Evaluación del Proceso

Feminine Socialization and Girls’ Positioning within the Community

I focus my discussion, in this chapter, on the position of girls and women in society as articulated by my interviewees. I specifically look into their positioning between families, that is their biological family and the family of their in-laws. I also investigate existing traditions, socio-cultural practices and the role expectations regarding girls and women in the community and how individual community members negotiate their position to act in accordance with the set community norms. After analysing the fathers‟ position in the family as decision-makers the chapter goes on to explore the notion of stigma attached to community members not acting in line with community norms. I discuss the above

mentioned issues in relation to girls‟ education as my prime focus and investigate their role in influencing the inclusion or exclusion of girls in school education. As in chapter 4, in this chapter too I draw predominantly upon the experiences and opinions of the out-of- school girls and their parents.

Girls’ position in society

Where do they belong?

In the Indian context girls come to this earth with the tag „parayadhan‟, which literally means property of others. From their birth girls are considered to „belong to some other family‟. This belief was strongly embedded among all the parents in my sample

irrespective of their class, caste, literacy status or their gender. This was clearly evident when a father of six sons and one daughter said, „They consider girls as parayadhan‟ (property of others) (Choksingh). He was referring to the community at large when he said „they‟. When I asked his own opinion on this, he said:

Q: Umm, people consider girls as parayadhan, yeah, and what do you think? Choksingh: Girls, yeah, they are here for a temporary period. They of course belong to their family. They have to get married and go to their house.

A similar view was put forth by another motherwhen she said: „Girls you know,

parayadhan, […]. They have to go to their house‟ (Mohni). As girls are destined to go to

„their house‟, that is the in-laws‟ house, they are not even considered part of their

biological family. Instead, girls are from the very beginning treated as temporary members who do not belong to the biological family and are thus unwanted. Kalu made it clear that the biological family is not girls‟ actual home. He said:

146

Kalu: Yeah, […] we don‟t keep them, send them to their house. When they become grown up then we send them immediately to their house. We don‟t keep them here.

Q: Is this not their house?

Kalu: Nuh, this is not their house, no. That is only their house. Here they are there for a few years.

He referred to the biological family of girls as „this house‟ and the in-laws‟ house as „that house‟. The notion that girls belong to some other house or family was very strong amongst the parents of my sample. In contrast, sons were considered as the future support system of the family. The fact that boys continue to live with their biological family after their marriage puts them in a different and more advantageous position than girls. Parents believed that it is the sons who will take care of them in their old age. Thus, Nanalal said this, regarding his expectation from his son who was studying in a private school, „If he gets a job then his future will be secured, he will have no problem, we will also have no problem in our old age‟. The last part of his statement that „we will also have no problem in our old age‟ reflects the sentiment of parents who wants to invest in the education of their sons with the expectation that this investment will bring return for them in the future (Pal, 2004) even though this may not happen in reality. Two sets of parents I interviewed had the experience of being abandoned by their sons after the latter‟s marriage and once they had their own families. Rangji for example, said of two of his sons who were earning:

They [sons] are married and are with … their families, they are not … supporting us, they do not want to help me though they are earning … for us they are useless.

Rangji, the father of two sons and three daughters, had been suffering from TB for six years and had been hospitalised for a long period. Due to his ill health he was not able to continue his job as a waged labourer. As his sons who were earning by that time were not supporting him and his family, as is the norm in the Indian context, the daughters were engaged in waged labour to support the family. Although Rangji himself had had this bad experience he still felt strongly that boys are „budhape ka sahara‟, „a stick to support their parents in their old age‟. He said:

147

Boys should take care of the parents. Not like my fellows … they should take care of the parents, be a support to them in their old age … what did we give them birth for? (Rangji)

Rangji believed that though his sons were not supporting him, this was not the case at large. He considered his sons exceptional cases and said, „My boys are … useless … but otherwise they only take care of the family‟. This was the collective understanding that prevailed in the community.

