Explorations on Feminist Leadership 2022-23 | S1: Episode 2

Episode 2: Love and Care in Relationships

Love & care are the most integral and indispensable parts across all forms of life. Love is a simple yet complex emotion, felt, studied, dissected and theorised by many minds across different generations. While love and its definition is ever-evolving, Noor, Pallack and Gaytri attempt to understand these nuances through their personal and unique lived experiences. They hope to create a candid dialogue around what it means to each of them from where they stand in different junctures of life, through intimate lenses and further contextualised by their feminist journey.

About the hosts

Pallack is a curious thinker and a tired extrovert. She works as a Mental Health Professional and spends most of her time deciphering the world that resides both outside and inside her. Passionate to learn, she wishes to educate and sensitise herself to the workings of the systems she finds herself embedded in. An amateur visual artist, she loves photographing and documenting her days through some form of art and music.

Noor is a multidisciplinary artist. She graduated as an Animation film designer from MIT institute of design, and is currently pursuing a PG Diploma in Expressive Arts Therapy from St. Xavier’s College. They created “”Ocean””, a judgement-free art community space, that fosters connection and explores themes of belonging, togetherness and freedom. They are also trained as a Menstrual Health educator, and facilitate menstrual awareness in marginalised communities.

Gaytri is currently a Communications Associate at Swasti, The Health Catalyst. She loves to bake, watch movies, crochet and hang out with her cats while drinking coffee. She is extremely passionate about social justice, rights, and social norms, especially from a gendered perspective. Occasionally, she loves to theorise about love and other emotions and how they are affected by wider social discourses and factors.

Transcript

Gaytri

Hello and welcome to “Explorations on Feminist Leadership by #One FutureFellows2022”,  a podcast by the 2022 cohort of the One Future Fellows, where we discussed, examine, and learn about all things feminist leadership. I’m Gaytri and my pronouns are she/they.

 

Noor

I’m Noor, and my pronouns are she/they.

 

Pallack

I am Pallack and my pronouns are she/her.

 

Gaytri

And today we will be talking about love and care in relationships. We will be exploring multiple themes like what love means to us, how we form these perceptions, the role of media and the formation of these perceptions, various ways we express love in different cultures, and how we can create love and harmony in consensual relationships.

 

Pallack

The rationale behind choosing this is that we feel emotions, bind and unite all human experiences. Love and care are integral and indispensable parts across all forms of life. And so while love can be experienced or understood as a complex emotion dissected and theorized by many minds across different generations, our attempt together is to understand what it means from our lived experiences, but also contextualized by our feminist journey. With its due twists and turns, we present you today, love and care in relationships. So maybe we start with understanding what it means to each of us. What do you think love means to each of you?

 

Noor

For me, love is like a home. It is held and contained like four walls of safety and protection. And what home means to me is a space to be vulnerable and accepted and nurtured from deep within.

 

Gaytri

What love means to me is, I guess it is about the gestures and the emotions that we feel and words, I guess. Maybe all that is a love language thing, but that’s how I define it. It feels like the end goal of things, the bedrock, the foundation of all my relationships, either romantic or platonic, and I feel like it’s one of the most important, most talked about, yet unexplored concepts out there. My perception of love was mainly romantic in the beginning, like as a child I used to think of love only in a romantic sense, but as I have explored it a little bit more, I’ve realized the importance of platonic love and obviously, like media has played a big role in my perception of love. So maybe we can discuss more on that later, but what are your thoughts on love Pallack?

 

Pallack

So, love for me has meant safety. I think for the longest time, safety and love, these two feelings would have no real distinction in its meaning. Feeling unwavered, feeling unapologetic, feeling unadulterated – all of this has felt very synonymous with love and close to what Noor defines or understands as home so homely. However, with the ever evolving experience of all emotions as we grow old, I think love has also brought me so much joy that it brings me this really, really unique feeling of invincibility. I think love makes me feel invincible, so it could be immunity from my fears, my insecurities, from the everyday intrusive thoughts. And in many ways, if safety is embedded in the heart of love, I think invincibility becomes somewhat of an antidote to all psychological warfare. I feel love can fully hold you and it can consume you. And maybe, just maybe, that’s why it’s so powerful.

 

Gaytri

I think that’s beautiful.

 

Pallack

Yeah, thank you.

 

Gaytri

I feel like I want to build a little on what both of you said about love feeling like home and safety. Like in my perception of love, right, I also have that feeling of like, oh, I want this one person to be my home. But like, like I said, I was quite obsessed with romantic love being the only form of love, because that was the one kind of love that I sort of craved because I did not find it readily available or like, seen around me. So that was something that I used to crave a lot. And like, that’s the whole point of like just like me trying to make the person feel like home, except I never really knew what home felt like. So that like lead to some really skewed perceptions of love. But obviously rom-coms and all these romance books that I read did not help at all. They really just skewed it even more. But I feel like feminism has really sort of helped me develop and understand it so much better.

 

Noor

Yeah, adding to what Gaytri was saying, I think the way love has been defined for us is very ambiguous and abstract and it is always something to long for and yearn for and like Pallack mentioned, it makes us feel invincible. And you know, they tell us that everybody wants love, but we remain totally confused about how to actually practice love in our everyday life and how to express love. Yeah.

 

Gaytri

So where did your idea of love originate from, Noor?

 

Noor

I think it’s definitely movies and rom-coms. Also, Disney movies, a lot. I constantly yearn for like a perfect person who was just good at everything – like looks the most amazing, dresses up amazing, does photography, plays the guitar. Just is some invincible person like Superman basically.

 

Pallack

Right out of all our fantasies together as one human being?

 

Noor

Yeah.

 

Gaytri

Yeah. Movies and books really do that to you, right? Like media plays such a big influencing role in our lives, especially in our perceptions of things. And something like love, which is so deeply conditioned in us, ingrained in us, we are told to sort of crave it, want it, need it. It’s like the end goal, right? Like, especially in the Indian context, if you look at it, love is something that is the end goal. Love and marriage. Like they are taken interconnectedly even though they are not. But that’s always the end goal. Like you are fulfilled only if you have a husband or a wife. Like or if you have a family, as they say.

 

Pallack

Right. I think what we’re trying to also maybe understand is that when we say love, we actually mean relationships here, which is that you know, the idea of our entire purpose or existence boiling down to maybe having a very, very fantastic, dream-like relationship? That is full of love and care. However, just however I feel I’ve had the good fortune of understanding and observing and feeling love by perhaps my mother’s affection, which remains currently also the template, the archetype, the entire yardstick against which love is measured, understood or held closely. But just like any young mind, growing up, I think one would always find me sitting right below the television for hours inhaling these movies and TV shows that taught me that maybe not love, but the expression of love looked a certain way. And a very interesting entry point of maybe romantic love was maybe introduced to us through media, beyond the parental affection, into a child’s mind. So maybe try to understand and trace back where it all really started from. What do you think you originally saw or were exposed to that made you understand what relationships could look like?

 

Noor

I was just thinking in terms of, you know, the movies, shows, books, the narratives, we hear about love, I feel like all of those narratives have been written by men. And all my life I’ve thought that, you know, love is primarily a topic that women contemplate about with more intensity and vigor than anybody else. But even then, the theories of love have been written by men, and I would like to quote bell hooks. She says that “men theorize about love, but women are more often love’s practitioners” (snap, snap, snap snap).

 

Gaytri

I love bell hooks. Yeah, I feel like she’s one of the greatest writers ever. Yeah, for me, I guess if I have to like, really go back and like see where it all began, I guess maybe this is just my perception. But I feel like for all of us, we are types of love. They all formulate at the very beginning, you know, in our families. It’s the way we see it, the way we experience it in our homes that we find out what we miss or what we want and we make that our love language, sort of. So for me in my family, like there was not a lot of affection or love between my parents. And I was an only child for a very long time till I was about nine. So for those formative years, that was just a lack of affection, right? And that kind of translated into me having my love language as words of affirmation and touch, you know, that is something that I developed because that is the way I wanted affection. That was something that was missing in me. But also I find myself performing a lot of acts of service because that’s how I saw love being shown to me by my parents. That’s how I ended up doing it. Like if you look at things in a cultural perspective, say in the South Asian context, right? You see so many posts and so many people talking about how Asian parents always just cut up fruit and give them to you, which is something that I have experienced, like when my dad came back to live with us, I would be studying and he would just come and bring me fruit. I would not talk to him at all, the entire day. Like we would not have conversations at all, but he would try and show his love to me by just making me food.

