Planificación

Jyoti   Singh,   the   young   woman   who   was   raped   and   killed   on   December   16th   _{2012,   was}  

characterized  by  the  media  as  having  lived  the  life  of  a  typical  urban  Indian  woman.  The  only   daughter   of   a   middle-­‐class   family,   her   education   enabled   her   to   aspire   to   a   well-­‐respected   career  (she  was  training  to  be  a  physiotherapist),  and  she  was  financially  independent  enough   to  enjoy  one  of  the  city’s  relatively  exclusive  consumer  spaces  in  her  leisure  time.  According  to   Leslie  Udwin’s  controversial  2015  documentary,  India’s  Daughter,  Jyoti  Singh  used  to  say,  ‘“A   girl   can   do   anything,”’   (in   Roberts   2015:   no   page   numbers).   Prior   to   the   attack,   Jyoti’s   experiences  could  be  described  as  consistent  with  a  ‘can-­‐do’  narrative  of  femininity,  which    

suggests  to  young  women  that  they  can  get  what  they  want  and  do  what  they   want.  In  this  respect,  girl  power  exists  as  a  seemingly  new  version  of  femininity   that  can  be  seen  as  an  assertive  and  individualised  expression  of  power.    

(Aapola  et  al  2005,  in  Kehily  2012:  258)      

However,  in  Jyoti’s  story,  this  ‘seemingly  new  version  of  femininity’  was  brutally  contradicted.   The   Indian   government’s   belated   promises   of   improved   safety   for   women   in   public   spaces   implicitly  confirmed  a  narrative  of  vulnerable  femininity,  in  which  women  are  always  potential   victims  and  therefore  in  need  of  protection.  By  contrast,  in  the  wake  of  the  December  2012   case,  Indian  feminists  called  not  for  improved  safety,  but  greater  freedoms  for  women  in  all   aspects   of   their   lives   (see   Chapter   One).   It   became   apparent   that   similar   tensions   between   narratives   of   vulnerable   and   can-­‐do   girlhood   shaped   the   lives   of   the   middle-­‐class   girls   who   participated  in  the  study.    

In  the  previous  chapter,  I  explored  the  importance  of  a  career-­‐oriented  narrative  of  education   for  students  at  all  the  schools.  I  discussed  girls’  and  boys’  shared  expectations  and  aspirations   as   an   illustration   of   the   ‘gender   similarity’   that   was   possible   within   the   context   of   English   medium,   co-­‐educational   schools,   particularly   for   students   from   middle-­‐class   backgrounds.  

However,  there  were  also  important  gender  differences  in  girls’  and  boys’  perceived  ability  to   achieve  academic  success.    

The  time  has  changed,  and  the  girls  are  coming  to  the  forefront.  Girls  want  to   come  forward.  And  ah,  one  thing  is  there  –  it  is,  you  can  say  that  it  is  in  the   genes  of  the  girls  that  they  are  hard-­‐working,  right?  In  boys  they  are  carefree,   casual   attitude,   free   to   move   here   and   there   […]   Some   boys   are   serious,   hardworking,   but   –   if   you   compare   boys   and   girls,   the   girls   [do]   more   hard   work.  Now  I  think  time  has  changed,  the  girls  are  coming  more  forward.  Time   has  changed.    

(Chemistry  (11A)  ma’am,  CGS  –  interview)  

The  CGS  Chemistry  teacher  suggests  here  that  girls  are  genetically  pre-­‐determined  to  be  more   studious   than   boys   (‘it   is   in   the   genes   of   the   girls   that   they   are   hard-­‐working’),   but   she   also   suggests  that  there  is  also  something  temporally  specific  about  ‘girls  coming  to  the  forefront’.   She  repeats  the  phrase  ‘time  has  changed’  three  times,  and  several  teachers  offered  similar   explanations  of  how  times  had  changed.  Teachers  usually  attributed  changes  among  students,   whether  their  fondness  for  junk  food  or  their  online  social  lives,  to  the  role  of  ‘the  media’  over   the   past   10-­‐20   years   (i.e.   post-­‐liberalization   India   –   see   Chapter   Two).   Teachers   at   all   the   schools  suggested  that  increased  access  to  ‘Western’  media  had  led  to  different  behavioural   patterns  and  expectations  among  young  people  during  this  period.  Girls’  changed  aspirations   and   success   could   therefore   be   attributed   to   these   ‘Westernized’   influences,   along   with   the   policy   emphasis   on   girls’   education   during   this   period,   and   the   emergence   of   the   educated,   professional  young  woman  as  the  ‘icon  of  the  new  India’  in  popular  culture  and  middle-­‐class   narratives  (Dasgupta  2014:  135;  Gilbertson  2014;  Phadke,  Khan  &  Ranade  2011  –  see  Chapter   Two).   According   to   these   teachers,   the   combination   of   girls’   natural   tendencies   and   this   specific  moment  in  time  has  not  just  led  to  gender  equality  at  school,  but  in  fact  the  realisation   of  girls’  superior  academic  ability  and  achievement.    

