India’s First Woman President Vows Fight for Women, Unborn Girls

NEW DELHI - India’s first woman president was sworn into office Wednesday and promised to fight for the rights of women and an end to the widespread practice of aborting female fetuses.

Pratibha Patil, 72, also said the country’s hundreds of millions of poor should reap the benefit of India’s blistering economic growth of over nine percent.

“India stands at the threshold of a new era of progress, and it should be a combined endeavor. We must ensure that every section of society are equal partners in the development process,” she said.

“Our combined endeavor should be to ensure that the rate of economic growth is sustained and it is socially inclusive,” Patil said after taking the oath as India’s first woman head of state since independence from the British 60 years ago.

“A developing country of over a billion people should live together and move forward together,” she said as she assumed the largely ceremonial position.

Under India’s constitution, the prime minister wields executive power but the president plays a role in forming governments at state and federal levels, making the post hotly contested in India’s fractured political landscape.

Patil, a diminutive bespectacled figure, was plucked from relative political obscurity by Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born widow of former premier Rajiv Gandhi and the powerful head of the ruling Congress party.

She was elected by federal and state legislators last week, and replaces missile scientist Abdul Kalam, a 72-year-old respected for his populist style.

But Patil endured a bruising campaign, with the opposition accusing her of protecting her brother in a murder probe, shielding her husband in a suicide scandal and involvement in a slew of financial scams.

Patil, who was governor of the northwestern desert state of Rajasthan, denied all wrongdoing, saying the allegations were politically motivated.

In her speech, Patil promised to use her influence to focus on India’s stubborn list of social ills.

“We must banish malnutrition, social evils, infant mortality and female feticide,” said Patil, who was dressed in a white sari with a green border. “We must fight poverty, ignorance and disease.”

India loses an average of 7,000 girls every day through abortions because of a traditional preference for sons, according to a UN Children’s Fund report last year.

Abortions have also resulted in a severely skewed gender ratio in India, where there are only 927 females for every 1,000 males — far lower than the worldwide average of 1,050 females.

“I am deeply committed to the cause of education… the empowerment of women is particularly important to me,” Patil added in the speech to parliament.

After the ceremony, Patil was driven in a black stretch limousine accompanied by horse-mounted bodyguards to the presidential palace, where she was given a 21-gun salute.

Italian-born Gandhi had said Patil’s election would be a historic moment for the world’s largest democracy and second-most populous nation, and boost the cause for women in a country where many face massive sexual discrimination.

Analysts, however, said she had been picked because she was a loyalist to the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which has given India three prime ministers.

The major issue now, said analysts, was whether Patil would be able to resist the pressures of the ruling coalition and act independently with a slew of state polls coming up and a federal election looming in 2009.

“It will be my sincere endeavor to live up to the high expectations of all those who have chosen to elect me, and to serve the best interests of the people of India,” Patil said.

“I am fully aware of the great responsibility that has been placed on my humble shoulders.”

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

38 Comments so far

Jaded Prole July 25th, 2007 1:17 pm

Wasn’t Indira Ghandi a woman?

ARA Charleston July 25th, 2007 1:38 pm

Yes, but she was prime minister, not president.

And good for India. It’s time to start promoting some positive change.

ron murry July 25th, 2007 2:31 pm

Any country that does’nt respect the women with equel value of men ,is half minded and very poor indeed.

Poet July 25th, 2007 2:34 pm

Indira Ghandi, like Golda Meir, and Margaret (Attilla the hen)Thatcher was a woman in biological gender only with respect to her conduct in office. Indira presided over the Indian nuclear bomb program, Golda over the Yom Kippur war, and Margaret over the Falklands campaign.

In similar manner, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are also like so many guys in biological drag (to quote a funny Siouxrose quipped a while back).

Let’s hope that Patribah Patil, Ankela Merkel, Dr. MIchelle Bachelet and other women ascending to power will once and for all finally get the chance to be women in their style of adminstration instead of psuedo-men. The other half of humanity needs some good role models to which to aspire.

sigma July 25th, 2007 3:19 pm

Good for her. Maybe she can do something to reduce the aborting of girls and the burning of brides in India.

DJ_DiaLogic July 25th, 2007 3:54 pm

Poet,
You stated that “Indira Ghandi, like Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher was a woman in biological gender only with respect to her conduct in office.”

That is very ignorant. The term “women” is not defined as a peace loving beatnik hippie. I suggest you let each of these leaders define “women” with their own versions of femininity. After all we should be knee deep in 3rd wave feminism by now. Let them be tyrants as well as Mother Teresa. In my experience anyone married to one will probably experiences both.

Response to Sigma,

India is a fledgling democracy that began only 60 years ago and they beat us to gender equality in the government. What does that say about us? We can’t judge a society that has proven twice that it will give power to women when we have never (until now) even flirted with the idea.

“Judge not lest ye be judged”

America still suffers from rampant wide spread domestic violence. Is wife burning that much worse than murder and rape? Remember all those pregnant wife murders you hear about (Peterson, Benoit, ect…). 1/3 of all murders committed against women in the US are done by a boyfriend or husband. America is by far the most murderess and violent industrialized nation in the world, both domestically and internationally.

We should look at the mirror before we start tearing down the accomplishments of Indians.

I’m sure India will benefit from their new female leader and I’m sure her dedication to raise the rights and wellbeing of women in India will have very positive effects.

But we live in a very glass house. Save your stones for our own leaders.

PJD July 25th, 2007 4:47 pm

I assume that like in most parliamentary systems, the president of India is largely a symbolic position with lettle real power, so I wouldn’t make much of deal about this.

Recall that the most recent PM was to have been a woman, Sonya Ghandi, but she gave the postiion to Dr. Singh due to death threats presumubly from fundamentalist Hindus on the right.

Poet July 25th, 2007 5:56 pm

DJ_DiaLogic writes:

You stated that “Indira Ghandi, like Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher was a woman in biological gender only with respect to her conduct in office.”

That is very ignorant. The term “women” is not defined as a peace loving beatnik hippie.

********************

So far we are in agreement as to what a woman is not.

DJ_Dialogic continues–

I suggest you let each of these leaders define “women” with their own versions of femininity.

