The first feminist movement in post-independence India that created national headlines was the 1972 Anti-Price Rise Movement in Bombay. War and drought had crippled the Indian economy, leading to escalating prices for essential commodities. This was the time when black marketeers ruled, and hoarding had become a menace. By 1972, the economic situation of the country had worsened to the extent that women were forced to come out on the streets to protest. These were educated middle-class women who were joined by those from the working class. In September, representatives from seventy women’s organizations collaborated and formed the Mehengai Pratikar Smyukta Samiti (Anti-Price Rise Women’s United Front) to fight rising costs under the joint leadership of Mrinal Gore of the Socialist Party, and Ahilya Ranganekar of the CPI-M (Communist Party of India-Marxist). Women from all walks of life, and different political groups, were invited to join the movement. From deputations to ministers to meetings and conferences, gheraos and dharnas, all possible avenues were tried but to no avail. The demonstrations continued for three years.
The Anti-Price Rise Movement gathered new momentum in 1973 when prices of milk increased, prompting women to enter the government-owned Aarey Milk Colony and stop the trucks from leaving. “They accused the government of progressively reducing the fat content in the milk” to charge a higher price and sell low-fat milk. Thirty women gheraoed the agricultural minister on 17 January 1973 for more than four hours and demanded a price reduction. Further, they asked for his resignation, “who according to them, was in league with the affluent sectors of society”.
It was a movement by the women for the women, and it had continued for three years. Though it could not accomplish much, the movement did succeed in drawing middle-class women out of their comfort zones to demand and fight for what was rightfully theirs. Also, it busted the myth that women had neither interest nor any voice in political matters as men did.
However, what it failed to do was highlight the issue of female oppression. As Radha Kumar observes, “Neither of them (Anti-Price Rise and Nav Nirman movements) seems to have asked, for example, why an increase in domestic expenditure should be the concern primarily of women rather than men, and to this extent, they seem to have accepted that the family was women’s sphere. Nor do they seem to have challenged women’s role as consumers rather than producers, or to have asked why the family should be tended as a unit of consumption rather than production.”
The fact that women offered bangles to officials to signify their unworthiness for public office seemed to reiterate rather than challenge the patriarchal typecasting of women. With the declaration of Emergency, the movement came to an end, but it did manage to initiate a change in society.
While a beginning had been made, there were larger issues that remained unaddressed – violence against women being one of them. It existed then and it exists now. Earlier, there was no legal protection given to women against physical abuse, but now there are laws that can be availed. That women are unaware or don’t approach the law, fearing disgrace, is another matter.
Despite being uneducated and poor, Mathura filed a case against her perpetrators. The Sessions Judge found no satisfactory evidence that proved that Mathura was a minor when the incident took place. The court found Mathura’s testimony “riddled with falsehood and improbabilities” and came to the conclusion that though she had had sexual intercourse in the police station, rape could not be proved. Further, the court noted that she was “habituated to sexual intercourse” and in all probability would have surrendered herself to the constable, but fearing that her aunt and lover would get angry with her, she pretended to sound virtuous before them. Based on this judgment, the District Judge acquitted the appellants. The High Court, however, reversed the Sessions Court’s order on the grounds that, as both the accused were strangers, it was highly unlikely that Mathura would make any overtures to them. Thus, the High Court termed the intercourse rape.
The matter reached the Supreme Court (September 1979) that reversed the High Court judgement on the basis of reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court judgement was based on three factors: firstly, Mathura did not resist or call out for help while she was being violated; secondly, there were no visible signs of physical assault on her body; and thirdly, the two-finger test revealed that she was “habituated to sexual intercourse”. The court also found the girl to be untruthful as she reportedly changed her statement filed in the FIR against one of the accused during the trial. Hence, it pronounced the accused not guilty.
The verdict created uproar in the country. Feminist groups organised a nationwide anti-rape campaign through demonstrations, poster marches, street plays, and public meetings, and sent petitions to Members of the Legislative Assembly and the prime minister. It was one of the most defining feminist movements of the time. Their biggest objection was regarding the “two-finger test”, which, for a long time, was the only way to prove that a woman had been raped. During the test, a doctor would insert two fingers inside the vagina of the victim to check whether the hymen had been ruptured. Going by the number of fingers admitted and the elasticity of the hymen, the doctor would then say whether the woman was “habituated to sex” or not.
The verdict overlooked two major issues. First, to assume the hymen could only get ruptured through sexual intercourse was medically incorrect, unscientific, and illegal. And second, it was presumed by the sitting judge that a woman could have sex only after marriage. The bench totally disregarded consensual pre-marital sex.
Recounting the incident and how it brought about changes in rape laws, writer Nishtha Shanti states that the “courts went so far as to say that since Mathura was ‘habituated’ to sexual intercourse, she perhaps initiated sexual intercourse, seduced the police officers, and then came out and cried rape in an effort to seem ‘virtuous’ in front of her brother and partner”.
Widespread opposition eventually forced the central government to amend rape laws. In 1983, a new category was added to the criminal law dealing with rape with the following directives:
As both incidents cited above portray, feminism was gaining ground in India and was addressing issues related to patriarchy as well. Yet, it failed to emerge as an organized movement that represented women from all sections of society. Not only were the feminists divided on ideology, but their emotional needs and desires also varied considerably.
Excerpted with permission from Middle Class India: Driving Change in the 21st Century, Manisha Pande, Aleph Book Company.