Skip to main content

Sticks and Saris in Uttar Pradesh

Most of the images my mind conjures up when I think about India are drawn from things like Forster's A Passage to India or, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I imagine the crowded streets, the river Ganges, or one of the Gandhi family. Of course, what little I've managed to pick up from scattered bits of literature, history, or film barely begins to scratch the surface of India. There is an India we may not think of, the India outside of the cities, and it is this India and the struggles of a group of women that Amana Fonanella-Khan depicts in her new book Pink Sari Revolution: A Tale of Women and Power in India. 

The central focus of the work is the case of one Sheelu Nishad, a young women raped by a local legislator and then accused of theft and imprisoned by the local police. It is here that we first meet the formidable Sampat Pal, the woman who formed the "Pink Gang," a brave group of women who dress in pink saris and agitate against corruption and wrongdoing, whether it is protesting for a better road (rather humorously, by shaming a local magistrate by saying the road was no better than a field, and then proceeding to plant crops there), or acting against those who are corrupt or violent. An outspoken and intelligent woman, Sampat was never shy in voicing her opinion, a tendency that nearly saw her murdered in her old village but has generally served her well. Seeking strength in numbers, Sampat gathered a group of like-minded women in her village who were tired of being bystanders in the happenings of life. Together, wearing their pink saris as a uniform, they've grown into a movement that works towards a better life for women, and the poor, in the province. The province of Uttar Pradesh, where the Pink Gang began, is surely one of the most poverty-ridden and corrupt places in India, even by the standards of so-called "emerging market" nations. The province is occasionally referred to as "India's Wild West," and here politicians and policemen are even more corrupt than usual. It is a place where caste discrimination, though officially prohibited in India, still reigns, and the lives of women are particularly harsh. Some may question their tactics, which have included assaulting men with their batons, including policemen. But in a place where justice must generally be purchased, I would assert that they are justified in using unusual and extraordinary means to achieve their ends. It must also be admitted that there is something deeply satisfying in reading about an abusive husband being insulted and beaten by the Pink Gang in turn--it seems in fact a small price to pay to get a man to stop beating his wife. 

As the narrative progresses, Fontanella-Khan deftly incorporates stories that illustrate the development of the Pink Gang from just a few members to over 20,000 as of 2008 and the journey of Sampat Pal herself. Some others have criticized this book as an overly sunny portrait of the Pink Gang and their leader, but this seems to me an unfair criticism. The author is certainly quite taken with Sampat Pal, as many are and will be after reading this book, but this isn't merely a panegyric to a courageous woman. The stories that the author chooses to included (surely just a few among hundreds) paint a balanced and complex picture of the leader of the Pink Gang, from successes, to dealing with problematic members, to her struggles in deciding whether to enter politics herself as an extension of her work to make life better for those in the province. 

Take the time to read this book; whether you think that you will be interested or not, this woman's story deserves to be heard. It is also an inspiring, and ongoing, story that should be a lesson to us all. No matter what the obstacles are, no matter the level of corruption or resistance in our way, if we want to make a change we have an obligation to get up and fight for it. If one woman can start a movement to make life better in the most backward and corrupt province in India, what then is our excuse for inaction?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...