By Dr. K. Rajani Kumari
The recent debate on the abolition of triple talaq, initiated in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, has once again opened the Pandora box which was hitherto unlocked in 1985 after the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shah Bano case and urgently closed by the then government to lie mostly undisturbed for 30 years.
This voice has now been raised by a woman against the arbitrary laws of her community which had been drafted to cater to the wishes of men. While the nation is involved in a passionate discourse on protecting the ‘Muslim women’ from biased discriminatory laws, it has to refrain from adopting a myopic approach based on the lives and experiences of the majority community.
As India is a home to diverse communities and religions, each having distinct traditional laws and customs, it is proper that the flow of a discourse calling for any change is initiated within these minority communities first and then shifted to the centre and not the vice versa.
And in order to ensure that any such discourse centered on gender equality remains rooted in reality, the intersection of a particular race/religion/caste/class with sex cannot be ignored. It is suggested that this intersection is to be made the primary basis for studying the way in which different religions or communities impact the lives of women belonging to them and unless such an approach is adopted the flawed perception of the majority would continue to prevail.
The term ‘intersectionality’ was introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to emphasize on the misconception of treating race and gender as mutually exclusive in the feminist struggle being led by the white privileged women. She exposed the failure of a ‘single-axis feminism’ which did not take into account the experiences of black underprivileged women ultimately erasing their existence in the feminist and anti-racist political movement.
Crenshaw challenged the prevailing practice whereby a privileged majority class made decisions and fought against gender discrimination, diverting from the reality of mutual inclusiveness of race and gender. As a result, the voices of black women, who suffered multiple subordination, were subdued and all discrimination was comprehended from the standpoint of race-and-class-privileged white women.
There was only one class of women and all experiences were understood as white experience. Therefore, intersectionality has now come to be understood as defining multiple discrimination faced by a woman, firstly, on account of her being a woman, and secondly on account of her belonging to a particular race/class/caste/community.
Thus, the issues affecting the lives of higher class women are different from those affecting a woman who is a member of a lower class/caste as her experiences are influenced by the added stigma and sufferings attached to her community.
In India, this intersectionality has, however, been used by the majority community to the point of over-enthusiasm in sympathizing with the women who belong to different communities. Whenever a discriminatory practice or law followed in a minority community comes to light, they assume the role of protectors and decision makers; within no time voices are raised to impose upon the minority the laws which the majority thinks fit for them.
This approach is inherently dangerous in a secular and democratic country like ours. What intersectionality demands is not the superficial consideration of race/class/religion. It does not mean that this difference be used as a weapon to impose the will of the majority; it is not the community per se which is to be understood as the oppressor of women so that they have to be protected from their own people.
Rather, intersectionality demands that the structure from where the experiences of women of different class/community are analyzed be overhauled to understand the distinct forms of discriminations faced by them in their community.
It means considering the different situations faced by different women while preserving their identity and membership. If a law, custom or practice prevailing in a community is harmful for the women members resulting into gender inequality, the discourse should be concerned with the various aspects of the problem analyzing real experiences of those women within such community and not to be considered from the point of view of the majority.
Inclusion and acceptance of differences rather than their elimination should be the objective of such debates.