|
Meghalaya in the north eastern part of the country is a beautiful
land. Often cited as the Scotland of the East, this abode in
the clouds is also known for a social structure where women
rule the roost, well, at least that's the social norm for the
Khasis, the dominant tribe. Here the daughter and not the son,
inherits the property; if she marries, her husband can come
and stay in 'her' house. All in all, it gives a picture of social
arrangement quite unlike the patriarchal hierarchy common in
the rest of the country, albeit with a few exceptions. Something
feminists find cause to be happy about.
But in reality, is it the picture so rosy? Women from tribal
societies often complain bitterly about the extra hard work
at home and outside they have to put up with while the males
have a jolly good time. The equal footing in the society often
means an unequal balance of work, the scale tilted unfavourably
against the women.
And what about a voice in important matters? Suddenly, a
small item in a newspaper a few days ago catches one's attention.
A traditional village council in a Khasi village, it says,
has stamped a 'dress code' on girls/ women above 12 years,
yes, in matrilineal Meghalaya, instructing them to stop wearing
jeans. Reason? Girls thus attired 'tempt' men to indulge in
unwelcome behaviour which results in social ills. Well!
But should one expect anything different, even today? That
women have to answer for many sins, from bearing a girl-child
to bringing bad luck as a widow? And also, acting as temptresses
to endanger a morally-correct society, in this case, by wearing
something as universally accepted as a pair of jeans in workaday
life?
The dress code spewed by different people at different times
to 'rein in' women displays the same preoccupation, that women
should bear the burden of upholding the good conduct of a
society through her so-called behaviour. Be it an unwritten
directive to wear 'mekhela-chadar', the traditional two-piece
ensemble of Assamese women, during the peak of the student
agitation in Assam in the 80s because it denoted 'national'
feeling (was a saree-clad local girl was then an anti-national?),
or trying to prevent a teacher from wearing salwar suits in
a West Bengal school sometime ago, a dress which by no stretch
of imagination can be called revealing to 'mislead' young
students. And it was a girls' school to boot! Recently, Shabana
Azmi was castigated by some sections of the Muslim community
who called her 'not Muslim enough' because she said that the
Quran does not say a woman has to wear an all covering hijab,
only that she should be modestly dressed. The more things
change, the more they are the same, after all.
Strangely, this dress code never seems to affect the male
species. On the other hand, those who regard 'immodestly dressed'
women, whatever that connotes, as tools to weaken men only
deprecate their own fellowmen, stripping them of their dignity
and character.
On a footnote, a recent Reuters report says that in Kandahar
of Afghanistan where most women wear all-covering burqas despite
the Taliban's departure, pornography is proving to be a huge
problem something the police department readily admits to.
.
|
){kind=link}