‘The feminist future is in our grasp’ Sindhu R, author, Smashing the Patriarchy - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

‘The feminist future is in our grasp’ Sindhu R, author, Smashing the Patriarchy

ByAvantika Mehta
Jun 09, 2022 07:59 PM IST

The author of this guide for the 21st century Indian woman talks about the fearlessness of GenZ feminists, caste, the savarna gaze, feminism and humanistic capitalism

Smashing the Patriarchy is very different from your debut. How did you decide these were stories you wanted to tell?

Ripped jeans and smashed patriarchy: Delhi Pradesh Mahila Congress workers protesting against former Uttarakhand chief minister Tirath Singh Rawat’s comment on women on March 19, 2021. (Sanjeev Verma/HT PHOTO) PREMIUM
Ripped jeans and smashed patriarchy: Delhi Pradesh Mahila Congress workers protesting against former Uttarakhand chief minister Tirath Singh Rawat’s comment on women on March 19, 2021. (Sanjeev Verma/HT PHOTO)

I think of myself as a literary nomad and storyteller. I started off as a novelist, then wrote short stories and poetry, then moved on to non-fiction. I like to experiment with the written word, creative forms and structures.

Gender and sexuality have been running themes in my writing and research career. My novel Kaleidoscopic Reflections told the tale of five generations of inter-caste Tamil women, and my collection of short stories So I Let It Be revolved around female sexuality. With Smashing the Patriarchy, I wanted to tell stories of real-life badass women.

How did you pick your subjects? And did you pick them with the chapter in mind or did the juxtaposing come after the interviews?

The narrative built itself I think. I had a vague overall idea of what sort of chapters I wanted to write. However, the interviews decided the content. Women constantly amazed me with their ideas and got me thinking with their experiences - I kept building on what they told me and expanded my own views on various subjects. It was a lot of learning for me.

₹699; Aleph
₹699; Aleph

Smashing The Patriarchy is described as a guide for 21st century feminism. In what way is the book doing that and who is it book guiding?

I avoided the word feminism in the title because the book has interviews of women who call themselves feminists and those who don’t identify as feminists as well. However, they all acknowledge that the patriarchy affects their lives and want to smash it altogether. So the book is for anyone who wants to smash the patriarchy.

As a millennial yourself, what inspired you to write about GenZ feminists?

I’m constantly amazed by GenZ and how fearless they are; also how they use social media to get their voice through. I take a lot of inspiration from them. I suppose that’s why I wanted to write about GenZ. For the most part, however, I think, because of my own millennial mind, the book focuses on millennial women’s issues. Of course, there are various issues where millennial interests intersect with those of GenZ.

In what way did these young women guide you through life as you interviewed them?

Every interview helped me expand my own understanding of various issues. Many of these women also inspired me to let go of my own self-imposed impediments and go beyond. To embrace myself and speak my truths, as they speak theirs.

I was not convinced by the parts where you say political and economic ideology has no bearing on a person’s feminism. How do you reconcile that statement with the rest of the book, which appears to be about intersectionality?

My aim is not to be a champion of capitalism. I’m only trying to point out that gender inequality is entrenched in all patriarchies - whether the economic structure is communist, socialist or capitalist. While I myself believe in several socialist values, I do not see capitalism as the one true enemy. Because, for economies to grow (and create jobs), they must be a mix of several economic theories/practices. There is no one solution. As far as feminism is concerned, I think it’s bizarre to expect every woman to agree with any one economic ideology. Women work across various industries and may believe in various economic ideologies. While we may disagree with one another and debate, nobody has the right to bar another woman from claiming feminism based on her economic ideology. The same applies to political ideology. In the complex reality that we exist in, I do not see how we can form allyships with one another if we constantly engage in discrediting women based on their economic or political ideologies.

On the other hand, there’s the matter of intersectionality. In my personal experience, and through interviews I’ve conducted with women of various economic/political ideologies, I’ve found that it isn’t always true that people with leftist/liberal ideologies are super intersectional, while those with capitalist/conservative ideologies are against social inclusion. It depends highly on every individual. And there’s the matter of hypocrisy to consider. Claiming that one is intersectional doesn’t always translate to creating space for inclusion. Tokenism happens a lot. It’s a very complex situation and there’s no one simple answer. Through this book that’s what I’m trying to point out - by putting the mirror in front of various subjectivities and complexities.

You also write about encounter killings of rapists against whom there is no evidence. Are you saying such encounters are justified?

I’m not justifying these encounters. I am recounting what happened and examining how women from across the country reacted. And I briefly explore why everyday women reacted the way they did.

If such encounters were justified, how does that reconcile with data across the world which confirms that most extrajudicial acts are against racial/caste/religious minorities.

