Robert A Silverstein
There is an article by Mar Longkumer, titled, “Imported Neo Feminism Vs Logic.” As an American who has spent a lifetime immersed in active politics and political issues, I feel that I must address a couple of points made by the author in his article. It is a bit presumptuous for me, as a male, to talk on behalf of women, but I have substantial experience with the feminist movement in America, and Naga women are free to comment on my article if it is published, so I will move forward with my comments.
First, I want to say that I agree with much of what the author says about the movement of political correctness in America, and I also agree with him that, “this new brand of Leftist politics is just as intolerant and irrational as the ones on the extreme Right.” But the author has a certain misunderstanding of the feminist movement which manifests itself in his article.
The author states, “No doubt there are aspects of gender inequality in the Naga customary tradition but the fact is that the vast majority of Naga Men by and large love and respect their women and children as in any other modern progressive societies; as is demonstrated by the majority of the women who are against reservation.”
There are a couple of observations I have about the above sentence. First, that “the majority of women…are against reservation,” presuming the accuracy of that statement, proves little. Most people are afraid of any change in the status quo, and women in a tribal society have reason to be afraid, as tribal society provides a role for them that goes back hundreds of years, as customary law mandates. They may also feel anxious, if not terrified, about taking a political position opposed by their husbands.
Secondly, and the main point I want to make in this article, is that the fact “Naga Men by and large love and respect their women and children,” misses the whole point. The Indian Constitution, sections 243T, 14, and 15 have nothing to do with “love and respect;” They concern only power.
The condescending words, “Naga Men by and large love and respect women and children,” would obviously manifest its condescension if the words were switched around: “Naga Women by and large love and respect men and children.”
I’m reminded of the Orthodox members of my own Jewish religion, where women are generally confined to the home. The Orthodox Jewish men, when confronted with accusations of treating their wives as second-class citizens, retort that, in the home, the women are the Queen. They are in charge of everything there, from the cooking and cleaning to the critical role of raising the children.
But the Orthodox men, deliberately in my view, fail to mention that the issue is not the importance of the duties of someone raising a family, but the freedom one has to choose to play that role. The Orthodox Jewish women play that role, and no doubt do not complain about it, as many Naga women do not complain about their role under customary law.
But 243T is for the women who are not in favor of the status quo. Going back to my Orthodox Jewish brethren, I have never heard one Orthodox Jew volunteering to be the King of his household. He is out in the business or professional world, doing what he wants. Could he choose to be the King of his household, giving the Queen the freedom to go out into the business or professional world? I presume he could. But he is the one with the power to choose, not her.
The issue related to all struggles for freedom is never about respect or love; it’s about the power to choose. In the long struggle in America for African-Americans to obtain equality in the fight for jobs, education, medical care, and more, the issue has never been about love and respect; it’s about the power to obtain what the white community has in a fair manner, not with the power all in the hands of the white community.
Finally, the author states, “And it is here that the feminists and the social justice warriors in their hysterical rage have failed to address the issue of 33% with the intellectual honesty and actively discouraged the voices of concerns for the integrity of Article 371 (A) with accusations. One can be sure that the thousands of decent Nagas who just didn’t give a damn about what the feminists …had to say, along with the bigoted and chauvinistic Nagas rose up to fight for the sanctity of Article 371 (A).”
The author loses me with this last paragraph of his article, above, where he seems to imply that the “hysterical rage” is a quality only the women possessed, fighting for equal representation on ULBs, and the men fighting them who had a monopoly on “the intellectual honesty….”
It was not the women who “actively discouraged the voices of concerns for the integrity of Article 371 (A),” but the men who threatened, intimidated, and used violence to discourage women from running for office on February 1st, all such activities by the men illegal, by the way, and it was the women who did things legally, going to court, a choice the men had and chose not to use.
The women were the intellectually honest ones in this battle, the men the intellectually dishonest ones. The women admitted that they were fighting for power, a power legitimized by the Indian Parliament with the passage of 243T, while the men disguised their fight to maintain complete power on all elective bodies by claiming their deep respect for tribal customary law, a fight obviously, in their view, worth bringing down not just the state government but bringing down the state itself.
Some women may seem hysterical, but the actions of the men are the cause of the criminality and chaos in the state.
