Paper-11 Module-1
Social Reform Movement and Women’s Participation.
Personal Details
Role Name Affiliation Principal Investigator Prof. Sumita Allahabad University, Parmar Allahabad Paper Coordinator Prof Chairperson ,IIAS, Shimla, Chandrakala Professor, Dept. of Political Padia Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and Ex-Vice Chancellor MGS University Bikaner Content Writer/Author Dr. Preeti Singh Assistant Professor Dept of (CW) Poltical Science Vasanta College for Women Rajghat Varanasi Content Reviewer (CR) Prof Chairperson ,IIAS, Shimla and Chandrakala Vice Chancellor MGS Padia University Bikaner Description of the Module Subject Women’s Studies Name Paper Name Women, Governance and Politics Module Social Reform Movement and Women’s Name Participation Module Id Paper-11 Module-1 Pre- The reader is expected to have a basic requisites understanding of the 19th century social reform movement. Objectives To make the reader understand how the
social reform movement created a niche for women in the public sphere, and critically analyze the social reform movement from Women’s Studies perspective.
Keywords Public-Private; Reformist, Revivalist, Radical, Patriarchy
The Social Reform Movement
Introduction
The 19th century occupies a very significant place in the history of modern India. This was the period when many images of India and Indians were constructed, mis-constructed and reconstructed by the British imperial power as well as the revivalists, radicals and the reformists. In this process, the question of women was at the centre. What is significant to note that though the question of woman was at the centre during the 19th century reform movement, voices of women remained at the margin. Forbes (1998) rightly writes that "in the 19th century, the ‘woman question’ loomed large. This was not a question of ‘what do women want’ but rather ‘how can they be modernized". [Forbes, 1998]. In fact, in the early 19th century, as a response to colonial encounter and imperial allegation of backwardness of the Indian society, women were converted from the "object of oppression" to the "site of reform". The issues of social reform movement related to women were mainly determined by the male social reformers. In fact, apart from the revivalist/reformist divide, the social reform movement can be divided into three categories: social reform
movement by upper caste male reformers; social reform movement by low caste male reformers, and social reform movement by women reformers. However, these three categories cannot be understood in total separation with each other, because one created space for the other.
During the early phase of the social reform movement, the male social reformers were the dominant actors. To illustrate, Raja Rammohan Roy raised his voice against the inhuman practice of sati. In his historical article, "A Conference between an Advocate for and an Opponent to the Practice of Burning Widow Alive" he argued that none of the scriptures prescribe the practice of sati. His attempt was widely opposed by the orthodoxy.
However, finally efforts of Roy and many of his supporters led to promulgation of Sati Abolition Act 1829 which declared the practice of Sati illegal and punishable by the criminal court.
Legal abolition of sati though paved the way for right to life for Hindu widows, but still, the right to a dignified life for widows was a far goal to achieve due to the hardships imposed on them. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar took up the cause of widows and it led the campaign for legalizing widow remarriage which ultimately resulted in the passing of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act 1856. He also struck upon the Hindu practice of polygamy and presented a petition to the government signed by twenty five hundred persons to legally prohibit polygamy.
Another major issue taken up by the reformers was child marriage. Social reformers like Behram Malabari and G.H. Deshmukh blamed the practice as responsible for weakness of the Indian nation and race. These reformers fought for raising the age of consent and this time women also came forward to support the cause. A petition signed by sixteen hundred women was sent to Queen Victoria for raising the age of consent in 1860. Amid the oppositions by the orthodox and nationalists, the social reformers kept on fighting for the cause and could get the Age of Consent Act passed in 1891.
Unlike the issues of Sati, child marriage, tonsure of widows, widow remarriage, polygamy, the issue of education for women got acceptance of reformists, revivalists as well as of radicals. However, though all these groups agreed that women should be educated, but there was disagreement on ‘what to teach women’ and ‘why to teach women’. The major issue was whether to educate women as individuals to develop their rational faculty or as wives and mothers to enable them to perform their roles in a
better way. However, the main stress was on educating women to be better wives and mothers.
Unlike the elite upper caste male social reformers who were mostly either conservative or moderate in their approach, Jyotirao Phule, representing the depressed section of the society, unravelled the connection between the subordination of women and caste hierarchy. He openly challenged Brahmin patriarchy through his radical arguments and social reform initiatives.