I think it is important to make the distinction between what I agree with and what I’m questioning/examining/critiquing. I agree with the data that you mention. In the book too, after I quote from a letter written by veteran feminists condemning the extrajudicial killings, I promptly point out that what they’re saying is true.

You use the phrase “humanistic capitalism”. What is it and what does it mean for feminists?

Humanistic capitalism is a phrase that’s widely used in management studies and in CSR circles. The World Economic Forum uses the phrase “Stakeholder Capitalism” with similar connotations to Humanistic Capitalism. Essentially, it is about re-evaluating company priorities and focussing on shared and sustained value creation. It’s about promoting humanistic ethics and working towards social justice.

Now, what does this mean for feminists? To form allyships with women across the spectrum and bring about tangible change, we must engage with organisations that promote Humanistic Capitalism. If one is radically opposed to the idea of capitalism and chooses not to engage in any way with (capitalist) companies – it’s a lost opportunity according to me. I’ve worked as a communications consultant with start-ups and corporates for many years in Mumbai, and I know that there are people within these organizations who believe in promoting social justice. Just because they work in a capitalistic environment, doesn’t mean they all lack humanism!

Caste is a personal issue for you as well. How did you navigate your perceptions with the lived experiences of the Dalit and Bahujan women you interviewed?

Yes, caste is a very personal issue. Being intercaste, having Dalit and Iyengar ancestry is complex - because often I am ostracised from claiming either identity. But that’s fine with me, because to be anti-caste for me is to try and transcend caste. Having said that, I must acknowledge my privilege - I can talk about transcending caste because I’m intercaste. I am very self-conscious about this and have never claimed to speak for Dalit women. I believe that, at the end of the day, we can all only speak for ourselves and our lived experiences.

When I interviewed DBA women, I wanted to foreground their thoughts. The conjecture that surrounds their interviews comes from my own subjectivity of course, and I’ve tried to be as honest as I can in demarcating that. Did I find common ground? Yes. Casteist prejudice is rampant across all sections of society, and I could relate on that account. Did I find differences in our experiences? Yes, based on our socio-economic locations, the specific issues we faced were entirely different.

Author Sindhu Rajasekaran (Sushant Desai)
Author Sindhu Rajasekaran (Sushant Desai)

You are one of the few to have directly and bluntly written about the divide over LoSHA (a crowd-sourced list of sexual harassers in academia that was compiled in 2017 by Raya Sarkar, a law student studying at UC Davis School of Law) Do you think that rift between older and younger feminists has healed?

Healing is a process. So it’ll take time, but I hope it is happening.

What is the next step for feminism and feminists in india?

I think feminists of various subjectivites will wage their own battles across India, across industries, across communities, and eventually smash the patriarchy. I fully believe that the feminist future is within our grasp.

What is one thing you see many women do or say that, in your opinion, they should drop for their own sake?

Judging other women’s choices. I’d say live and let live.

There has been some criticism of the book being written from a savarna gaze, and for only interviewing Dalit and Bahujan feminists on topics related to caste (and not, say, finance or fashion or consent.) Would you like to answer such criticisms here?

In fact, there are many Dalit and Bahujan women in the book who speak about matters other than caste. They speak about fashion, beauty, workplace issues, love, sexuality and society. But the thing is, most of these women are south Indian and do not have caste surnames (they use their father’s first names as surnames). Plus, some of these women do not consider caste as central to their identity, while others have not come out about their caste identity - so I haven’t mentioned their caste locations. I’ve only mentioned the caste locations of DBA women who actively speak about caste in their social/political lives. In the very first page of the book, I mention this in a footnote to clarify. In hindsight, maybe I should have highlighted this more.

Being intercaste myself and having Dalit ancestry, I was keen on having strong Dalit and Bahujan women’s voices. And they exist in the book. One thing I was very clear about was that I did not want to interview savarna women about anti-caste issues because I didn’t see why they should speak about DBA issues. So I only interviewed DBA women about those issues. I don’t see how that’s wrong. I hope this answers some of those criticisms.

Now, whether my gaze is savarana or not, I suppose that’s a very subjective argument. All that I write is from my personal subjective point of view. And if one sees that as a savarna gaze, well, that’s the other person’s subjective point of view. I do not have to agree or disagree with their point of view. There’s enough space for all of us to exist.

Any advice to the older feminists navigating a changing worldscape?

Since the book came out, I’ve had several conversations with older feminists who resonate with Smashing the Patriarchy. They say things like: although you wrote this book about millennials and GenZ, I could see myself in it. So I think age is really only a number. I have no advice specifically. I only hope we can find more resonances!

Avantika Mehta is an independent journalist.

Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it's all here, just a click away! -Login Now!

Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription

Daily E Paper I Premium Articles I Brunch E Magazine I Daily Infographics
freemium
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Friday, March 29, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On