“No one will marry you….
No one will protect you……
No one will stand for you….
No one will respect you…..If you…..!”
There was no dearth of such statements in the lives of women; the Apex court of India added one more to it, if women are granted a paid, mandatory menstrual leave, ‘No one will hire you!’.
We already have innumerable religious laws and customs, some in writing, some unwritten but passed down through traditions, that repeatedly dictate women a caste prescribed code of conduct. Such ruling is fundamentally rooted in the caste-patriarchal base structure.
The factors that hinder the hiring of a woman are numerous, beginning with the mere fact that she is a woman. Following this are factors such as low investment in her education, marriage, pregnancy, maternity, long-distance travel, late-night shifts, heavy-duty jobs, and, of course, now, the paid menstrual leave. If we set aside the factor of menstruation, which is a purely biological but religiously regulated event in a woman’s life, every other factor listed here is a man-made, socio-cultural, political and economic institution in itself.
The lingering question is: Should this debate truly and solely focus on women’s participation in the workforce? According to the Supreme Court of India, the answer is affirmative.
To safeguard her recruitment, a woman might consider several strategies: postponing her marriage or opting for a choice that forgoes it altogether, as well as delaying pregnancy or even embracing antinatalism. Research indicates that many women are actively walking these steps to navigate the complexities of their personal and professional journeys. However, when it comes to menstruation, which is their biological, painful reality, they are left with no choice.
“A woman in the workforce might symbolically represent ‘a woman exercising her choices’. However, women and choice have always been an oxymoron.”
A woman in the workforce might symbolically represent ‘a woman exercising her choices’. However, women and choice have always been an oxymoron. The choices she exercises are generated and regulated by the caste-patriarchal systems. These systems demand that women should work and be productive within these limited choices or ‘no-choice’ situations. Moreover, the disposal of unproductive, un-reproductive women is not new to the caste-patriarchal society of India. Her roles, duties, and workspaces are predetermined and preassigned. The decisions about including and excluding a woman are deeply embedded in the institutionalized practices shaped by the hierarchical and the notions of purity-pollution prescribed for and by the Brahminic-patriarchal society.
Similar to the historical times, even contemporary systems will succeed in fostering superficial conversations, debates, and discussions about protection, concern, sensitivity, and care for women, but the same systems will have a predetermined set of roles and prescribed punishments for women who speak against this ‘Institutionalised image of protection and care’.
However, we should not confine this conversation to ‘saving women from losing employment’, but open it up to a broader discourse on ‘who gets to decide on the physical and emotional needs of women?'
These ongoing conversations about the safeguarding and welfare of women are far from novel; rather, they trace their origins back to the ancient Brahminical mandate. This doctrine asserts that the true protection of women is best ensured and achieved through their confinement to private lives away from public and civic engagements. The real intention, however, was to confine and protect the sexuality of women, and hence the purity of the caste order. As a result, various rules and regulations emerged to govern women’s behaviour, mobility and their interactions with the outer world.
As time progressed, the rigid Brahminical systems began to exhibit a degree of flexibility. If a woman yearns for greater mobility or freedom or seeks to transcend the boundaries of her confinement, she may be granted certain limited means to do so, but she will never be allowed to either reject or annihilate the systems that confine her. The liberal Brahminical society denies a menstruating ‘impure’ woman’s entry into their kitchens and sacred spaces, under the pretext of granting her rest and a break from her cooking duties, but the same society wants women to continue to function at the workplace, during their menstruation periods with all the physical and emotional pains and ensure that the gender stereotype that considers her as a ‘weaker sex’ is ultimately broken by her.
The Supreme Court of India’s bench fears that granting women paid menstrual leave would reinforce the gender stereotypes of ‘weaker sex’ and being ‘unfit’ for the workplace. Hence, to avoid the reemergence of such a regressive thought process, the court thought that the denial of the paid menstrual leave was in women’s best interest. The Chief Justice argued that, if it comes out as a law, “it will create a psychological fear or an impression among working women... that they are 'less' than men'.
Well, ‘woman is less than man’ is a well-established and religiously sanctioned rule. On the contrary, an empathetic ruling on this issue would have helped in cancelling these gender stereotypes and the religious sanctioning. Rather than worrying about the relic and fossilised gender stereotypes, the court could have drawn inspiration from the debates that successfully ensured both women’s dignity and their right to work, without giving them an extra battle to fight.
“If men had to bear the pangs which women have to undergo during childbirth, none of them would even consent to bear more than a single child in his life.”
— Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Bombay Legislative Assembly, 1938)
In 1938, Dr Ambedkar engaged in a significant debate within the Bombay Legislative Assembly, advocating for birth control facilities for women. In 1928, his efforts led to the granting of paid maternity leave to women working in the factories. He passionately acknowledged the intense physical challenges and pain that a woman undergoes during and after childbirth.
“It is in the interest of the nation that the mother ought to get a certain amount of rest during the pre-natal period and also subsequently, and the principle of the Bill (Maternity Bill) is based entirely on that principle”
— Dr. Ambedkar. (1928, during the introduction of a Maternity Benefit Bill in the Legislative Assembly)
His arguments placed a strong emphasis on prioritising women's health and well-being, recognising the need of supportive mechanisms that respect their physical and emotional needs. Dr. Ambedkar argued for women's right to compensation during maternity leave, emphasising that this support is essential for their recovery and ability to return to their professional roles. Through this compelling advocacy, Dr. Ambedkar ensured that women are not only considered valuable contributors to the workforce but also feel supported during one of the most challenging experiences of their lives. Through these enactments, he wanted to convey the message of economic justice, achieved through shared responsibility between the employer and the state towards women’s physical, emotional, and economic well-being, which eventually results in the nation’s development.