The Hindu Business Line : A gender paradox in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka might have the best social indicators in the region when it comes to women's literacy, health, etc and also boast of giving the world its first woman prime minister in Sirimavo Bandaranaike. Yet, it has a history of abysmal representation of women not only in its Parliament — less than 5 per cent — but also its local bodies where just over one per cent of women are represented, says Kumari Jayawardena, Secretary of the Social Scientists Association, Sri Lanka, in an interview to Life. Excerpts:

How has the ethnic conflict, and the violence associated with it, affected women?

Well, women are the victims of war... as widows they've faced the trauma of being single parents and livelihoods of families are affected. A lot of gender-related problems come up in terms of health, education, domestic violence, etc. There is certainly an increase in violence against women, which even the LTTE admits to in the North.

War brutalises societies, and both in the North and the South, we've seen a huge increase in domestic violence, and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Bill is trying to address this issue through various clauses on complaints and punitive orders. Both the major parties support this Bill.

What space do gender issues have within the peace process?

The peace process has stalled now, but in 2003 we were very optimistic and there was a sub-committee; five women from the South went and had two meetings with the LTTE women where gender issues were discussed. We started sending them publications in Tamil on gender issues.

But all that had to stop when the peace process stalled. But we still have unofficial contact; people went there during tsunami. We meet... not that there is total isolation, but we can't do anything officially.

Why?

Because the gender sub-committee is linked to the peace process. The LTTE decided that till peace talks resume, this would be on hold. We're willing to go there anytime because on gender issues we have much more agreement with the LTTE and if you depoliticise it a bit, then we can talk very freely with the women. So it's a pity that it fell through, because we could have done a lot more work.

Sri Lanka banks heavily on remittances sent by Sri Lankan women working mostly as domestic labour in West Asia. How do educated women like you feel on this subject and what about the havoc their absence causes in their families?

This is one of our pressing social issues. Unlike some countries we don't ban women going abroad. The government won't ban it because this is a huge foreign exchange earner. And if you take all kinds of women's work... in plantations it is mainly women, export of labour is mostly women and in the free trade zone or the garments industry, 80 per cent of the labour is women. Tourism also is mainly women's work.

So, cheap female labour in plantations, factories and foreign employment accounts for the bulk of the country's foreign exchange earnings. Our Women's Manifesto details all this.

What about the political representation of women in your legislatures?

Oh, that's abysmal; in that area we're much worse than India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Nepal. We've had less than 5 per cent representation in our Parliament and the percentage is declining.

This despite the President being a woman, her mother being the first woman prime minister in the world and the high statistics when it comes to quality of life in parameters such as literacy (90 per cent), life expectancy (74 years) and among the lowest maternal and infant mortality rates in the region. We had free health services and free education. Of course, we are now spending proportionately less, but women's literacy levels in some regions in the North are even better than those in the South.

Then why is political representation so low?

Because we are a patriarchal society when it comes to political parties giving representation to women, even in local bodies. One can understand the low representation of women in Parliament but do you know we have just over one per cent women in local bodies? You have 33 per cent.

Sri Lanka is a paradox of female leadership at the top and very high social indicators for women, but very little presence of women in our legislatures and local bodies. When it comes to political power, the boys start jostling and pushing! Even in positions where women are nominated... where you don't have to contest... there have been cases where a woman is on the list of something and she moves out to give her husband a place!

Such a phenomenon exists as does that of political families. We're doing a study on how the only women in our Parliament come from political families... somebody's wife or daughter. Every party has this feature.

So women leaders haven't done much to increase women's political representation?

Usually women leaders never think of women's issues as their priority. When you meet them they agree to feminist thinking. In private even the men say: `Sure'. But when it comes to political power, they don't want to yield any space.

Well in India too, the Women's Reservation Bill has been on the backburner for so long.

Even on the prevention of domestic violence Bill when you tell a man that now there's going to be this law and you can't beat your wife or else you'll go to jail, he says: `Oh, that's funny. If I can't beat my own wife, whose wife can I beat?' So they joke about it; we live in a very complex country. But we do have Supreme Court judges, ambassadors, vice chancellors, etc. That pattern is okay.

How do you see the peace process?

Well, we've muddled along for so long that we don't get excited any more. The Buddhists say you shouldn't get excited over success or failure; you must keep a middle path. I'm a secularist and not a Buddhist but those who've seen it all and seen how we've muddled through are interested in this charismatic leadership which somehow Chandrika seems to project. We're studying a bit of that too. What is this charisma? Why from the 19th to the 21st century, this family...

From the 19th century?

Oh yes, they were the chief native advisors to the British, then went to Oxford... then they do a swift change, from Christians they become Buddhist! They change with the times, but the dynasty is there. In 1931, Jayawardane and others became Buddhists. We call them political Buddhists! Then they were spinning chakra, copying India in all this, but still projecting the dynasty. And Bandaranaike comes back from Oxford and there is a big reception in the feudal areas and they say you are our natural leader and this kind of talk, and he says, `I'm not your leader but your servant'. In his letters he's always said: `My destiny to serve the people'. So these dynastic families feel that the privileged have a duty. So charisma comes in ...

Well, this is true of entire South Asia... we have the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty in India!

We don't want to oppose women getting into politics even though through the dynastic route. But we want to understand the procedure and maybe look at it again.

What about Chandrika's future? Do you think she'll retire?

No, why should she retire? She can become prime minister.

After being President?

Yes.

But won't that be stepping down?

Yes... but you're stepping from one nice house to another! What would she do otherwise? She is still relatively young; she's only 60. She has not known anything else all her life; from mother's milk it has been only politics.

I have often wondered why Sunetra Bandaranaike, her elder sister, and a very sharp and intelligent woman, never entered politics.

But then you have to be ready to step into the mud, dirty your hands and fight all these rascals and knock their heads together. But maybe she didn't want to... I don't want to put words into her mouth. Anybody who does a job is not necessarily the most qualified for it.

Sonia Gandhi, what is her qualification? Or Mrs Bandaranaike, what was her qualification?

Except that they are strong women who're able to enter the field and it is certainly not an easy thing to do. And a lot of women leaders have courage. They don't leave things and run from the field. They say Thatcher was best in a crisis.

And so was Indira Gandhi.

Yes. People say: `Oh, poor woman, she must be terrified.' Not at all, it's the opposite. She gets energised by crises. For example, in 1997 she presented the new Constitution, which was very good... she is not communal at all... but the Opposition did not let her speak. She came into Parliament, they shouted, tore it up, burnt it; they were screaming and yet she stood her ground and made the best speech of her life. She didn't drop it and run. The mayhem gave her the adrenalin or whatever. People know it. That is the importance of charismatic leadership; in a crisis that leader will deliver.

Picture by the author

Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Crave for caviar!

Gentlemen do cook and tell

Try this at home...

Walk your way to health

Targeting housewives

Sewing statements

Formula for change

A gender paradox in Sri Lanka

"There is complete harmony in the family... "