The   idea   that   girls   are   better   students   than   boys   can   be   linked   to   traditional   notions   of   compliant   femininity   and   wayward   masculinity   (the   latter   is   discussed   in   5.4),   as   well   as   the   ‘silly/sensible’  dichotomy  reported  in  schools  across  the  world  (Sharma  2014).  However,  girls’   superiority  in  the  classroom  can  also  be  linked  to  narratives  of  can-­‐do  girlhood.    The  idea  that   girls  are  more  academically  able  than  boys  supports  the  idea  that  modern  girls  can  ‘get  what   they   want   and   be   what   they   want’,   at   school   and   beyond.   Girls’   investment   in   this   can-­‐do   narrative   of   girlhood,   and   its   implications   for   their   future   aspirations,   became   particularly   apparent  during  mixed  FGDs.    

Violet:     A   woman   can   take   a   decision   by   herself,   she   don’t   have   to   ask   anyone  if  she  feel  like.  And  so,  [in]  her  situation,  she  doesn’t  want   that  anyone  feel  pity  on  her.    

(RIS  Mixed  Focus  Group  –  2)   Mala:     I  think  being  self-­‐dependent  is  the  most  important  thing  as  a  girl.  I  –   if  I  get  married,  I  don’t  want  to  get  married  without  working  in  any   office   or   –   because   I’m,   completely   don’t   want   to   depend   on   my   husband,  and  on  my  family.    

(SGS  Mixed  Focus  Group  –  1)    

Violet   and   Mala   made   these   comments   during   ‘Be   Ladylike’   brainstorming   activities   (see   Chapter   Three   and   Appendix   7).   I   was   struck   by   the   girls’   emphasis   on   the   importance   of   women’s  independence,  with  Violet  asserting  women’s  independence  of  thought  (‘a  woman   can   take   a   decision   by   herself’)   and   Mala   valuing   ‘self-­‐dependence’   above   all   else   for   girls.   Mala  defines  this  independence  in  monetary  terms,  particularly  in  relation  to  marriage,  stating   that  she  would  want  a  job  in  order  to  avoid  financial  dependence  on  her  husband  or  parents.   The   self-­‐sufficient,   working   women   imagined   by   the   girls   clearly   reflect   the   ‘assertive   and   individualised   expression   of   power’   of   a   can-­‐do   narrative   of   femininity.   It   seemed   that   an   investment  in  such  narratives  enabled  girls  to  have  particular,  ‘modern’  expectations  of  their   future,  and  to  share  career  aspirations  with  the  boys  in  their  class  (see  Chapter  Four).    

However,  these  were  not  the  only  narratives  of  girlhood  available  to  students.  The  influence  of   narratives  of  vulnerable  femininity  were  most  apparent  in  girls’  stories  about  their  experiences   at  home,  and  the  restrictions  that  their  parents  placed  upon  them.    

Khyati:     Yeah,  like  [my  parents  say],  “You  should  be  home  by  8  –  you  should   come  straight  to  the  home,  without  talking  to  or  looking  at  anyone”.     It’s  like,  these  all,  the  limits  we  face  everyday.  […]  One  day  I  said  to   my   mom,   “I   need   to   get   to   the   photocopy   shop”.   […]   My   mother   said,   “You   will   not   be   going   alone,   your   brother   will   accompany   you”.   My   brother   would   accompany   me!   So   […]   parents   don’t   feel   secure  to  send  us  to,  ah,  send  us  outside  alone  at  night,  due  to  these   cases  [that]  have  happened.  They  say  the  same  thing  –  “Delhi’s  not   safe,  come  straight,  […]  come  immediately  after  school  is  over,  don’t   take  too  much  time  after  school”  –  all  that  stuff.    

