The Gender Impact Studies Center, of IMPRI (Impact and Policy Research Institute), organised a lecture on “gender, peace and security” on June 30, 2021, by Dr Meenakshi Gopinath, who is a Padma Shri awardee.
Dr Gopinath is the director of Women in Security, Conflict Management and Peace; principal emerita of Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), University of Delhi; chairperson of the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.
The discussants were Dr Rina Kashyap, associate professor, Department of Political Science, LSR; and Dr Soumita Basu, assistant professor, Department of International Relations, South Asian University.
Dr Gopinath focused her lecture on engendering security, and on foregrounding opportunities and challenges for peacebuilding in the South Asian region through a gendered lens.
She also highlighted the quest for an alternative vocabulary, especially for women who “hold up half the sky and whose voices need to be heard in the meta-narrative of national security.”
Her lecture also drew on the current national discourse which places women’s peace and security as a high priority for the global governance system.
The year 2020 was a watershed year that will long be remembered as a year where the world was engulfed by the Covid-19 pandemic.
But, it has also significantly marked 25 years of the Beijing Platform for Action, five years of the adoption of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), and the New Global Compact, 20 years of the adoption of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1325.
Engendering Security
Together, these provide the confluence for the global normative compass of this millennium, that scripts or re-script gender peace and security. It is an agenda to envision a global vision and establish a link between development, environment, peace, security, gender and democracy.
In October 2000, the UNSC unanimously adopted Resolution 1325, which was a landmark resolution to support and increase women’s participation in the decision-making roles, pertaining to the prevention and resolution of conflict and reconstruction. It also maintained a broad array of protection for women and girls in armed conflict.
There were 10 other resolutions that together cover a whole gamut of concerns and make women’s peace and security a global agenda. Women’s inclusion will improve the chances of attaining viable and sustainable peace.
There has to be zero tolerance for all forms of gender violence. Together, they refer to the global codification of principles that underlie dignity, rights, and bodily integrity for women.
Resolution 1325 began a series of conversations that enables us to interrogate the ethnocentric, anthropocentric, and androcentric notions of security. It is significant as it is a bottom-up resolution.
It emerged from the experience of women’s activism at the grass-root level as a result of the lobbyism by NGOs (non-governmental organisations), and the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM).
This resolution was initiated by the global south, when Namibia was chairing the UNSC. Anwarul Chowdhury from Bangladesh was also the prime mover of the resolution.
This resolution originated out of the aspiration of the global south to recognize women’s role in conflict transformation and its differential impact on women in conflict. It was a major paradigm shift in the understanding of security, and an expansive notion of building peace.
Subsequently, the resolution was followed by the exhortation of the Beijing platform, which contained an entire chapter on peace and security, war’s impact on women, and sexual violence seen in the civil war in South Africa, Bosnia, and Rwanda. Thus, It is a process of democracy, representation, and participation.
“As we tick the boxes on the various guidelines of the UN, it should be clear that it doesn’t get sanitised into box sticking efforts,” said Dr Gopinath.
Two ends of the spectrum of Resolution 1325 are represented in “Resolution 2467“, which was adopted in 2019, and it has a survivor-centric approach to conflict-related sexual violence. Resolution 2558, adopted in 2020, affirms the link between development, peace, human rights, and security, which are together mutually enforceable.
So, 1325+ is continuous work. “Peacebuilding is a verb and not a noun, it depends on everyday resistances and daily mutinies of women.”
Some Daily Mutinies Of Women
Conceptualisation has evolved as perceptions changed. Here, Dr Gopinath mentioned Jo Vellacott, who started her career as an air engine mechanic and later became an air engineer during the second world war. Later, she quit her job to become a pacifist.
Her biography, “Living and Learning in Peace and War” is incredible. She mentioned in her biography that the words women, peace, and power, don’t speak to each other, as the word women sounded very innocuous, sickish, and pinkish; whereas the word power has a scarlet and crimson shield.
Vellacott he realised that the problem lay with the spectacles of the world. She changed her lens which subsequently enriched her understanding.
The lady in white, like Florence Nightingale is seen as ethereal, luminous, surreal, and surrounded by white doves. Women’s peacebuilding efforts are situated in a theoretical framework that sees violence as a resource business, and peace as power.
Dr Gopinath said that we should look through a lens that engenders security! The traditional view of women as peacemakers who are holy passive, needs interrogation.
Women In Black is an international network of women who resist war. It started in Israel. A stable situation is not a peaceful situation and women know it very well. Peace with justice is the call of the day.
