The debates on the nature of the State in Feminist literature have been largely West-centred. Shirin Rai in her essay Women and the State in the Third World(1) , says that the debates do not take into account particular features of the post-colonial states that affect the lives of Third World women. She urges a fresh approach to this question, and says that the starting point has to be in woman’s lived realities.

There is an increasing body of literature (2)(3)(4) challenging western feminist understanding as well as welfare state discourses, on women and the State. What we need now is a continuing and more focused debate about women and the post-colonial state by third world women. This is specially relevant because third world women today are at the receiving end of not only national power, but also international economic power in this era of globalisation. The basic foundations of the modern nation-state that rests on pillars of democracy (representative kind), development (globalisation) modern rationality, science and technology and militarisation have come in for critical questioning. The questioning process itself has not been easy as “Western theories have a way of impinging on us (even when they are repudiated)… and become incorporated within our habits of thought.”(5)

In India too, the women’s movement while engaging the State on issues of policy and law, is yet to have a clearly articulated theory of State and also its own long term perspective of the role of State, while negotiating with it. “Such a focus will also allow us to examine the growing and diverse areas of women’s political activities which include not only opposition, but also negotiation, not only struggle, but also strategic bargaining in spaces that are inter-sections of the private and the public spheres.”(6)

The State has been perceived differently as unfair, paternalistic, invasive, parochial and patriarchal. Radical feminist theory sees the state as another instrument of patriarchy. “Whereas the traditional exercises of patriarchal authority tended to rest with particular men - fathers, husbands and other male kin - the communalisation of politics particularly when backed by state-sponsored religious fundamentalism, shifts the right of control to all men.” (Kandiyoti, 1991:14).

Thus the issue of working with the State has always been a contentious one. Over the last three decades despite fears of cooption, the movement has been successful in negotiating with the State and getting a foot into the door. Today, the movement has moved from merely articulating and defining the issues related to women to reacting to policies and re-negotiating decisions and policies of the State. Be it in respect to demanding a more democratic space in real politick, challenging the dominant development paradigm and questioning economic policies and programmes, or resisting the increasing militarisation and nuclearisation of the state. While on all these issues some groups have attempted to collaborate with the State in an bid to sensitise it to gender concerns, some have challenged the State in a more fundamental way by working outside the concept of the nation-state.

Working towards a new internationalism (which is more egalitarian and dialogic) and promoting South-South exchanges are some of the efforts that feminists are forging to give new direction to local/global questions.

Women and the Democratic State
The Political Woman
In India, women have left their mark in the field of politics. We have had women head governments at the state and central level as also women headed political parties. Yet, India ranks 110 out of 116 in the index measuring relative empowerment of men and women in political and economic life. (UNDP 1995).(7) In 1995, after the Nairobi Conference, the United Nation Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) suggested that women should occupy at least thirty percent of the seats in all decision-making bodies.

The 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution on local self-government, provided for one-third reservation at the village, district and municipalities level. The percentage of women in these bodies now exceeds the one-third quota. There are those who have pointed out that most of the women are “dummy” or “proxy” candidates of their husbands, fathers or male relatives. They also add that it only gives an illusion of women’s power as the women in reality are only figureheads, while it is the men who pull the strings. However there are also several NGOs, many of them in collaboration with government agencies, who  have taken up training and special education programmes of elected members. Many women’s groups have also trained the members on gender issues and brought the issue of the Panchayati Raj Institutions before local women’s organisations, self-help groups, thereby creating both a support base for the women as well as making it a “responsibility” issue – that the women representatives and women in the constituency, need to support each other (8)(9)(10). The reservations have certainly not brought about any revolution, but major changes are taking place in several panchayats.

Meanwhile all eyes are on the forthcoming proposed 81st amendment that of one-third reservation for women in state legislatures and Parliament. The Bill was to be introduced in Parliament more than three years ago, and has had many political parties playing truant as far as their support to the bill is concerned. Several individuals and parties have used all possible arguments against these reservations. There are those who say that the notion of reservation and quotas are like subsidies and handouts, and does not constitute “real empowerment”. The fear is that this change will usher in only the Biwi-Bhabhi brigade of male politicians. Some say that women should refuse to join the current context of “dirty politics”. Major parties opposing the Bill when it last came up for introduction say that thirty percent quota would only make sense if there is a further reservation for OBC (Other Backward Classes) women and women from minorities. (11)(12)(13)
 
Many other women are of the view that the time is ripe to push the Bill through, for fear that otherwise it will get shelved for a long while to come. They argue that it will open a window of opportunity that we can use.The debate rages on...

People like Madhu Kishwar argue, that the marginalisation of women is integrally linked to the marginalisation of all decent people from our party politics. The need of the hour is basic electoral reforms across the board, that will curb the role of muscle and money power in politics and democratise decision-making in the political parties. She along with others suggests that we should move towards a sensible proportional representation system, that facilitates representation of various marginalised groups without mechanical reservation quotas.(14) The reservation bill, therefore they feel is not going to expedite this process.

While there has been this wide-spectrum of opinion on the reservation Bill even within the women’s movement, almost all have consensus on facilitating the participation of women in the political process, be it in voting independently, or training Panchayat representatives or getting women’s groups to hold their representatives accountable. In short working towards a gendered political system.

Women and the Nuclear State
In May 1998 India in some ways crossed the nuclear threshold. The nuclear tests that were conducted at Pokharan clearly signalled that India had decided to join the nuclear club that it had long been critical of.

The nuclear bomb polarised society in many ways. The media focused on the “euphoria” all over the country. Many “prominent” citizens endorsed these tests; they said it boosted India’s prestige. Some said India had finally come out of the closet, so to speak, as a nuclear power, while others felt that India was standing up to the bullying Big Brothers (especially the USA).

Some of the “open-minded” groups and individuals took an unabashedly pro-test stand. Many progressive groups, though started to voice their protest - human rights bodies, developmental organisations and the anti-nuke activists.

Women’s groups, while participating in other general protests, also pointed out that the arms race would have a direct fall out on women and children. The increasing militarisation and weaponisation of the State only made for more brutality and aggression in society in general. Feminist principles of consensus and reconciliation will give way to conflict and revenge. (15)

Definitions and cultural symbols were being deliberately distorted. Security, which should mean, food security, security from violence at home, job security and an opportunity to lead an active life with good health in its fullest sense, was being degraded to mean possession of weapons of mass destruction by a few. The bomb was flashed as a symbol of power, like the Trishul of Shiva, and referred to in terms of male virility. Dr. Chidambaram, the Atomic Energy Commission Chairman, while justifying India going in for nuclear weapons said, “We don’t want to be nuclear-impotent.”

“Bread not Bombs” and “Homes not Tombs” were some of the slogans around which women rallied asking that the State to reorder its priorities. The challenge though is to counter the continued posturing of the State to build “bigger, deadlier, state-of-the-art” arms; to question the dangerous trend of greater and greater outlays for defence thereby derailing all chances of a lasting peace. Decisions about which there is an apparent “manufactured consent”.(16)