Author – Dr. Amritpal Kaur

When society wants to keep her women safe, it never chooses to make public spaces safe for her. Instead, it aims to lock her up in a private space, from one sheltered space to another (home, school, college or home of a friend).

As a society, can we imagine public spaces like street corners, footpaths, nukkads, tea stalls, parks etc. full of women who are chatting, strolling, laughing, breastfeeding, planning meetings or next strike etc. or simply watching the world go by as they sip tea and discuss politics and cricket in open, as men do? The answer is a NO because Indian women do not loiter and ones who do are not considered to be respectable, rather dangerous to society.

There is no place for a woman to go alone, just by herself, peacefully read a book, look at flowers, trees, sit on a bench, unwind herself or stroll around without having to deal with lecherous stares, groping hands and despicable comments. This is a reflection of a larger social attitude that assumes that women without men are ‘alone’ even if they are in large groups.

A man would rather have open, unquestioned and legitimate access to public space. Even after decades of struggle Indian women couldn’t claim their right to fun in public space. A culturally neutral or unmarked woman is considered to be the most respectable by Indian patriarchal society. She is assumed to be a young, able-bodied, Hindu upper caste, heterosexual, married or marriageable, not Dalit, not Muslim, not lesbian, not a disabled woman. This woman is considered to be the epitome of Indian womanhood on which the chronicles of modernity and honour can be concurrently written. She is the bearer of all cultural and moral values that define Indian society.

The respectability of a woman is directly related to the divisions between private and public spaces. A respectable woman in public must demonstrate linkages to her private space through dressing and body language, for e.g, neatly pinned sarees, well-placed dupattas, keeping their files or books close to their chest, emphasizing their large bags, wrinkled clothes at the end of their workday, waiting for a bus or waiting for inappropriate spaces, walking in goal-oriented ways, walking a linear path in parks and listening to walkman when alone, sitting conservatively on public transport seats, etc. This is what society expects from respectful women! Such classic postures of defensiveness which enables them to direct their attention inwards are clear indicators that they are in public with a purpose. They should appear to be doing something so that they are not misread as ‘out of place’ or hanging around without a purpose. A woman who is not able to demonstrate her private linkages in public is seen as a public woman or a prostitute.

Symbols of matrimony like bindis, mangalsutra, sindoor and green bangles signify respectability as marriage indicates a safe containment of woman’s sexuality and represents the model of good Indian womanhood who is worthy of being out in public, as compared to single women who are monitored more stringently and subjected to harassment and hostility much more on account of their becoming disrespectful due to their life choices. The notions of feminity that connect women to religion and motherhood intrinsically are widely acceptable in public as the demonstration of religiosity and devotion is an important marker of respectable womanhood. Not surprisingly, women are seen in large numbers (outnumbering men) at religious places as this gives their crumbled self a sense of worth without realizing that they are deliberately being used by the patriarchal setup.

Respectable women tend to get sympathy and help more easily when they protest against sexual harassment. Wearing symbols of respectability does allow women limited access to public spaces but it remains in the context of protectionism. It is more of a concession than a right.

As Simon de Beauvoir (a French writer, intellectual, existential, philosopher, feminist and a social theorist) rightly said: “One is not born a woman, but becomes one”. Indian women are schooled (intentionally) in learning feminine behaviour which ensures their safety and marriage prospects. As women, we are constantly made to watch ourselves (lines of control) by our families and society and to internalize (through constant self-scrutiny) good ways to conduct ourselves and when we grow we are ogled by men of all ages.

The body of a woman becomes a medium through which patriarchal codes are communicated and retained – the reserved (lower) gaze fixed at some point on the floor, the compliant nod of the head, the feminine swing of their hips, closely-held thighs, and shyly drawn-in shoulders. This makes them believe that this is the only way they are supposed to be. The private spaces where women are recognized as mothers, wives, daughters and sisters are most restrictive.

Right to public spaces is a citizenship right, but in Indian hierarchal society, citizenship is practiced on the principle of exclusion on grounds of caste, class, religion, race, age, sexual preference and property ownership, among others. The Unbelongers or Excluded groups include mostly poor (migrants); Dalits and other lower castes whose presence is barely recognized; Muslims who are stereotyped as criminals and potential terrorists; and women without a legitimate purpose.