 

Pallack

Right… Don’t you think that in a lot of ways that’s how we’ve come to imbibe these practices? It’s interesting that you said that this is how you’ve experienced it in your formative years and it makes me curious how our parents, our respective parents have come to understand and practice the expression of love through their experiences, perhaps their formative years. How perhaps even their parents offered love in the form of acts of service. Having to check with you for having to call you. These are all forms of communication, but with the hint of love in the name of protection, in the name of care, in the name of support. These expressions are very, very misunderstood or misrepresented. So perhaps you all try to understand what it is that makes us express the way that we do. Because when I like to think of what it is that could be my love language, I completely align with words of affirmation and touch. But very interestingly it’s also because that’s the only form of love I’ve witnessed, not the form of love if you understand. So it’s interesting that means that we could have that same alignment even though we’ve experienced it by growing up. So maybe Noor could help us understand what it is that she is expressed when it comes to love language.

 

Noor

I think for me, I’ve always thought of love language as spending quality time together. Not not even quality time, just spending time together, being physically present together and listening to each other talk. Yeah, I do not expect them to do anything for me or nor do I do anything for them. But what I would do is make the person feel held and as I said before, just be present.

 

Gaytri

I think that’s a great way to build a lot of love and harmony in your relationships. I think it brings a lot of comfort to just be sitting with somebody for a while. (Yeah) Like at times I don’t want to talk. I just want to be held. And I think that’s not the first.

 

Pallack

How can you feel loved and held at the same time? What kind of experiences make you feel loved and held at the same time?

 

Gaytri

I think it’s when, if I’m feeling down, I think just somebody just being there telling me it’s going to be okay and they have my back. I think that really makes me feel very comforted and very loved because it’s just really nice when somebody is just there, you know?

 

Noor

What about you, Pallack?

 

Pallack

So I would like to think that a large portion of how I understand love would be these borrowed ideas from these very, very skewed narratives like we were discussing, that love needs to be grand and love needs to be very quantifiable. On the outside, it should be seen, it should be visible. But I’ve also come to that when it’s time to maintain and nurture relationships, whether they’re romantic, platonic, even as dynamic with our caregivers or somebody that we are providing care to, that love can be very, very. It can be as simple as a “How are you?’ And it can be as simple as just here to let you know that if you need anything, I’m going to be present through it. I think sometimes the idea of love or how we feel about it can make us feel very strict about how we experience it with ourselves as well. So if we’re trying to offer our support, love and a lot of unconditionality, even by our own bodies or by our own selves, if it is not something that we can be, that we can measure and quantify, it may not often feel enough and so a lot of our talk about love, about “self-love” is also extremely, extremely nuanced because we don’t know how to hold enough space for our own bodies, for our own mind, because we’ve never really understood how to explore it with those around us. So I think the first part that I really do, what I think of love and care is, even with this, is to be gentle. I think it’s a beautiful step in the rule. Understanding the case that is what the outcome is, the approach will uniformly be gentle and that is a rather bigger implication of support than what the words actually mean, thank you. The other smaller element, but a very integral one, is to simply understand that when I think of communication so communicating the right gestures I feel so often if all of you agree, we used to learn this a lot which is you know, “It was not my intention to say this” or “It was not my intention to deliver this”. I think it’s very integral to understand that we all come from different walks of life and so we carry a different size of baggage and we feel the weight of this baggage very differently. And have spent 100% of our life relying on our core beliefs to sustain us. So when we think of partnership, whether it’s in any form of dynamic to blend into someone else’s way of being can be very complex and critical. The only thing that I think we may want to reflect on is the biases that we carry before we hold others accountable for their role. And so we may want to constantly offer curiosity. I think curiosity is the only form of love that I’m trying to explore currently. Curiosity before consensus, and I think when we think of healthy love as well, healthy relationships, supportive love, it could look very different to each of us. And so maybe we just start by developing the practice, maybe the language to value our needs and then revise the needs of the relationship. Any thoughts?

 

Noor

I really resonate with the idea of curiosity. I think for me also, I expect that in the space of a loving relationship, there should be space for experimentation and exploration and discovery. Like to reach outwards and to reach inwards as well to explore who you are and who the other person is. I think that’s the way I look at curiosity.

 

Gaytri

Adding to that, so Pallack mentioned two points – one about self-love and one about the curiosity. So I’ll talk about curiosity first. I think it is so important to continue to stay invested and interested in somebody’s life. I think that that is what keeps a relationship alive and healthy. And I mean it in the sense of all relationships, even in friendships. I feel like through books and movies, everybody tries to make love seem so effortless. But it is not. (Yeah, absolutely). It is not. It is a lot of work that you are constantly putting in. You are constantly choosing to be there for somebody you know. In your friendships, in your romantic relationships, in your professional relationships, in all sorts of relationships, every day you are choosing to be there for a particular person. And it takes a lot of effort, time, and energy to care for somebody (Right). And staying curious is extremely important. Now coming back to the self love point. So while you were talking about self love, I was just thinking about how when we talk about love and care, the first thought that comes to us is always about others. It is never internal. It is never ‘I love myself or I love taking care of myself. (I wish to build a relationship with myself.) Yeah, there. We oftentimes forget the most important person in our life, which is our own selves, especially when people are in love or they care about people. We oftentimes tend to forget about ourselves or we lose ourselves in our relationships. We get so consumed by the different forms of love and affection. And because it takes so much time and effort, right, we forget to put that sort of time and effort into building a relationship with our own selves as well. It is really important to connect with our own selves, to know what we want, to know what we like, to spend some time with ourselves as well. I think if we are not in sync with ourselves, it’s really difficult to have a healthy, loving relationship with others. So what do you guys think? What makes a relationship full of comfort or harmony?

 

Pallack

I completely agree. I think the word that I often use to explain is ‘effort’ because there are certain words that because we are down sometimes and maybe effort comes with a little bit of that weight, which is I think relationships and nurturing relationships as a result of a lot of skill and labour. Often people around me, just as I was mentioning before, would want to garner trust in communication by saying “My intention is to communicate this”, “My intention is to help you understand something”, but it is never followed enough or followed up with some language. And while I deeply agree, I do feel your intention is integral to what it is that you’re trying to achieve. It is also just as integral to develop a skill where our communication or communication style and our intent are also aligned. So I feel one cannot trump the existence of the other. It’s also important to consider that when I say skill based relationships, I don’t mean that in order to be in a relationship, in order to offer nurturing a relationship, one has to develop a certain amount of skill as a prerequisite. It comes with experiential learning. It comes with the diversity and the richness of many, many different relationships of our life. However, it is the consistency and the perseverance that helps me understand what can allow me to be more present for myself and those around me.

 

Noor

So for me, a relationship which has comfort and harmony… I think the first thing that should be there is honesty and authenticity from all the parties present in the relationship. Like just being true to each other I think really makes a difference. Another thing that I would think of could be empathy, really understanding each other because it’s really, really beautiful to be understood by somebody else and to understand somebody else. Another thing is respect. Definitely. I think no matter what their beliefs, actions or ideas are, it is important to always respect them.

 

Pallack

Thank you Noor, for that really insightful conversation. In therapy, this is something we often say, which is, relationships can break us, but relationships can also heal us. This is how we come to our conclusion today. With our ever-evolving relationships with relationships, it’s through this vicarious learning, some painful and some joyous experiences that we attempt to theorize our understanding of love and care. Where is it you get your ideas of love? Is it the same as it was growing up? What is or what can be your love language? How do you find a way to express them not just to those around you, but also yourself? These questions stay with us through the morning chai and the evening coffee.

 

Noor

To our listeners, thank you for joining us and listening in today. We really appreciate your support. If you liked this episode, please follow us on Instagram and Facebook @OneFutureCollective and @onefuture_india on Twitter. And keep an eye out for future episodes of “Explorations on Feminist Leadership by #OneFutureFellows2022”. Please leave your questions, comments or feedback for us on Anchor or in our DMs. We look forward to hearing your thoughts. Until next time, take care of yourself and we hope that we can explore more together.

