The Metro Women’s Club in the City recently celebrated its silver
jubilee on a grand scale. Dignitaries who graced the occasion and shared their
thoughts ranged from academicians and socio-cultural leaders to professionals,
lawyers and politicians.
The keynote address at the inaugural session was delivered by the
Delhi-based Professor Damayanti Verma. The other key speakers at the session
included the popular Malayalam novelist Parmesh Kurup, the World Bank’s Dr. Usha Menon and the much respected patriarchal figure Justice Ramanatha Ayyar.
Speeches
in a nutshell
Professor Verma’s emphasis was on the enormous contribution women were
making in their daily life and went on to emphasize its measurable impact on
the country’s economy even surpassing that of the male contribution.
Parmesh Kurup strongly endorsed her views, and lamented that woman’s
roles as wife and as mother were not getting due appreciation.
Dr Usha Menon, while agreeing with Professor Verma’s contentions in
principle, expressed difficulty in translating women’s contribution in the
family into measurable economic terms. That was because the woman’s
contribution in the family transcended mere economics. The banker went on to
assert that any attempt at converting her services into financial terms would
have the counter-productive effect of debasing her.
Retired Justice Ramanatha Ayyar was not exactly amused by the
hijacking of the basic feminist theme of the day in the direction of crude
economics. He regretted that the discussions they had in the day were limited
to women’s contributions in financial terms. He reminded the gathering about
the contribution of feminism of the past one century and exhorted women to
continue the fight for their social, economic and political rights.
The speakers presented their thoughts roughly on the following lines.
I. Prof
Damayanti Verma
Prof Verma began by tracing the history of feminist struggles over the
past one hundred odd years and how women could win some of their legitimate
rights to equality with men in family life, in economic spheres, in the society
and in politics. She said what the movement could achieve was great indeed, but
what was yet to be achieved was greatly more. Especially so in politics.
“Take, for instance, the case of USA. Their Senate was established in
the 18th century, yet the first time a woman found a place in that
body was in 1922. Even by 1992, there were just three women Senators in USA.
Now they have seventeen, out of a total of 100. In India the Women’s
Reservation Bill has been pending since 1996 although the Rajya Sabha had
passed it a couple of years ago. Women’s present strength in the Lok Sabha is
just around 60 out of the total of 545, forming but 11 percent of the total.
And you know the unkind comments heard in the Parliament from its male members
when the Bill was taken up for consideration.”
The Professor said the subject was vast and the issues complex. Hence
she said she would limit her present discussion to the contribution women were
continually making to their country’s economic output or GDP. She briefly enumerated the various
kinds of domestic tasks a woman is required to do in a middle class Indian
family, and said, “The thankless chores that women do at home, if rendered in economic
terms, would lift the country’s gross domestic product to unimaginable heights,
and men folk would be forced to sit up and recognise women’s worth in the
family set-up as also at the national level.”
She went on, “Women cook; they clean; they wash; they nurse, they
teach and enculturate children; they tidy up the house; they keep family
accounts; they are the relationship managers who maintain and nurture the
family’s social network; and they do many other innumerable services for the
family. They work with no prescribed time limit, without ever taking leave, and
without any personal profit motive. In the case of a ‘working woman’, her
domestic contribution would be over and above her income from job and work
schedule.”
Damayanti Verma, once a respected economics professor and now a well
known social activist in the country, was the chief guest at the function.
Critics would comment later that there was nothing new in her speech; the idea
had already received much attention at various forums. Yet, they conceded, she
presented the case in a convincing manner unlike some of the fanatic feminists
who would confuse the issue and create an adversarial mood by ventilating their
domestic grievances on such occasions.
Verma continued, “Economists all over the world concede that such
value-added GDP would be a fair indicator of the nation’s real income
generation. And, if this is done, women’s share in such a refined GDP would far
surpass that of the male contribution.”
Prof Verma received loud applause in response.