************

I agree and even if i didn’t they have done, are doing, and will do exactly that.

DJ_diaLogic concludes–

After all we should be knee deep in 3rd wave feminism by now. Let them be tyrants as well as Mother Teresa. In my experience anyone married to one will probably experiences both.

***************

An excellent example of that about which I am talking is Dr. Bachelet who is head of the Chilean government. She has made it a policy that half of her cabinet posts will be headed by women. Not just tokens, but, rather, competent and qualified women who will be encouraged to stock their departments with other such women in similar proportions.

Under Ankela Merkel, (a green party leader)Germany is forging ahead in its development of alternative energies (kind of a nice mataphor for what I am talking about with women in executive leadership).

Some unique qualities in which women excel when given the chance to be women that the three exemplars Meier, Thatcher, and Ghandi did not(and Pelosi and Clinton have yet to show)include:

The ability to see both sides of issues in deliberations.

Building relationships based on mutual respect not just horse trading expediancy.
(quid-pro-quo)

Networking with others.

being more practical and less rigidly ideological in their deliberations.

I am not prescribing the above listed qualities to totally replace their male opposites, only saying that they need better representation at the tables of counsel and adminstration of government.

It’s no accident that such a large percentage of posters and readers on this blog are women with such qualities because the content of so many of the articles (as well as many of the writers of such articles)are encouraged to be the women (or men) that they are.

ceti July 25th, 2007 5:58 pm

Some of the most powerful chief ministers in India are women, including Mayawati (a woman and a dalit) who made it on her own to storm to power in UP, a state with 166 million people. It’s always been a paradox of South Asia where women have reached the top post more times than anywhere else (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka as well), but still have poor health indicators and social status.

However, Hillary Clinton is more like Margaret Thatcher than many of these women, including Indira Gandhi who despite her dictatorial tendencies, moved left.

gandhi July 25th, 2007 7:22 pm

Indira Gandhi was a mass leader. It was the poor who always supported her. She worked for their welfare. That is how The Congress Party has become a represenatative party of the poor (Now it is no longer so. It represents the corporate interests. The present India-US nuclear deal is an example of that, which opens to US nuclear business worth $250 billions). Sonia Gandhi is the president of Congress Party and powerful just because she is the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi. Even now the poor remember Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi as the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi.

Indira Gandhi was the one who stood against the arrogance of the US empire (Remember Kissinger called her a “bitch”, because she maintained an independent foreign policy). In India she definetely opposed those Indian leaders who worked as American poodles. That is one of the main reasons she was portrayed by the US media as a dictator.

The other thing I want to say is: president of India is not a symbolic figure. She/He has power as commander-in-chief of the defence forces. The bills that are recommended by the parliament should be signed by her/him.

India has made tremendous progress with regards to gender equality. Women are seen in all the fields: President, Prime Minister, Governor, Speaker of the parliament, Chief Minister (Mayawati is the chief minister of the largest Indian state), police officers, diplomats, National TV news anchors, to name a few. Mind you, this has happened within 60 years of its independence!!!

pbfriend July 25th, 2007 7:23 pm

Thank you, ceti, for spelling Gandhi correctly!
May I suggest we all remember that our idea of ‘women’ and of ‘men’ is just that — an idea which has something to do with reality but also that many men are nurturing, relationship-oriented and so forth, just as many women are more stereotypically male in their characteristics. Clearly, in India, for women and girls and all men who wish for women to be more empowered, this is a wonderful moment.

Paul Bramscher July 25th, 2007 7:30 pm

Evidently, this is deeply rooted in the Hindu/caste/dowry system. In the non-Western world, a dowry is expected to be paid by the bride’s family to the groom.

So, particularly for poor parents of a daughter, an abortion is far cheaper than an expensive dowry 15-20 years later. But two wrongs don’t make a right. They’ll need to either change their millenias-old priorities or else drop capitalism. We’ll see which route they take.

deepa July 25th, 2007 7:53 pm

Paul Bramscher

Your comments are “western reading” of non-western cultures.

For your information, there are communities in India where it is the bridegroom who gives dowry to the bride. There are people who oppose dowry system.

Your comment on abortion is more of what is common in the US and the Western societies. Unlike in the US and the West, in Indian culture sex outside marriage is not permissible. So it is better to know the culture, instead of reading one’s culture into another culture. It is the married women who are going for abortion, not unmarried ones (as is common in the US and the western societies).

DJ_DiaLogic July 25th, 2007 8:20 pm

Poet,

Thank you for clarifying your original post. I agree and I especialy like the fact that you noted Dr. Bachelet. She is insiration and I loved to see more women like her in politics.

Bellissima July 25th, 2007 8:49 pm

There is going to be no empowerment for anyone. A change in the figure of the Indian president hardly even calls for notice. It is literally just a change of face. Did populist president Abdul Kalam accomplish anything? This seat is just to keep minorities happy, in a rolling order. The article is all b.s. The lady has little power; other organizations can do better from within the country to help women. She has no control even over the signatures required of her has as the state’s figurehead.

Among female presidents today, I would say one doing a fair job is President Ellen Sirleaf of Liberia. But then again, only time will tell

Jian July 25th, 2007 9:53 pm

Anima and animus is each one of us! Whatever the strength use it for greater good; this makes one and all stronger.

catseyes July 25th, 2007 10:28 pm

Feticide? Not that i have anything against what she says about economic inequality.

gyptian July 25th, 2007 11:05 pm

Poet im sorry but your statements come across as deeply sexist. Somehow ‘women’ as you see them are supposed to be virtuous when in power but men dont need the same ‘ceiling’ so to speak.

deepa, gandhi, ceti and DJ have it absolutely right and sigma is either ignorant or has a bone to pick ( as is common in south asian politics !!). Its too easy to brand us (americans) as raping, pillaging and murderous pigs (which we are judging by our actions in iraq), but to brand an entire culture/civilization based on individual acts is ignorant and displays a lack of analysis.

Women in South Asia as someone said above have always been fiery and radical and have stood up to power (mostly wielded by men) admirably well over the last 60 years. Indira Gandhi was definitely a populist despite her flaws (indulging her family etc) and was repeatedly elected by the masses and not the corporate power structure. She stood up to Nixon and his cronies even when they sent the 6th fleet into the Indian Ocean and helped Bangladesh become an independant country (which she would have occupied instead if she was american !!!).