Do girls belong to the family of their husbands then, as claimed by their natal parents? In principle, yes, in the Indian context. An old adage prevalent in India goes like this: „the life of a girl is like a paddy plant which does not belong to the place where it grows originally. It is transplanted at another place‟. Just like the paddy plant, girls are also uprooted from their biological families and transplanted into their in-laws families. Though I did not have a chance to ask the opinion of the in-laws‟ families in this regard, the experience of two of my girl interviewees did throw some light on the matter. Madhu had an older sister who was ill treated, thrown out of the house and abandoned by her in-laws. She came back to her biological family after she was abandoned by her in-laws and was living with them when I interviewed Madhu. Madhu said of her sister, „she is with us now. She came back from her in-laws, they are not keeping her‟. She further mentioned, „They were always beating her, I don‟t know why. Then they sent her here and are not ready to take her back‟. Rekha‟s older sister had similar experiences in her in-laws‟ family. Rekha said:

My sister‟s husband was beating her, he was not allowing her to come here [natal family] also, my sister was crying always but he was not allowing her to come here. He was always fighting with my sister. Then one day he sent her here and said that he does not want to take her back. I do not know what happened, he was not happy with my sister. My parents went there to talk but he did not listen to anybody. So my sister is with us now.

This undoubtedly indicates that though the actual place of a girl is considered to be the house of her husband, this does not necessarily assure her a permanent dwelling for the rest of her life. Her staying with her in-laws is dependent on factors such as how happy and satisfied the husband and the in-laws are with her and the capacity of the girl to adapt to the new family. However, the above instances show that girls are always in a vulnerable

position. They can be thrown out of their in-laws‟ house at any point in their life. Thus it can be said that girls literally do not belong to any side – neither their biological family nor their in-laws‟. The biological family is always eager to send the girls to their in-laws as

148

early as possible to get rid of their responsibilities whereas the in-laws family is mostly reluctant to accept them and provide an unconditional place in the family.

The perception that „girls belong to some other family‟ and „boys are the future support system‟ has serious repercussions for the schooling of the girls. It influences parents‟ decision regarding sending girls to school to a considerable extent. Thus, Kalu said, „Who will take all these responsibilities? Once our girls are grown-up, get them married and send them to their house. That‟s it‟. Rami also expressed the same view that prevails in the community regarding the education of grown-up girls:

That is the time, you know … parents think about their [girls‟] marriage, … sending them to the in-laws, … all that starts then, so everybody will be after that only, no time to study then. All are against their study at that time. Before they are grown up, whatever they study that much only they can do, not after that. It happens that way.

Thus, as girls are preordained to join their husband‟s family after marriage once they obtain puberty, educating them is perceived as something which will benefit some other family and not the biological parents themselves. This sentiment of the parents in my sample and the community at large is reflected in the wide-spread saying in South Asia that „caring for a daughter is like watering the neighbours‟ tree; the fruits go to someone else‟ (Islam 1979 in Kabeer, 2003: n. p.). Mishra (2005: 179) too found in Mali that parents „commonly regard girls‟ education as a “lost investment” because it is the future husband‟s family who reaps the returns, not them‟ (see also Raju, Atkins, Townsend, et al., 1999; Bhatty 1998; King and Hill 1993). This perception of parents which keeps the education of girls beyond class four or five restricted is also discussed in chapter 4. Parents wait for girls to grow up so that they can be sent to their own house immediately. This aspect was clear when Sugna said, „[…] they have to go to their house, … that is the first work. […] they have to go first as a priority‟. The parental house is considered as a transit point for girls, where a few early years may be devoted to schooling if the family conditions permit it. But the majority of this period is of course devoted to preparing girls for their future lives as home makers.

Preparing girls to take up the future challenges in their in-laws‟ family preoccupies parents‟ mind, making school education for them secondary. Kaul (2001) observed the same trend among parents in her sample. She reports that parents „preferred engaging their daughters in household work and preparing them for “marriage”‟ (2001: 160). Sugna used this as a justification for why it was important for girls to help their mothers at home and do the

149

household chores. When I asked her whether somebody is always needed to help her out at home, she said:

Nuh … I do, but when I am not there they have to do it, serving food to the brothers, taking care of the cattle, they … have to learn also. Otherwise everyone will say, the mother did not teach her anything. … I make them help so that they will learn, how will they manage later otherwise?

The fear that their daughters will not be accepted wholeheartedly by their in-laws or will be ill-treated if not well equipped to handle the household chores, made parents withdraw the girls from school. This fear was reflected in Mangu‟s statement:

If they [girls] do not learn things properly, their in-laws will tell us that we did not teach any housework … you know, we will be blamed. It is very difficult to be the father of girls. Take care of them, do everything, if something goes wrong then we will be blamed, they [in-laws] will send the girl back to the parents‟ house.

