Gender inequality in indigenous community

Jyoti Sonia Dhan

This gender differences will remain till it reaches to the apex fused and busted, eventually, coming to equilibrium stage. (Equilibrium really?) The capitalism and cat race for power will always there to push and pull either of the sex to go up and down.

A society where one can view the clouds of equilibrium in sexes was about indigenous society, where always the collectivism lies. Both the sexes stand equally, responsible for the household and to the community. The parameters that, we look into were right to decide or right in decision making first in the household then in the community. The decision making in the social activity, decisions in the economic activity went parallel and equally with both the sexes. In respect to the village context, village is a family unit on whole, so all the responsibility were shared among the members of the family , whether to be sowing the fields, repairing the roofs or arrangement of child birth to marriage ceremony, all were done by the villagers ( a family).

In this spirit of the collectivism, the land is not fragmented into individual household share. The land, forest and all the natural resources were shared by the collective of the village. But, when we speak about the resources as a whole it is said to be of collective ownership. But, the British Government put the seed of fragmentation, division in this collectivism through the individual ownership of the land, so that, they (Britisher) can have access to those lands which were under the collective group. Here, begins the crisis and struggle of the land not only between the individuals of the collective but between the household.

The right to property entitlement was there among the different sub groups of the indigenous community. For instances, it could narrate about Santhal indigenous subgroups of Jharkhand, a share is given to the female member through the ceremony “Tamen Jom”, where she can have right over the land for her sustenance. Similarly, ownership to female members in other indigenous sub groups like Kharia, Oraon, Ho and Munda etc. This right was limited to singles females only. Still now this right is not enforced in full fledge as there is fear from the male counter part about ancestral land being treacherously taken away from women by non –indigenous. Thus it has limited the property entitlement to female members.

The historical evidence narrated many times about the immigration of non-indigenous people in indigenous land and viewed the resources of indigenous. This was actually required for their settlement to the new land. They found the liberation of women folk in the community and their ownership in the collective resources; this created a strategy to access those resources. They influence the women to get marry with them or fix them in a situation where she cannot give a second thought of marrying others, thereby, access to land she has. This created the social obligation to the women to have right to the property. This was done to save the resources getting into the non-indigenous hands. It was all true that, women got exploited in the hands of the non-indigenous people. It was also true about obligation to save women from getting married other than the community. Still now we find the same sought of restriction in the community towards women.

What that is narrated is true and some kind of social restriction can save a society. But, is that the social restriction is only to the women? What will we say to the male counterpart who sold their share of property to non –indigenous? What will we say a person marrying a non-indigenous? How far the person marrying non-indigenous women follows the culture of non-indigenous? The history always narrate about the women is not in place so such normalization was done but, what we will say to the men who actually sold their share to non-indigenous. So, the men enjoyed the leisure of marrying non –indigenous women parrallely enjoying the property entitlement.

Here, the question is not of the property right to be given or not but, to address that, it is not always the women responsible. There should have being socialization process within both the sexes on land protection if the issue is such otherwise it only creates biasness.

We still hear news of the patriarchy influences in the villages in form of witch hunting or witch in the village. We can hear stories about the witches in particular family (mother or daughter in law expertise in this art) and therefore, other families do not easily mix up with them. The question lies why a Mother or Daughter in law, we never hear men, even though we hear, it’s like moon in grey clouds. This is something of social boycotting to an individual family member thereby, to the family. This is another kind of torture to women resulting to violence on women mentally and physically in a grave manner. One should notice the witch hunters were more of females than finger counting males. In Jharkhand there are 600 cases reported against on women violence and out of that 142 cases were killed on charges of witch between 2002 and 2005 according to ACHR report of 2007.

In the present scenario, the effects of the globalization creating indigenous people to shift from community concern to individual concern. The “status” words govern the society. Exposure to the outside world started to reduce space for the women in the community. This reduction of space of the women is invisible in the present times may be likely to seen 100 years move clearly among the indigenous. The middleclass group residing in urban, semi urban area is more influence with the status word.

Women who hold a job or service are more preferred as the soul mates. This area has two faces; some area women are preferred as qualified housewives while somewhere holding a profession. Secondly, there are incidences where there are no choices for a girl if a parents search a groom who is 10 to 15 years old than her and she is still studying. The reason for giving a daughter is person had a secured job. The girl is not given a choice to say her words. Now, the question arises from where these thoughts have emerged, it was not there in the collective indigenous group. The right to take decision on which subject the girl will purse totally relates with the marriage proposal because, she has to fit into the in-laws norm. Again the question arises from where these cultures come? The individual life in the urban has eventually placed an individual indigenous to move in this manner.

The regret of having a girl child as the girl child is considered not confident enough with outside chores of household. This issue is alarming and is creating threat.

The young urbanities describe the empowerment of the women through the economic empowerment. Aint it was true that, women already had economically stake hold in house, since the genesis.

Some blame the globalization for the cultural extinction where some believe in the economic growth there by proving their identity as an indigenous. But, some where in the struggle, the woman is left to lost. This lost comes from the notation the challenges she has to make. It is really not understood what make women to fall under the challenge in an indigenous society. Is it the economic empowerment or leading to subjugation in the society?

Now, where do we (indigenous) find ourselves is a question to answer and were women stand? One cannot deny the patriarchy from the world so do to this community. Still this community is a progressive because its women have space in the society. But, fears are not far to wash away the values of collective indigenous.

Writer is a social worker

similiar post at www.newswing.com under ‘columnist’ category