Currently women in politics (thanks to reserved parliamentary constituencies enforced by the constituition) in India are all over the map. Whats even more amazing are the women outside the system who pretty much sock it to them (Medha Patekar, Arundhati Roy, Asma Jahangir in Pakistan etc). They are the ones ive heard of but im sure there are tons more as I witnessed on my trips.

As for empowerment its partly true but the Presidents post as the article suggests is mostly ceremonial but in cases of deadlocks in parliamentary issues or more seriously in terms of breakdown of the system (assasinations etc ) the President plays the deciding role as at least 2 different Indian Presidents did in the past.

Paul Bramscher July 25th, 2007 11:12 pm

deepa: I’m currently listening to a lecture series on compact disc by The Teaching Company (http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=266) entitled “Great World Religions: Hinduism”.

Ironically, just this morning the professor was mentioning that a study in Bombay suggested that like 99% of abortions (I forget the exact figure or scope of the study) were against female fetuses. And, indeed, he hooked it up to the expense of a dowry vs. abortion.

It’s not my reading — I’m echoing his. Although I’ve got a B.A. in Anthropology & History, I can’t remotely claim to be an expert on India. He seems to be one, however. Harvard PhD and visiting professor at a university in India. Check out his credentials on the URL I supplied above.

lod July 26th, 2007 12:17 am

Paul, I’m sure you mean well - but with all due respect, your professor is decidedly orientalist. I’m not defending or denying dowry - an absolutely abhorrent and unfortunately still prevalent practise. But, the prejudice against women and the female child goes much much deeper than economics. There have been many strong female leaders in India, it is one of those many contradictions in India that women leaders are respected even women at home are not..

Indira Gandhi may well have espoused populist rhetoric, but there is little doubting which classes in India bore the brunt of her military emergency - mass forced sterilisations, slum evictions, dismantling of labour protections. India’s women (and poor) deserved better. Fortunately, like gyptian has already detailed, South Asia’s women have many more political role models now.

ezeflyer July 26th, 2007 12:19 am

Testosterone is largely responsible for the mess the world is in.

gyptian July 26th, 2007 2:28 am

True enough lod but I have to admit that the last 15 years of so called ‘liberalization’ in India has done at least 10 times more to disposess the poor than what Indira did. I dont particularly like to defend Indira Gandhi but in retrospect she was far more to the Left than the current crop. While mass sterilization was done on an experimental basis by her son Sanjay, slum evictions and dismantling of labor protections have been the mantra of both the BJP and Congress govts over the past 10 yrs. and is a direct consequence of their tilt towards a capitalist society.

kalia July 26th, 2007 3:09 am

Indira was one of great leader of her time. The very fact that Nixon and Kissinger reffered to her as “that bitch” ought to dispell any doubts on that score. She liberated Bangladesh - let that be a lesson to Bush about liberation. As to that fact she presided over the nukes is something the Indians can be proud of. If it were not for her US would not have come looking for a “a one time deal on nukes”. Anyways who says that only five countries have the so called right.

sigma July 26th, 2007 7:44 am

I didn’t realize that supporting Ms. Patil in her call to combat female feticide and suggest she might help young women not become victims of dowry killing was so controversial. I guess reducing the 2 million female fetuses that are aborted a year in India because they are female is not a worthy cause to some. And what if 15-30,000 brides are killed because of dowries every year. Reducing those numbers is probably also not a priority to some either.

Abaris July 26th, 2007 9:12 am

To Poet:

Under Ankela Merkel, (a green party leader)Germany is forging ahead
in its development of alternative energies (kind of a nice mataphor
for what I am talking about with women in executive leadership).

1) Her name is Angela, not Ankela

2) She is certainly not, and has never been, a Green Party leader. Chancellor Merkel is a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). In German poltics, the CDU is the party with the least amount of commonality with the Greens.

Besides, it was Chancellor Merkel who recently and repeatedly called for revisiting Germany’s commitment to phase out nuclear energy, stating that nuclear energy was safe, clean, and the only way Germany could reach its ambitious carbon reduction targets.

Good thing is that she heads a Grand Coalition, with the Federal Ministry for Environmental Protection controlled by the CDU’s political nemesis, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), which insists on the phase-out.

3) On top of that, she was notorious for supporting the Shrub’s invasion of Iraq, criticising then-Chancellor Schröder for refusing to support the war, while an ovewhelming majority of Germans considered the war illegal.

Her Chancellorship is, and rightly so, considered a step forward for gender equality in Germany. But Ms. Merkel is definitely a german analogue of Thatcher, Meir, Indira Gandhi and the likes. Far from being a symbol for any new kind of “feminine” politics.

Sorry, I just couldn’t ignore your comment.
Excuse my bad English.

shelagh July 26th, 2007 9:28 am

What is dowry killing?

I agree with Paul that female feticide is probably economically based. Also, he did not imply that these were unmarried women having abortions.

Abaris July 26th, 2007 10:35 am

dowry killing: see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry#In_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning

Paul Bramscher July 26th, 2007 10:53 am

lod: The professor did not blame it solely on dowry. Certainly the issue is much deeper than this. I only raised the issue because the earlier poster deepak, denied even that much.

Before modern medicine, of course, there would have been no selective abortion of female fetuses. How can I say this with certainty? Because there would have been no way to determine the sex until after birth. Infanticide has been practiced in sexist cultures around the world, but probably at a lower rate than abortion.

Modern capitalist economics (the value set: whatever is cheaper is better justified) clashing with age-old sexism (males enjoy more power) presents a multi-pronged incentive. So I don’t mean to suggest that this is purely an economic thing. It’s at least an economic inventive, but much more — since it’s coupled with an underlying/latent sexism.

Poet July 26th, 2007 11:10 am

gyptian–

You wrote:

Poet im sorry but your statements come across as deeply sexist. Somehow ‘women’ as you see them are supposed to be virtuous when in power but men dont need the same ‘ceiling’ so to speak.

*****************
As I mentioned to DJ my thesis isn’t women instead of men, but rather women in addition to men. You cannot deny that women make up half of all humanity but their seats at the tables of counsel and adminstration in government are far less.