“Wait a minute”, she said. “I specifically mentioned here only those
services rendered by women that are visible and quantifiable. There are many
other, even more valuable inputs from women, which go into the family-building
process, into the nation-building process, without ever being noticed. Who, for
instance, makes it possible for the man to do great things and contribute to
the nation? When you say there is a great lady behind the success of every
great man, do you think it is but some kind of platitude? Likewise, when you
say, there is a great mother behind every successful child?”
“Take the legendary case of John and Jacqueline Kennedy. It is well known that he was he because of her. So,
didn’t she merit part of the credit that was attributed to him? How would you
compute her share in their contribution to the overall development of America?
Assume, for the sake of argument, he had a shrew as his wife? Would he have
been an effective President in that case?”
The Professor was on a roll. “Let me illustrate the point from the
difference between a good industrial entrepreneur and a bad one. A good
entrepreneur brings prosperity to her enterprise, while a bad one does not. And
how do you evaluate their respective entrepreneurial contributions? Difficult.
Likewise, it is difficult to delineate the effect of a woman on the success of
her man, although her influence is there for all to see.”
Prof Damayanti continued, “To summarize, it is possible to evolve
norms to compute the contribution of women in the building up of the country’s
GDP; and yet there are also intangible contributions from her that defy such
computation. And, based on the tangible, quantifiable contributions alone, I am
sure the female contribution so worked out, will far exceed the male
contribution. Men need to sit up and take notice of this.”
She went on reasoning out the need for the world to change the gender
paradigm and the gender bias, and to give the woman her due place in the
society.
The applauses that followed were wide yet mixed with a few tentative
ones.
II. Novelist
Parmesh Kurup
The award-winning novelist Parmesh Kurup spoke next. Wholly endorsing
the views expressed by the economist Damayanti Verma, he, however, admitted
that he was rather illiterate in the technical aspects of economics; that his
familiarity with concepts like GDP was befitting that of a layperson; and that
hence he would not be able to go into the wider implications of the
propositions made by the Professor.
“But I guess I have understood the import of what she said. There are
many things that women do to make life beautiful – beautiful for her husband,
for her children, for her wider family and for the society itself. It is a pity
that their contribution to the welfare of the community often goes
unrecognized.”
The novelist continued, “As Prof Damayanti rightly observed, most of
our noteworthy citizens, be they politicians, social/cultural leaders, artists,
industry leaders or executives, are shining in their fields because of the
support they are receiving at home. Hence it is fair that a large share of the credit
should go for their hidden support. I don’t know how the economists would
convert such support services into money terms. Impossible I would say. I shall
illustrate this point with an episode I have described in my upcoming
novel....”
“Vasant, the company’s MD, rated his own public relations skill as a
prime factor in his success. He would invite influential persons and high net
worth individuals home for drinks. His wife was an excellent cook. The man
would display her culinary skills before the guests, and she would be present
throughout the treat as a good hostess. With effort the lady would go on
playing the role and smiling even when her facial muscles were aching. And this
was a regular chore for her. His boss the Chairman was a keen observer of men
and matters. He indirectly admonished him for overdoing his public relations
gimmicks and added that more than half his salary should go to his wife. ‘Would
you at least acknowledge your debt to her?’ asked the Chairman. ‘But, Sir, that
is her duty’, was his response!”
The novelist continued, “I read a story some time ago. A real story.
It happened some 200 years ago. A rich man had as many as 25 children, all
living at the same time. The local Raja took notice of this rare feat and
honoured him with an award, a veera shrinkhala, hero’s necklace. No one then
even thought of the prolific mother who was the one that made it possible for
the couple to have so many healthy children. Her role was taken for granted. In
reality, was it not she who merited the award more than him?”
Someone among the audience was heard commenting that if men were to
speak at women’s functions such as the present one, they would overnight become
more female in their outlook than the females themselves and go overboard and
support women above and beyond their own expectations!
III. Dr
Usha Menon of the World Bank
Dr. Menon spoke next. After serving the World Bank for several years,
she had turned to social activities and occasional writing. Endorsing the views
expressed by Prof Verma, she said a modified or refined GDP as suggested by the
Professor made very good economic sense. She explained the concept of the
economic rate of return (ERR) as followed by the World Bank. “Attribute a
universally acceptable value or norm or weight to each ingredient in the
manufacture of a product and work out the notional cost of the product on that
basis. That would be the ‘real’ cost of production, including all hidden costs.