 

Sochcast Ad:

Like this Sochcast? Tune in for more, with the Sochcast app from the Google Play Store. 

End of transcript

Resources mentioned by the hosts

  1. All about Love by bell hooks: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/17607

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 7

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 6

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 5

Uncuff India Episode 3: Protection and Power: the values of the Indian Police Force

The third episode of the series examines the perceptions regarding the police and its relationship with different individuals and groups on the basis of their social identities. The police system is slowly becoming a weapon of choice for ensuring discipline and the episode dives into the values that guide this. The episode also delves into the messaging around the police force and the multiple ways in which it is expressed and/or experienced.

We are joined by the passionate Neeraj Shetye in this episode. Neeraj is the Partnerships and Communications Manager at the Oxford India Centre for Sustainable Development (OICSD) at Somerville College, University of Oxford. Prior to OICSD, Neeraj worked at the Oxford Internet Institute as a Research Support Officer.  Neeraj consults grassroots collectives in India on program design and outreach.

 

We are again accepting submissions for the Uncuff India Prize, a creative competition where listeners can submit creative pieces basis the theme of the episode and they stand a chance to win a cash prize of INR 1500. You can find more information about the competition here. What are you waiting for?

Transcript

[Intro]

Sanchi

Hello everyone and welcome to our podcast Uncuff India by One Future Collective. My name is Sanchi and my pronouns are she, her.

Uttanshi

My name is Uttanshi and my pronouns are she and her. We are your hosts today and it’s so good to have you all listening in.

[Intro ends]

Uttanshi

In today’s episode, we will unpack police brutality by situating it in the context of the Indian socio economic and political context. It will also explore whether police brutality and the institution of law enforcement are characterised by any notions of toxic masculinity.

Sanchi

Yes, thank you, Uttanshi. As we know, police brutality has, over the past years, become a weapon of choice for many states to douse or weaken any protests or unrest. Not only has the regular recurrence made it normal but it has also begun to be glorified as a desired medium for ensuring law and order. The perception of the police force as a means of protection is rapidly changing in how only a very select few are protected at the expense of others and it can now then be argued that the police has become a mere symbol of state power.

Uttanshi

To discuss this and to share their insights on the topic with us, we have with us Neeraj. Neeraj is an aspiring public policy researcher with an interest in Indian social policy and its social justice approach. He is currently working as the Research Support Officer at the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford. Most recently, he graduated with an MSc in Politics of Conflict Rights and Justice from the School of Oriental, Asian and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. At SOAS, he was affiliated with the Center on Conflict Rights and Justice as a graduate Research associate and worked as a SOAS Digital Ambassador. At SOAS, he co-curated a three-day conference celebrating 75 years of Indian independence with a progressive critique of the system ‘India at 75 in Review’. He has been involved with grassroots initiatives in India since the COVID-19 pandemic such as Khana Chahiye Foundation, a hunger relief operation in Mumbai, and Eklavya India Foundation in Central India. Thank you so much Neeraj for taking the time out to be able to participate in this podcast and to share your really valuable insights. We’re very excited to hear from you and learn from you over the course of this episode.

Neeraj

Thank you Uttanshi and thank you Sanchi for the introduction and thank you for this opportunity. I’m glad to be connected with One Future Collective today.

Sanchi

Thank you so much, Neeraj. And yes, thanks for joining us today to discuss this extremely pertinent topic and we are really looking forward to hear from you on it. So let me start straight away and ask you- what are your own thoughts about the police. How do you perceive the police system and if this perception has changed over the years?

Neeraj

To be frank, I think I need to clarify my positionality and that’s very important because when one talks about police brutality and one talks about the perception of police, it’s important to know the socioeconomic background of the person who’s speaking because that affects a lot of how people view the police. Over the past few years, I’ve realised that my positionality, of course, comes from a much more privileged space where police as a protector was the only way that we saw the police and that’s how it was described in, say, family drawing room discussions that we had and growing up, I mean, some of my family members were a part of that institution. So that created this perception of police being the protective force for the general population, but over the past few years, I realised that, you know, with my work on the field and with engaging with initiatives on the ground, the perception is different and not everyone looks at the police with the same mindset and that has led me to question the whole idea of whether the police force is merely a protective force. Can it be an oppressive force, and if yes, then what are the ways in which we can sort of reform it? But yeah, my perception has changed over the past years and that is only due to my engagement with activists and grassroots collectives and communities on the ground.

Uttanshi

Thank you so much for that, Neeraj. I feel, you know when I was listening to you speak, even I was thinking about what my perception initially was given my background, my family, and similar to you what I heard my parents describe the police to be and how it has changed. Do you want to share a little bit about- what do you think led to this change in perception for you and what do you think forms the core of the police system? And do you think that the messaging around the police itself is reflective of, or you know, or believes in this core themselves? What are the agents from which this messaging is received about the police, what they do, who they are, what is their role in the society, etc.

Neeraj

Right, so I’ll answer your first question. I inherently see like multiple questions in this one conversation. So, the first question is about perception and how it changed and for me it was during the pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 when I started engaging with Khana Chahiye Foundation, which was a hunger relief operation, and we worked on the ground and it was a civil society led initiative which was of course, had to be in tandem with the local government body, the police system and all of that. We reached out to communities in Mumbai specifically and around Mumbai who were absolutely in distress, and these were communities who had lost their only source of livelihood. And for us, COVID-19 was not like, for us who were on the ground, COVID-19 was not just a health emergency; it eventually became like this livelihoods emergency because people often said on the ground that, you know, COVID might not kill us, but hunger will, because there was people didn’t have the basic necessities for themselves. And in this whole situation, you could see people doing the absolute, you know, people resorting to absolutely desperate measures to ensure that their family is supported. They would go out. These were daily wage earners, right, so, they used to go out, try, to like, sometimes beg but also sell stuff on the ground and this was during the lockdown, so of course they were not met with the empathy that they deserved. And police became that force that was tasked with ensuring discipline on the streets and they would often, you know, resort to violence, straight up violence in these communities and their only explanation to us was that, you know, if you don’t instill this kind of discipline with the lathi, people wouldn’t listen to them. So, it was almost like they had infantilized the whole population and that was like the beginning of how I started viewing the police not just as the protective force, but also like this patronizing force that was trying to instill, that was apparently tasked with instilling discipline in the population, which is, which I feel is should not be how the police system functions because that’s not their responsibility to instill this certain idea of discipline into the population. The idea is to ensure that there is law and order and to ensure that you know things can things are moving swiftly and smoothly as possible but resorting to violence for towards the general population is not the way to go and that doesn’t create a very, that doesn’t help the police perception to be very honest. What are the core ideals now? I believe that I don’t know what forms the core ideal, of course, violence might be one of it. Discipline, as in a certain idea of discipline also forms this core idea of the Indian police system. But I know for a fact that empathy doesn’t form, empathy is not a part of those core values. And of course, that doesn’t mean I’m generalizing. There are, of course, I’ve come across police officers who have been quite empathetic towards, you know, but those are as individuals outside, sometimes even outside the police, outside the police uniform they have been empathetic individuals. But in general, I don’t feel empathy is a part of the police system and there are a lot of problems to that. We can discuss it later, but I feel, yeah, that’s the problem. The core values are very rigid. There’s a certain idea of, you know, control that the police resort to and that is, I feel, not so relevant into this society.

Sanchi

Yeah. Thank you so much for sharing that with us, Neeraj and something that you mentioned really stood out to me that how violence may be seen as a core value of the police system, especially in India, but empathy unfortunately is not. And taking from that, you have also already mentioned right in the beginning the importance of looking at one’s own positionality when thinking about what our perception of the police system is. Taking on from that, I would like to ask you how do you think different people perceive or experience the system of police and how different it is for different people, how does it happen or what do you think forms the basis for this difference? And I think the core values that we just spoke of may have a lot to do with it, so I’m curious to know your thoughts on it.

