labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministas
janeiro/ junho 2016 - janvier/juillet 2016

Women, Dharma and Social Justice in India: Utopia and Reality *[i]

Asha Mukherjee

Abstract:

Indian civilization based on Dharma often been claimed as creative and communicative and to be understood as human dignity and worth in terms of justice, unity and benevolence as virtue for human fulfillment along with its theological insights and metaphysical doctrines. Dharma has both descriptive and prescriptive contents; the way things are and the things ought to be- the nature of man and the obligations or duties.

The concern for gender justice and women rights has also been extremely important area in Indian Constitution right from the Independence. While examining how dharma is practiced in Indian society as part of gender justice, one finds a paradox between an urge to change and accept Western progressive and democratic values and yet this change has to be rooted in the past glory of Indian society. This paradox influences to a large extent the way the women’s questions are developed and we find two conflicting images of women in India. But it is difficult for the middle class, educated working women to be either of the two. She wants some space to be treated as human being, a dignified person who would have power to decide to be and to do and for this she would have to constantly face a struggle, often very difficult.

Key –words: justice, women rights, Dharma, middle class

Indian civilization based on Dharma often been claimed as creative and communicative and to be understood as human dignity and worth in terms of justice, unity and benevolence as virtue for human fulfillment along with its theological insights and metaphysical doctrines. Dharma has both descriptive and prescriptive contents; the way things are and the things ought to be- the nature of man and the obligations or duties.

The concern for gender justice and women rights has also been extremely important area in Indian Constitution right from the Independence. While examining how dharma is practiced in Indian society as part of gender justice, one finds a paradox between an urge to change and accept Western progressive and democratic values and yet this change has to be rooted in the past glory of Indian society. This paradox influences to a large extent the way the women’s questions are developed and we find two conflicting images of women in India. But it is difficult for the middle class, educated working women to be either of the two. She wants some space to be treated as human being, a dignified person who would have power to decide to be and to do and for this she would have to constantly face a struggle, often very difficult.

Social Justice and Its Concern:

Much of the discussion on the concept of justice can be viewed broadly speaking from at least three points of views; from legal point of view, from economist’s point of view and from moral point of view. They may not be distinct from each other, as the main concern of all the three is Human Well Being. Let us approach the issues related with justice and equality basically from moral philosopher’s point of view leaving aside all the technical aspects with which most of the economists, jurisprudence and political philosophers are concerned at the level of theory and practice both. 

The two notions of justice-retributive and distributive both have applications and are of prime concern in all the three fields. For jurisprudence, economics as well as for moral philosophy justice is taken as a virtue in some sense or the other. In view of some thinkers this virtue is objective and is out there. For some others, it is to be achieved by following certain standards or principles or rules. The people who accept the first view also accept that justice is  one of the basic requirements of human dignity. The main proponent of this view is Kant and more recently Rawls and Nozick. The other view that thinks justice is to be achieved- by calculation of utility are mainly utilitarian. The proponents of view are Aristotle, Mill and Hume etc.

In order to clarify the subject matter of Justice, we need to distinguish a number of questions. First, what is Justice?  The various answers can be suggested. One, distributive justice has to do with the proper distribution of benefits and burdens among persons. A just distribution is one where each person receives what is her due. Other, distributive justice is that whatever is a person’s due is equivalent to what that person can claim by right. Still other meaning of justice is ‘entitlement’ on the basis of which people can demand social recognition of their legitimate claims (freedom, resources).

If we think of rights as entitlements, then justice is concerned with the rights we have. If the rights are denied we are victims of injustice. Rights can be claims against other persons or against the state. Right of non-interference could be against both. Thus rights cannot be distinguished from distributive justice. The circumstances of justice include a certain type of scarcity and conflict between persons arising from scarcity.

The second question is what does justice require? Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Hume and more recently Rawls, Nozick, Dworkin, Sen and others are all concerned with this question. They all tried to have a proper understanding of equality. In this regards the issues related with poverty are also discussed.  The third question, which is related to the second question, is ‘To whom is justice owed?’

We need to distinguish different people who are the subject of justice. Is justice owed only to those who are participants in mutually beneficial cooperative scheme or is it also a consideration for those who are not directly beneficiary but have a capacity for rational agency, or a moral duty? The fourth question is the other side of the third question. We want equally to know who owes justice or in other words, to whom should the duties be assigned, and how much of the burdens of justice should each individual or collectivity bear?  And how much of a burden each duty-bearer should bear? Answer of these four questions about the nature, requirements and scope of justice are the minimal requirements of an acceptable discourse on justice.

