Protests in India & Beyond: What Happens When Equal Number of Women Participate?

The presence of women indicates a society in which strangers can be expected to be civil despite differences.

I switch on the TV and watch the latest disturbances on the streets in Iraq. There are men, young and old, shouting, waving flags, throwing stones, pulling down barricades. Two things are immediately noticeable: the violence, and the total absence of women in the protests.

It is a scene common to many Muslim countries, starting with Pakistan and stretching almost without a break to countries east of Turkey. It is seldom that significant numbers of women are seen in public protests in many of these nations, with the occasional exception of protests for the Palestinian cause, or, as in Afghanistan, when women protest for their own rights. And I cannot help wondering if these protests would turn violent, as they often do, if there were sufficient numbers of women participating in them.

• I cannot help wondering if these protests would turn violent, as they often do, if there were sufficient numbers of women participating in them.

• Most men have been noticed to behave better when accompanied by women they know, not just because of the patriarchal tropes of chivalry, protection etc, but because it automatically changes the dynamics of the situation.

• It is not beside the point that the anti-CAA agitation in India, largely led by (Muslim) women, contained highly peaceful protests.

• Protests without women are a recipe for violence. And that is just one more reason why full freedom of movement should be afforded to women in all societies and by all religions.

It's Not that Women are 'Peaceful'

I am not making a patriarchal point about the supposedly more peaceful nature of women, or the restraint they exercise on the passions of the human breast. I do not believe that women are any more non-violent or peaceful than men, if we are talking in terms of aggregates and not of individuals.

But there are two obvious reasons why protests in which there is an equal presence of women are less likely to turn violent. First, the presence of women indicates a degree of social trust: it indicates a society in which strangers can be expected to be civil to one another, despite differences. Second, the presence of women along with men is a stark reminder of the domestic and family aspects of civil life.

Most men have been noticed to behave better when accompanied by women they know, not just because of the patriarchal tropes of chivalry, protection etc, but because it automatically changes the dynamics of the situation. From being simply confrontational, the situation also becomes partly social.

The dominant paradigm shifts from that of a battle to that of, at its best, a fair. Actions are revealed as having consequences, for a family is always a reminder of that. No one is just a ‘man’ alone to act, and as the great 20th century philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas put it, violence is any action in which we behave as if we are alone to act.

Seclusion of Women in Islamic Societies

I am convinced that the seclusion of women from the public sphere in many Islamic societies is directly linked to the inability of many of these societies to manage peaceful political change. For democracy to work, women have to be present in the public sphere—and by this I do not mean a token presence. It should be possible for women to participate in public protests freely, autonomously and in sizeable numbers. They should be able to do so without the patriarchal escort of men.

Not only would that be proof of a functioning democracy, but it would also prevent many, if not all, democratic protests from taking a violent turn. It is not beside the point that the anti-CAA agitation in India, largely led by (Muslim) women, contained highly peaceful protests.

Another aspect that is probably pertinent is the greater historical vulnerability of women to violence: women have been, and continue to be, subjected to violence in all societies. This violence ranges from restrictions on their movements to domestic violence, which impacts on women much more than men, to the obviously monstrous violence of rape and homicide. This greater knowledge of vulnerability also makes many women more sceptical of physical violence as a ‘solution’, especially compared to men who buy into macho or heroic definitions of masculinity.

Women Participation Behind Gandhi's Success

Not only does the presence of women serve to make a protest less violent, but, according to research by Harvard professor Erica Chenoweth, the presence of women in revolutionary movements from 1945 to 2014 also made such campaigns more likely to succeed. One reason is obvious: more women means more people, which has a bigger impact. But, I think, there is another reason implicit in this: the presence of both the genders also indicates a greater degree of support in general society for the ends of the movement.

Once again, looking at Indian history, one thinks of the various protests led by Gandhiji, which, given the times, involved more women than was usual then. Actually, one can argue that part of the success of Gandhian-Nehruvian Congress during the struggle for independence was its ability to activate a sufficient number of women, despite the more conservative tenor of the times.

India's Democracy Depends on Women in Public Sphere

Finally, one of the reasons why I believe that democracy has strong roots in India, is the presence of women in India’s public spheres. This is not as high as it should be. It has also taken a battering is some areas in recent years. But it is still sufficiently heartening. Though, obviously, India also has moments when women disappear from its streets: as a rule, these are moments when men, of any religious or political persuasion, take over the streets, and engage in acts of violence.

Protests without women are a recipe for violence. And that is just one more reason why full freedom of movement should be afforded to women in all societies and by all religions.

(Tabish Khair, is PhD, DPhil, Associate Professor, Aarhus University, Denmark. He tweets @KhairTabish. This is an opinion article and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)