Why property rights for women rile up men in ‘progressive’ Northeast

Women climbing steep slopes, lugging harvest or wood in bamboo baskets suspended from a strap placed over the forehead, is a common sight in the countryside of Northeast India.

Another striking feature that is difficult to miss while visiting the region is the dominating presence of women vendors selling fresh produce harvested from their farms in markets—both in rural and urban centres.

In fact, an important tourist attraction in Imphal, the capital of Manipur, is its Ima Keithel, literally meaning mother’s market. It is an over 500-year-old market run and managed entirely by women.

Women also strongly compete in terms of numbers with their male counterparts in white-collar jobs, giving an impression that the women-leap (leadership, empowerment, access and protection) is a reality in the region.

In fact, the number of women in the workforce is higher than the national average in most northeastern states. According to the last Census data of 2011, the workforce participation of women in India was 25.5 per cent whereas in Nagaland, it is as high as 44.7 per cent.

In Sikkim, it is 39.6 per cent followed by Manipur where the percentage is 38.6 per cent. In Mizoram, it is 36.2 per cent, Meghalaya 32.7, while in Arunachal Pradesh, women comprise 35.4 per cent of its workforce.

Only in two non-tribal majority states of Assam (22.5 per cent) and Tripura (23.6 per cent), the participation of women in the workforce is less than the national average.

These impressive figures, however, did not lead to socio-economic security for women in these tribal-dominated states.

The gender crisis in these states lurking beneath the façade of what meets the eye once again became evident when male-dominated civil society organisations in Arunachal Pradesh raised an alarm last month over a leaked draft of the proposed Arunachal Pradesh Marriage and Inheritance of Property Bill, 2021.

The draft prepared by the Arunachal Pradesh State Commission for Women (APSCW) in consultation with Arunachal Pradesh Women’s Welfare Society (APWWS) and the Arunachal Pradesh State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (APSCPCR) for consideration of the government is aimed at providing equal inheritance rights to Arunachali women.

The need for such rights become more imperative as polygamy is still prevalent among several of the state’s 26 major tribes and more than 100 sub-tribes. The state women commission frequently gets complaints of domestic violence arising primarily out of polygamy.

“What makes the women more vulnerable is that in most cases, they are not economically strong enough to leave such relationships. This is because women have no right over the property of their husband,” APSCW chairperson Radhilu Chai Techi told The Federal.

Controversial sections

Criminalisation of polygamy, and property rights for the legally wedded wife and widow are the two crucial suggestions made in the draft, which has now been put on the backburner to quell civil society uproar.

The state home minister and government’s spokesperson Bamang Felix said the draft did not even qualify to be called a “bill” as it was not approved by the government and was prepared without consulting the state government.

“The commission is an advisory body and hence its proposal is not binding on the state government,” he said.

Chief Minister Pema Khandu said a “wider consultation” on the matter was needed before the government took a final call.

Although those opposing the draft are mainly raising objections to two particular sections concerning the rights of an Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) woman, many see a bigger motive behind the uproar.

The contentious Section 42 of the proposed bill says, “An APST woman married to a non-APST shall enjoy any immovable property inherited from the head of the family in her lifetime, subject to the basic limit that properties so inherited would devolve, in the event of her death upon the heirs of her ancestors from whom she inherited.”

“An APST woman married to a non-APST man shall enjoy the right of any immovable property owned and acquired by her in her lifetime. In the event of her death, her husband and her heirs would have full rights of it for disposal and alienation to any indigenous tribe of Arunachal Pradesh,” says Section 43, the other controversial part, of the bill.

Citing these two provisions, influential civil society organisations dubbed the proposed bill as “anti-tribal”.  The Adi Students’ Union claimed women have been enjoying equal rights in tribal societies since time immemorial despite customary and traditional laws allowing land to be given only to men and called for a greater debate on the bill.

The All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU) claims the draft bill is an attempt to change customary laws and traditions of the people and that if it becomes a law, it would facilitate settlement of non-tribals permanently in the state.