Yes, there are women who are as sorry and crooked as the many men we now have screwing things up (Hillary and Nancy among them!)but their very presence changes the entire group dynamic of government and that for the better I believe.

Abaris–

Danke sehr–Ich habe von Ihnen viel gelernt! Sie shcreiben Englisch besser als Ich schreibe Deutsch.

*************

gyptian July 26th, 2007 11:48 am

—”You cannot deny that women make up half of all humanity but their seats at the tables of counsel and adminstration in government are far less”

What makes you think im denying this ?

—”but their very presence changes the entire group dynamic of government and that for the better I believe”

True but you seem expect women to be ‘pure’ to hold office !! I believe there need to be more women than men in office so as to correct millenia old gender based prejudices but to also expect them to be idealogically pure just because they have feminine ’sensibilities’ is like bush saying we need men to defend our nation because they have brawn !!!

deepa July 26th, 2007 11:55 am

It is a historical fact that the dowry system was and still is most prevalent. However, in India, demanding, giving, and taking dowry are all criminal offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, amended in 1984 and 1986. It treats the offence of dowry as cognizable and non-bailable. Under Criminal law, cruelty (Section 498A of Indian Penal Code) in connection to dowry by husband or his relatives, dowry death, and driving a woman to commit suicide are all criminal offences, which get a very high punishment for the offender. The purpose of law is to raise awareness and educate the public and to help individuals and groups who are working against dowry. For investigating dowry deaths, the police and the magistrate have special powers to ensure a speedy and just investigation. Non-government organizations that work with women have special privileges to complain to the police station, when they believe that a person is being harassed for dowry.

walticular July 26th, 2007 12:13 pm

It is good to see enfranchisement of sections of society that have historically been oppressed, but let’s not equate that with the solution to the greater issue of illegitimate and grossly unequal distribution of financial wealth.

Don’t be dragged into bickering over the differences in the sexes! Anyone who has been through a bad hetero breakup knows that meanness knows no sex. Such small behavior is only at our worst, however, and is a matter of shame to the thoughtful. Whatever minor genetic differences separate us, be it sex, race, or ability, we share humanity and an ability to overcome meanness, at least sporadically, and to to reason and love. The primary reason women are oppressed is because of their traditional and naturally occuring (and beautiful!) dominant role in child rearing. It is the resultant financial insecurity which perpetuates their enhanced oppression. There are thus NO capitalist humanitarian solutions to the world’s problems. We must be equal in the material sense, or we will never be equal. This is not a matter of smile-button luvvy-duvvy, rather points to a necessity for humanity to socially progress.

RJKT July 26th, 2007 12:56 pm

India has had several Presidents who were eminent scholars : beginning with Dr. S. Radhakrishnan ( President from 1962-66) ,the world renowned philosopher and authority on Hindu Philosophy .

Some ‘personal’ reminiscences of President Radhakrishnan:

I remember my mother telling me about attending one of his lectures on the ‘Bhagavad Gita ‘ in Calcutta ,around 1943. He lectured for several hours to a packed audience . And right through ,there was pin drop silence.

Years later, my parents met him at the residence of a mutual friend. I am told ( though i have no memory of it ) he came over to where i ( then a toddler )was playing , and carried on quite a long and involved conversation with me.

Shortly thereafter ,he left to become India’s Ambassador to the U.S.S.R. However prior to his leaving , my late father asked him why he was leaving academia behind. His reply was so very characteristic of many eminent Indians of that time: ” Dr. J. ( referring to my father) ,how can I refuse Panditji ( Mr. Nehru ,the Prime Minister ).”

catseyes July 26th, 2007 5:23 pm

“I guess reducing the 2 million female fetuses that are aborted a year in India because they are female is not a worthy cause to some. And what if 15-30,000 brides are killed because of dowries every year. Reducing those numbers is probably also not a priority to some either.”

I didn’t know that aspect of abortion in india. I just thought she meant that abortion is “feticide” just like what comes out the mouth of the religious fanatics of north america.

Nietzsche July 26th, 2007 6:23 pm

This lady looks like a decent and intelligent human being–where can we get a leader like her?

kalia July 27th, 2007 12:07 am

Sad as it may be Indians at least have an economic reason for female abortions. However, unlike the west they do not indulge in the luxury of partial birth abortions for purely personal convenience. When it comes to abortions, it is true as well as democratic that sex of the unborn does not matter in the west.

urthsong July 30th, 2007 1:38 am

I have read anthropologists believe that when males in a society exceed the females, there aren’t enough women to go around, it increases the potential for warfare and rebellion. And to kalia, note that so called “partial birth” abortions are NOT a convenience. Medical crises caused by eclampsia where the fetus and mother are both being poisoned and other medical tragedies produce the necessity of that relatively rare but essential abortion procedure. Now that the extremist justices have upheld such legislation without consideration for injury and death of the women there will be hundreds of such tragedies each year in the US with little or no likelihood of survival of healthy babies in the bargain.