The conflict between Justice and self-interest or needs is the most important aspect of human experience. Now the question arises ‘how to resolve the conflict in such a way that it provides human dignity as well as serves the demands of self-interest and needs. Almost every thinker starting from Plato tries to solve this conflict in a satisfactory manner.

But there are only three possible ways of resolving the conflict. One, to accept justice as real objective virtue and the sole criterion of human dignity and that needs, self-interest, passion and emotions etc. are of lower quality and are unreal. (Kantian framework) Second, to accept needs, interests, emotions, passions as important and real part of human experience and justice is achieved only by respecting these experiences.(Utilitarian framework) The third, a kind of middle path, to accept the reality of both the human experience and try to bring a kind of coordination and harmony between the two. (Aristotle framework) (Note that Indian framework based on Dharma seems to have some similarities with each one of these.)

In Plato the idea of justice is not merely a means to well-being, rather it is essential part of well-being. Plato in Republic presents a detailed discussion on nature and worth of justice. In Book I some odd views are defended by Sophist Thrasymachus but later Socrates gives a positive definition of justice. Justice is “self-control” (from passion and desires). For him justice is achieved by “the performance of one’s proper function”. Pleasure, passion, self-interests are treated as an abuse of ideal life or ‘just life’ as they have anti-rational elements. Ideal State or political well-being requires the regulated cooperation of its all the three classes. (Republic)

Coordination of different functions is justice, and this coordination leads to well-being. It is like the relation between the music and the nodes without which there would be no music but just the presence of nodes would not lead to music. Thus coordination is a necessary condition but not sufficient. (Note that Indian framework based on varna too has harmony as the basic principle).

Plato exhibits the nature of justice both within the state and within the individual. Socrates tries to prove that justice is not merely a means to well-being; rather it is the essential part of well-being. If there were no risk of punishment or other ill consequences, a person may choose to be unjust, although this aspect is not much discussed by Plato.  His model of Ideal State is based on ideal life of man and every man has an ideal life and duty to perform.

The concept of justice is inseparable from equality and it is a widespread belief that justice and self-interest can and do conflict (Plato). Plato said that justice is rendering everyone his due. (Republic)  But, to Aristotle, to understand the concept of justice we must understand what a just action means. A just action for him is ‘treating equals equally and unequal unequally’. This requires impartiality as well as ‘the right to be treated equally’ unless there are some ‘relevant’ differences. But what is to be counted ‘relevant’ difference?  If we are treating differently we should be able to distinguish them in relevant ways. 

Section I:   Justice in India as a dharma in Ancient Times:

One would wonder why to talk of ‘justice in India’? If it is justice, it has to be justice for everyone as any talk of justice demands universality. What is just for one person, group or for a nation must be just for every person, group or nation- by principle of equality But this is not always true, justice also demands as we have discussed earlier inequality for unequal. To understand the Indian notion of justice (dharma) we need to have both the notions of Plato as well as of Aristotle. Plato’s discussion to understand the ancient Indian concept of justice and Aristotle’s to understand the modern Indian concept of justice. I would discuss the both one by one.

Indian civilization based on Dharma often been claimed by the scholars as creative and communicative and claimed to be understood as human dignity and worth in terms of justice, unity and benevolence as virtue for human fulfillment along with its theological insights and metaphysical doctrines Dharma has both descriptive and prescriptive contents; the way things are and the things ought to be- the nature of man and the obligations or duties.

Dharma also transcends man and accompanies him in the world thereafter. It is said to be accumulated through the process of rebirth.  Dharma can be understood in its various connotations such as Dharma as religion, as human dignity, as metaphysical foundation of human rights, as customary morality, as reflective morality, as justice, as law, as consideration for the other etc. which are essentially related with each other.

  ‘Dharma’ is quite a problematic and complicated term and by no means easy to understand and interpret; strictly speaking it belongs to Hinduism but in its wider use it is used for religion. ‘Hinduism’ itself is a construction as many recent debates have shown. Within Hinduism, the divisions such as Sakta, Vaisnavites, Saivaites, Vedantins, Neo-Vedantins, tribes, and so on, are there; and these are further and further divided.