Dalit women are allowed ample access as their free movement is essential for the survival of upper castes and classes as they are the only source of labour available to them, but their men are considered a threat to upper-caste women. However, this does not imply that they are considered to be respectable.

The exclusion of women from public spaces is indivisibly linked to the exclusion of other marginalized citizens. In order to make this exclusion justifiable, the notion of safety was designed in the form of a righteous desire to protect women. The factual reason is not that they will be violated, but that they might form consenting relations with the ‘unbelongers’ which is a great threat to Indian hierarchal social system (caste system). The focused motive on the safety of women is deeply rooted in conservative ‘sexual endogamy’ which instructs those sexual relations (esp. for women) must be kept within specifically defined groups in order to maintain the purity of blood/caste. Therefore, the deliberately designed notion of safety involves both sexual assaults and undesirable sexual liaisons (even if consensual).

It is quite interesting that both the potential molester and potential victim are denied access to public spaces on these grounds. The exclusion of the unbelongers is no way an act of kindness to women but a larger part of a complex process where marginalized groups are set against one another by outside forces with ulterior motives. In building up barriers for ‘anti-social elements’, it is women who are discouraged from using public spaces. No doubt, women feel a sense of belonging and comfort in places of consumption (malls, cafeterias), their access demands demonstration of the capacity to buy. Moreover, they remain under dual pressure to incorporate both the notions of a modern, well-groomed, and desirable but a respectable Indian woman.

Women wearing tight jeans and mini skirts with mangalsutras and choora bangles is a common sight behaving like a domestic goddess with high powered jobs. No way has it changed the idea that a woman’s primary place is in the private sphere. Moreover, spaces of consumption cannot be seen as public spaces as these are privately owned and owners have the legal right to control the access. That the upper and middle caste/class localities are safer for women is a myth as there is a strong desire among them to differentiate their areas as safe and not like lower caste/class spaces. Professional careers for married women are allowed as long as they realize that it is secondary to their primary roles as wives and mothers.

If our society is unfriendly to able-bodied women, it is even more hostile to disabled women, for whom simple acts of accessing public spaces for everyday tasks are hugely difficult. Disabled men tend to get greater access whereas disabled women are more susceptible to sexual harassment. Women’s access to public spaces expands after they marry (appropriately) and have children.

The mindset that good girl fun is highly limited fun is a reflection of a larger socio-religio-cultural attitude (cultural conservatism) where women are seen as a shame and repulsion in society owing to their bodily secretions (menstruation, ovulation and lactation). Most of the women learn quickly that being bad girls doesn’t pay off and it becomes more profitable for them to subtly operate the system of patriarchal sexual morality (through a model of respectability) than open rebel against it. However, this does not challenge the societal notion that women will always remain outsiders (in public) and will be cast either as good little women who need rules and boundaries or as transgressive bad women who threaten the social order.

When a woman chooses to take pleasure in public space as her right, she also challenges the division between private and public space i.e. between a respectable and non-respectable woman. A female body expected to be privately kept has the greatest potential to disrupt the structures of power and hierarchy in public. The model of respectability in public cannot stand the act of loitering (fun) as two are based on conflicting notions.

The right to pleasure or to take risks must be included in the right to live without violence as the struggle against violence and pursuance for pleasure cannot be separated because both are framed in the discourse of rights than protection. Exclusion can only be maintained through violence whereas quest to pleasure does not divide people into victims and aggressors. It is the difference and diversity that adds humanness and empathy to a society.

Only if women are allowed to make fun/pleasure seriously as a component of liberation and freedom that they would be able to define their own map of independence, spiritedness and responsibility for themselves. Feminism also needs to change its perspective from feminism that lacks joy to the feminism of inclusion seeking not just right to work (in public) but also right to fun and take risks.

Citizenship right, just as an adult franchise is a right that secures one’s belonging to a nation, and to truly claim citizenship women must claim to be able to access public spaces simply for fun and not for purpose. When we do that it becomes the responsibility of the state to protect its citizen’s right to public spaces independent of their caste, class, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, physical ability, clothing and perceived morality.