vassu_m August 13th, 2007 10:38 am

Namestey/Hello,
First of all, I dont to whom this comment/mail reaches… i basicaly want to write to the President & PM of india.I dont know the proper mail ID’s of them…. if any help for me in this regard is appriciated.
I am Vijayalakshmi, a female in male exceeded society from Hyderabad originaly, but settled in Banglore. The reason behind for settling in B’lore is fear of Road Accidents in Hyderabad,i have seen and heard of increasing number of road accidents everyday since 3-4yrs.I met with a brutual road accident by a young(20-23yrs)drunk biker on 11.03.07 and still suffering with that accident.
I knew also seen and felt safe to be in Banglore as it was following good traffic ethics and rules.But the situation here too has changed, as we are hearing and watching Road accidents but not as bad as Hyderabad.Had anyone given a thought how many people are dying in Road accidents caused by notorious traffic? Especialy young bikers aged between 08yrs(I had seen one 8yrs boy driving a bike on road)-30yrs.When i see these bikers doing all kind of circus feats on road and hurting small kids and other innocent people on roads i feel pity for the parents/guardians of the bikers thinking why they had not given proper Ethics to their kids and also for the hard earned money they spent rather wasting on them.Just yesterday morning when i went to hospital for my wound dressing a small girl was rushed in, accident case caused by a biker doing feats on road and hurted the little girl, the poor girl might be 7or 8yrs her mother was crying and shocked and not able to express what happened? Even i started crying for the poor girl,later i got to know that the girl is the only child for her mother, with out a father who died young.If any thing happened to that little girl who is to be blamed? Police,indian law,parents of the culprit or whom?
When i booked a case on the culprit who hit me an FIR was booked,and the punishment he got was some hours of jail…and that too after a long gap of 2months,then he walked off freely as film hero leaving me in pain and grief.I need to be thankful to the Corrupt Indian Police, as whenever we enquired about the FIR case, there used to many stories and blunders supporting the culprit as he was also seriuosly injured…. but no as we saw the culprit walking freely on streets without a single injury just after a few days of (my accident) incident.After all when i got to know that’s the minimum punishment for him, and nothing else we could do as the law is like that.And Thanks to such law where you can hurt(or)kill a person in India for which the culprit gets peanuts as punishment and these were the words told by a Police Officer, to me when i was enquiring about my FIR. He also told i was making a big fuss about such a small accident in his view, by reaching highest command in Police.
Please why dont we Indians fight together for this odd system of law,corruption by reaching CM,PM,President (or)whomsoever.This might be a small issue for them, but personaly as i dint got proper justice i kept my comments and views here.

Thank You.
Vassu.M

Jaded Prole July 25th, 2007 1:17 pm

Wasn’t Indira Ghandi a woman?
ARA Charleston July 25th, 2007 1:38 pm

Yes, but she was prime minister, not president.

And good for India. It’s time to start promoting some positive change.
ron murry July 25th, 2007 2:31 pm

Any country that does’nt respect the women with equel value of men ,is half minded and very poor indeed.
Poet July 25th, 2007 2:34 pm

Indira Ghandi, like Golda Meir, and Margaret (Attilla the hen)Thatcher was a woman in biological gender only with respect to her conduct in office. Indira presided over the Indian nuclear bomb program, Golda over the Yom Kippur war, and Margaret over the Falklands campaign.

In similar manner, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are also like so many guys in biological drag (to quote a funny Siouxrose quipped a while back).

Let’s hope that Patribah Patil, Ankela Merkel, Dr. MIchelle Bachelet and other women ascending to power will once and for all finally get the chance to be women in their style of adminstration instead of psuedo-men. The other half of humanity needs some good role models to which to aspire.
sigma July 25th, 2007 3:19 pm

Good for her. Maybe she can do something to reduce the aborting of girls and the burning of brides in India.
DJ_DiaLogic July 25th, 2007 3:54 pm

Poet,
You stated that “Indira Ghandi, like Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher was a woman in biological gender only with respect to her conduct in office.”

That is very ignorant. The term “women” is not defined as a peace loving beatnik hippie. I suggest you let each of these leaders define “women” with their own versions of femininity. After all we should be knee deep in 3rd wave feminism by now. Let them be tyrants as well as Mother Teresa. In my experience anyone married to one will probably experiences both.

Response to Sigma,

India is a fledgling democracy that began only 60 years ago and they beat us to gender equality in the government. What does that say about us? We can’t judge a society that has proven twice that it will give power to women when we have never (until now) even flirted with the idea.

“Judge not lest ye be judged”

America still suffers from rampant wide spread domestic violence. Is wife burning that much worse than murder and rape? Remember all those pregnant wife murders you hear about (Peterson, Benoit, ect…). 1/3 of all murders committed against women in the US are done by a boyfriend or husband. America is by far the most murderess and violent industrialized nation in the world, both domestically and internationally.

We should look at the mirror before we start tearing down the accomplishments of Indians.

I’m sure India will benefit from their new female leader and I’m sure her dedication to raise the rights and wellbeing of women in India will have very positive effects.

But we live in a very glass house. Save your stones for our own leaders.
PJD July 25th, 2007 4:47 pm

I assume that like in most parliamentary systems, the president of India is largely a symbolic position with lettle real power, so I wouldn’t make much of deal about this.

Recall that the most recent PM was to have been a woman, Sonya Ghandi, but she gave the postiion to Dr. Singh due to death threats presumubly from fundamentalist Hindus on the right.
Poet July 25th, 2007 5:56 pm

DJ_DiaLogic writes:

You stated that “Indira Ghandi, like Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher was a woman in biological gender only with respect to her conduct in office.”

That is very ignorant. The term “women” is not defined as a peace loving beatnik hippie.

********************

So far we are in agreement as to what a woman is not.

DJ_Dialogic continues–

I suggest you let each of these leaders define “women” with their own versions of femininity.

************

I agree and even if i didn’t they have done, are doing, and will do exactly that.

DJ_diaLogic concludes–

After all we should be knee deep in 3rd wave feminism by now. Let them be tyrants as well as Mother Teresa. In my experience anyone married to one will probably experiences both.

***************

An excellent example of that about which I am talking is Dr. Bachelet who is head of the Chilean government. She has made it a policy that half of her cabinet posts will be headed by women. Not just tokens, but, rather, competent and qualified women who will be encouraged to stock their departments with other such women in similar proportions.

Under Ankela Merkel, (a green party leader)Germany is forging ahead in its development of alternative energies (kind of a nice mataphor for what I am talking about with women in executive leadership).

Some unique qualities in which women excel when given the chance to be women that the three exemplars Meier, Thatcher, and Ghandi did not(and Pelosi and Clinton have yet to show)include:

The ability to see both sides of issues in deliberations.

Building relationships based on mutual respect not just horse trading expediancy.
(quid-pro-quo)

Networking with others.

being more practical and less rigidly ideological in their deliberations.

I am not prescribing the above listed qualities to totally replace their male opposites, only saying that they need better representation at the tables of counsel and adminstration of government.

It’s no accident that such a large percentage of posters and readers on this blog are women with such qualities because the content of so many of the articles (as well as many of the writers of such articles)are encouraged to be the women (or men) that they are.
ceti July 25th, 2007 5:58 pm

Some of the most powerful chief ministers in India are women, including Mayawati (a woman and a dalit) who made it on her own to storm to power in UP, a state with 166 million people. It’s always been a paradox of South Asia where women have reached the top post more times than anywhere else (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka as well), but still have poor health indicators and social status.