Again, a variety of distinct religions originated in India; such as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Indian Sufism; which at times are interpreted and lived with so much affinity to Hinduism that one wonders if they have their independent existence at all. Then the question of their identity is raised and these issues give rise to serious debates. But it is important to note that the word ‘dharma’ is found in the vocabulary of all these religions and one has to look at the difference of meaning in each one of  these religions. Thus the context determines the meaning of ‘dharma’ in each case. There is another extremely important meaning of ‘dharma’ which is the basis of human dignity.

Yet another descriptive meaning of dharma is ontological ‘the support of all that there is’ which we find in the Epics and Puranas­­--referring to cosmic order or reality or its character. But dharma is also used in a narrow sense when there is conscious exclusion while identifying oneself as Hindu or Muslim, while collecting the data, while claiming superiority of one over the other teaching schools under a particular faith, and so on.   Now the point is that if one is looking for the meaning of dharma in Indian Context then how and which aspect should one take, the narrow/strict meaning or the widest meaning depends on the intention of the scholar.

 The rise of Hindutva and love for Hindu tradition and culture in recent times is a concern for everyone. We find conflicting picture everywhere. The history of India is history of assimilation of all cultures and religions according to some scholars as well as history of violence and wars for some other. According to some, India is a land of peaceful co-existence of different religions which are integrated over the centuries in society.

This is not to say that we have no communal riots or conflicts.  It means, ‘generally people live more or less without thinking to overpower each other, without the fear of each other, even if no explicit social intercourse displaying intimate harmony is visible’ (Bhatnagar, p.7). It also means that one can observe cultural harmony among the communities in the sense that they live, share, and react in a friendly way in day-to-day living. Their linguistic behavior, expressions, clothes, beliefs, values, social behavior, religious beliefs and practices are similar to a large extent.

People of different faiths even participate in each other’s religious ceremonies.  India does not have any one religion as dominant, yet, rise of Hindutva is a challenge for India’s religious diversity. We also have many other countries in Asia where the plurality of religions exists along with one dominant religion and where it poses serious problems such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Middle East, Philippines, Indonesia, and so on.

Under the influence of western education during the British rule, number of social reform and national movements took place against the social evils particularly against caste system and atrocities against women with new leaders like Rammohan Roy, Keshub Chandra Sen, Dayanada Saraswati, Vivekananda, Gandhi and Tagore. During the Independence movement Gandhi played a crucial role in increasing women’s participation in political life.

His use of religious symbolism confined them only to a supportive role. It was their dharma (duty) either as devoted wives pativrata or sahdharmini to support.  But as far as their dignity and their legal rights were concerned, neither Gandhi nor Tagore was ready to grant absolute equality. Tagore through his great literary works not only was advocating reform in society in general but he also provided space to women within his education program and implemented his ideas at Santiniketan. But, he too remained within the parameters of reformed Hinduism advocating for the ‘natural qualities of womanhood’. 

There was an urge to change and accept Western progressive and democratic values yet this change had to be rooted in the past glory of Indian society. Scholars even today are arguing for the past glory ‘We seem to have lost our civilizational axis in the coreless enlightenment project of modernity, which comes with a host of secular ideologies.

The idea of secularism was the bedrock on which the colonial educational system was adopted’ (Madhu Khanna, p. 2) One could only be civilized through modern western values. Secularism in India itself has many problems and has been a matter of serious debates in recent times.  Religion in India in relation to the secularity of the state is also a matter of debate from the perspective of alternative modernity (see for example, Madan 1992, Bhargava 2010, Malhotra 2011, research project ‘Multiple Secularities’ web page).

To preserve the multicultural and multi-religious character inbuilt through the assimilation in India and Hindu tradition and culture we need secularism as constitutional requirement and also to preserve it. The western model of secularism which makes secularism and modernity synonymous is not acceptable as modernity ‘comes with a package’. On the other, modernity, globalization and feminist concerns are equally important hard realities coming from the west, one need to face and accept to a certain extent. We, in India, are sandwiched between two conflicting worlds. On the one hand, we cannot come out of our tradition, into which we are born and rooted, on the other; we hardly live in the modern ‘globalized’ world.

Indian tradition from early Vedic days has marked a preference for males over females. It is a part of scriptures (Manu Smiriti and Kautilya’s Artha Shastra) as individual entry into heaven is not allowed unless a male child performs his/her rites. Hinduism teaches young girls to be like Sita, wife of mythological hero Rama who always followed her husband.