The above account makes it clear that the male social reformers did not form a homogeneous group. But it cannot be denied that these male social reformers whether moderate, revivalist or radical-knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally created a space for women and hence facilitated their participation. Women’s Participation in Social Reform Movement
Since the question of woman constituted the core of the 19th century social reform movement, there are few questions relating to women’s participation which need to be answered, like where were the voices of women in the social reform movement? How did women look upon the woman’s question? Was there any difference between the perspectives of female and male social reformers?
So far the matter concerned with the issues, we find that both the male and female social reformers fought for almost similar causes. Few major names of women who played a very significant role in the social reform movement are Francina Sorabjee, Parvati Ayyapan, Ramabai Ranade, Rakhmabai, Pandita Ramabai, Mataji Maharani Tapaswini, Begum Rokeya Sakhawat etc. Like male social reformers, these female social reformers also raised their
voices against social evils, but their main focus was on educating women. To mention few significant steps taken by women reformers in this direction: Francina Sorabjee founded three schools at Poona and also started a Teachers Training School in 1872; Bayamma from Andhra Pradesh founded Saradaniketan, a residential school for women at Guntur; and Ramabai Ranade, along with her husband Justice Ranade, founded Seva Sadan and the Seva Sadan Nursing and Medical Association.
Further, when we look at the approach of women social reformers, we find that women social reformers may be classified into two different categories: first, those women who did not raise their independent voice rather followed the agenda set by their male counterparts–either reformist or revivalist; second; women who directly challenged patriarchy by raising their voices against female subordination and other social evils in their personal life as well as in public life by leading social campaigns against such practices. The second category of women can be regarded as the forerunners of modern day feminists. But these two categories are overlapping and hence no watertight compartment can be made between the two. Women’s Participation in Social Reform Movement: The Traditionalist View of Women’s Education
Revivalist vision, which was in favour of social reform on Indian lines, was one of the most dominant views during this phase. One very significant woman figure who immensely contributed to the cause of women’s education was Mataji Maharani Tapaswini. Her views on women’s education were in full agreement with the
revivalist vision which wanted to educate ‘girls on strictly nationalist lines in the hope that they might regenerate Hindu Society’ (ref.). Mataji Maharani Tapaswini started her first school with thirty students with the purpose of educating women in accordance with the Hindu religion and moral principles. She founded the Mahakali Pathshala in Calcutta in 1893.The founders of the school supported the cause of women’s education, but their approach was quite conservative, as they opposed co-education and advocated the idea of different syllabi for girls to meet the specific needs of their roles as wives and mothers. Mataji Maharani Tapaswini was of the opinion that girls’ syllabus should include "knowledge of sacred literature and history, an understanding of myths and legends that spoke of the duties of the daughter, wife, daughter-in-law and mother and practical skills such as cooking and sewing." [Forbes, 1998] The syllabus of the Mahakali Pathshala, based on the traditional view of women’s role in family and society, was widely praised even by the conservative middle class Hindu men who were of the opinion that any attempt to educate women on modern lines would ultimately ‘demoralize’ and ‘denationalize’ young Hindu women. Due to its conventional syllabus, the popularity of the school grew very rapidly and within ten years of its establishment the school had twenty three branches with 450 students.
Like Mataji Maharani, Anandibai and Parvatibai also stressed upon the need of educating women but with a traditional perspective. Anandibai was a child widow who at the age of twenty two got married to Dhondo Keshav Karve. Paravatibai, Anandibai’s sister, was also a widow who decided not to remarry and to lead a meaningful life. These two women worked for women’s education under the leadership of Karve who was an advocate of education for women, especially widows, to make them economically self dependent. What must be underlined here is that though Karve was a great supporter of women’s education, he was not in favour of giving same kind of education to all women. His argument was that the purpose of education for widows should be to make them economically self-sufficient, but for unmarried girls education should be a means to make them ‘good wives, good mothers, good neighbours.’[Paravati Athavale, 1930] With these dual goals he founded the Mahila Vidyalaya. In 1916 Karve established Women’s University with the same goal as an alternative to Western co-educational university. In this Women’s University focus was on instructions in vernaculars and courses like Home Science. Karve was of the opinion the women must be educated like men but they need not be given the same education as both have different roles to play. To quote him:
“ we must recognize that both national and social economy require that women should occupy a station of their own distinct from that of men but that the office they have to fill is different, through equal – perhaps greater in importance.”[D.K. Karve, 1930]
Parvatibai Athavale who became the superintendent of the Mahila Vidyalaya was in full agreement with Karve’s vision on women’s education and was of the opinion that women should be educated for performing their ‘natural roles’ more perfectly and not at all for entering into the public realm. Like Karve, she also considered ‘public roles for women as an aberration rather than the norm’.[ Forbes, 1998] It is significant to point out here that Parvatibai’s stand on women’s issues was somewhere between reformist and
conservative. On the one hand, she refused to accept the orthodox view that widows were a worthless section of the society who could not lead a meaningful lives after the death of their husbands and hence advocated education for widow to make them self reliant; on the other, she was against the reformist agenda of widow remarriage. Further, her views on girls’ education testify her conservative position as she argued that the purpose of education for girls is not to make them self dependent because the ultimate purpose of a girl’s life is to marry and so the education for girls should be such as would prepare them for their marital and family responsibilities. Therefore, she supported curriculum of the Mahila Vidyalaya where emphasis was on training in child care and home craft.