Neeraj

Fundamentally, I feel the way police as a unit is even looked at changes a lot of things and this is rooted in the socioeconomic backgrounds of individuals, communities in spaces like metropolitan spaces like Mumbai and I can speak for Mumbai, but I know a lot of these factors might be the same in other parts of the country, might not be the same- again, there are other factors. There are other social factors such as you know, the religion of an individual, caste identity of an individual, all of these factors do contribute, but in urban spaces like Mumbai also like economic factors, right. Your class background matters and that generally shapes the opinion one has of the police, so you would see like, I mean the bottom strata of the society, the lower class, the working-class communities of the city is often scared of the police in a way. I mean there’s a certain form of fear which is not the same among middle class or upper middle class or upper even the upper class of the society, right, the economically well-off class of the society. They look at police in a very different way and I’ve engaged with all kinds of people in the past few years, and I’ve noticed that the way police exert their power also differs. They know for a fact that working class communities are easy targets, working class communities can be ‘disciplined’, can be used, you know, can be dominated through their perception. So that affects in the way we view the police and also police view themselves, right? So, they are, certainly, like I’ve seen police members, police officers, change their demeanor over time when they move from neighborhood to neighborhood. So, you’ll have, like someone being excessively dominating in a very, you know that masculine kind of a way in a working-class neighborhood but that same person would be extremely quiet, in a very quiet demeanor in like you know, in an upper middle-class neighborhood. And that’s, I mean that also shows how police view themselves, where and how they operate in certain spaces, so I feel socioeconomic factors do contribute to a lot of perceptive reality. I mean, of course middle-class background, I mean people coming from the middle-class often have representation in the police force, so they have a very different way of looking at the police. They look at them as a fellow community member, but that’s not the case for people coming from working-class neighborhoods. A lot of them do not have that kind of representation in the police force so they often look at the police as like a danger more than more than someone that they can look up to for protection. So yeah, that, I mean that’s the way I think socioeconomic factors contribute a lot.

Sanchi

Yeah, I think it is. That highlights very well how the class background of a person might so deeply affect how they view the police and I was wondering if you’d also like to shed some light on how a person’s identity markers such as caste or gender might also play into this perception.

Neeraj

Absolutely. I mean, as I mentioned before, when we work in the working-class neighborhoods of the city, now who is the working class, right? A majority of the working-class neighborhoods that we have worked in came from religious minority backgrounds, especially Muslims and also oppressed caste communities. Now these communities haven’t had that kind of privilege where they could participate in the labor force in the same way that other communities have and a lot of these communities are Dalit Bahujan. Communities who have settled in these certain, you know, ghettoized neighborhoods, and that’s an offensive word in a way, but I mean, social scientists tend to call them these ghettos around the city, and communities here have clustered themselves in and these are specific neighborhoods. Anybody who works on the field knows for a fact that this is the reality on the ground and anyone who disagrees with it clearly hasn’t is clearly intentional or doesn’t know how to look at the society in a general way. So, if you look at Indian society, of course most majority, I mean most metropolitan cities would have these clusters which are deemed to be dangerous, right? And we have noticed that they are given some very offensive slang terms which I do not want to repeat them on today here, but I think people would know what those slangs would be and those are very offensive, often associated with religious minorities, often associated with oppressed caste communities. This idea of criminalization is imposed on these communities and that’s the reality. I mean it’s time for, I feel people coming from privileged backgrounds, social scientists coming from privileged backgrounds to accept that reality, acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong with their own communities and start reflecting on those values themselves rather than, you know, preaching some form of ideas onto the already oppressed community. So, I think those ideas matter, those identity markers are exceptionally important when one analyzes police in general, policing forces in general, yeah.

Uttanshi

Thank you so much, Neeraj and while I was listening to you speak, there’s just so much to, I think think back to you know and while you were speaking, I’m thinking where are these ideas of violence, disciplining, protection, etc. coming from, right, and how do they drive or shape the police person’s behavior or their actions? And you know, and I know that this is something you study very, very fondly and you know, you’ve been very interested to understand this phenomenon as well but, you know, tying back to the point about what you said, right, almost clearly that came out of what you were saying was empathy is not a part of the system, maybe as part of an individual person when they are not wearing their uniform, but there is a certain level of violence, a certain duty towards maintaining discipline, a certain level of harshness, if I may say so, that gets associated with the identity of a police person. What do you think drives that identity and what do you think, you know, is there something that drives that identity at all? And if yes, what according to you, is that?

Neeraj

Of course, there is this idea, this very idea of masculinity that drives it, that you know someone has to be more assertive, someone who has to be physically, you know, in a particular shape, of course has to be like this macho person, if I can use that word, and should have that certain idea of confidence and harshness as Uttanshi said. These ideas are stemming out of this idea of masculinity that has been normalized and this masculinity has taken different shapes over time. And in today’s time, we see a different kind of like a Hindu nationalist masculinity that is being portrayed in a particular way, but of course, there are other forms of masculinity as well. But this core idea of masculine identity, which is considered to be, you know, with this particular idea of voice, tone, physical demeanor, all of these things together form this idea of what ideal policemen or ideal protective force should be. And this comes from a larger idea of defense forces, I feel, so police force is just like the localised form of protection service, but then the larger idea of the military and the defense forces that are there and the way they are shaped right, that inherently also contributes to how localized protection forces or localized even vigilante groups see themselves. This whole idea of ‘hamare Jawan’ (our soldiers) right, I mean ‘Jawan khade hain sarhad par’ (the soldiers guard the borders) and this whole idea of exerting force, dominating and constantly being aggressive and that aggression gets translated into very localised formats. So when I for example, worked on the local right-wing groups in India, I noticed that their idea of masculinity is also stemming from this idea of how the protective forces see themselves, these defense forces see themselves and they would try to nurture it. I felt that these were people who had aspirations to join these forces but never got through, which is why now they are victim of this whole idea of this whole notion of Hindu nationalism and dominating certain other oppressed groups. So it’s very, it’s not that complicated, but at the same time it is, and the nuance is necessary and we haven’t been able to sort of like, you know, dissect that nuance that well. But it definitely stems from a very aggressive personality that forms the whole idea of Indian masculinity today.

Uttanshi

Yeah, and every time I watch anything to do with, you know, police representation, even in pop culture, for example, there is a very streamlined understanding, appearance, behaviour, you know that that they depict and just thinking back to a few of these shows that you know have aired for I think years now and have been fairly popular, it’s not just to say that you know, only the male police officers behave a certain way. This movement and this reliance on aggression, this reliance on I have more power than you because I am in a certain uniform and I have a certain level of state backing, I think, permeates across genders who serve on these forces as well. This is, of course, not to generalize and to, you know, to echo your point earlier about how it is something that everybody within the forces do, but as a system, it is something that really encourages it that hinges on these. Do you have anything to add to that as well? I’m just curious to know because you know, often when we talk about toxic masculinity, there is an association of genders as well and how it may be useful for us to perhaps think of it as a set of behavior patterns, perhaps a set of, you know, beliefs and attitudes that can permeate across genders as well.

Neeraj

No, I absolutely agree because this idea of masculinity has been so deeply rooted in the police system and as I said before, empathy doesn’t form the core value of it because generally in our Indian understanding, empathy is associated with femininity for some reason, right? I mean, you are not that harsh or you are not a decisive person for some reason and your heart bleeds for somebody constantly are these ideas. I’ve noticed that when you talk about empathy in the context on the ground, you’re often associated with, like, you know not-so-masculine ideas, I don’t want to say exclusively feminine ideas too, but again, not-so-masculine ideas. It doesn’t have a space in toxic masculinity. The only way you show empathy is like towards your family but your masculinity in public arena does not have empathy driving the way you function. And I honestly believe, of course, pop culture has a lot to blame, but then again, this is coming from someone, like for myself, I have distanced myself from engaging with pop culture that much. So, if you ask me, the last film I watched, of course I haven’t watched films in the past, like I haven’t watched a film where they would show something like this in the past year or two. I do watch some documentaries, but that idea still permeates. I mean, I realized that there was some conversation among my friends about Pathaan, a more recent movie also carrying this idea of, you know, this really masculine portrayal of a defense officer and a policing officer, all of that. So, our pop culture has portrayed those values, but how much of it has already been in our system is something that we need to reflect on because, of course, these ideas are coming from somewhere. The pop culture hasn’t really just written it by themselves; there were these ideas already, of course pop culture has exaggerated it now and that kind of creates a pressure on say, women who want to be a part of the policing force, right? I mean, even today, like I don’t think Indian army allows women in combat forces and why doesn’t it allow it? I mean this whole idea that women can’t be violent, or women can’t be associated with anything remotely related to violence and that’s a very, I mean you can see how toxic masculinity there engages with and shapes really, the social fabric of even femininity. What is Indian femininity? What is, I mean who gets to be a part of it, so all of that. So of course, I mean it is does have an effect on gender per se and pop culture does play a big role in shaping how those narratives are portrayed.

