From: sgs1679@usl.edu (Sudhindranath Sira G)
Subject: Re: Changing role of women: A woman's perspective
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.211136.24151@news.ysu.edu> ae414@yfn.ysu.edu (V Sundar) writes:
>
>In a previous article, sgs@ucs.usl.edu (Sudhindranath SG) says:
>
>>As I said before, mainstream Indian women's lib movement _is_ a 
>>mimicry of the Western women's lib movement. This is clear 
>
>That, dear ally pally, does not make it undesirable per se. I know
>you never said it was undesirable, but that's what I read between
>the lines. Communications breakdown ?
>

No, it would NOT make it undesirable per se.  I would say that at 
the very least, it _could_ be _unsuitable_. (something like say,
trying to sell low-fat foodstuff in India with the "low-fat" aspect
as the USP, in marketing terms. [This is only an analogy. Please
don't stretch it too far])

>
>Or maybe you think Indian women are already liberated enough and have no 
>business asking to be liberated ? just maybe ? Huh huh huh ? :)
>

This would perhaps clear the things as to what exactly I think about
this issue ---- In my original article, I had made it very, very clear 
that there is certainly a need to rectify the wrongs concerning this
matter that exist in the Indian society.

[deleted]
>
>>I am aware of an "indigenous" women's liberation movement in India 
>>which is more tuned to the needs of the society and less disruptive of
>>existing social structures but such movements generally are relegated 
>>to the background and it is the fire-brand Western-oriented women
>>"libbers" (Neena Gupta et. al.) who get the limelight. This state of 
>>affairs is truly unfortunate.
>
>I ask you, Sira Sudhindranath, just what is so all-blasted-holy about the
>existing social structures that they be not disrupted ?
>

I feel that _any_ change in society can have beneficial effects
_only_ if it is gradual. A convulsive change that disrupts existing
social structures can only do more harm than good. I am not being
status-quoist. Yes, society is continuously evolving and there
is nothing holy about its present state. The key point is
that change, IMO, should NOT be _convulsive_.

>I'm with you if you cite the factor of being "in tune" with Indian
>society. There is always a backlog to work off.. yes ?
>
>And a reform from within the system, some say .. ( this is arguable )
>works slower but surer.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I certainy agree with this.

>
>But your argument for "less disruptive" tactics smacks of reactionary
>thought.. you know, take it easy, take it slow, it'll come in time..
>

If  someone advocates change at a slower pace, he does not necessarily
become "reactionary".  This is something like Mikhail Gorbachev being 
branded as reactionary by Boris Yeltsin!  Nobody on earth can say
that Gorbachev _didn't_ want change.

[deleted]

>Maybe if we kick them hard enough, the grandaddies might just notice !
>

This is certainly not what I was driving at. I just don't understand
your sense of sarcasm.

>This is a movement that has enough social inertia to work against
>getting off the ground as such. And ideas, wherever they come from,
>are change.. change for the positive.
>
>If that disrupts your existing social structure too much..
>
>So be it.
>

I think I can understand the intensity of your feelings. But again,
I insist that I was not being status-quoist.  Probably, we disagree
on the pace of change and on what are the options we have to consider 
in bringing about the change, but I resent being branded as "reactionary", 
because I am not.  I am very much a rebel myself.

Thanks for your response.

>
>Sundar

Regards,

--Sudhi.

--
                       Sira Gopinath Sudhindranath. 
email : sudhi@usl.edu, sgs@ucs.usl.edu    Address : USL PO Box 41688,
Phone : (318)-232-2198 (r)	                    Lafayette, LA 70504-1688.
	(318)-231-6539 (o)                          USA.