The women in Manipur as in certain other parts of the country have been glorified and extolled as those occupying a high position in society, as a section of the community that has a voice that is heard and taken into account. In Manipur for instance, Meira Paibis amongst the Meiteis are given near sacred positions in the public sphere related to uprisings against excesses committed by state armed forces. The same goes for various other women groups in the hills. Khasi women in Meghalaya are portrayed as following matriarchy though it is only the matrilineal system that they follow: in terms of property rights. Here again, there is a wide gulf between what is perceived and what actually is. For instance, any property arrangements in terms of its sale, is not in the hands of the woman. Rather, it is only with the sanction of the maternal Uncle that decisions can be taken. The ‘Dorbar” which is the traditional decision making body of the Khasis do not allow the participation of women in its fold.
Nearer home, it is men alone who decide the norms of each Leikai or community. For instance, the male heads of each family gets together to decide any important decision pertaining to the locality, starting from religious functions like allotting turns for festival responsibilities to issues of social service, construction of community halls and libraries etc. Women participation comes mainly in the cultural sphere: leading marriage processions but here too, the norms of patriarchy get into the picture. It is only women who have a male progeny as her first born who can lead such functions. In more orthodox families, widows are not even allowed to be a part of the ‘reception’ part of the marriage when the bridegroom reaches the marriage venue. There is great irony in the fact that the presence of “women leaders” is only in the public sphere of life and hinges on political statements: the safety of men-folk and the honor of womanhood. But what of the women themselves, in their private sphere of life? Do the same women who go out on the streets have property rights? Are there understandings of gender and its stereotypes?
There can be no deeper irony than the reactions of these leaders when they are confronted with issues of say domestic violence amongst their own sisterhood. The immediate reaction is that the victim of violence at the hands of a husband or a family member has to be accepted by the victim as something that happens in the heat of differences. There are no mechanisms for referring both victim and perpetrator for counseling but rather, the issue is sidelined to the margins of eerie silence. Objectively, the existing mechanisms of movements in the state by women are just that: movements by women and hence, they cannot be looked as movements for the issues around women. There has been stoic silence on women who have succumbed to bullets and other forms of violence perpetuated by non-state forces. Neither are there any mechanisms for support offered by even the politically recognized women groups to women who have been turned out of their marital homes after their widowhood or for those who have divorced.
Women movements across the world are democratized and are inclusive of every woman. There are no distinctions on ethnicity, race or qualifications. Rather, there is a commonality of womanhood and shared ideals of sticking together for the cause of women. The women of Manipur have to strive towards that if they are to contribute meaningfully and on an informed basis. On the contrary, if existing groups are to remain as peripheral and parallel entities, there will be no further avenues to grow beyond the narrow paradigms they have become over the years since their existence.