Sanchi

Yeah. Thank you so much for bringing up all those very important points, Neeraj and what I’m hearing a lot is about how hegemonic masculinity actually affects the police force and how we’ve been talking about empathy, we’ve been talking about the gendering of the police forces and how that’s so detrimental to everybody involved in the process. And we have understood that it is toxic masculinity that affects a lot of our perception or how the police force itself is constructed, but I want to understand why is that a problem? If that is something, if that is the ethos of the police force, then why do we think that it is a problem that is the core value? And if you do think that it is a problem, then how can we imagine alternatives for it?

Neeraj

I mean, this is so like, this is like asking someone to change the social fabric of the country because that’s the understanding we are rooted in, that understanding of what masculinity is so much that, an alternative to that would be a more empathetic police force and that can only happen, I believe, and this is my personal opinion, of course it can change and people might have different opinions is by two ways, is that you counsel the existing police force into dealing better with, you know, with the constituents, with the communities that they’re dealing with, right. So, if a police officer is posted in like a working-class neighborhood in an urban space, of course they have to be mindful of the power dynamic they have and they share with the community because, of course, it’s not going to be, it’s not that straightforward and it’s going to be a bit, I mean, it’s unbalanced, right? I mean, and the working-class communities will look at the police officer not just as a protective force, but sometimes also as an oppressive force and this is what I’ve seen recurrently on the ground- that people are scared. People are scared by these officers who are expected to serve them, right, by the force that was expected to serve them. So that counselling has to go through. Secondly, I feel recruitment matters a lot because who forms the police force, how many of them are given responsibility in a particular area, all of that matters because the conversations I’ve had with existing police officers, especially even like some of my family members, not my close family, but of course my extended family members, is that there’s a lot of stress and workload on these police officers to solve a certain number of cases every month. And this is again with the fact that they have to appease the politicians, the local politicians, the national politicians, all of these people. So that stress gets added on and all of this comes out when they work and this comes out in a very harsh way on the people unfortunately, on the communities that they’re serving and say, for a fact that if you are posted in a community where you can show that kind of dominance, it just ends up becoming a toxic cycle because then you exert that force on that community, the community doesn’t look at you very nicely and there’s again the problem and that cycle continues. So, I believe recruitment again, there are two aspects of recruitment. One is the number of police officers that are being recruited, the number has to increase for a fact. I know for a fact that Mumbai is, I mean in Maharashtra, the police recruitment was stalled for a couple of years and people were waiting for that and that still didn’t, I mean that didn’t happen and then when it happened, they had fewer seats as compared to the applications that they had. So that’s one problem. Secondly, who constitutes, what is the socioeconomic identity of police officers who are recruited? Because let’s not forget the fact that defense and the police force or these State sponsored roles were a form of social mobility for a lot of oppressed groups. So of course, like people coming from oppressed caste backgrounds, they had their own regiments after a point in the military and that was a form of social mobility because you get certain benefits, you raise your living standards and that has helped a lot of communities come out of absolute poverty and helped with representation. And I personally feel that when the police officer has a lived experience of living through an intimidated environment, they are much more approachable when they are police officers because I’ve worked with, like I’ve seen police officers in action who came from oppressed communities and they knew the realities on the ground. And they, of course like, I’m not saying that they were all innocent or at the same time very violent, but they had a better balance of this, right? I mean for example someone’s a police officer coming from say my community, who is relatively privileged, would not have the same perception towards, I mean, of course they will not have the same perception towards the working-class neighborhoods of the city or the oppressed communities in the city. But if a person is recruited from that community or if young people from there are given an opportunity to be part of police force, not only will they be more approachable to the general populace, but they’ll also be, I mean they would know how to be vigilant without being oppressive. So, I think that kind of reform, there has to be a balanced reform. I mean, I am not someone who would say completely defund, that we don’t need the police force and let the communities do whatever. But at the same time, I wouldn’t say that, you know, you task the police force with every single responsibility. They shouldn’t be in charge of, I mean, we have seen in the past few years how police officers have dealt with, say, victims of sexual assault and victims of rape and they are not the right, they are not the right entity within the force. So, I feel representation as a whole matters and within representation again, I mean this whole idea of who is forming the police force decides how the police force is going to function in a particular neighborhood.

Uttanshi

You know, something that you said that really stood out to me and I that was actually something I wanted to ask you anyway and it seems like a good setup for the follow-up is just, you know, what do you think is the relevance of the police today, especially in the context of police abolition movements? And you know, you’ve already said you’re not in favor of completely defunding the police system and you know, for the communities to be in charge overall and not to have police systems at all. I think at the root of their belief is also the fact that reform is not something that’s possible and realistically doable. But I’m very curious to know, you know, what your thoughts are on that.

Neeraj

As I mentioned before, I mean, of course reform can come in many ways and one way is to have that kind of counselling, training and you know that psychiatric support to the police that is needed that would ensure immediately that can be looked at as a potential solution. But I also don’t understand the abolition movement in India because this is a very US centric approach. I mean when the George Floyd thing happened suddenly there were conversations about police reforms and that showed how little do Indian Liberal activists who started this whole conversation knew about what’s already happening. So, if you speak to organisations who are working with say criminalized or Denotified Tribes and have at the like, I fortunately I could like, I’ve spoken to lawyers, I’ve spoken to activists and development researchers on the ground and their reality is that it’s been happening for every day. Like there’s a George Floyd kind of case happening in India every single day but that never gets any attention from these constant liberal circles of activism which is needed. I feel like you don’t need for a George Floyd thing to happen in the US for a conversation to start in India, it’s very different. Police brutality is a daily occurrence for a lot of communities here and it’s important like when I say I don’t completely believe in defunding the police again it’s a very let me just acknowledge the fact that it’s an opinion coming out of privilege. I mean, of course there are communities who would completely detest for that statement to come in because for them police is an oppressive force and this is more and more real and I think the police force knows about it, but that’s the way they have been trained to function. So, I believe the immediate solution to this problem would be one counseling the police force in a much better way, creating more empathetic police officers who are more understanding in their approach while, I mean, there’s there has to be a balance between instilling whatever the idea of discipline is, but at the same time not go around hitting the lathi to people who are on the ground sometimes even earning their daily wage right. So that kind of empathy is important and secondly I believe representation has the key to at least to solve some of these issues like. If members of the communities that have often been on the oppressed side of the cycle get a chance to be represented in the in the force, in the in the police force, I believe that could change a lot, change police’s perception in general in India in a lot of areas. So that is the solution. So, I don’t completely believe, I don’t buy this whole American idea of you know what is defunding the police because it’s relevant there because the police forces are already getting like they’re overfunded. But in India that’s not the case. I mean I believe a lot of police departments are still underfunded. I mean the more you go towards the grassroots, you realize that police absolutely have not even the basic necessities to support the communities. So sometimes it’s like victims come to them for help, they don’t really have the measures. In general, I mean, cyber cell, the Nirbhaya cell, all happened after major incidences, so we are a very reactionary democracy, right? So we wait for a major incident to happen, after which we start introducing reforms. But that shouldn’t be the case. I think the pandemic was a good learning opportunity. I believe major police forces like Mumbai police force would take that into consideration when they design their training programs, right? They should have more, I mean better training programs, mental health support, maybe for police officers, also for the victims that that are coming to them for seeking help, and let professionals, more and more professionals be integrated into the system who know how to deal with the situation more effectively because a police officer is not a psychologist, not a psychiatrist, is not someone who can provide overall support to anyone. Their job is to ensure law and order, which I think they should be tasked only with that, not with like other responsibilities that would take that time out from here and create newer problems for the society.

Sanchi

Yeah. Thank you so much for bringing that up, Neeraj and I think it’s been very interesting listening to you share this perspective. And of course, nobody has to agree on anything, but it’s been very enlightening to hear your perspective on why you think cultural context matters so much. And something that might work in the US or in Global North countries might not work in our country or in the Global South countries as a whole as well. So, thank you so much for sharing your insights on that. I think it has been really good to listen in to you today and I think our listeners would agree to that as well. But before we close, I was wondering if you have any last points that you want to share with us.