Thus, efforts of these traditionalist women social reformers for women’s education were based on the principle that though men and women both have a role to play in betterment of the society, their roles are different and complementary.
Muslim Women’s Education and Contribution of Begum Rokeya Sakhawat
While Maharani Tapaswini, Anandibai and Parvatibai took up the task of educating Hindu girls, Begum Rokeya Sakhawat became a significant figure in educating Muslim girls. She started an
institution for Muslim girls in Bhagalpur, Bihar in 1909. Then in 1911 she founded Sakhawat Memorial Girls’ School in Calcutta. Begum Rokeya understood that any radical move on her part would be damaging to her goal of educating Muslim girls. Therefore, Purdah rules were strictly followed in her school while transporting the girl students. She made it clear that education would not divert women from their traditional roles, rather would enable them in performing these roles more efficiently. Keeping this goal in mind, the curriculum in Rokeya’s school included practical subjects like handicrafts, Home Science, gardening etc.
Begum Rokeya, on the one hand, appears to be a moderate who wanted to educate Muslim girls without intervening into the practices prevalent in the then Muslim society; on the other she expressed her radicalism through her writings. She was a prolific writer who wrote several articles on women’s pathetic condition where she stressed the need to educate women, especially Muslim women who were deprived of economic means and were compelled to live a life of deprivation and permanent confinement. She realized that it is only education which could free women from this life of permanent deprivation and would help them in playing their due role in society. Some of her famous essays are – ‘Borka’, ‘Ardhangi’, ‘Griha’ and ‘Sugrihini’. Raising her voice against the practice of seclusion, she boldly wrote that seclusion ‘is not a
gaping wound, hurting people. It is rather a silent killer like monoxide gas.’ [Forbes, 1998] For such writings – which were too radical for the 19th century Muslim society – Rokeya was widely criticized and was even accused ‘of being Pro-Christian and Europhile’. [Forbes, 1998]
Radical Women Voices and the Social Reform Movement
Unlike Anandibai , Parvatibai and Begum Rokeya, whose position was somewhere between reformist and conservative, there were women who blatantly took a radical position and directly objected to the patriarchal structure of the Indian society. They challenged the beliefs and norms of the Hindu society and thus met with strong opposition and were projected as women who would ‘degenerate’ and ‘denationalize’ young Hindu women. Representatives of this radical strand were Pandita Ramabai, Rakhmabai and Savitribai Phule, who did not confine their efforts only to the cause of education but directly attacked upon the gendered norms of the Hindu society.
Pandita Ramabai overtly challenged Hindu patriarchy in her book The High Caste Hindu Woman. Pandita Ramabai was a great Sanskrit scholar and had studied the Hindu Shastras and Purans. She was also an eloquent speaker. Being influenced by her oratory she was given the title of ‘Saraswati’ by the Calcutta elite. In
Poona, she started working with the reformers to educate women through the Arya Mahila Samaj. While presenting evidence before Hunter Commission, she stressed on the need of educating women and the need for women doctors and teachers. Gradually her acts and views turned radical. She decided to learn English and study medicine and with the financial help of the Anglo Catholic Community of St. Mary the Virgin, she went to England where few years letter she decided to accept baptism. Her move was harshly criticized in her native country and her reforms were viewed with much suspicion.
With the goal of educating women for making them self-reliant, she started Sharada Sadan, a school for widows in Bombay. Her school was targeted by the revivalists and orthodoxy as a centre to convert Hindu widows to Christianity. To reject such charges,
Ramabai made it clear at the opening of the school that the school ‘would not actively preach Christianity or try to make converts.’ [Radha Kumar, 1993] But despite this, Pandita Ramabai’s project of educating women to make them self-reliant met with much opposition.
