Contrary to popular image projected in the media, gender emancipation is still a far cry in Manipur and indeed the entire Northeast. What can be a surer evidence of this than the fact that in the 60 member Manipur Legislative Assembly, there is only one lady, and this too somebody who contested as the wife of the serving chief and in a by-election for a seat the chief minister vacated as he had won two seats in the last Assembly election.
Had she contested independent of the reflected halo from her husband the chief minister, in all likelihood, the Manipur Assembly today would have been an all stag forum. Supposedly conservative states like Rajasthan and Bihar have seen women chief ministers. While the Bihar story is a little peculiar and may have been an exception rather than rule, the fact remains that there are so many other Indian states which are supposedly more conservative than the so called “gender liberated” Northeast which have seen important women political leaders and even chief ministers. Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, all have done no better than Manipur and many of these, including Nagaland where there are no women representatives even in the traditional village councils, have done far worse. Surprising is also the case of Meghalaya known for its matrilineal traditions amongst the indigenous communities, the majority Khasis especially. Obviously, they are matrilineal but their societies, social mores and values are very much patriarchal, for like all others, the state too has produced no woman political leader worth the name.
We have raised this issue before, but we are doing it again in the Habermasean belief that the function of the intelligentsia (or intellectuals) with substance is to keep issues of social relevance active in the public sphere so that debates are generated and affirmative action ultimately results. Perhaps it is a legacy of the thoughts of Jurgen Habermas that it is now vogue to make a distinction between “intellectuals” and “public intellectuals”. Intellectualism then is no longer just about books and brain, for now the belief is, while books and brains no doubt are necessary conditions they are hardly the sufficient conditions.
Gender emancipation definitely is an issue which deserves to remain in the public sphere of Manipur as it is very much an unfinished agenda. Perhaps it is even essential to resist the popular media image of women in Manipur in order that a substantive overhaul of our understanding of gender empowerment results. It is true that traditionally at the grassroots, women as a group has had very active political role in Manipur, in the valley as well as in the hills.
The two Nupi Lals (women’s wars) in the valley and Rani Gaidinliu’s uprising in the Tamenglong hills are just two examples. In the post colonial era, the ground below the gender issue has virtually shifted and the paradigms of politics as well as political leadership have altered unrecognisably, all unfortunately in favour of the patriarchal order. While women have remain trapped in tradition, drawing false succour from the bravado of traditional strength, the cream of the new power order has all passed on to men. If the representation in the state Assembly can be treated as any indication, the new ratio of this empowerment between the genders is 59:1. If the average of all state Assemblies thus far were to be taken, probably the ratio would be closer to 60 for men and less than one for women.
The point is those who eulogise women’s traditional strength as manifested in the Meira Paibi movement etc, may actually be, perhaps unconsciously, protecting the patriarchal interest. Meira Paibi movement is unique and we all need to be proud that this phenomenon has grown from our midst, but let it be firmly set against the correct context so that it does not become a deflection of the tremendous energy our women possess from the new political arena. At this moment, we will not be surprised at all if those who sing paeans to the traditional strength of the Manipuri women would not vote for a woman candidate in the electoral contest for power, not for any other reason than that the candidate is a woman. From the bastion of strength they are projected to be, they would suddenly in the new circumstance become the “weaker sex” unfit for true leadership. What irony? What hypocrisy?