The real issue

“This argument that the inheritance rights would lead to the influx of non-tribals is unfounded. The bill clearly stated that the non-tribal husband of a tribal woman and their children will not be allowed to sell their properties to any non-tribal,” said a former MLA, who did not wish to be named fearing backlash from influential organisations.

Techi, too, said that there is no provision in the bill that suggests that the property will go to a non-APST.

“It is not about APST women marrying non-APST men and their property rights. The real issue is the inability to accept that women will acquire property, have access to divorce, alimony, have a way out of abusive and polygamous marriages and live a life of dignity—all of which will ultimately dent the privileges and power that tribal men have enjoyed under customary laws since time immemorial,” sociologist Gaby Miyum Damin wrote in The Aruanchal Times.

“The real issue is power and patriarchy. It must be a disturbing and horrifying prospect for these tribal men to let go of the power they have had over the public as well as personal spaces for so long in the name of customary laws,” she further argued.

Across the board

When it comes to gender equality, Arunachal Pradesh’s scenario is no different from other tribal-dominated states of the region. There too, archaic customary laws are held up to stonewall any gender reforms.

In 2017, huge protests erupted in Nagaland over a move to provide 33 per cent reservation to women in urban local bodies. Then Nagaland Chief Minister TR Zeliang resigned in the face of the violent agitation in which two persons died and several government offices were set ablaze.

The Naga Hoho, the apex body of all the Naga tribes, opposed the move saying it was the violation of customary laws.

Participation of women in decision making bodies is negligible across the region’s tribal states including Meghalaya, which has a matrilineal society where the youngest daughter inherits the property of her parents while children take the mother’s surname.

The first edition of the Niti Aayog’s North Eastern Region District Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Index released recently clearly showed that matriliny failed to promote gender equality.

In the list of 103 Northeast districts, none of Meghalaya’s 11 districts could rank among top 50 districts on gender equality index.In the state’s matrilineal Khasi and Garo societies, men are considered as decision-makers.

The traditional Dorbar Shnong (village councils) do not allow women to become village heads. As per the custom, only men become the Rangbah-Shnong (headman).

Meghalaya is not an exception. Other tribal societies of the region too shun women’s participation in policy-making. This becomes more apparent from the composition of state assemblies.

In the current Meghalaya Assembly, there are only three women MLAs, which is just 5 per cent of its total strength of 60.

Arunachal Pradesh too elected three women representatives to its 60-member Assembly in the last state elections. Manipur has currently two women MLAs while Mizoram and Nagaland have no woman legislators. Nagaland, in fact, has never elected any woman to the state Assembly.

The scenario is slightly better in Sikkim, Assam and Tripura. But Assam and Tripura lag behind in women’s participation in the overall workforce.

“In the name of tradition, women are denied equal status. In most families in Mizoram, women are the main bread-earner. But when it comes to distribution of properties, the son gets preference over the daughter,” said Rosalynn Hmar, a rights activist and lawyer from Mizoram.

Laws made by men, for men

Any deviation from customary practices applicable to women is invariably stonewalled, but the same laws could be conveniently tweaked in favour of men, she added.

Rosalynn said the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014, dropped the provision of Sazu-mei-dawh (go empty-handed) laid down in the customary law. As per this provision, a man needed to leave his entire property to his wife and children if he wished to have a second marriage.

“Let us not talk about the past. Now, we have to protect our children,” was what the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) argued during the passage of the KHAD (Khasi Social Custom of Lineage) (First Amendment) Bill, 2018.

The amendment proposed to strip a woman who marries a non-Khasi and her children of all benefits of a scheduled tribe. The amendment is now awaiting the governor’s assent.

“As if it is only the women’s responsibility to protect the tribal traditions and customs,” rued Asenla Jamir, a homemaker from Dimapur in Nagaland.

It’s this burden of the so-called traditions, Jamir added, that the women in Northeast would like to take off their back and claim their rightful place.