This suspicion was further increased by a news published in the December 1889 issue of the Christian Weekly which reported that ‘at present there are seven young widows in the Sharda Sadan, two of whom have expressed their love for Christianity’ [Radha Kumar, 1993].This news led to much outrage in revivalist circles. To stop such criticisms and oppositions, Ramabai formed an Executive Committee composed of reformers having a staunch Hindu image. She thought that this step would silence the charge of anglicization, but this did not work and the orthodoxy and revivalists kept criticizing Sharda Sadan as a centre of degeneration and denationalization of Hindu womanhood. The nationalist newspaper Keshari charged that Ramabai was converting widows to Christianity. Finally, the school was shifted to Poona due to financial crisis. Under the influence of revivalists and conservatives many families even withdrew their girls from the school. But amid such criticisms and hardships Sharda Sadan did not deviate from its primary goal of making women self reliant.
Eighty women had been trained by the school, and could earn their livelihood through nursing and teaching by the year 1900.
In 1897 she established another school ‘Mukti’ at Kedagaon near Poona where 2000 women and children were attending school as well as getting industrial training. This school received funding from an American Committee and due to financial support of the committee–which did not have any objection to Ramabai’s innovative and sometimes even radical schemes – Ramabai could implement her plan of imparting such education which would not make the inmates only materially self reliant but would lead to generation of democratic spirit. A glance at the curriculum of the school – which included Physiology, Botany, and industrial training in printing, carpentry, tailoring, masonry, wood-cutting, weaving and needle work and training in farming and gardening – exemplifies the innovative ideas of Ramabai. When this curriculum is compared to curriculum of Mataji Maharani Tapswini’s Mahakali Pathashala and D.K. Karve’s Women’s University where the focus was on subjects like Home Science and handicrafts, the difference between the traditionalist and radical approaches is quite evident. While the former wanted to make women self-reliant citizens, the latter intended to make them better wives and mothers. Though, both the groups agreed on the need of educating women, they had major differences of opinion on the
purpose and content of women’s education. Recognizing Ramabai’s unique contribution to the 19th century Social Reform Movement Forbes rightly comments: “Ramabai’s educational work impressed contemporaries but her connection with Christianity has obfuscated her contribution to women’s education. An acknowledged Christian when hatred of the ruling power was growing daily, her work angered some of the most powerful men in Western India. [Forbes, 1998]
Ramabai could see the caste dimension of such criticisms and boldly argued that, this new education is opposed by the high caste men because it poses challenge to their dominant position. ‘Ramabai believed that the intensity of their [high caste men] anger
related to the fact that many of her pupils came from the higher castes. She argued that these men would have remained unconcerned if her work were confined to low-caste women.’ [Forbes,1998] .
Rakhmabai, another major radical figure made her life itself a site for radical social reform. She got married to Dadabhai Bhikaji in her childhood but when she grew up, she refused to live with her husband and thus started a fight against the practice of child marriage. Bhikaji filed a petition for restitution of his conjugal rights and also won his case in the High court of Appeal. But even the decision of the Court could not stop Rakhmabai’s radical zeal for freedom. She refused to obey the order of the court and rather preferred to pay the fine imposed by the court. Her audacious step was supported by Ramabai who openly condemned the judgment of the court and wrote: “Our only wonder is that a defenseless woman like Ruhkamabai dared to raise her voice in the face of the powerful Hindu law, the mighty British Government, the 129,000,000 men and the 330,000,000 Gods of the Hindus; all these have conspired together to crush her into nothingness. We cannot blame the English Government for not defending a helpless woman; it is only fulfilling its agreement made with the male population of India.” [Pandita Ramabai,1977]
Thus, Rakhmabai not only opposed child marriage but translated her ideas into action. Uma Chakravarti addresses her as ‘the recalcitrant wife whose education was the source of her desire for a companionate marriage and the disavowal of her conjugal obligations.’ [Uma Chakravarti, 2000]. However, her resistance was not limited to her personal life. She became one of the strongest voices against patriarchal Hindu institutions and practices. Opposing the Hindu institution of marriage, she argued that the Hindu institution of marriage is suffocating for women, as it is based on total submission of wife to her husband. She was of the view that this hierarchical marriage should be replaced by companionate marriage. She was also a staunch critic of the imposed widowhood. In her letter to The Times of India on ‘Enforced Widowhood’, Rakhmabai questioned the harsh treatment given to Hindu windows. Unravelling the double standards of Hindu Shastras and customs, she raised the point that while a man is allowed to remarry immediately after the death of his wife, but a woman after the death of her husband is treated as sexually and morally dead being. She further charged that while prescribing the rules to be followed by the widow, the Shastras did not take into consideration the age of the widow and prescribed one set of rules for all the widows. Ridiculing the practice, she said that if a girl of five or six years married for the gratification of her
