Kamal Nath’s ‘Item’ Jibe Symptomatic of the Pervasive Male Gaze in Indian Politics

Women political leaders have to endure sexism and misogyny from their male counterparts. MEGHA KATHERIA examines how the political culture of India encourages sexism and gender discrimination and how the law has failed to crack down on it or even address the problem . 

——— 

Former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath is caught in the middle of another political storm after he reportedly addressed BJP leader Imarti Devi as "Ye kya item hai". In his reply to the Election Commission's notice, he maintained that his words have been misinterpreted.

But, that has not fooled anyone.

The sexualised connotations of the word "item" in modern India's popular culture language are known to all. It reduces the woman's identity to her body and, in politics, undermines her mind.

Nath's item comment is not just another instance of sexism in politics but speaks to the male chauvinistic ideas that deeply pervade India's political culture.

While Rahul Gandhi has called the remark "unfortunate", no official statement has come from the party president Sonia Gandhi, who incidentally herself is a target of  sexist language. From being called "Italian barmaid" to the use of the word 'prostitute' by BJP leader Subramaniam Swamy, Sonia Gandhi has endured a lot of typical gender abuse. The opposition sexualised her on the basis of her foreign origin to undermine her in the eyes of the electorate.

During the 2019 elections, BJP candidate Mahadev Shankar was barred from campaigning by the Election Commission for his sexist remarks against Mahua Moitra, where he questioned her morals as an Indian woman in the land of Sita.

On Smriti Irani's appointment as Textile Minister in 2016, Janata Dal (United) leader Ali Anwar commented that "it will help her cover her body." Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa was a target of gossip. She was alleged of having an affair with her political mentor MG Ramachandran and a lesbian relationship with her aide Sasikala. This was used again and again to undermine her role as a chief minister.

A female political leader is a gender construct

Indian politics is substantially performative instead of being substantially argumentative. Here, spectacles and charisma overshadow policy discussions. Optics matter.

To make space for herself in a man's world, the Indian woman leader must play by man's rules.  She must conform with gender norms to gain legitimacy as a democratic leader.

Anything remotely western or antithetical to Indian sanskaar is deemed unacceptable. Chastity and character become easy targets to delegitimise the woman leader. It vitiates her personhood by making her perform an ideal notion of gender and strips her of gender sovereignty.

Thus, Indian politics underlines the woman leader's body and behaviour to strangle woman empowerment at its very doorstep.

To escape this sexualisation by Brahmanical patriarchy, women politicians often resort to familial prefixes like Amma, Behenji and Didi.

Yet, that is not enough. A woman political leader in India cannot be meek for she is then tame like a "gungi gudiya", as Indira Gandhi was called when she was first inducted as a Cabinet Minister by then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri.

The masculine idea of leadership requires and demands that a female politician has to be strong, fierce and assertive. She must be both an "Iron Lady" and the ideal chaste Indian woman, nothing short of a Hindu goddess.

Yet, the fall out of placing women political leaders along with goddesses is not limited to the transference of attributes.

As Dr Carole Spary, who researches in women's political participation, notes, "Mobilising goddess imagery to explain women's power and authority has the symbolic effect of mystifying women's power and reinforces a distinction between itself and male material power." Ultimately, it is material power that matters in the everyday politics of the world's largest democracy.

The gendered image of women in Indian politics falsifies the mystical power for material power and facilitates gender norms.

Vanity is a curse for the woman leader

A simple sari and minimal makeup, with the optional sindoor and pallu depending on marital status, are typical characteristics of the image of an Indian female politician. The expectation that the Indian public holds of its women political leaders is akin to the image of its Hindu goddesses, who do not wear either salwar suits or skirts.

Reportedly, BSP Chief Mayawati discarded sari as a garment following the infamous Guest House incident, where she was lynched and assaulted by Samajwadi Party workers. She has often been targeted by rival leaders with comments on her size and her hair. She has been called ugly.

BJP MLA Sadhna Singh commented on Mayawati's character and political aspirations by saying, "Jis din mahila ka blouse, petticoat, saari phat jaaye, wo mahila na satta ke liye aage aati hai. Usko pure desh ki mahila kalankit maanti hai. Wo to kinnar se bhi jyada badtar hai, kyunki wo to na nar hai, na mahila hai" [The day a woman's blouse is torn, petticoat is torn, sari is torn, that woman must not come forward to achieve powers because she becomes tainted. The whole country deems her tainted. She is worse than a kinnar (transgender) because she is neither a man nor a woman].

One of the most defining criticisms of Mayawati was the Wikileaks revelation that she sent her private jet to Mumbai to fetch her sandals. While the focus should have been whether government money went into the act of sending her private jet, the narrative quickly shifted to vanity.

India Today carried the headline "Mayawati is obsessed with grooming and fashion", one that paints an image of careless self-indulgence.  Reuters on the other hand chose to tag her as "Untouchable's Queen", a tag that contrasts the largely poor and downtrodden image of Dalits with royalty.

As prominent journalist Dilip Mandal revealed, the sensationalised reporting was based on a diplomatic cable sent to Washington that admits to vague sources and could easily be the output of salacious gossip.

Vanity in dressing and grooming is unbecoming of a woman politician, but more so of a Dalit woman politician who have been historically denied beauty as a function of caste.

Does law protect women politicians?

The most obvious recourse is through the Indian Penal Code for outraging modesty, which would take the path of a criminal case. Jayalalithaa famously filed over a hundred defamation cases against media houses that carried such sexist slander in the garb of criticising the government.

Last year, Azam Khan of Samajwadi Party, with an infamous history of sexist comments, was forced to tender an apology in Parliament for his sexist remarks against Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker Rama Devi. However, this is closer to democratic accountability than a strictly legal one.

More recently, Mahua Moitra had succeeded in getting relief from the Supreme Court that directed the Election Commission to take necessary steps against the offender. Consequently, Mahadev Shankar was barred from campaigning for the remaining 48 hrs left for the election for violating the Model Code of Conduct.

However, this recourse is inherently limited. Penalties for violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) can only be levied while the MCC is in force, which is after the election schedule is announced. However, sexist remarks are often made in rallies and interviews outside the timeframe of MCC.

Moreover, the MCC does not specifically address sexist comments and the violation is located in the generic clause  of "Parties and Candidates shall refrain from criticism of all aspects of private life, not connected with the public activities of the leaders or workers of other parties."

This is crucial particularly in light of Imarti Devi's retort to Kamal Nath where she called his wife and mother "item" and Nath himself a lucha lafenga (crook and good for nothing), a derogatory term. Imarti Devi resorted to the same patriarchal tools of Indian politics that she has been a victim of.

The Congress party in Madhya Pradesh has lodged a complaint with the Chief Electoral Officer for the same. Technically, Imarti Devi can be held guilty for violation of MCC in the same way as Kamal Nath for her statements. Yet, his comment has far greater political repercussions on Imarti Devi's political capital than vice versa. Thus, by ignoring the angle of sexism in its clauses, the MCC legitimises the male gaze in Indian politics.

As Babasaheb Ambedkar said, "Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic."

The final accountability rests with the Indian democratic electorate. But when the electorate itself validates and epitomises this culture, the only hope lies in reforming the law. Such change is crucial to not only make space for women in politics but to also break the gender binary norms, thereby making Indian political culture inclusive for all genders.

(Megha Katheria is a socio-legal researcher and a sub-editor at The Leaflet. Views are personal.)