This chapter begins with a very apposite observation by the noted sociologist and feminist scholar Sharmila Rege that she wrote in her article “A Dalit Feminist Standpoint” (2018) to highlight the ground reality of the identity of Dalit women in India. Regardless of religion, women have historically been regarded as inferior and incapable of serious thought or action in the majority of traditions and societies. Most of the religious texts have made an effort to demonstrate that women’s subordinate status is advantageous on earth and willed in heaven. It is generally accepted that Manusmriti is primarily responsible for the derogatory status of Indian women in general. Ambedkar has justified this claim in Chapter 17, entitled “The Woman and the Counter-Revolution”, of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 3, through his comparative study of Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Manusmriti written by the Sage Manu. It is obvious from his reading that women were given respect and dignity during Kautilya’s time (375–283 BCE). It is recorded that women of his time used to possess the right to knowledge, property, divorce, support claims, and other rights. Apart from those facilities, monogamy, widow remarriage, and inter-caste relationships, as well as rules about fines, punishments, and punishment for men engaged in extra-marital sexual relations, were also prevalent. Men who remarried for the purpose of having a male child without waiting the prescribed amount of time, which is between 8 and 12 years under the specified circumstances, were fined heavily and penalised. When their husbands mistreated them or physically assaulted them, women had the right to legal redress. Dr Ambedkar found that women were treated as ‘free and equal partners’ of their husbands at the time. But women were devalued and denigrated by Manu, as evidenced by the higher standing of women in pre-Manu times since Manu told in V. 148 of Manusmriti: “In childhood, a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent”. Based on his reading of the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Manusmriti, Dr Ambedkar opines that these books categorically deny that women have the same subjectivity, agency, and dignity as men. Therefore, it appears that the Dalit women’s predicament is much worse than that of Dalit men. A glimpse of this tragic fate of Dalit women is located in Antahsphot (1981) where Kumud Pawade says, “I slipped on the slope of slushy sentiment in spite of myself and the feeling scares me. I saw my control slipping. I, a detached individual, have become a prisoner of our tangled sentiments. It is like a pain caused by the knotted tangled hair that can’t be combed clean. I become an outsider to the outsider” (31).

Representation of Gender

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Shubhendu Shekhar Naskar

摘要

This chapter begins with a very apposite observation by the noted sociologist and feminist scholar Sharmila Rege that she wrote in her article “A Dalit Feminist Standpoint” (2018) to highlight the ground reality of the identity of Dalit women in India. Regardless of religion, women have historically been regarded as inferior and incapable of serious thought or action in the majority of traditions and societies. Most of the religious texts have made an effort to demonstrate that women’s subordinate status is advantageous on earth and willed in heaven. It is generally accepted that Manusmriti is primarily responsible for the derogatory status of Indian women in general. Ambedkar has justified this claim in Chapter 17, entitled “The Woman and the Counter-Revolution”, of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, vol. 3, through his comparative study of Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Manusmriti written by the Sage Manu. It is obvious from his reading that women were given respect and dignity during Kautilya’s time (375–283 BCE). It is recorded that women of his time used to possess the right to knowledge, property, divorce, support claims, and other rights. Apart from those facilities, monogamy, widow remarriage, and inter-caste relationships, as well as rules about fines, punishments, and punishment for men engaged in extra-marital sexual relations, were also prevalent. Men who remarried for the purpose of having a male child without waiting the prescribed amount of time, which is between 8 and 12 years under the specified circumstances, were fined heavily and penalised. When their husbands mistreated them or physically assaulted them, women had the right to legal redress. Dr Ambedkar found that women were treated as ‘free and equal partners’ of their husbands at the time. But women were devalued and denigrated by Manu, as evidenced by the higher standing of women in pre-Manu times since Manu told in V. 148 of Manusmriti: “In childhood, a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent”. Based on his reading of the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Manusmriti, Dr Ambedkar opines that these books categorically deny that women have the same subjectivity, agency, and dignity as men. Therefore, it appears that the Dalit women’s predicament is much worse than that of Dalit men. A glimpse of this tragic fate of Dalit women is located in Antahsphot (1981) where Kumud Pawade says, “I slipped on the slope of slushy sentiment in spite of myself and the feeling scares me. I saw my control slipping. I, a detached individual, have become a prisoner of our tangled sentiments. It is like a pain caused by the knotted tangled hair that can’t be combed clean. I become an outsider to the outsider” (31).