To a certain extend such a religious teachings are responsible for status of women in society. Manu Smiriti, defined the social role of a women as one who is the subject of her father in childhood, in youth to her husband and when her husband is no more, to her sons. The only aim of her life is to obey and follow the commands of her lord. The place of women is always “inferior”, and “subsidiary” to man in Indian society. Her life is full of trials, turbulences, pain and suffering from birth to death.

The birth of a male child, the son is a matter of celebration in any Indian Family even today. The women have no choice of her own she is compelled to marry the boy of her father’s or elder’s choice. After marriage, she does not have her own identity; she has to change her name and surname. Her honor lies in the honor of her husband. Women are considered a commodity-the possession of patriarchy-since the days of Hindu scripture Mahabharata. Draupadi, Damayanti and Taramati have been treated as the possession of their husbands in Indian History.

Men are supposed to protect the women by ‘controlling’ and he is ‘superior’ to women in every sense. Women have to be submissive having the responsibility of the whole family remaining in the four walls of her house. Her husband and his family determine the identity and marriage is the most important and determining event of her life.

On the other, Indian cultural symbols glorify the women’s role as mother-goddess. She is the symbol of productivity and welfare. She is Durga, Kali, Saraswati and Lakshmi, destructing all evils and spreading all goodness, nullifying wrong and the wrong doer. She is the divine energy, power and fertility. Women as an incarnation of “sakti” as Chandi incarnation (swaroop) and curses all wrongdoers.

She is portrayed as all-powerful entity, capable of destruction. She is creator like Shivani, the protector like Bhavani or Amba and destroyer like Durga or Kali (Goddess). But ultimately her status is determined by ability to produce male heirs to perpetuate her husband’s lineage. She is denied any individuality of her own. Her identity is always determined by the roles assigned to her in society which is role governing. In modern India we also found women as Mother India Bharat Mata an instrument for nationalism and patriotism.

In mediaeval Indian history, we find a visible decline in the status of women. The age of marriage was lowered, there was less and less education, widow marriage was prohibited and sati became a common practice. Women’s status was equivalent to that of shudra- the lowest category in the varna hierarchy. Then, came the purdah system which was another constrain on women’s freedom and the practice of child marriage increased which defined social prestige and disgrace. All this was practiced in Indian society as part of justice on the name of dharma.

Section II: Social Justice in Modern India:

In the beginning of 20^th century we find some Women’s organization emerging. The Women’s Indian Association in 1917, the Council of Women in India in 1926 and All India Women’s Conference in 1927 etc. But for these organizations the major issue was to establish relation between the Women’s Movements and National Movements. Very often there was a sharp division on particular issues such as whether to treat women’s issues as primarily welfare issues or a social question, or it also needs to be related with the nature of Government and political development.  The differences became clear when it was a question of translating the principles of equality into legislation regarding marriage, inheritance and guardianship.

The Constitution of India (1950) Provides ample space for reforms based on democratic principles of human liberty and dignity and is the most rights based Constitution in the world, rights as claims for justice. It was heavily influenced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and guarantees the fundamental principles of human rights. Indian Constitution provides a solid foundation for equality except in terms of providing reservation clause 3 of Article 15, Article 46 in providing educational and economic interests of the weaker section of the society and getting government jobs for section of people who have been marginalized and are called scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as they belong to the lower castes which is unique due to the social and cultural conditions of India. In a way this provides an immense vintage to women issues as ‘weaker section of society’ and ‘being marginalized’.

Some extremely important changes as Human Rights Acts are passed such as Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (low caste and tribes) reservation at all levels under Preservation of Atrocities Act in 1989, 1/3 seats to women reserved in panchyat (local Councils in village) 1992, Human rights commission is established in 1993 which is protection of Human Rights Act, Right to Food, 2001, Right to Information 2005, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in 2005, National Commission for Women in 1990.

The concern for gender justice and women rights has been extremely important area in Indian Constitution. Women in India have been demanding reservation at every level just as the reservation for SC and ST and other backward classes (OBC) at different levels. We already have 30% reservation for Women at the panchayat level (Village councils).

Women rights are recognized as human rights during the world conference on human rights held in Vienna in 1993. It declared the full and equal participation of women in civil political, economic, social, and cultural life, at the national, regional, and international levels, and the eradication of all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex as priority objectives of the international community. Indian constitution also prohibits any discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

The convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1976 (CEDAW) acknowledges  that discrimination against women violates the principles of equality or rights and respect for human dignity, and is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political, social economic and cultural life of their countries. This in turn affects the development of family and society as a whole. This convention has been ratified by India and utilized by the Indian judiciary in order to direct the state to take action and at various levels. 

In independent India too equality of the sexes has not been a topic of serious debate until recently. Despite women’s participation in all kinds of movement the women’s issues are neglected, women’s labor movements did not fight for the rights of women of all levels as mostly they are led and guided by men. National Federation of Women, which was formed in 1954, was militant in the beginning but post 1952 period social work and development work such as health, education childcare and family planning etc. became major preoccupation.

jnThus we find an overall neglect of their aspirations. International Decade for Women (1985-95) infused a new spirit and awareness among women, Western feminism and feminist debates and the media played an important role in governing awareness. Increasing participation of women was evident in various aspects of life. Muslim Women’s Bill, anti-sati demonstration and their united efforts started effecting the social and political actions. With all this, not much has been translated into genuine equality between Indian men and women, all the changes in social attitudes have become available only to a few privileged sections- influential politicians and elite class, and it did not ensure equality on a universal, cross-class of women. She has been made the custodian of tradition that confines her in walls of the house or office with a false sense of security and supreme power.

Thus, we find two conflicting picture of women in India. On the one hand she is always a second or last choice and has to follow her father or brother or husband or son and has low status in India society to the extent that her status became almost equivalent to shudra. On the other hand, she is mother-goddess. She is symbol of power, productivity, determination and welfare. She spreads happiness and nullifies both wrongs and the wrongdoer and thereby having a highest status- women is either presented as “Devi” or “Dasi” (Goddess or mistress). Mythological image of women establishes her as an all-powerful entity, while the realistic image of women considers her as ‘parai’ (not our) who has to go anyway (Either as death as an infant by malnutrition, or by marriage or by death at old age) and always have to submit to someone.

But it is difficult for middle class, educated working women to be either of the two images. Women today do realize that they neither want to be Kali or Durga nor want to be Roop Kunwar, nor (recent rape case in Delhi)….. she wants some space to be treated as human being, a dignified person who would have power to decide to be and to do.

Section III: Capability Approach, Caring and Conscious Choices:

A number of theories of justice have been developed in the history starting from Aristotle to John Rawls and Nozick. But they were also being discussed and found to be partially satisfactory. Nussbaum develops a theory of justice which is distinctive to provide gender justice as well as it is sufficiently “practical” which she calls as capability approach. It is the systematization and theorization of women’s thoughts and plans.

It is sufficiently general as women strive for distinctive goals. It focuses on capability or empowerment as opportunities and choices, rather than on imposing on any individual a mode of functioning. Underlying idea in the capability approach is the idea of human dignity which is linked with political theory- the relation between state and citizen. The issues of development, gender, justice, oppression, multiculturalism, international feminism etc. are discussed and developed by Nussbaum in utmost detail and care.

The capability approach gives us better ways to handle the problems about quality of life about human beings. This list of “central capabilities” can be adapted appropriately to local circumstances. Nussbaum argues that

“i[..]nternational political and economic thought should be feminist, attentive (among other things) to the special problems women face because of sex in more or less every nation in the world, problems without understanding of which general issues of poverty and development cannot be well confronted.” (Nussbaum, 2004).

The ‘quality of life’ needs to ask the questions about capability or empowerment as opportunities and choices and not impositions on any individual. It needs to be attentive to women’s special problems because of sex in every nation of the world. Without this the issue of development and poverty cannot be confronted. Nussbaum develops a theory of Human development and by implication of Women’s moral development which she claims is ‘sufficiently general’ and it ‘takes care of the particularities’.

The approach claims that when we ask how people are doing in a nation or a region we must look at what they actually able to do and to be rather just at their satisfaction or the resources distribution.  “We should focus on what a group or country in question actually able to do and to be.” (SSJ, p.34) The approach looks not at actual functioning, since individuals in a liberal society may choose not to avail themselves of opportunities to function but at the opportunities or “capabilities” they have. These are not just formal understanding but involve a set of material preconditions, which must be met before one can say that a person is genuinely capable of going to school or taking a job. The central claim is that these capabilities of persons are the measure of quality of life, and that the central goal of politics should be to provide all citizens with at least basic level of these capabilities. Importantly, “The capability approach considers people one by one”. For instance it does not lump individuals into families and ignore the relations and unequal distribution of powers within families.