parents, loses her ‘child–husband’, this ‘child–wife’ – who hardly knows the meaning of the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, ‘wifedom’ and ‘widowhood’ and ‘happiness’ and ‘misery’ – is as much a widow as an elderly woman of sixty years who loses her husband at the age of seventy. Rakhmabai divided widows into three categories: (a) from the age of 5 to 15 (b) 15 to 25 and (c) 25 to 35. Lamenting the pathetic state of the widows of the first category, Rakhmabai said that a widow of tender age ‘grows up in blessed ignorance till she becomes a young woman and is able to comprehend the terrible future that has been reserved for her by the gentle decree of her human legislators.’ [Chakravarti and Gill, 2000]
Rakhmabai unflinchingly spoke against such double standards and opined that these inhuman laws have remained unchallenged because these laws were formulated by men to protect their interests. In her letter to Ramabai she argued that these laws are outdated and should be removed. To quote from her letter : “the learned and civilized judges of the full benches are determined to enforce in this enlightened age the inhuman laws enacted in barbaric times, four thousand year ago.” [Quoted in Pandita Ramabai, the High Caste Hindu Woman, 1888]
Like Ramabai and Rakhmabai, a very strong voice against patriarchy in general and specifically against upper caste patriarchy
was of Savitribai Phule who posed twin challenge to the caste system and patriarchy.
Savitribai opened many schools in Maharashtra to educate lower caste women and girls. Her most radical contribution to the social reform movement was establishment of a centre ‘Balhatya Pratibandhak Griha’ (Infanticide Prohibition Centre), where unmarried women and widows could give birth to their illegitimate children. She established this centre with her husband as a mark of resistance against upper caste patriarchal morality. Continuing their resistance against the gendered social customs of the Hindu society, the couple, further, organized a strike to stop the barbers from shaving the heads of widows as a mark of resistance against the inhuman practice of tonsure of widows.
Analyzing Social Reform Movement from Women’s Studies Perspective From the above account of women’s participation in the social reform movement it is quite clear that women who participated in the social reform movement vary in their approaches and perspectives. Further, from the above account of women social reformers, it cannot be and must not be concluded that women equally participated in the social reform movement. On the contrary, women were not the actual actors rather were treated as the objects of reform. In fact, social reform movement was dominantly a male movement. Sumit Sarkar rightly argues that the social reform movement was aimed at only ‘limited and controlled emancipation’. [Sumit Sarkar, 1994] Despite the few available names of women social reformers, it is significant to underline that ‘women themselves were not partners in the schemes created for their regeneration; more often they were portrayed as opposed to their own liberation’. [Forbes, 1998] It was not at all a movement for gender equality and gender justice in true sense of the terms. A scrutiny of the 19th century social reform movement and women’s participation in it from Women’s Studies perspective discovers the point that though women participated in the social reform movement but the perspective of women was largely missing. Leela Kasturi and Veena Majumdar rightly observe: “ Barring a
few exceptions, the ‘modernists’ or the ‘revivalists’ were not really concerned with gender equality, women’s own desires or their perspectives on dignity and justice. Nor were they aware of the inter-relationship between patriarchal controls over women’s freedom, roles and behaviour and the carefully preserved pluralist hierarchical organisation of Indian society. Issues such as the radical restructuring of the social order or of bridging the social gap between different classes/ castes/ communities were very far from most reformers’ aims. There were however some outstanding exceptions.”
Summary
The question of woman was at the centre during the 19th century social reform movement, but voices of women mostly remained at the margin.
The major issues during the social reform movement were: child marriage, Sati, widow remarriage, widow tonsure, polygamy and women’s education.
Women who participated in the social reform movement can be divided into two categories: women who conformed to the traditional roles and norms; and women who revolted against them and were comparatively radical in their approach.
On the issue of women’s education there was consensus on the need of educating women among revivalists, reformists and radicals but these three groups stand in opposition to each other on the question of ‘why to teach’ and ‘what to teach’.
Mataji Maharani Tapaswini’s Mahakali Pathashala was in conformity with the revivalist ideal of education.
Begum Rokeya Sakhwat took up the cause of Muslim women’s education.
Pandita Ramabai,Rakhmabai and Savitribai Phule were the representatives of radical voices of resistance.
Though women participated in the social reform movement but the perspective of women was largely missing