(CGS  Girls’  Focus  Group)  

This  story  is  dominated  by  a  series  of  reported  imperatives  from  Khyati’s  parents,  and  Khyati   suggests  that  she  hears  these  instructions  frequently  (‘the  limits  we  face  everyday’,  ‘they  say   the  same  thing’).  Echoing  my  own  parents’  concerns  while  I  was  in  Delhi,  Khyati  reports  her   parents  urging  her  to  go  straight  home  after  school,  and  not  allowing  her  to  go  out  alone  at  

night.   In   the   specific   incident   narrated   by   Khyati   here,   her   mother   draws   upon   assumptions   relating   to   girls’   vulnerability   by   only   allowing   Khyati   to   go   out   with   the   ‘protection’   of   her   (younger)   brother.   Khyati’s   incredulous   repetition   of   her   mother’s   instruction   (“My   brother   would  accompany  me!’)  suggests  she  is  less  than  impressed  by  this  requirement.  However,  she   explains   that   her   parents’   concerns   are   specifically   linked   to   recent   cases   of   sexual   violence   (‘due   to   these   cases   [that]   have   happened’),   and   since   these   cases   confirmed   apparently   irrefutable   truths   (‘Delhi’s   not   safe’),   it   seems   that   Khyati   could   not   challenge   her   parents’   reasoning.  In  her  use  of  the  first  person  plural  to  describe  the  ‘limits  we  face  every  day’  and  to   state  that  ‘parents  don’t  feel  secure  to  send  us  […]  outside  alone  at  night’,  Khyati  seemed  to   be  speaking  on  behalf  of  the  rest  of  the  girls  in  the  FGD;  as  fieldwork  progressed,  it  became   clear  that  experiences  of  such  restrictions  at  home  were  in  fact  shared  by  almost  all  the  girls   who  participated  in  the  research.    

While  these  narratives  of  vulnerable  girlhood  were  largely  confirmed  by  girls’  experiences  at   home,  they  were  also  apparent  in  the  advice  that  teachers  reportedly  gave  to  girls  at  school.    

I   always   tell   to   the   girls   that,   “See,   you   always   have   to   be   alert.   Alertness   always  has  to  be  there.  See,  many  times  […]  we  are  walking,  we  are  not  seeing   that   somebody   is   following   us,   or   somebody   is,   you   know,   coming   with   a   speed[ing]  car  […]  Moreover  there  are  things  which  you  can  –  see  if  you  are  in   a  public  place,  you  can  raise  an  alarm,  but  if  you  are  alone  you  immediately  try   to  escape  that  lonely  place,  or  immediately  call  on  your  mobile.  So  you  have  to   use  this  alertness.  […]  You  also  have  to  see  where  you  are  going,  you  have  to   plan  it  out,  whether  it’s  day  and  night.  And  you  have  to  inform  everyone,  so   you  will  be  safe”.    

(Counsellor  ma’am,  RIS  –  interview)  

In   her   reported   advice   to   RIS   girls,   Counsellor   ma’am   heavily   emphasizes   the   importance   of   being   alert   in   public   spaces.   She   does   this   through   oblique   descriptions   of   potential   threats   (‘somebody   is   following   us’,   ‘somebody   is   […]   coming   with   a   speeding   car’),   and   a   list   of   context-­‐specific  actions  for  girls  to  take  in  order  to  get  help.  Notably,  these  all  involve  seeking   help  from  others  (‘you  can  raise  an  alarm’,  ‘immediately  call  on  your  mobile’)  or  running  away   (‘try   to   escape   that   lonely   place’);   these   are   not   assertive   girls   who   can   do   anything,   but   vulnerable   girls   who   are   in   danger   simply   by   being   alone   in   public,   and   who   need   to   take   appropriate  precautions  to  ensure  they  are  protected  at  all  times,  ‘whether  it’s  day  [or]  night’.      

These  narratives  of  vulnerable  girlhood  arguably  became  more  compelling  in  the  wake  of  the   December   2012   case   (although,   as   one   teacher   pointed   out,   ‘before   [parents]   were   also   worried,   but   now   they’re   more   worried’;   English   ma’am,   RIS   –   interview).   Although   many  

Indian   feminists   have   been   deeply   critical   of   international   media   coverage   since   December   2012  suggesting  that  sexual  violence  is  an  ‘Indian’  problem  (e.g.  Krishnan  2015),  the  idea  that   India  is  particularly  unsafe  for  women  was  frequently  expressed  by  students  and  teachers.    