She advocates for cultural relativism leaving enough room for plural specification of major capabilities, and stresses on the point that the goal is capability,  and not functioning. This allows freedom to individuals to choose the functions they want actually to perform. Nussbaum interprets central capabilities in the spirit of a Rawlsian “political liberalism” as a core of basic goods about which citizens can agree still they may differ on the more comprehensive conception of good. (Martha Nussbaum, 1999 )

The emphasis is laid on the human dignity, individual choices, gender and their ‘connectivity or their situated ness’. Thus in capability approach conscious choices of women as an individual in their situated ness play a very important role. The paper aims at applying this model in Indian context and examining the adequacy of the capability approach with special reference to Care consciousness. It is true that we consciously care for some and do not care for some others. Which means caring is a conscious choice. How do we make these choices?  Are they situated in a context?

The question is how do we provide a basic level of capability to a women if the individual consciously chooses to be caring in the traditional sense with traditional values accepting mothering and nurturing as her primary values specially in view that Martha grants that their situated ness plays a very important role. What would be the form of capability approach if conscious choices are allowed for caring some and not caring for some others for a social good (goal), for example, reducing the mortality rate of girl child in Rajasthan and West Bengal and not in some other parts of India?

Feminist have been arguing that caring is gender relative, women in general are more caring than men. But whether caring as such is context dependent also needs to be examined. It could be examined that individual choices of the women in India are more caring for their own family in comparison to the Western women. Carol Gilligan asks the questions “How women think about moral questions?” “What do women say they value?” and concludes that women have different voices (Gillingan, 1982). I agree with Gilligan that women in general would express feminist values which are different and values of women also differ just as they differ in men and women.

She talks of three perspectives and transitions between voices which are summarized as follows:

“The sequence of women’s moral judgment proceeds from an initial concern with survival to a focus on goodness and finally to reflective understanding of care as the most adequate guide to the resolution of conflicts in human relationships” (idem:104). The “goodness” of the second perspective is the conventional feminine ideal of goodness, caring for others at the expense of self. (Gillingan, 1982:74) the “reflective understanding of care” in the third perspective recognizes the worth of the caregiver and allows for care for self as well as other (idem). In each of these perspectives, preventing and responding to harm and suffering is valued (idem:95).

These three perspectives for Gilligan represent the different degrees or stages of moral development. We may not accept Gilligan’s methodology and conclusion but it is important to note that the empirical questions do reveal that women’s values do differ and this difference cannot be generalized. Here we would not discuss the concept of ‘moral development’ used by Gilligan.

I bring this issue for examining the nature of valuing and conscious choices of women in Indian context (Broadly speaking). Care (or self-sacrifice) could be our ultimate value or virtue but do all women value Care as ultimate value? Women voice caring values and engage in caring activities. Can we infer that all women value caring equally?  Some studies show that Nazi women assume that female goodness is self-sacrifice to family and community (Claudia Koonz, 1987). In India too we can conduct studies to show that Indian women believe that self-sacrifice for family is a virtue. Does caring necessarily involve self-sacrifice? answer depends on the nature of care, it may simply be a matter of adjustment-one sided or mutual. But caring does involve some kind of sacrifice on the part of the career.

In her article Adams (?) raises questions about whether women should focus on caring for the near and dear in a society and whether our choices show that we do prefer caring or whether we are making the best of limited opportunities. Adams article raises the questions: Do we talk about valuing the relationships and caring because we place the highest priority on them or because these are qualities we use in the societal roles open to us? To look for the answers we would have to look at what women say and choose when they have the opportunity to play non-caring roles.

What is care? It may be a disposition to care- a willingness to receive others, a willingness to attend to the needs of others or it could also mean caring as expressed in action. While writing a philosophy paper if my child starts crying I would leave immediately and attend to her even if her father is around who can well attend to her needs. For a married Indian women her husband, her children, her mother in law, her father in law, her brother in law, her sister in law and the whole new family after marriage would get the priority over her own opportunities and capabilities.

 A woman would choose to sacrifice her future for the care of the extended family even when the needs of these others do not require her personal attention. She must provide some of the caring for directly in order to develop and sustain her relationship in a new family by using her ability to care. In the new family to create a web of reciprocal caring she is obliged to be a caring person. She may choose when and how to care for these others but the choice is limited with these others. My role as a mother, as teacher, as chair person, as house wife require sustained caring. I may be free in choosing my roles but roles define my obligations to care.

Caring requires total dedication total surrender and it denies their own status as persons who deserve care. May be in the long run it diminishes the amount of care they can provide they may gradually approach care burnout. Is ethics of care based on principal of supererogation or it is an ethics of total self-sacrifice?

In my view it is an ethics of total self-sacrifice. Caring always involves a certain amount (measure) of self-sacrifice. A mother of a newly born child has to spend months together without uninterrupted sleep. Caring for requires that I realize the need and that I satisfy to the best of my ability. In satisfying it I need to be sensitive to the needs of the cared for as well. The needs could be of two kinds; subsistence needs for example, cooking food for children, stitching cloths, making bed and looking after the house etc. needs that must be filled if physical existence is to continue.

The other is psychological needs that must be filled for human flourishing. Very often it is presumed that the care giver is likely to feel burdened if she spends the whole life fulfilling such needs. But in my view the fact that one has filled such needs with full sacrifices often creates a sense of virtue and satisfaction in the care giver. One may choose to adopt it as a form of life. (It is true of most of the Indian Women). My grandmother throughout her life made chapaties for us every day by hand and it was a fulfilling psychological experience for all of us to share as care giver and cared for. It is true not all and every need of every member of the family or every other can be responded.

“I need not respond to every need. In choosing how and when to respond, one need to consider the seriousness of the need, the benefit to the one needing care of filling this particular need, and competing needs of others, including myself, that will be affected by my filling this particular need.”( Rita Manning, dat : 48).

Caring and Conscious Choices:

One’s choice to care for a particular person at a particular time may not be once for all.  Being unable to care for now for my maid who needs financial help to marry her daughter does not rule out the possibility that I may meet her needs later. Our assessment of the appropriateness of the need for care, whom to care for and how to care for, ability to meet the need and the sense of the most successful way of doing, all are interrelated and involve conscious choices and assessment of the carer at every stage. Are we totally free in our choices as care giver? My answer is No.

We would not be totally free as social roles commit us to some roles and responsibilities to care. For example caring as mother cannot be a matter of choice. The physical, emotional intellectual and social needs of children require constant attention and response and the sense of responsibility and care is to a certain extend determined by the social conditionings. Hence, the

“[..]maternal” priorities, attitudes, and virtues are not always a matter of choice and will. It is argued by Ruddick that these moral demands are made on her- a moral responsibility imposed on her. (Sara Ruddick, 1980: 23)

One may argue that recognizing the responsibility is the exercise of someone else’s choice being imposed on one self. Is it not the recognition by the agent herself of a moral demand made by the situation she is in, but the arbitrary assignment of the responsibility of caring for others by another agent on her? Is it an imposition of responsibilities on them by other members of the community?

In my opinion it is just a presupposition, and it may not always be the case. For example, I take pride in mothering, I value my close relationship with my daughter as and when I care for her, I would not like myself to be told by someone that all this is imposed on me and  I may not allow anyone not even my husband to take that privileged role of mine.

Human relationship cannot survive if we do not care for each other. This caring involves two components: being receptive to others and their needs and being on-calls for the other when s/he is in need. (Milton Mayeroff, 1971). Our ability to care is closely related with the active caring. Human lives devoid of caring impulses and responses would be nasty, brutish, short and lonely. The people in our world differ in their ability and their willingness to care for others. We need to develop a nexus of care as it does not come naturally. The nexus of caring and its reciprocal relationship sustains all parties in the relationship and binds them with responsibilities. If there are not much burnout results then culture and social institutions would survive well. But this is not the path West has taken.

To conclude, I ask in this paper, what women of India choose. If they choose the traditional roles and respect self-sacrifice and care as a virtue then how do we get what justice demands?  Thus we find problems at two levels. One, at the level of state and its legislation of laws as the law enforcing authorizes are also part of the traditional value system. Two, even when the opportunities are provided by the state, it hardly gets translated as ‘functioning’ due to not exercising the choices or exercising choices in such a way that it goes against what justice demands. 

