It is ironical that the deep-rooted patriarchal system that has not acknowledged, at least overtly, the contribution of women to social change, was the principal factor behind the growth of the feminist movement.

It is impossible to believe that women have not contributed. How could social systems have changed if half the population did not want the change? Why are there no women leaders? Is one to assume therefore that the women only followed? Are they all in the category of ‘unsung’ heroes? If women did not contribute as leaders and strategies, then who looked after their issues, their rights? Did men do that thinking also? Was it not done at all?

The tragedy in the development process is that, even today, men are doing most of the thinking on the issue of gender. Gender issues rarely become an integral part of any programme. The other side of the story is not pretty either. The die-hard feminists stay away from ‘mainstream’ development processes. They restrict their interventions to what are clearly accepted women’s issues - violence, trafficking, reproductive and child health, income generation through SHGs and the like. How many women headed CSOs in India are working on watershed, joint forestry management, agriculture? What fraction do they form of the larger world of Non-Government Organisation (NGO) action in these areas? Why are they not doing so? Is it because they do not find support? Is it that even they are thinking in gender stereotypes?

Suffice to say gender issues and ‘development’ issues are treated and handled separately in most cases in this country. In the last five years, there have been some experiments aimed at ‘mainstreaming’ gender issues in development but they are too few to make a noticeable impact. Development thinking remains the prerogative of men. This is perhaps why the social reform movements have helped men far more than women. For instance, the dalit man is now free from caste based bondage. He is free to decide the course of his life. But can his wife say the same? His mother? His daughter?

A campaign is slowly taking root in the Marathwada region of Maharashtra. It is the Jameen Adhikaar Andolan (JAA) Movement for land rights. The JAA is a front comprising NGOs, trade unions, community-based organisations, individuals, lawyers and journalists. It seeks to cover over 1000 villages in the eight districts that form the region. The movement has its roots in the early 1960s. At that time, Karmaveer Dadasaheb Gaikwad had exhorted the dalit community to encroach on grazing land belonging to the government and bring it under cultivation.

The reason for this strategy was based in the deep-rooted psyche of people. Prestige and social position in the rural areas is often linked to the ownership of land. For centuries, the dalit community was in caste based bondage, unable to decide anything for themselves and completely dependent on the landlord for survival. They had no assets, no credit-worthiness, no skills except those related to agriculture and in short no means of extricating themselves from the situation they found themselves in. This move held a promise of land ownership, a means of independent livelihood and more importantly- the possibility of social prestige.

No wonder then that the dalit community responded well to the call. This land, called gairan, is found in almost all the villages in the region. It is estimated that Marathwada has 750,000 acres of gairan land. The process of encroachment began in the 1960s and is still continuing. It has been an uphill struggle throughout. The battle has claimed a number of casualties. The feudal system just could not accept the fact that the bonded labourers aspired to be landowners. Naturally the landlords resisted, many a times violently. Dalit men and women came out on the street in thousands. They faced lathis and bullets, endured social boycott, saw their homes being burned down and standing crops destroyed by the landlords while the police turned a blind eye. The agitation and encroachments continued unabated. As of today, most of the land has been encroached upon.

However, as the encroachers quickly realised, mere possession is not enough. The land was often of poor quality and had to be developed for it to become a source of livelihood. Therein lay the rub. The people who had encroached on the land were amongst the poorest of the poor. They had no ability to invest in land development. The banks would not grant them credit because they had no assets to mortgage and hence no credit-worthiness. What was needed then was for the encroachments to be legalised. This was the next step in the agitators’ demands.

In 1978, bowing to public pressure, the state government granted land titles to some of the encroachers. A similar process was repeated in 1990. However, very large proportions of the families who have encroached on the land still do not have the all-important title. Without the title, these encroachers, some of whom have had the possession for 20 years, find themselves at the mercy of unscrupulous government officials. They continue to till the lands but live in constant fear of the wrath of the landlord or the government officials. The poor quality land does not yield much. Unskilled labour thus remains the main source of income. The encroachers are wary of making any sort of investment for land development, as they are afraid of losing their possessions. As a result, the land for which blood, sweat and tears have been shed has not yet become a source of sustainable livelihood.

This piquant situation has given rise to the JAA, whose demand is simple - regularisation of ownership of the encroached land. Small groups have been making attempts to achieve this. This is the first time however that it is being planned on such a large scale. The movement has implications beyond mere land ownership. It has the capacity to truly empower people and change first the socio-economic milieu and then the political structure of the region and the state.

The movement is still in the planning stage. It is necessary that the planning and strategy formulation be right. In the context of the experience of other movements, it is very necessary that the JAA plans and strategises with a gender perspective.

In the context of the JAA, let us look at why it is necessary for gender issues to be considered and inculcated in the main strategy and programme:

(a) The movement offers a good opportunity for promotion of women’s leadership. This will also ensure that the strategies can benefit from a sensitive handing a woman leader can bring in.

(b) All benefits of the movement will be to the family. In case women are not seen and acknowledged to be involved in the earning of this benefit, they are unlikely to have any say in the management of the benefits. In that case, their lot is hardly likely to change. It may even get worse. This is how land ownership will attain prestige, become a source of income and gain stability. In this way the dalit community will have mimicked, admittedly to a lesser extent, the situation in the homes of the landlords. What is the situation of women in the homes of the rich, upper socio-economic classes in rural areas? They are perhaps the most oppressed in the context of the rural Indian society. Since they do not need to work, they have no opportunity whatsoever to even step out of their houses. Their fate is perhaps worse than that of the dalit women who, due to circumstances, can go out for work. If dalit women do not want to suffer the same fate as that of their sisters from the upper social classes, it is necessary that they contribute towards procurement of their assets.

All this boils down to the ground reality that it is a must for women to get involved in the decision making process in large numbers, to bring about an attitudinal shift in the psyche of men as well as the women themselves. This is very likely to be a permanent change. Once the women create their own space in the decision making sphere, they can hardly be denied that space on other issues. This participation of women at all levels in the JAA could prove to be an appropriate means for their empowerment.

The JAA think-tank has taken the gender argument on board. Strategies are being devised to ensure that gender issues get addressed in the campaign. It is not enough to say that the movement will be sensitive to gender issues. This sensitivity should translate into concrete outcomes. What do we mean by carrying forward the movement with a gender perspective? It means, or should certainly mean:

The JAA can truly become a people’s movement and foster social change with a gender sensitive approach. q

PACS is poised to contribute to the JAA by supporting some
of the key initiatives that form part of the process.
INTERMON OXFAM supports a major portion of the JAA.