Draft:Women in the Indian Caste System

Women in the Indian Caste System Caste in and of itself is a highly discriminatory system in an already discriminative world. The intersection of caste and gender promotes even more bias as women are treated differently according to what caste they are in. For example, in the Brahmanical caste, “purity of women” and gender hierarchy was and still is - although to a lesser extent - central to its patriarchy.[1]

Gender inequality is vital to how much of Indian society works. In the lower castes, however, there are fewer rules and regulations on women, while the rules and regulations on the caste group itself are harsher. Women in lower castes are more “relaxed about purity” and are “less influenced by Brahmanical norms.”. However, since they are of lower caste, they are heavily discriminated against. Dalit women, for instance, are triply affected by caste, class, and gender, even though they have fewer constraints against them compared to women in higher castes. Dalit feminism has taken an upswing in India, especially in the state of Maharashtra. Dalit feminists have problematized the opposition of women’s rights and caste rights. These two issues beg the same resolution, even for being very different. While caste is a problem in India, so is gender, as they are so interconnected.[2]

The problem, however, is the exact role gender plays within the caste system. If the caste system is abolished, gender inequality will not be. Neither one depends on the other. Without caste, women as a whole can still be discriminated against, and without sexism, casteism can still exist. These two issues need to be tackled separately. Patriarchal honor may still be a problem in society. Without the caste system, the role of women will need to be explored more deeply, as it plays such a pivotal role in how the layers of the caste system function. The way gender works in the caste system is interesting. The higher up one goes, the more restrained women are in terms of gender, yet the lower one goes, people in general are more restrained in terms of caste/class. This is not to say that Brahmans are not restrained, they still have a role to play in society, but they have more privilege than the other castes. In older texts, such as Manusmriti: The Laws of Manu, the role of women was to always be under men. “In childhood a woman should be under her father’s control, in youth, under her husband’s, and when her husband is dead, under her sons’. She should not have independence.”.[2]

This applies to all castes. This is the only manner in which women are mentioned in older texts, as well as them using gendered terms such as “he”, “him”, “man”, etc. as general ways of addressing/talking about people. The patriarchy is a big part of how the caste system is structured.[3] Brahmans especially have a patriarchal society. It is expected of women to uphold patriarchal honor even though they acquire no benefit from it. Patriarchal honor is very important in Brahman society, yet Indian women possess the gendered counterpart of honor. Men lose their honor because of the behavior of women from their family or kinship. This means that women are thought to be part of their husband/father/brother, so their actions reflect on men. However, they are not allowed to have their own honor in this society and system. This means that whatever actions women take, whether good or bad, they are only reflected on their male counterparts. Casteism and sexism are greatly intertwined, but they are independent, so abolishing one may not abolish the other.[citation needed]

References edit

  1. ^ REGE, SHARMILA; DEVIKA, J; KANNABIRAN, KALPANA; JOHN, MARY E; SWAMINATHAN, PADMINI; SEN, SAMITA (2013). "Intersections of Gender and Caste". Economic and Political Weekly. 48 (18): 35–36. JSTOR 23527306 – via JSTOR.
  2. ^ a b Manusmriti: The Laws of Manu 1500 BC (PDF). Translated by Buhler I., G.
  3. ^ Chakravarti, Uma (1993). "Conceptualising Brahmanical Patriarchy in Early India: Gender, Caste, Class and State". Economic and Political Weekly. 28 (14): 579–585. JSTOR 4399556 – via JSTOR.