victim. It is not recorded in the main stream gender discourse as if we have accepted this as an essential custom of marriage. The seemingly liberating aspects of laws can protect the women for sometimes but not protect for a long run, unless the attitude towards the gender discourse is changed.
In this context, Flavia Agens (2000, 136) observed,
Unless property is situated at the centre of the discourse on women and legal reform, and unless the changing economic structure and uneven developments within a pluralistic society are kept in mind, any attempt at reform will be ineffective in protecting the economic rights of women and preventing their destitution.
Conclusion: A careful examination of gender discourse reveals so many intersectional differences and theoretical dilemma in the contemporary theories. Somehow, the theoretical frameworks are not free from the influences of dominant discourse. Let me begin by referring an example of Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen (2014) from their book An Uncertain Glory; where they showed how gender discourse operated from the class perspective. In the month of December, 2012, in a horrific incident a medical student of Delhi was brutally assaulted and gang-raped in a moving bus. The incident led to widespread demonstrations and protest across the country. Following the consequences, The Nirbhaya Act, 2013 was passed by the Indian Parliament. Undoubtedly it is a very positive development that a strong voice was raised and sparked off against this barbaric incident; as the victim belonging to Indian middle class (a medical student) the average middle classes could easily identify themselves with this. But, ‘similar brutalities have happened in the lives of economically and socially downtrodden Dalit women for years, without getting much attention in the mainstream media or causing a significant public outcry.’(Dreze and Sen, 2014, viii).
Again, while the voice appears in the discourse, question may arise, is it the voice of voiceless woman? Or it is articulated by someone who represents the dominant discourse. Most of time, they are represented by others who are closely associated with the dominant discourse. Sometimes, it is unuttered or silent. The colonial and post-colonial discourse is slightly different from each other. In her famous essay ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ Spivak (1994) showed how a female, being the subaltern subject cannot be heard or read. In this patriarchal society women have hardly any real platform to share their issues as everything is structured and judged by the male centric values.
The discourse is operated by an invisible power dynamics—the interrelation between ruling dispensation and dominant culture creates an invisible hegemony from where no one can escape. Ethics and value system in a society is determined by the people those who are in power or who belong to the ‘centre’; margin and periphery are always neglected. (Foucault, 1994).
The present discourse of R.G. Kar is none of its exception. As reported, a junior doctor of Kolkata is raped and brutally murdered in the month of August, 2024. The incident led to widespread protest, agitations, dharna across the country. Any rational being irrespective of his political choice joined the protest march. The ongoing debate draws the attention to many aspects of gender discrimination including the attitude of pwards complaints of sexual violence, which has been grossly neglected for a long time. But here lies the question- is it class neutral? Does it equally touch the sentiment of rural marginal people? Or, does it happen in all cases? (This type of public protest).
In the conjuncture of R G Kar, as stated above, the gender discourse against violence reveals a multifaceted direction- the offence committed in an organized sector, the prolonged people’s protest, and state responses. Offence committed in an unorganized and an organized sector has different degree of responses while the organized professional body like medical association is associated with it. Behind this massive public protest an invisible political mobilization that has radicalized the discourse. Such a staging discourse can accommodate all the intersectional differences of violence against women– questioned by subaltern historiography.
Here lies the intersectional difference. The discourse of violence against woman is not unilinear in the present discourse. The women belonging to socially and economically backward classes are not equally represented in the present discourse; their vulnerability and distress conditions are not getting much attention in the mainstream media or recorded in the mainstream discourse. Most often, they remain in the outside of discourse. With an optimistic vision I would conclude by quoting ‘The day will come when men and women will be able to live together, not as master and slave, but as two human beings.’
Notes and References
1 Guha, R. (1994) “On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India”, in Subaltern Studies I: Writing on South Asian History and Society, ed. Ranajit Guha. New Delhi: OUP, p.01-08.
2 Chandra, a Baghdi woman, is documented by Ranajit Guha, the saga of Jitu Santal and Bhuvaneswari Bhaduri by Tanika Sarkar and Gyatri Chakravorty respectively. The idea of subalternity of Indian History in relation to World History is developed by Dipesh Chakrabarty in his book “Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference” (2000).
3 Pradhan, A.K.(2022) Voice of the Subalterns, Serials Publications, New Delhi, p.122
4 Challenging the dominant narratives the writing explores the pattern of resistance from the marginalized groups against colonial and feudal oppression. Ranajit Guha, “Chandra’s Death”, in Subaltern Studies V: Writing on South Asian History and Society, ed. Ranajit Guha (New Delhi: OUP, 1990), 135-165.
5 In the Boishnob sect, a woman who dedicates her life to spirituality and renounces worldly ties is known as ‘Bhek’. A Bhek is a female ascetic who has taken vows of celibacy and devotion.
6 Quoted from Ranajit Guha, “Chandra’s Death”, in Subaltern Studies V: Writing on South Asian History and Society, ed. Ranajit Guha (New Delhi: OUP, 1990), p.136-37.
7 Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1984, p.736.
8 Mani, L.(1998) Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India, University of California Press, p.256
9 Sarkar, T. (2001) Hindu Wife, Hindu Nation: Community, Religion and Cultural Nationalism, Permanent Black, New Delhi. 288.
10 Revealed during the field survey among the Birhor tribe in Purulia District of West Bengal. 27th September, 2023. Birhor is one of the primitive tribes (PVTG) living in the District of Purulia, West Bengal.
11 Dash, B. (2010) “ Hinsa, Deshantar O Byaktigata Kanthaswar” in Nimnabarger Itihas, ed. Goutam Bhadra and Partha Chattopadhyay (Kolkata: Ananda Publishers, 2010), 181-190.
12 Section 375 of Indian Penal Code deals with the definition of ‘Rape’. The exception to this definition has been presented in the context.
13 While it is assumed that a girl can perform the conjugal responsibilities and religious obligations and it is marked by physical signs and age, attains the age of ‘puberty.’
14 https://ncrb.gov.in . Accessed 29th August, 2024. Women are vulnerable to physical and sexual exploitation, with limited possibilities to justice.
15 Forced sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife against her will constitutes marital rape and it can be considered as cruelty. Cruelty is not limited to physical harm but also includes mental and emotional cruelty. Rishikesh Sharma vs. Saroj Sharma, AIR 2006 SC 2783.
16 Agens, F.(2017) “Women, Marriage, and Subordination of Rights”, in Community Gender and Violence, Subaltern Studies XI, ed. Partha Chatterjee & Pradeep Jeganathan. New Delhi: Permanent Black, p.106-137.
17https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/what-is-nirbhaya-case/articleshow/72868430.com, Assessed 25th August, 2024.
18 Jean Dreze & Amartya Sen (2014)) An Uncertain Glory: India and its Contradictions, Penguin Books, New Delhi, p.413
19 Spivak, G.C. (1994) “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader, ed. Patrick Williams & Laura Chrisman (Columbia: Columbia University Press), p.66-111.
20 Foucault, M. (1994) Power: Essential Works 1954-1984, ed. James D. Faubion, Penguin Random House UK, p.484.
22 Simone de Beauvoir. (1984) The Second Sex, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, p.509.