Similar fears were also expressed by Sugna regarding the fate of a girl who is not perfect at household chores:

If she does not learn the housework now, how will she manage in her in-laws‟ house? Will they keep her for long? They will always scold her and will blame me also. They will say, the mother did not teach her anything.

Girls are thus oriented towards their future life by the parents from the very beginning. They are made to realise at a very early age that they have to take up household

responsibilities at their husband‟s house and so they need to be prepared for that. Seema said that girls are always reminded of this by their parents:

They [parents] say, you learn the work in the house now, how will you manage in your in-laws‟ otherwise? Will they keep you if you do not do any work there? Learn now or else you will suffer in future.

Parents very consciously and explicitly reminded girls „of the destiny assigned to them by the traditional principle of division‟ of labour (Bourdieu, 2001: 94). Sunita too had similar experiences. According to her, attending to housework and learning to do it was very important for girls. When I asked her why, she replied:

Sunita: Mummy says, when you go somewhere else you will do all the work, so you should do it now and learn things.

Q: What does she mean by „you will go somewhere else‟?

Sunita: She says, „you will go to your in-laws, so learn things, otherwise how will you manage their house?‟ […] My mother always says, you are a girl, you will go to the in-laws.

150

In case of failure to manage the household chores in the in-laws‟ house girls may be abused by their in-laws and their parents may be held responsible. None of the parents were

prepared to face such a situation and so they thought girls should be geared up for their future role as home maker, which was considered as the only fate for girls, instead of investing in their education. Thus girls were withdrawn from school after class three or so to start preparing for their future life. Girls too, as was evident from Sunita‟s accounts, are made to internalise their future role as „taking primary responsibility for caring for the family‟ and not to question this division of labour (Kabeer, 2003: n. p.).

Exploitation of girls for work in and around house

Crucial contribution to household chores

Along with preparing for their future life, girls also contribute their labour to their natal family. They were made to take up the domestic responsibilities of their mother as soon as they were considered big enough, normally at the age of eight to nine years. Girls in the households where I did interviews were engaged in activities such as cooking, fetching water, cleaning the house, washing clothes, taking care of the needs of other members of the family and taking care of the cattle. For example, Mansingh said about his daughter who had dropped out of school after class three, „Ah … she cooks, makes chapattis, fills up water, gives food to the younger ones, takes the goats to the field …‟. Sugna was rather harsh when she talked about why grown-up girls do not go to school:

Yeah, what will they do? Then they have to marry and go to their house. If she is in school then who will do the work at home? Her sisters are also not there now so she has to help. Nobody is there in the house, I go for work in the morning, and her grandmother is too old to attend to all the work.

The evidence suggests that girls are made to take up household responsibilities as soon as they are considered capable of it. The patri-local system of marriage where girls join their in-laws after marriage, which means after attaining puberty, puts them in a disadvantageous position and constitutes one reason for their discrimination even by their own parents. For example, Suman, the only daughter of Choksingh, had to drop out of school at the age of seven to assist at home when all six of her brothers including two who were older than her enjoyed being in school. Choksingh said:

151

Choksingh: Uh, … her mother was not keeping well, so she had to be at home. […] Somebody is needed at home.

Q: But why did only Suman have to stop going to school, not the boys, two of them are older than her as you said?

Choksingh: I said you know, her mother was not keeping well, she cannot cook, cannot do any work, so Suman had to do all this, there was no other girl in the house, so who else would do?

Similarly in the household of Bansu, the youngest daughter was withdrawn from school at the age of nine to shoulder the household responsibilities that her older sister left behind when she went to her in-laws, whereas the schooling status of her older brother remained unaffected. Bansu said, „Yeah, she is doing all the work in the house you know, that is why she is not able to come [to school]‟. Regarding his sons he said, „No, they do not. They are in school, they are also small. They don‟t do anything‟. Here, the son who was older than his sister by three years was considered too small to assign any work to as reported by their father. This tells us that the gender role expectations of the parents were completely fixed and make them assign „home-oriented tasks‟ to girls whilst freeing their sons, on whom they thought they would rely in their old age, from this „domestic burden‟ (Karlekar, 2000: 90, see also UNICEF, n. d.). There is no conception that chores might be shared out equally between all household members.

The experiences of the girls in my sample revealed the extent to which they were exploited for work at the home front and the discriminating behaviour they underwent. Radha for example, said: