The impact of neoliberal globalization in India has been harsh on women in particular. It must be noted that gender as a construct overlaps with class, caste divides which has been an inherent feature of Indian social order. It is well known that traditionally women have been vulnerable. However, it is also true that the systemic structures of discrimination have been widely aggravated by the pursuit of neoliberal policies by the Indian state. According to Kalyani Menon Sen (2004) along with pauperizing whole populations, globalization rigidifies the subordination of women by recreating and strengthening the structures of patriarchal subordination.
The influence of neoliberalization has resulted in the shrinking of the political space for citizenship. With the rolling back of the frontiers of state from the social sector, the domain of social citizenship has suffered large losses. These changes have been particularly harmful to women's citizenship. The rolling back of the state from the arena of social citizenship has resulted in setbacks to women's rights, especially for those who belonged to the marginalized sections. Resources which were earlier spent on women's emancipation particularly in the field of health, education, employment have all been reduced due to governmental policies supportive of global capitalism. According to Jill Steans the neoliberal rhetoric works as a double whammy for women. By casting them as new entrepreneurs it on the one hand devalues their traditional family centric roles, yet on the
61
other hand by simultaneously endorsing neo-conservative norms and values it projects them as ‗selfish‘ and ‗irresponsible‘ for simply not fulfilling their mothering roles (Steans 2008).
The implementation of neoliberal policies gives rise to the polarization of wealth in society, which in turn has led to high unemployment and growing impoverishment thus having gendered implications. First, women‘s employment opportunities are affected by cuts in specific sectors, including education, social security and health. Second, because women take on the largest share of household and family responsibilities, they are required to compensate for this additional burden through their own time. Third, the growing number of children and women living in poverty, along with the feminization of labour show that the costs of globalization are unevenly spread.
In part, this reflects a worldwide trend, so that now an increasingly large number of families do not have a male breadwinner (Kabeer 2014). In the search for women‘s labour, transnational companies go on the hunt for low cost labour, which in practice is often female labour. It is not surprising to find out that that the adoption of the neoliberal prescriptions and the consequent easing of trading practices and labour regulations in India since 1980s has given rise to a relatively small pool of technically skilled work force, mostly males and a simultaneous but a massive growth in the numbers of the part time lowly paid vulnerable workers, a huge proportion of which are females (ibid). Whilst such developments confirm the argument that women‘s work in a liberalized economy mainly comes off as low paid, part-time, outsourced work or what is called ‗labour made cheap‘ (Steans 2013) they also flag out the reason why women have to be constantly juggling between home and work place.
62
A typical example of such a development can be seen in the call centers where women are preferred as employees as they not only demand less in their pay packet but can easily be manipulated. Younger girls are preferred in the night shifts as it acts as sexual incentives to the male workers (Patel 2010). In India, there has been increase in cases of molestations and even rape involving many of the call centers and-without doubt-there is a great deal of evidence that women are the victims. According to recent data made available by the National Time Use Survey, conducted by the Indian Department of Statistics (GOI: 2016) women in India across classes and caste in both rural and urban areas were found to be working longer hours than men. Further, on average, more than half of the total work performed by women was unpaid, while for men only one third of their work was unpaid. One of the starkest realities of the Indian workforce is that out of the total 397 million workers in India almost 127 million are women and out of which almost 96 percent are engaged in informal sectors which is inherently characterized by under-payments, sub- contracting and the casualization of labour (GOI:2006).
The gendered impacts of neoliberal globalization in the Indian context have been well brought out in some seminal works in the field. The idea that globalization augments gender inequalities by denying equity and access to resources is a recurrent theme in the writings of a host of scholars (Basu 1995; Ghosh 1999, 2005a; Sarkar 2007; Kabeer 2014). Another important observation made by feminist scholars is that in the guise of modernity and egalitarianism, globalization magnifies and strengthens the structures of patriarchal domination (Krishnaraj 1999; Jain 2000; Sen 2004; Ghosh 2005a and b). According to Ritty Lukose (2005a, 2005b) globalization has resulted in creation and expansion of a new middle class in India however, it also poses a constant threat of women‘s sexual
63
commodification. It has been argued that neoliberal policies imply a roll back of the state from conventional sectors of social welfare leading to steady marginalization of women in the economy (Banerjee 1999). According to Sumita Sarkar (2007) the benefits of globalization in terms of reach is limited to a small segment of IT skilled population. For a large section of semi or unskilled population of women it results in disproportionate victimization by the way of loss of traditional livelihood and sustainability (Jain 2000), fall in wage earning (Roychowdhury 2004), ‗casualization of workforce, leading to sub- contracting, retrenchments, layoffs‘ (Ghosh 1999).
Naila Kabeer (2012) in her research paper entitled, ‗Women‘s Economic Empowerment and Inclusive Growth: Labour Markets and Enterprise Development‘ accepts the argument that gender equality leads to economic development however, she contends that it is not true, the other way round. It is interesting to note that a very thought provoking account of the gendered impacts of the operation of multinational companies, particularly in the Indian context had been highlighted by Maria Mies as early as the 1988. Though the broader contours of the debates on gendered impacts of neoliberal globalization in India, were still in a rudimentary stage, yet Mies very clearly pointed out the social psychological as well as the economic consequences of the multinational companies‘ prowl for cheaper labour. According to Mies, the female labour in the developing world in particular, is a cheaper labour offering additional benefits of ‗docility, flexibility, and low visibility‘ – ready for the multinational companies to harp upon (Mies 1988: 33). Mies argued vehemently that the ‗society in this case is benefiting economically from women's work, yet due to the ideological views of women's roles within society it is not view as work‘ (ibid).
64
In a draft paper on ‗Globalization and Women in India: Some Macro Considerations‘ Jayati Ghosh (2005a) has argued that the relationship between economic development and social living conditions particularly of women is a complex one. According to Ghosh,
adoption of the neoliberal economic policies significantly conditions issues and concerns for gender justice and empowerment in India and in many other economies in Asia (notably Bangladesh). An analysis of the economic aspects of women‘s work and living conditions is therefore not just important but actually a precondition for the comprehensive assessment of issues such as gender justice and empowerment (ibid).
Concerns about women‘s position also figures in the work of Chandra Talpade Mohanty (2004). In her book ‗Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity‘ Mohanty presents a ‗critique of globalization that presses for an urgent reorientation of transnational feminism around anti-capitalist struggles‘ (Mohanty 2004: 12). Similarly, concerns have also been expressed on why throughout the economy women tend to hold lower level positions than men even when they have sufficient skills to perform in higher levels jobs (see, Jhabvala and Sinha 2002). Although a vast majority of Indian women contribute to the economy through their work both in explicit and implicit ways, but their actual contribution remains subdued as the official listing of work does not include a host of informal works which largely are undertaken by women. The majority of the women work under inferior working conditions and often in shifts with negative implications on their health. The feminization of work has been proved wrong both by the understanding of female work participation and the practical manifestation of it.
In summation, India is one of the world‘s most populous countries. It is also now regularly being referred to as a significant ‗rising power‘ and a ‗success story‘ by advocates of neoliberal globalization and free-market development models. Yet, while Indian women
65
are utilized extensively as a source of labour in neoliberal projects, the differential impacts of neoliberal reforms in India on women specifically is largely neglected in mainstream literature. The structurally disadvantageous impacts of neoliberal globalization on the status of women have been documented, by feminists, however, much of this work has focused on debt and Structural Adjustment Programmes, export-led growth and the opening up of domestic economies to global market forces and concomitant domestic reforms to facilitate this process. In general terms, feminist claims are born out in the Indian case, but again there is a dearth of literature on contemporary developments in India specifically.
Given the fact that the socio- economic and cultural structures of the developing societies are very different from Western countries, it should not come as surprise to find that the impacts of globalizing processes have been differentiated, and in certain cases extreme, on different sections of society in developing states. Many scholars, including feminists, have rejected the universalizing and homogenizing claims of much of the neoliberal literature on globalization, notably the ‗hyper-globalization‘ school of thought, and have further refused claims that globalization is inherently beneficial, noting instead that there are winners and losers. These scholars have, therefore, called for more empirical research on the specificity of impacts on different groups. Additionally, they have also argued that states still have an interventionist role to play in ameliorating these differential impacts in the interests of social (here gender) justice. In my work, I respond to these calls.
66