Neeraj

No, the only thing I would say is I mean we need police reforms in India. It’s a deeply tainted sector which needs support not just from, like the government because they fund it, but it also needs there has to be better ways for the police to engage with the community. I mean civil society needs to play a role in this matter and make sure that civil society is not demonized for helping out the police force in any way. So yeah, I think, there are some really good, I’m not some major authoritative voice to speak on this, but there are some phenomenal organizations and individuals working on the ground who need to be consulted, who can be better, I think better voices for the police force to work with. So I believe that every state has it, every district almost has it or at least the major ones. So I think the police forces can use these resources in improving because this would help the communities better, this would help the police better, this would help the communities to look at the police in a better way. So yeah, that’s the only closing thought I have.

Uttanshi

Thank you so much, Neeraj. It’s been really great listening to you, hearing from you, learning from you. And I really do think that our listeners will have a lot to take back with them and to you know continue thinking about this particular conversation that we have had. So, thank you so much for taking the time out to come and speak to us today.

Neeraj

Thank you for the opportunity. I’m glad that One Future Collective has started these conversations and it’s important that we take these ahead. So thank you for the opportunity and thank you for having me.

[Outro]

Uttanshi

Thank you for tuning in today. Please leave us any questions you may have as voice notes on Anchor or in our DMs. We would love to hear from you. This podcast is brought to you by One Future Collective.

Sanchi

Yes, thank you so much. And don’t forget to follow us on Instagram and Facebook @onefuturecollective and onefuture_india on Twitter. And keep an eye out for future episodes out every second and fourth Thursday of the month. Until next time.

[Outro ends]

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 7

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 6

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 5

Uncuff India Episode 2: Violence within private spaces and State accountability

1

The second episode of the Uncuff India podcast is now live on all podcast streaming platforms! Go give it a listen! In this episode, the intimate space of the “home” is scrutinised, where the marginalized are often subject to acts of violence. The relationship between violence and spaces within which violence can occur are also explored while focusing on the linkages between violence in public and private spaces. The episode also touches upon the various ways in which the State can proactively address violence in intimate spaces and be held accountable as well. The amazing Dr. Jagriti Gangopadhyay joins us on this episode. Dr. Jagriti is currently an Assistant Professor and the faculty coordinator for the Center for Women’s Studies, at the Manipal Centre for Humanities, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE). Her most recent publication is a co-edited a book titled, “Eldercare Issues in China and India”, published by Routledge, U.K. Tune in for a very honest and insightful conversation!

A patchwork background with a white square in the centre containing the guest, Jagriti's photo, the title of the episode and the name of the guest.

[Intro]

Sanchi- Hello everyone and welcome to our podcast Uncuff India by One Future Collective. My name is Sanchi and my pronouns are she, her.

Uttanshi-My name is Uttanshi and my pronouns are she and her. We are your host today and it’s so good to have you all listening in.

[Intro ends]

Sanchi- In today’s episode, we will unpack the relationship between violence and the spaces within which such violence can take place. In particular, we will focus on violence that occurs in intimate spaces, such as our own homes.

Uttanshi-Homes are traditionally seen as safe and healthy spaces, and this view also guides the approach that governments and state bodies take towards responding to such violence, especially violence, which happens within our own homes because they are intimate. Because they are considered safe and healthy, they are often treated as outside the ambit of the State’s mandate of regulation and protection.

Sanchi-Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for introducing the themes for today with Uttanshi and we are ready to dive into the conversation without further ado. So, let me introduce our guest for this episode. Today we have with us Dr. Jagriti Gangopadhyay. Dr. Jagriti is currently an Assistant Professor and the Faculty Coordinator for the Center for Women’s Studies at the Manipal Center for Humanities, Manipal Academy of Higher Education. She did her PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar. She was awarded the Shastri publication grant by the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute for her monograph titled Culture, Context and Aging of Older Indians Narratives from India and Beyond. And her most recent publication is a co- edited book titled Elder Care Issues in China and India. Welcome to the podcast Dr. Jagriti. We are really looking forward to this conversation with you. 

Jagriti- Thank you very much. Thank you Uttanshi, Sanchi and Suchanda. I’m very happy to be on this platform and I really look forward to our conversation. Thank you.

Uttanshi- Thank you so much. Before we start off, I just want to quickly get started right at the beginning, right homes are rarely considered as sites of violence in popular discourse, even though the issue of domestic violence has been present for a long time. Only recently, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, did it come to the limelight. I’m quite intrigued. And, you know, I want to hear from you, Jagriti, about why do you think that we as a society, as a government, are unwilling to recognize that homes are not always safe spaces and that they can be sites of different forms of violence as well. Why do you think there is a lack of focus on violence which happens within homes, and do you think that that needs to shift?

Jagriti- Yes, I do actually because few things, First things is for the first thing is that you know home as a space, the very idea and maybe Pete speaks particularly from the perspective of India, one of the biggest things is that it’s seen as a very safe space, family oriented India particularly, I’m talking about India because you know, because we’re talking about intimate violence and now there have been different contexts of intimate violence, right? Like of course there’s the pandemic and domestic violence, but then also the very recent  Aftab Shraddha case about an intimate partner violence which again kind of then one thing about that is that you know while there is much literature and media highlight on domestic violence, intimate partner violence specifically on girlfriends  is less highlighted. You know like that kind of like the law is also complex in that sense. So, home in that sense is not seen as a space for violence that is because it centers around the family and if you go back in time, like even before, we start talking about domestic violence and home as a space, even the very idea of gender roles, like traditional gender roles, like how you know, like the binary gender roles of men and women. If we just go by that, they also start from home, right? Like how mothers teach a specific thing to do, how you know how parents also expect boys and girls to be very different with regard to gender roles.

So in that sense, home yes is actually one major space where violence starts. And violence as we know is also verbal, physical, emotional, financial. It is not just physical violence that takes place in a home and abusive verbal violence is also something that really is constructed within the home as a space. However, why that is overlooked to answer that question, that is because it’s not just about the government or it’s just not about the media, but we as individuals is what I would say. We also do not really question the household or the household dynamics, right. We do not question the family setting. We kind of take that to be the normative order that has been handed down to us right from generations. So because of that. Before we really of course the State and the media and other institutional civil organizations also need to play a very big role with regard to violence and the household. But, we as individuals also need to recognize where is the origin of all of this. So first the household needs to, you know, really get that attention. So that is why it is overlooked and that is why even till day-to-day domestic violence or intimate violence is still a major problem in a country like India. 

Sanchi-Thank you so much for your input here, Jagriti. I think what you mentioned about the situation, the context of gender roles and how that impacts intimate violence and also bringing up recent cases that we have seen in current news. I think something that it brought up for me is this divide that we seem to have between private and public and that really intrigued me and I would like to follow up on that and ask you if you think that violence in these spaces is interlinked in some way and does one feed into the other? And if it does, then in what ways does that happen? 

Jagriti- Well, honestly, public and private, you know, before the pandemic, even if we were to say that there was one kind of difference because of course there was, you know, the home space, but also the office space and the office space definitely played a very big role. But in specifically, you know, it’s not just about violence. But during the pandemic, I read so many media reports about more breakups, more divorces. That is because people, the couple you know, people started spending more time with each other and the fact that office as a space matters so much became glaring only when the work from home model started. And the reason why the pandemic actually, you know, like India did very poorly with regard to gender inequality. And it’s not just about violence, but also labor force participation rates. Oxfam reports gender inequality on all grounds, in fact. Women started quitting their jobs specifically because of motherhood, right. So all those pressures also and the pandemic kind of put it out there in front of the world as to show that you know, like where India stands with regard to generic inequality. So to talk about private and public. Now of course the spaces are very blurred and they do not really exist because of the work from  home model in that sense. The public has actually entered into the private and one of the consequences of that is, you know, one of the biggest problems is that because people there is this lack of space, that violence kind of became like an immediate reason for the outburst. You know, if, if I’m not sure this someone called Parul Bhandari, who’s a scholar of sociology who has written about intimacy and violence, and she had argued based on the pandemic data that was available that one of the biggest reasons why India witnessed such huge search of domestic violence and why of course you know, it was like another upper urban middle class problem because you know the technically domestic violence is also associated with a specific kind of class of people. But then it became like an all India problem. Of course there was of course much more reporting because people could reach out and you know there was some helplines available. But the other reason also was because is that, you know, domestic violence became a major issue specifically because the spaces were blurred, because instead because the people were thrown into each other, they were always there with each other. The lack of space, there was no other space except the home. So, which is why violence became one of the biggest outbursts and an easy way to express frustration, like you know about job frustration. It’s easier to take it out on the other people on too, specifically on the spouse, on the, you know, it’s like the other, the weaker person. It just became like that kind of a phenomena. The other reason why I, you know like now there is the other thing that has happened about violence is about representation. Now, the OTT platforms we see a larger display of violence and much more access to violence than we really had when we were growing up. And really in that sense that violence has entered the household. So that is the other reason why the public and private divide is actually getting blurred.

Uttanshi- Thank you so much for sharing that. I feel like when we’re talking about the private and the public divide. There is also a guiding, you know, sort of certification or a license from the society for people to look the other way when we talk about violence that takes place within the home. And you know, that’s a big problem because like you said, what allows for that violence to thrive within the private space? It is how it can be looked at outside of the home as well, right? We were just talking to someone earlier and we realized that this same frustration was being felt by people of all genders. It’s not that the COVID-19 frustration was only affecting one particular category of people more than it was affecting other categories of people. However, because of existing systems of oppression and existing power dynamics in the society. Some people felt more empowered to inflict harm on another person than the other person did. So, I feel like even to that, you know, to echo your point about the fact that public and private divisions are not necessarily as significantly different as they seem from each other. And that brings me to the next point about how, like you said, there is a lot of research available about how cases of such violence are bound to increase when people are living together for long durations of time. There are research studies to point out that during Christmas, for example, during holiday seasons, people who live together and have to spend a lot of time together do engage in certain forms of violence. And that leads me to then ask how come we were still not prepared and to that extent, what responsibility do you think does the State have in intervening in such spaces and cases of violence? What do you think guides the State’s approach towards addressing such violence? And the reason I ask this is only because we have repeatedly seen police officers, courts, judges across spectrum say that is happening behind closed doors and therefore we do not have to think about it or we don’t have to address it. So yeah, what do you think about that?

Jagriti- So you know, very recently I saw a survey, the NFHS survey, which showed that of course more to do with South India and  Karnataka kind of was, you know, leading the survey that it was not just men but also women believed that it is okay if, you know, they are subjected to domestic violence if they do not perform household responsibilities and chores as they are expected to do. So this is which is what is significant. You know, I think what there is a law, domestic violence or any form of violence, there is a law that exists in our country. So in technically on pen and paper the State would say we have a law, we have helplines, we have a lot of, you know, like police officers or other agencies which you can reach out to. If you are being subjected to any kind of violence and abuse, then why is it that that still continues to be a problem? The question that you asked is very significant, you know, like why were we not prepared? And it goes back to the first question that you asked. That is because nobody had thought was the during the pandemic, during the lockdown, that of all things, domestic violence would actually be a problem. That was not even in the radar in that sense. But why it is a problem is because there is an invisibilization of women realizing patriarchy exists in the household and that they have to fight the patriarchy. It’s that lack of realization. I was shocked to see that women themselves believe that it’s okay to be abused if you don’t perform household chores, you know, in the right way. Or, for example, women believe that after becoming mothers they should quit their jobs. So that because parenting is still like seen as a mother’s responsibility. So what the State really needs to do, it’s not just about having a law. It’s also about specifically addressing cultural perceptions that has been in, that exists for generations, you know, like for example, in the family setting it’s still okay. You would see that women will first give food to the husband and then eat, and that has been okay. That has been the norm. The reason why women do that is because that is what they have seen in their own family. That’s what mothers did it. Right now this is the kind of generation and gradually post globalization, we still do not have a situation where women and men are, you know, an inequal terms with regard to entry into the workforce because women are still willing to settle for less, women are still willing to take up those jobs which men do not want to take up. So unless change happens there, unless women themselves believe the gender equality has to start from the household, it is very difficult to achieve equality okay or other genders, like other specific genders who believe that they need to have equal access to opportunities. It is very, very difficult to fight something like intimate space violence. So that is why and see even if you see the surveys etc. -still about men and women, other gender categories are not even included. So the problem has not even reached there. It is still seen as a husband and wife problem. Okay, we are not even explaining like fleshing out the other kinds of problems, but it’s also what how is it that we learn violence or what is it that we see, we see that.

Like the father is abusing the mother and the mother is accepting that. So, unless the cultural perception of both these two generations, even if I just see two genders, the parents or the father and the mother, they start seeing violence differently but they start believing that you know equality like both people should start. So what happens when the husband comes home, he expects that the wife will serve him constantly. So even if she has, you know, worked or she has done some amount of work. But even then the expectation is that she should serve me first and then eat. So unless it called, the State has to actually address the cultural attitude within the family setting. Unless we address that, there is no solution because it’s not just about violence. But I was also surprised to see that before the pandemic there was a survey- I forget the agency which did it, but around like majority of Indians believe and that it’s both men and women, that marriage is still the solution to a women’s economic well-being that is still seen as an that is seen as like the major solution. Okay, so that is like economically women’s viability is still marriage and men are still seen as the bread owners. So unless change happens at that level, it is very difficult to make change within the household setting. It’s cultural perception that has to change and the state needs to address that. That is what I believe. 

Sanchi-Thank you for your thoughts here, Jagriti. And I think you’ve brought out some very pertinent points and I think three themes that I would like to focus on from what you shared about is, first, how the internalization of social acceptance of domestic violence happens for marginalized genders and how, how problematic it is then that it creates this pressure of fighting against entrenched patriarchal systems. It puts that pressure on marginalized genders itself. And I do think that the State has more role to play in this. And also the second thing that came up about it just reminded me of the quote, which is very majorly used. Of course it’s-the personal is political, and what you shared made me think about the public and private patriarchy and how this cannot be distinguished very well, right? There’s no clear line if it always flows into each other and it was accentuated during the pandemic, as you’ve also mentioned. And the third thing that I’m also thinking about is how violence against queer folk also increased exponentially during the pandemic and then what role does the State have to play because as you said, we’re still thinking in the binaries and there’s a very urgent need to go beyond that. And I would still like to ask you a little more about that. What do you think that the State can do more? What are some things that might add value to how we currently see intimate violence and? Another thing that I was wondering about was whether you think that the State can then be held complicit in some way because it is because of the lack of their action that violence inside the households is instigated or perpetuated because their response is not adequate. What do you think about that?

Jagriti- Yes, of course I agree with all of your points and I have to say that the State is complicit and accountable as well as responsible because if you see the Nordic countries, for instance, one of the major reasons why they have better quality of life or they dwell in the happiness indexes or in the gender equality indexes, is because the State recognizes that gender equality within the household is important. So for example if you see that its not just maternity leaves, there are also countries which have paternity leaves. In India, for instance, we still have like paternity leave as a concept is still new. Of course, it’s is the option of taking paternity leaves. But also I read a media report where I saw that men in India are wary of taking paternity leaves because then they are not sure whether they will, you know, receive their promotions or, you know, what if the other person kind of trumps them in the workplace. So that is, these are some of the concerns that the State needs to address that when awareness programs are created or when awareness programs are held. Most of the time I see lawyers and activists, policymakers, academics- they’re invited, but they always address the macro problem, the legal issue. They will specifically talk about contemporary media, you know, gender related news item which would be prevalent at that particular point of time. And with regard to that, they would address and they would highlight about the laws or you know the different kind of helplines that would be available. Those, those would be the major solutions. You know, the crux of the discussions is what I’ve seen. But in those awareness programs, it is also I have the other I rarely see, you know, like awareness programs that are held together for all forms of gender. It’s usually, you know, for women or only for men in that sort. So that is also very important like gender workshops addressing cultural perceptions within the household need to be addressed like that should be the first step. So that is one. The other thing is a more representation is needed, you know, in the states body most of the time what happens is privileged women make decisions or I would say actually privileged men who have very little understanding of what is really happening at the situation. They are the ones who make the laws and who make the policies. So that that is of course true for kind of everything that we do. But representation of the victims is very necessary in the committees who are actually going to, you know, implement the law. So for example, now one of the law, you know, the law is that equal marriage age where women it’s manager, manager marriage age is also going to be 21 very soon. So in that sense that there’s a task force and they’re going to implement it and the idea is to address maternal mortality and you know the nutritional problem that women face, but it’s not going to solve the problem. That is because as I said, most women also still believe that early marriage, early children, you know that those are the steps to go and that’s how the family is also built. Like I’m not just talking about rural India, but I’ve even very, very educated upper class. They are we as women, I’m sure we have faced this question immediately. I don’t know like after twenty-five one is often asked, right? Like when are you going to get married? So that cultural perception needs to change and the State needs to take responsibility. So in the awareness programs or in the law, the first address that needs to be done is that activists, lawyers, they need to understand and talk about the cultural perceptions and make public aware about the cultural norms that exist in Indian society so that the state has to take responsibility and change the laws accordingly. Unless that happens, it is very difficult for any real change to happen. It would be difficult because you know, despite the fact that we have our laws etc are quite stringent. Well crimes against the men or you know, even the queer community is one of the biggest problems that India has.

Uttanshi- Thank you so much for sharing that. I think something that I really resonated with here is just, you know, when you spoke about representation of victims- of course you looked at root causes. You looked at how it’s not just a problem that exists in certain economic sections of the society. But what really resonated with me is how you spoke about how there need to be victims at the center of this particular problem and solution making and how they need to be a part of the implementation committees. They need to be a part of the decision making authorities which reminds me of this really powerful thing that you know, I was reading and we also believe at One Future Collective which is that lived experiences can also be expertise. And it’s not always true that if you’ve studied something academically, if you’ve read about something academically, you are the expert on the subject matter and you know your expertise and knowledge is definitely valuable to some extent. But involving stakeholders who are most affected by it has its own value, which we cannot ignore. And if we continue to ignore that, you know we will continue to make policies that don’t hold a lot of relevance or can’t be implemented in the most useful manner or the most effective manner? And that brings me to the next question that I have for you, Jagriti, which is just how do you think we can make State responses better? Of course, you’ve looked at one of the ways, which is incorporating survivor voices in implementation committees. But are there any other ways that you think this can be done in a way that really reflects the lived realities of survivors and incorporates their voices in understanding what future solutions and solution modeling can look like.

Jagriti-Yes, of course. One thing is that you know, when the victims themselves speak up, that is also another issue. You know, victims like now reporting has started, you know a little bit now because of social media. The, you know, post me too movement victims are confident that they will receive support at least in an online community. That little change the transition has happened because when the me too movement started, one thing I saw a lot of older women, older people, they actually came out and you know spoke about their the kind of harassment that they had faced during their time and how they could did not really have a platform to express at what they had undergone at that point of time. So, I think that the State first needs to include it in their framework is, but you know like it. As you rightly said, lived experience is like a very big part. Often, it’s not just academic or the law or the you know like how you know it’s it’s just not just the law and academic or the policymakers who should come together. But lived experiences also should play an important role. I think one thing that the State could do there are some, you know, good foundations and NGOs who actually do work really hard for some of the victims and some of the difficult, you know, violent crimes, victims who have suffered different forms of violence. So the State should tie up with them and see that adequate representation is done because rarely would victims, you know, would like to talk about their experience or, you know, like be a part of that committee and then, you know, immediately start making decisions or start talking about their experiences. So, the State first should have a simple group where the victims would be made comfortable, you know. So unless that is included in the framework as to how the victims should be made to feel comfortable, so that they really believe that they belong to the State, they belong where they can be protected, they can be encouraged and they can really make a difference, it would not really make a change in that sense, right? That is because today I’ll just give you a simple example in the sense of mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relationship- we talk about domestic violence and mostly the idea is that, you know, violence in that sense is, you know, husband is being violent on the wife. But there are also many instances where women have been violent against women. So as you know that you know that so mother or even when I have gone to do field work in rural areas or even in many of the, you know, urban houses. One thing I always noticed whenever I wanted to speak to the daughter-in-law, the mother in law would always be very keen to accompany because she could be very worried as to what would the daughter-in-law tell about the household that, you know, an unknown stranger would know. So one thing that happens is that why does the mother in law, you know, always have a difficult or a conflicted in relationship with the daughter-in-law because she herself had suffered once upon a time when she was the daughter-in-law. So that is the cultural perception that I’m talking about. That is what the state needs to address. That is essentially what the State needs to understand that within the family setting, there are different layers where violence is implicit, where cultural norms are actually getting translated over generations, and we are raising children who are actually growing up watching that kind of visualization of violence within the family setting. So, when I talk about representation or when I talk about the family being part of the awareness program, first, the first and foremost place, the State needs to understand that the household needs to be addressed. In India Today, the family is actually burdened with many responsibilities where the State does not interval. So for example if you see elderly are still expected to be looked after by their children. That is the other area of abuse that happened. You know, like older parents are often abused by their children. So that’s where the family has to take responsibility. Children are raised by their parents and the State would not intervene even if there is, you know, like a specific case of violence within that family in that sense. So, first and foremost the government needs to understand that the household is the biggest unit where violence is constructed in the first place, and to address violence or gender equality, awareness programs or outreach programs or any kind of policy has to be addressed first in the household. And unless that happens, it is very difficult to make any change in a country such as India where patriarchy is so embedded across the household. 

Sanchi- Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on that, Jagruti. I think what you said right now clearly brings out the importance of framing the household as something that the State should look at while talking about violence. And it also gives a very concrete, clear idea of what the state can do. And I think the examples that you shared really brought to light the complexities of violence, so many nuances that come with it inside the household itself and how power is affected and it definitely gives me a lot to think about and I think our audience would also agree with that. Do you have any closing thoughts as we wrap up this conversation today?

Jagriti- Well, I One thing that I would want to say is that you know that social media also plays a very important role in the sense of this public versus private space. And where actually in technical sense, the government is overlooking that space also because so many people we meet on social media now, there are so many apps, and I’m not even aware of most of the apps. But you know, as a teacher, I often hear students writing assignments or talking about different platforms where they meet different people. And you know, now a lot of things is changing. Like for example, the dating cultures are changing, how we meet individuals are changing. So I think in terms of violence that really needs to be taken into account. You know, as a future like as like that could just be the next potential problem. And the State at this point is totally ignoring that, you know, as a setting like that that is not even on again as you’re not even in on in the level of policy as to how to of course now the media would highlight certain cases, but that’s about, you know, there is still a space which is going to be the future, specifically dating apps and different social media accounts where we meet different unknown individuals on a regular basis. And the government needs to take account of these different spaces that are coming and they are again in the private, which is the home space. You know where we first start talking to strangers or we start chatting with unknown people. So, that’s the government needs to recognize that as a potential problem and address that to really take into account intimate violence across India.

Uttanshi- Yeah, I fully agree. Especially the point about how intimate partner violence can exist across spectrums. So far we’ve been talking about the physicality of the household. But how this violence can happen on technological platforms, that is also something for us to consider. And as you were speaking, I was also thinking just in terms of I may be living away from my home physically, but there may still be violence and my people that I am living with in my household can be inflicting on me through different methodologies and different means. And what does that mean from the perspective of being able to get support and care and justice for us as survivors from the State? These are all some extremely important points. And the one thing that I think I’m taking back with me today especially is, you know, especially as a lawyer, I feel like we don’t really think about anybody other than people as being subjects of the law. But listening to you speak today, I’m really thinking about how a household unit can be a subject of the law and how when we look at a household unit, we’re also looking at its complexities and the power dynamics that exist within it and how it’s no longer just individual people. So I really want to thank you for bringing all of these insights in and having this conversation with us today. I also want to thank our audience for tuning in. 

[Outro]

Uttanshi- Thank you for tuning in today. Please leave us any questions you may have as voice notes on Anchor or in our Dms. We would love to hear from you. This podcast is brought to you by One Future Collective.

Sanchi- Yes, thank you so much. And don’t forget to follow us on Instagram and Facebook at One Future Collective and at One Future_India on Twitter. And keep an eye out for future episodes out every second and fourth Thursday of the month until next time.

[Outro ends]

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 7

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 6

Explorations on Feminist Leadership | S1: Episode 5