However, Hillary Clinton is more like Margaret Thatcher than many of these women, including Indira Gandhi who despite her dictatorial tendencies, moved left.
gandhi July 25th, 2007 7:22 pm

Indira Gandhi was a mass leader. It was the poor who always supported her. She worked for their welfare. That is how The Congress Party has become a represenatative party of the poor (Now it is no longer so. It represents the corporate interests. The present India-US nuclear deal is an example of that, which opens to US nuclear business worth $250 billions). Sonia Gandhi is the president of Congress Party and powerful just because she is the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi. Even now the poor remember Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi as the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi.

Indira Gandhi was the one who stood against the arrogance of the US empire (Remember Kissinger called her a “bitch”, because she maintained an independent foreign policy). In India she definetely opposed those Indian leaders who worked as American poodles. That is one of the main reasons she was portrayed by the US media as a dictator.

The other thing I want to say is: president of India is not a symbolic figure. She/He has power as commander-in-chief of the defence forces. The bills that are recommended by the parliament should be signed by her/him.

India has made tremendous progress with regards to gender equality. Women are seen in all the fields: President, Prime Minister, Governor, Speaker of the parliament, Chief Minister (Mayawati is the chief minister of the largest Indian state), police officers, diplomats, National TV news anchors, to name a few. Mind you, this has happened within 60 years of its independence!!!
pbfriend July 25th, 2007 7:23 pm

Thank you, ceti, for spelling Gandhi correctly!
May I suggest we all remember that our idea of ‘women’ and of ‘men’ is just that — an idea which has something to do with reality but also that many men are nurturing, relationship-oriented and so forth, just as many women are more stereotypically male in their characteristics. Clearly, in India, for women and girls and all men who wish for women to be more empowered, this is a wonderful moment.
Paul Bramscher July 25th, 2007 7:30 pm

Evidently, this is deeply rooted in the Hindu/caste/dowry system. In the non-Western world, a dowry is expected to be paid by the bride’s family to the groom.

So, particularly for poor parents of a daughter, an abortion is far cheaper than an expensive dowry 15-20 years later. But two wrongs don’t make a right. They’ll need to either change their millenias-old priorities or else drop capitalism. We’ll see which route they take.
deepa July 25th, 2007 7:53 pm

Paul Bramscher

Your comments are “western reading” of non-western cultures.

For your information, there are communities in India where it is the bridegroom who gives dowry to the bride. There are people who oppose dowry system.

Your comment on abortion is more of what is common in the US and the Western societies. Unlike in the US and the West, in Indian culture sex outside marriage is not permissible. So it is better to know the culture, instead of reading one’s culture into another culture. It is the married women who are going for abortion, not unmarried ones (as is common in the US and the western societies).
DJ_DiaLogic July 25th, 2007 8:20 pm

Poet,

Thank you for clarifying your original post. I agree and I especialy like the fact that you noted Dr. Bachelet. She is insiration and I loved to see more women like her in politics.
Bellissima July 25th, 2007 8:49 pm

There is going to be no empowerment for anyone. A change in the figure of the Indian president hardly even calls for notice. It is literally just a change of face. Did populist president Abdul Kalam accomplish anything? This seat is just to keep minorities happy, in a rolling order. The article is all b.s. The lady has little power; other organizations can do better from within the country to help women. She has no control even over the signatures required of her has as the state’s figurehead.

Among female presidents today, I would say one doing a fair job is President Ellen Sirleaf of Liberia. But then again, only time will tell
Jian July 25th, 2007 9:53 pm

Anima and animus is each one of us! Whatever the strength use it for greater good; this makes one and all stronger.
catseyes July 25th, 2007 10:28 pm

Feticide? Not that i have anything against what she says about economic inequality.
gyptian July 25th, 2007 11:05 pm

Poet im sorry but your statements come across as deeply sexist. Somehow ‘women’ as you see them are supposed to be virtuous when in power but men dont need the same ‘ceiling’ so to speak.

deepa, gandhi, ceti and DJ have it absolutely right and sigma is either ignorant or has a bone to pick ( as is common in south asian politics !!). Its too easy to brand us (americans) as raping, pillaging and murderous pigs (which we are judging by our actions in iraq), but to brand an entire culture/civilization based on individual acts is ignorant and displays a lack of analysis.

Women in South Asia as someone said above have always been fiery and radical and have stood up to power (mostly wielded by men) admirably well over the last 60 years. Indira Gandhi was definitely a populist despite her flaws (indulging her family etc) and was repeatedly elected by the masses and not the corporate power structure. She stood up to Nixon and his cronies even when they sent the 6th fleet into the Indian Ocean and helped Bangladesh become an independant country (which she would have occupied instead if she was american !!!).

Currently women in politics (thanks to reserved parliamentary constituencies enforced by the constituition) in India are all over the map. Whats even more amazing are the women outside the system who pretty much sock it to them (Medha Patekar, Arundhati Roy, Asma Jahangir in Pakistan etc). They are the ones ive heard of but im sure there are tons more as I witnessed on my trips.

As for empowerment its partly true but the Presidents post as the article suggests is mostly ceremonial but in cases of deadlocks in parliamentary issues or more seriously in terms of breakdown of the system (assasinations etc ) the President plays the deciding role as at least 2 different Indian Presidents did in the past.
Paul Bramscher July 25th, 2007 11:12 pm

deepa: I’m currently listening to a lecture series on compact disc by The Teaching Company (http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=266) entitled “Great World Religions: Hinduism”.

Ironically, just this morning the professor was mentioning that a study in Bombay suggested that like 99% of abortions (I forget the exact figure or scope of the study) were against female fetuses. And, indeed, he hooked it up to the expense of a dowry vs. abortion.