So if Martha Nussbaum’s theory of development is aiming at developing the capabilities of women in a nation and providing opportunities and if, as I have argued here, the opportunities are not taken by women in a nation due to their choice for mothering and nurturing and caring as the Indian traditional roles and values then, the Capability Approach does not help us much.

I want to emphasize on the point that even if women are fully morally, genuinely, developed as Martha Nussbaum would ideally like them to be, they still may freely sacrifice their interests for others as care takers within the traditional roles prescribed by the patriarchic structure. There always remains a danger of being stamped as stereotype but we will have to give moral credit for doing so as conscious moral choosers. I am afraid; Indian Women are more obliged to listen to the voice of care than justice.

Recent Debates on Gender Justice in India

The Constitution of India provides gender equality right from its Independence in 1947 still gender justice remains a myth in India. Our legal system and policies also provide right to equality, bodily integrity, sexual autonomy, and freedom of speech, including sexual speech, safe mobility etc. and India is committed to UN declaration for equal rights.

Incidents of gender injustices are rampant and part of day to day life. Women often do not consider them as problems or injustices. Sexism pervades at home, school, workplace and public arena. Boy and girl grow with sexism. One hardly is aware of one’s deep rooted exclusivism. Even if one is aware, at is taboo to raise a voice. Silence and tolerance are traditional virtue for women. Thus most of injustices go unnoticed. But when some incident gets focused by the media, sometimes “un-proportionately” we try to reform the laws.

Rape, gang rape, female infanticide, violence against women, sexual harassment at work place, domestic violence, gender discrimination dowry deaths, suicide due to atrocities and gender discrimination, bride burning, honor killing etc. are  getting reported more and more but most of them are lying in the courts, in spite of best efforts (fast-track courts) not much has been achieved.

 Criminal law to prevent violence against women keeps telling that it will take time to achieve the end of justice. And change is taking place, and the status of women is much better than before, women are much empowered and are exercising their rights much more than before etc.  But the recent incident of 23 year old student Nirbhaya in Delhi in Dec. 2012 proves the failure of the whole law and order system and the social evil which is deep rooted in Indian society. In my opinion, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013, equating justice with death penalty and imprisonment, is not a solution.

The deeper question is how do we discipline the sexual behavior of individuals and monitor, conduct and enforce through law in a democratic system like India after all it is not autocratic state. How to eradicate the sexism which is so deep rooted in Indian society, which has a history of more than 2000 years? The focus on deterrence which has been the main focus for gender justice does not eradicate sexism nor provide dignity and respect for women, it does not provide choices to Indian women what they ‘want to do and to be’, not even freedom to walk on the streets without fear of sexual violence and rape. The foreign women visitors also become victim of such sexism. One can only hope that gradually things may improve a big hope indeed!

Biographie:

Dr. Asha Mukherjee is Professor in Philosophy at the Department of Philosophy and Religion, and Former founder Director, (2009-2012) Women’s Studies Centre, Visva-Bharati Central University, Santiniketan, West Bengal, India. Professor Mukherjee was Fulbright Post-Doctoral Fellow during 1984-85, Indiana University, and Bloomington, US.  She also has been Research Professor at Catholic University of America, Washington, (1997) Visiting Professor at Gothenberg University, Sweden (2013) and delivered lectures at Lausanne University and Tel-Aviv University, Toronto University, Metropolitan University, Prague, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, University of Wroclaw, Poland, University of Gothenberg, Uppsala, Lund and visited several foreign universities in various capacities.

She has edited number of books including Civil Society in Indian Cultures, (Co. Edited), RVP, Washington, 2001, Cognition, Man and the World: Jaina Philosophical Papers (Ed.) Kalinga Pub. Delhi, 2004, Conditioning and Empowerment of Women, (Jointly Ed.) Gyan Pub. Delhi, 2003 and Indian Feminism, (Ed.) Special Volume of Labrys, Dec. 2015 (Brazil)

 Dr. Mukherjee has published more than 60 articles in Indian and international journals and anthologies and has attended many national and international conferences, delivered lectures in different countries including America, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Scotland, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Greece, Japan, South Korea, China,Taiwan, Israel, Poland, Slovakia and Bangladesh.Her areas of specialization are Analytic Ethics, Applied Ethics, Logic, Jaina and Buddhist Philosophy, Religion and Gender Studies