And compare it with the product’s international price. If the profit margin as
a percentage of the sale price is comparatively sizable and acceptable, we say
the economic rate of return is OK.”
She explained the significance of the ERR. “Enterprises in closed
economies often earn crude profits by exploiting the labour and by buying raw
materials and other inputs at subsidised prices. They earn profits; but their
profits are artificially created, being the result of labour exploitation and
subsidies from the public exchequer. Now, you replace the labour cost with the
internationally acceptable cost and withdraw the subsidies. You get loss. That
means the venture was artificially propped up, and its ERR was negative.”
“The question raised by
Professor Verma is if we can, likewise, attach a weight to each domestic function
and compute the economic value of the function. Does it appeal to you as
possible? Yes.... ?”
There was a subdued expression of doubtful approval.
She resumed, “Technically it is possible to compute notional values
for some of the elementary contributions made by a housewife. For instance, let
us take the humble task of cooking rice. There is market value for a kilogram
of uncooked rice, and there could be a standard market value for the same
amount of the same quality of rice cooked. The difference is the value added.
Deduct from it the cost of fuel and other expenses for cooking. Now you get the
cook’s contribution. Would you consider that meagre surplus as the contribution
of the woman? You might as well consider the cost of hiring a cook as the
equivalent of the lady’s contribution in money terms? The unsavoury paradox
emerging from the latter view is that the services of the lady of the house could
be exchanged with those of a maid working for money! In other words, the
housewife’s services become convertible or ‘tradable’ in the language of the
economist.”
A murmur of groan was heard from among the audience.
Usha Menon continued, “Yes, one way to quantify the woman’s
contribution is to trivialize her family building efforts as a series of
unconnected, distinct items of chores and evaluate each such component
separately. But, as Professor Verma herself suggested a little while ago, the
function of the lady of the house could be better understood holistically as
entrepreneurial and not as that of a maid mechanically going through her
drudgery. Viewed from this entrepreneurial perspective, it follows that the
value of her aggregate services in the family would be enormously greater than
the total of the values of her disaggregated, routine functions. The value of
the whole exceeding the sum of the values of its parts. Also, holistically
considered, the quality of such services would vary from individual to
individual. Hence it becomes difficult to evaluate the varying contributions of
such domestic entrepreneurs and put a price tag on each of them.”
“Thus”, she concluded, “we come to the inevitable conclusion that the
financially convertible contributions of the woman are much less significant
compared to her overall, non-convertible contribution to the family’s growth,
prosperity and well being. Once this basic reality is recognized and
appreciated, the consequential question to be addressed is: Would it be of any
practical benefit to anyone if the concept of GDP is ‘refined’ by adding the
convertible domestic contribution of the woman as part of the nation’s income?
Some of our friends here may fancy that such modified GDP emphasizing women’s
contribution to the nation’s income may give them some kind of psychological
comfort. Another view, an opposite one, could be that, by doing so we are
automatically trivializing the woman’s role in the family by laying the
emphasis on her routine, tradable contributions and ignoring her much greater,
superior role in the family.....”
Usha Menon thus projected herself as agreeing with Professor Verma in
principle but disagreeing in essence. Ms Menon’s address received muted
appreciation from among the audience, maybe because it went over their head.
IV. Justice
Ramanatha Ayyar
It was now the turn of the much respected patriarchal figure, retired
Justice K. Ramanatha Ayyar. He began by appreciating the thoughts expressed by
the previous speakers, all of whom obviously stood for women’s rights, their
equality with men in political, economic and social spheres. It was that noble
concern that made Professor Verma emphasize the need for remodelling the
country’s GDP by integrating into it women’s domestic contributions in
financial terms. The self-same sentiment found expression through respected
novelist Parmesh Nair. And that very concern was addressed by banking expert Dr
Usha Menon in her highly professional way.