It’s not my reading — I’m echoing his. Although I’ve got a B.A. in Anthropology & History, I can’t remotely claim to be an expert on India. He seems to be one, however. Harvard PhD and visiting professor at a university in India. Check out his credentials on the URL I supplied above.
lod July 26th, 2007 12:17 am

Paul, I’m sure you mean well - but with all due respect, your professor is decidedly orientalist. I’m not defending or denying dowry - an absolutely abhorrent and unfortunately still prevalent practise. But, the prejudice against women and the female child goes much much deeper than economics. There have been many strong female leaders in India, it is one of those many contradictions in India that women leaders are respected even women at home are not..

Indira Gandhi may well have espoused populist rhetoric, but there is little doubting which classes in India bore the brunt of her military emergency - mass forced sterilisations, slum evictions, dismantling of labour protections. India’s women (and poor) deserved better. Fortunately, like gyptian has already detailed, South Asia’s women have many more political role models now.
ezeflyer July 26th, 2007 12:19 am

Testosterone is largely responsible for the mess the world is in.
gyptian July 26th, 2007 2:28 am

True enough lod but I have to admit that the last 15 years of so called ‘liberalization’ in India has done at least 10 times more to disposess the poor than what Indira did. I dont particularly like to defend Indira Gandhi but in retrospect she was far more to the Left than the current crop. While mass sterilization was done on an experimental basis by her son Sanjay, slum evictions and dismantling of labor protections have been the mantra of both the BJP and Congress govts over the past 10 yrs. and is a direct consequence of their tilt towards a capitalist society.
kalia July 26th, 2007 3:09 am

Indira was one of great leader of her time. The very fact that Nixon and Kissinger reffered to her as “that bitch” ought to dispell any doubts on that score. She liberated Bangladesh - let that be a lesson to Bush about liberation. As to that fact she presided over the nukes is something the Indians can be proud of. If it were not for her US would not have come looking for a “a one time deal on nukes”. Anyways who says that only five countries have the so called right.
sigma July 26th, 2007 7:44 am

I didn’t realize that supporting Ms. Patil in her call to combat female feticide and suggest she might help young women not become victims of dowry killing was so controversial. I guess reducing the 2 million female fetuses that are aborted a year in India because they are female is not a worthy cause to some. And what if 15-30,000 brides are killed because of dowries every year. Reducing those numbers is probably also not a priority to some either.
Abaris July 26th, 2007 9:12 am

To Poet:

Under Ankela Merkel, (a green party leader)Germany is forging ahead
in its development of alternative energies (kind of a nice mataphor
for what I am talking about with women in executive leadership).

1) Her name is Angela, not Ankela

2) She is certainly not, and has never been, a Green Party leader. Chancellor Merkel is a member of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). In German poltics, the CDU is the party with the least amount of commonality with the Greens.

Besides, it was Chancellor Merkel who recently and repeatedly called for revisiting Germany’s commitment to phase out nuclear energy, stating that nuclear energy was safe, clean, and the only way Germany could reach its ambitious carbon reduction targets.

Good thing is that she heads a Grand Coalition, with the Federal Ministry for Environmental Protection controlled by the CDU’s political nemesis, the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), which insists on the phase-out.

3) On top of that, she was notorious for supporting the Shrub’s invasion of Iraq, criticising then-Chancellor Schröder for refusing to support the war, while an ovewhelming majority of Germans considered the war illegal.

Her Chancellorship is, and rightly so, considered a step forward for gender equality in Germany. But Ms. Merkel is definitely a german analogue of Thatcher, Meir, Indira Gandhi and the likes. Far from being a symbol for any new kind of “feminine” politics.

Sorry, I just couldn’t ignore your comment.
Excuse my bad English.
shelagh July 26th, 2007 9:28 am

What is dowry killing?

I agree with Paul that female feticide is probably economically based. Also, he did not imply that these were unmarried women having abortions.
Abaris July 26th, 2007 10:35 am

dowry killing: see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry#In_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_burning
Paul Bramscher July 26th, 2007 10:53 am

lod: The professor did not blame it solely on dowry. Certainly the issue is much deeper than this. I only raised the issue because the earlier poster deepak, denied even that much.

Before modern medicine, of course, there would have been no selective abortion of female fetuses. How can I say this with certainty? Because there would have been no way to determine the sex until after birth. Infanticide has been practiced in sexist cultures around the world, but probably at a lower rate than abortion.

Modern capitalist economics (the value set: whatever is cheaper is better justified) clashing with age-old sexism (males enjoy more power) presents a multi-pronged incentive. So I don’t mean to suggest that this is purely an economic thing. It’s at least an economic inventive, but much more — since it’s coupled with an underlying/latent sexism.
Poet July 26th, 2007 11:10 am

gyptian–

You wrote:

Poet im sorry but your statements come across as deeply sexist. Somehow ‘women’ as you see them are supposed to be virtuous when in power but men dont need the same ‘ceiling’ so to speak.

*****************
As I mentioned to DJ my thesis isn’t women instead of men, but rather women in addition to men. You cannot deny that women make up half of all humanity but their seats at the tables of counsel and adminstration in government are far less.

Yes, there are women who are as sorry and crooked as the many men we now have screwing things up (Hillary and Nancy among them!)but their very presence changes the entire group dynamic of government and that for the better I believe.

Abaris–

Danke sehr–Ich habe von Ihnen viel gelernt! Sie shcreiben Englisch besser als Ich schreibe Deutsch.

*************
gyptian July 26th, 2007 11:48 am

—”You cannot deny that women make up half of all humanity but their seats at the tables of counsel and adminstration in government are far less”

What makes you think im denying this ?

—”but their very presence changes the entire group dynamic of government and that for the better I believe”

True but you seem expect women to be ‘pure’ to hold office !! I believe there need to be more women than men in office so as to correct millenia old gender based prejudices but to also expect them to be idealogically pure just because they have feminine ’sensibilities’ is like bush saying we need men to defend our nation because they have brawn !!!
deepa July 26th, 2007 11:55 am

It is a historical fact that the dowry system was and still is most prevalent. However, in India, demanding, giving, and taking dowry are all criminal offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, amended in 1984 and 1986. It treats the offence of dowry as cognizable and non-bailable. Under Criminal law, cruelty (Section 498A of Indian Penal Code) in connection to dowry by husband or his relatives, dowry death, and driving a woman to commit suicide are all criminal offences, which get a very high punishment for the offender. The purpose of law is to raise awareness and educate the public and to help individuals and groups who are working against dowry. For investigating dowry deaths, the police and the magistrate have special powers to ensure a speedy and just investigation. Non-government organizations that work with women have special privileges to complain to the police station, when they believe that a person is being harassed for dowry.
walticular July 26th, 2007 12:13 pm

It is good to see enfranchisement of sections of society that have historically been oppressed, but let’s not equate that with the solution to the greater issue of illegitimate and grossly unequal distribution of financial wealth.

Don’t be dragged into bickering over the differences in the sexes! Anyone who has been through a bad hetero breakup knows that meanness knows no sex. Such small behavior is only at our worst, however, and is a matter of shame to the thoughtful. Whatever minor genetic differences separate us, be it sex, race, or ability, we share humanity and an ability to overcome meanness, at least sporadically, and to to reason and love. The primary reason women are oppressed is because of their traditional and naturally occuring (and beautiful!) dominant role in child rearing. It is the resultant financial insecurity which perpetuates their enhanced oppression. There are thus NO capitalist humanitarian solutions to the world’s problems. We must be equal in the material sense, or we will never be equal. This is not a matter of smile-button luvvy-duvvy, rather points to a necessity for humanity to socially progress.
RJKT July 26th, 2007 12:56 pm

India has had several Presidents who were eminent scholars : beginning with Dr. S. Radhakrishnan ( President from 1962-66) ,the world renowned philosopher and authority on Hindu Philosophy .

Some ‘personal’ reminiscences of President Radhakrishnan:

I remember my mother telling me about attending one of his lectures on the ‘Bhagavad Gita ‘ in Calcutta ,around 1943. He lectured for several hours to a packed audience . And right through ,there was pin drop silence.

Years later, my parents met him at the residence of a mutual friend. I am told ( though i have no memory of it ) he came over to where i ( then a toddler )was playing , and carried on quite a long and involved conversation with me.

Shortly thereafter ,he left to become India’s Ambassador to the U.S.S.R. However prior to his leaving , my late father asked him why he was leaving academia behind. His reply was so very characteristic of many eminent Indians of that time: ” Dr. J. ( referring to my father) ,how can I refuse Panditji ( Mr. Nehru ,the Prime Minister ).”
catseyes July 26th, 2007 5:23 pm

“I guess reducing the 2 million female fetuses that are aborted a year in India because they are female is not a worthy cause to some. And what if 15-30,000 brides are killed because of dowries every year. Reducing those numbers is probably also not a priority to some either.”

I didn’t know that aspect of abortion in india. I just thought she meant that abortion is “feticide” just like what comes out the mouth of the religious fanatics of north america.
Nietzsche July 26th, 2007 6:23 pm

This lady looks like a decent and intelligent human being–where can we get a leader like her?
kalia July 27th, 2007 12:07 am

Sad as it may be Indians at least have an economic reason for female abortions. However, unlike the west they do not indulge in the luxury of partial birth abortions for purely personal convenience. When it comes to abortions, it is true as well as democratic that sex of the unborn does not matter in the west.
urthsong July 30th, 2007 1:38 am

I have read anthropologists believe that when males in a society exceed the females, there aren’t enough women to go around, it increases the potential for warfare and rebellion. And to kalia, note that so called “partial birth” abortions are NOT a convenience. Medical crises caused by eclampsia where the fetus and mother are both being poisoned and other medical tragedies produce the necessity of that relatively rare but essential abortion procedure. Now that the extremist justices have upheld such legislation without consideration for injury and death of the women there will be hundreds of such tragedies each year in the US with little or no likelihood of survival of healthy babies in the bargain.
vassu_m August 13th, 2007 10:38 am

Namestey/Hello,
First of all, I dont to whom this comment/mail reaches… i basicaly want to write to the President & PM of india.I dont know the proper mail ID’s of them…. if any help for me in this regard is appriciated.
I am Vijayalakshmi, a female in male exceeded society from Hyderabad originaly, but settled in Banglore. The reason behind for settling in B’lore is fear of Road Accidents in Hyderabad,i have seen and heard of increasing number of road accidents everyday since 3-4yrs.I met with a brutual road accident by a young(20-23yrs)drunk biker on 11.03.07 and still suffering with that accident.
I knew also seen and felt safe to be in Banglore as it was following good traffic ethics and rules.But the situation here too has changed, as we are hearing and watching Road accidents but not as bad as Hyderabad.Had anyone given a thought how many people are dying in Road accidents caused by notorious traffic? Especialy young bikers aged between 08yrs(I had seen one 8yrs boy driving a bike on road)-30yrs.When i see these bikers doing all kind of circus feats on road and hurting small kids and other innocent people on roads i feel pity for the parents/guardians of the bikers thinking why they had not given proper Ethics to their kids and also for the hard earned money they spent rather wasting on them.Just yesterday morning when i went to hospital for my wound dressing a small girl was rushed in, accident case caused by a biker doing feats on road and hurted the little girl, the poor girl might be 7or 8yrs her mother was crying and shocked and not able to express what happened? Even i started crying for the poor girl,later i got to know that the girl is the only child for her mother, with out a father who died young.If any thing happened to that little girl who is to be blamed? Police,indian law,parents of the culprit or whom?
When i booked a case on the culprit who hit me an FIR was booked,and the punishment he got was some hours of jail…and that too after a long gap of 2months,then he walked off freely as film hero leaving me in pain and grief.I need to be thankful to the Corrupt Indian Police, as whenever we enquired about the FIR case, there used to many stories and blunders supporting the culprit as he was also seriuosly injured…. but no as we saw the culprit walking freely on streets without a single injury just after a few days of (my accident) incident.After all when i got to know that’s the minimum punishment for him, and nothing else we could do as the law is like that.And Thanks to such law where you can hurt(or)kill a person in India for which the culprit gets peanuts as punishment and these were the words told by a Police Officer, to me when i was enquiring about my FIR. He also told i was making a big fuss about such a small accident in his view, by reaching highest command in Police.
Please why dont we Indians fight together for this odd system of law,corruption by reaching CM,PM,President (or)whomsoever.This might be a small issue for them, but personaly as i dint got proper justice i kept my comments and views here.

Thank You.
Vassu.M

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)