What was so special about recent Aurat March [Women’s march on the occasion of The International Women’s Day] that it evoked such a strong reaction from certain segments of society? One, it were placards, the slogans on the placards, to be exact. Two, the body language of the participating women especially their movement or steps of their dance in a state of gay abandon. Placards and slogans no doubt were bold not only in their challenging tone but also in their socio-cultural scope. Not that there was something absolutely new about the slogans. They in fact are the very slogans whose content is an inseparable part of men’s world of leisure where on the one hand woman is conjured up as an object of unending sexual pleasure and on the other an unavoidable partner who though considered inferior, intellectually and physically, is a thinly-concealed threat to what in Marxian terms is called the base and the super-structure of male world that has an unshakeable but guilt-ridden faith in its own supremacy.

It can be rewarding to have a cursory look at the slogans which have unleashed a sort of intense debate on social media which is like a hot potato; no one can indulge in it without risking their fingers being singed. The whole thing being loaded is too hot to handle. The slogans have three very obvious dimensions; economic, socio-political and sexual. One slogan ‘apna khana khud garam karo [warm your food yourself]’ displayed is a reminder of what a woman does for her husband/ partner. She is responsible for the upkeep of the household and physical comfort of her man which means a substantial amount of unskilled and skilled work that always remains unaccounted for. Man comes home and expects that his woman will offer her everything on a platter however exhausted she may be after doing her household chores/employment duty. Man will have to spend the large portion of his income if he is forced to hire services for housekeeping. So the economic worth of the woman’s work is not acknowledged. Most of the time in a patriarchal family the work a woman is forced to do is considered a kind of largesse bestowed on her for which she must be grateful.

Another slogan we heard was ‘Mera jism meri marzi [My body my choice]’. The slogan encapsulates the essence of perennial gender war. Whosoever controls woman’s body will determine the eventual outcome. A hunt for woman’s body has been and still is a most passionate engagement for man. Female body when hunted is a most enviable trophy man can boast of. Social structures have been erected to precisely perpetuate male grip over woman’s body which has reproductive and erotic functions. For women reclaiming their bodies means dismantling oppressive and repressive social structures and mechanisms that enslave them perpetually in the name of family values and honour.

Yet another slogan that stirred up a real hornet’s nest was ‘apna bistar khud garam karo [warm your bed yourself]’. The slogan being unusually provocative has the power to make all the pious hit the roof. It, in their opinion, is tantamount to denying the ‘sacred’ conjugal rights a man has over a woman married to him. The very question of marital rape is a sinful idea. Husband owns his woman body like any other commodity. Unsolicited sex is not thought to be an abhorrent practice. Sexual equality is not the norm. So the slogan is an assault on the very idea of marriage that treats husband and wife unequally. Sexual equality has to be a new normal, assert the protesting women. Thus the March shows that women not only want freedom like men but also want men to accept them as their equals. Now equality is not something natural or given. Nature treats things unequally and natural laws are not driven by any notion of equality. It simply means that equality is purely a human concept, a product of a long evolutionary process of consciousness with the underpinnings of non-natural human ideals. All other things being equal, equality doesn’t mean equality in all the things. Equality in human affairs implies a human desire for an equal society that ensures equal rights for all irrespective of gender which means guarantee of rights for women hitherto denied to them on the ground of their being misconceived as lesser human beings. In other words it means accepting the physiological differences between man and woman without allowing them to impact the equal rights for both the sexes. Such differences have their in-built purpose which can only be fulfilled if there is unity of the different. Man or woman alone cannot make himself or herself a complete social unit. If the society has to function as a unit, it must be premised on the assumption that men and women are equal humans despite difference in their anatomy and corresponding functions. Being physically tougher doesn’t mean being better than being able to bear a child.

To sum up, Aurat March this year has proved to be an event that would have far-reaching implications for gender relations as it has generated a social dialogue on a scale not seen before. It has rattled not only the pious but also a section of our enlightened liberals. The former represent the moribund tradition of treating different sexes differently while the latter pretend to stand for equal rights for all. The simple reason for such a heated debate is that a segment of young women have dared to make a part of public discourse what has been brushed under the carpet or discussed in hush-hush tone in private gatherings. They have committed a‘sin’ by exposing the putrid sexism the male world is replete with. They have set tongues wagging by making the private public. This is something new but not that new if we look at our literary history. Remember Waris Shah? Ranjha, one of the main protagonists of the legend of Heer, after becoming Yogi engages in an intense and nasty dialogue with Sehti [sister of Heer’s so-called husband] that baffles many a critic for being risqué, bawdy and unusually long. But it has a purpose; it brings to the fore unabashedly what men think of women and vice versa. It’s a trading of clichés about male and female. Ranjha for instance says to indomitable Sehti; ‘we consider women as sweetmeats tiny / we catch them, chew them, in a moment swallow… Men are prompt in action O Sehti, women are enemies of honest earning / men are ships of virtues, women of vile fetterings /they sink the reputation of parents, honour of brothers abasing [Trans. Muzaffar Ghaffaar] ’. Doesn’t it sound familiar? Let’s try to go beyond clichés like the bard did; first critiquing the stereotypes and then exploring a multi-dimensional character of an emancipated woman who would herald the coming of a new era of gender and sexual equality. 

— soofi01@hotmail.com [Concluded]