He said, “Ms. Menon in fact went a step further. She neatly explained
to us the near-impossibility of converting a woman’s contribution to her
family, a wife’s contribution to her husband, a mother’s contribution to her
children, into mere financial terms. And if you would permit me to paraphrase
her thoughts in my own words, she said a woman’s contribution to her family
transcended material considerations, and hence it would be impossible to
measure her by the yardsticks of mechanical economics. To borrow a phrase from
the 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, the place of the
woman in the family is not merely that of an ‘homo economicus’ or economic
person. You cannot define, or narrow down, men and women in mere economic
terms...”
Justice Ayyar continued, “How can you evaluate mother’s love in
limited money terms? What kind of finite value you would assign to mother’s
milk?”
“Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, let us not even think in terms of
measuring the woman of the human species in economic terms, as logically
reasoned by Ms Menon. And if we do, then that would tantamount to degenerating
and debasing the wife in the woman, the mother in the woman. In the name of
emancipating the woman we would be doing much harm to the dignity of womanhood,
albeit unwittingly.”
“Let our feminists also understand and appreciate that men too bring
in many collateral benefits into the family in addition to monetary income.
They too are entrepreneurial in their respective families, consciously and
unconsciously, in myriad ways. Often it is they who build up the family
prestige. It is they who have a major role in instilling self-confidence in
their children. When he advances in his career, the family will have the
spin-off benefit in the form of enhanced prestige in the community. I don’t
want to enumerate here all the benefits accruing from a father, but let me
briefly state that the man and the woman have their respective roles,
complementary roles, in the family, in its upbringing.”
“Then the immediate question that stares at us is: Why good many women
in their family life are increasingly getting dissatisfied with their domestic
role? And, by way of an answer, most of us would point their finger at the man.
You would accuse him for taking her for granted. As he gets increasingly
involved in his profession, there develops some kind of disconnect in the
family. Communication becomes less open. And it affects the family’s cohesion.
Dissatisfaction follows. But I am not here to share my thoughts on family
chemistry or family dynamics....”
The Justice continued, “The theme assigned to me, my contextual
concern, is women’s equal rights in the society. But, during the day’s
discussion, the theme got narrowed down to the subject of manipulating GDP, the
session itself having been hijacked in that direction, unwittingly though....”
“I was to discuss with you here the issue of equal rights for you in
society, economics, politics and in workplace. But at this stage in the session
I would not redirect it towards my assigned theme since the allotted time has
already been used up for GDP considerations. So, all I want to say now is this
- You should continue to systematically fight for your rights. Remember: it is
due to the unrelenting fights launched by the feminist movements of the last
century that you are now enjoying the benefits of universal suffrage in
politics....
“I am not in any way discouraging any discussion of GDP and women’s
share in it in seminars and workshops like this. On the contrary I believe that
such discussions are useful in keeping the controversy, the issue alive. At the
same time, such discussions suffer from several disadvantages.... “
“First, it deflects our attention from the main issue. Secondly such
discussions can result in scoring self-goals: the role of the dignified woman
in the family gets reduced to a mere financial function, as if tradable with
that of a maid working for money as Dr Menon said. Thirdly, good many of our
female activists – Professor Damayanti Verma certainly excluded - often present
their case wrapped in such obsessively adversarial spirit as if they were bent
upon drawing but derision from men. By the way, that is what happened in
Parliament when the Women’s Bill was taken up. Interestingly, most men have
come to expect some flippancy in women’s demands especially when they state
their case with their characteristic impetuosity.”
Therefore, let me conclude, my dear delightful lady friends, by
exhorting you to make some efforts and study and understand the real problems
facing women in the present-day India. And fight to redeem yourselves from the
inequities that are still there in the society concerning you. Eventually you
will win, because you are the mothers to our decision-makers. And I wish you
all success.”
The applause from the audience was loud and spontaneous.
The Secretary of the Club, Ms. Molly Varghese expressed her great
satisfaction over the thoughts that evolved at the session and thanked all the
speakers and the audience for contributing to the memorable and meaningful
session.
K X M John
23/04/2012