See  in  Indian  society  normally  the  girls  are  restricted  right  from  the  beginning.   And  their  limitations  are  –  the  limitations  are  told,  “See  this  is  your  limitations   and  you  must  not  cross  your  limit,  you  must  not  go  out  of  the  house  […]”  –  so   that  is  the  problem.  These  kind  of  teachings  only  are  given.  You  know  –  right   from  the  beginning,  to  the  girl  in  India.  Whether  it  is  higher  society  or  lower   society  or  middle  class  –  everywhere.    

(Vice  Principal  sir,  RIS  –  interview)  

In   this   quotation,   the   RIS   Vice   Principal   contextualizes   girls’   vulnerability   within   a   wider   narrative  of  female  disadvantage  in  Indian  society.    In  particular,  he  emphasizes  that  girls  are   restricted  ‘right  from  the  beginning’  of  their  life  in  India,  and  that  concerns  about  keeping  girls   safe  lead  to  continued  restraints  (‘“you  must  not  go  out  of  the  house”’).  Importantly,  he  also   stresses  that  such  attitudes  towards  girls  and  women  transcend  class  boundaries,  stating  that   people   have   ‘negative’   thoughts   about   women   in   ‘higher   society’,   ‘lower   society’,   and   the   ‘middle  class’  alike.  In  this  claim,  the  Vice  Principal  seems  to  refute  the  implicit  idea  that  only   uneducated  people  might  hold  such  views  about  women,  an  idea  which  students  also  debated.      

Tornado:     Ma’am  I  live  in  a  village,  there  are  so  many  cases  like  this,  that   ah,  womens  [sic]  are  discriminated.  In  many  ways.  This  thing  is   true  

Padmini:     Like,  how  are  they  discriminated?         […]  

Tornado:     They  are  not  allowed  to  leave  the  house  without  their  husbands’   permission,  or  without  their  fathers’  permission.  In  these  cases   Violet:     But  not  only  in  villages,  in  cities  also  this  is  the  condition.  Like,  

conservativeness   Leela:     Yes,  conservativeness    

Violet:     Females  are  not  allowed  to  go  out.  

(RIS  Mixed  Focus  Group  –  2)  

In  this  extract,  Tornado  initially  uses  first-­‐hand  knowledge  of  his  village  to  validate  his  claim   that   he   has   witnessed   ‘so   many   cases’   of   women   being   confined   to   the   private   sphere,   and   kept  under  the  control  of  their  fathers  or  husbands.  Interestingly,  Violet  and  Leela  intervene  to   argue  that  such  experiences  are  not  confined  to  rural  areas;  the  girls  describe  such  practices  as   ‘conservative’   which,   unlike   the   ‘traditional’   or   ‘rural’   practices   suggested   by   Tornado’s   account,   can   more   easily   be   imagined   within   an   urban   setting.   Violet   and   Leela   later   told   stories   that   suggested   they   experienced   similar   restrictions   from   their   parents   as   Khyati   at  

CGS;  moreover,  along  with  many  other  girls  who  participated  in  the  research,  these  girls  also   located  their  experiences  within  a  wider  narrative  of  female  disadvantage  in  India.    

While   girls   and   teachers   alike   were   invested   in   can-­‐do   narratives   of   high-­‐achieving,   independent  femininity,  which  supported  the  idea  that  education  promoted  gender  equality  in   society,  narratives  of  vulnerable  girlhood  had  a  persistent  influence  at  home  and  at  school.  The   timescale  of  the  research  meant  it  was  not  possible  to  determine  the  extent  to  which  these   narratives   of   vulnerable   girlhood   had   become   more   pervasive   after   December   2012;   as   Phadke,   Khan   &   Ranade   (2011)   and   Banerjee   et   al   (2012)   have   noted,   conditional   access   to   public  spaces  has  been  a  sustained  feature  of  women’s  experience  in  post-­‐liberalization  India.   However,   students’   and   teachers’   accounts   suggested   that   recent   cases   of   sexual   violence,   which  seemingly  confirmed  wider  cultural  narratives  about  female  disadvantage  in  patriarchal   Indian  society,  made  fears  relating  to  female  vulnerability  all  the  more  compelling.