Rosa Parks asserted her right to human dignity, refusing to get off the bus which was still being segregated in 1955 in Alabama. She was glued to her dignity, lit the fuse for social venom, and today, the saying goes: ‘Rosa sat so that Martin could walk; Martin walked so that Obama could run.’
Contemporary instances of Shaheen Bagh, women activism in farmer protests, and similarly, in other parts of the country and all over the world, were quoted. The question emerges whose peace are they disturbing and what peace are we talking about?
Urvashi Butalia wrote an evocative article in which she said that democracy is saved by our women. She mentioned the resistances of Disha Ravi, Nodeep Kaur and Natasha Narwal. Thus, women’s peace can be in their resistance.
Therefore, the question is: are these women practicing peace, or are they changing the discourse on security? Changing discourse of security is influenced by human security and critical security studies.
Gendered Idea Of Citizenship
And, it interrogates the agenda of realism; it questions the definition of politics centered on state and sovereignty. Arguing largely from an emancipatory perspective, it foregrounds imperative of security conceived as freedom from want and freedom from fear.
Mahbub ul Haq’s evocative articulation of human security in the Human Development Report (1994) said that women security is a child who did not die, a disease which didn’t spread, salient ethnic tension that didn’t explode, a dissident who was not silenced, and human spirit not crushed.
Feminists argue that the state’s behaviour of seeking security is legitimate by its association, with certain types of hegemonic masculinity, and in the strategic language of foreign policy and defense discourse.
Cynthia Enloe’s work is relevant here. Evolving contours of security that are integral from a feminist perspective:
1. The question of realism as the notion of security as a zero-sum game
2. Populist nationalism
3. Private versus public sphere distinction
4. Critique of war
5. Gendered citizenship
6. Respecting differences in a democratic state
7. Connection between patriarchy, militarism, intolerance and violence
Sara Ruddick said that the rational calculus, the self-interested language of realism and power group, lie in the philosophy of connectedness. Feminist voices as counter hegemonic politics exist, where the notions of power are inverted. Language, like collateral damage, equates to real human beings.
The international and domestic spheres are connected. Livelihood, food security and the quality of living are important. Non-traditional security expands beyond traditional barriers.
Westphalia To Globalisation
Women are refugees, widows and workers in the conflict arena. Wars are fought beyond battlegrounds in homes, villages, and cities. The “stateless” term is common now as the state grapples with another phrase “permanent liabilities”, second class citizens found everywhere, and are in minority.
Everywhere, the ubiquity of camps is known. Take the tragedy of Rohingyas for instance. Camps are a metaphor for the state of exception, where the rule of law is totally absent. Women become the second among the seconds. Territory trumps humanity!
There is endemic violence of displacement between borders. The difference between law, niti (ethics) and nyay (justice), needs to be kept in mind.
The Paradox Of Normalcy In Conflict Areas
Elections in Indian-administered Kashmir are themselves an important question. Law and order favouring militarism, in place of dialogue, and the way abrogation of the rule of law, seem to be the practice. The absence of war doesn’t necessarily mean peace. Peace and human development are linked.
With respect to women’s experiences, in both domestic and community violence, there is a continuum of conflicts in peaceful times, too. Security has to be seen through a people-centered and gendered lens.
Take the examples of the agitation against the Bhopal gas tragedy, Kudankulam protest and Narmada bachao andolan, which were women spearheaded movements. Women have been present in the public, but they have been invisibilised in re-imagining their role in security.
Today, women are entering the peace arena through the corridors of human security, and interrogating the culture of militarism and notions of state security, prominently.
Wangari Maathai, too, noted at the conference on climate change in Bali (2007), that women’s voices are absent from policy discussions and negotiations, but that they are disproportionately affected by climate change, as they are seed keepers and not merely peacekeepers.
The Chipko movement in India (1970) raised the largest feminist consciousness. All these examples are key observations that point to the need for interrogating agency and power structures from a gendered lens.
What About The Bodies Of Women?
Across the globe, women’s bodies are seen as a mark of community honour. Women are systematically mobilised by sectarian groups. One does not have to see far to locate examples in the aftermath of the partition of India in 1947, the recovery of abducted women was to restore women back to their homes.
A travesty of women’s agency was written into the scripts of nationalism, which built its vocabulary in honour of women’s bodies.
Bangladeshi women, in 1971, were faced with the dichotomy where they were valorised for ghettoisation. Identity politics has gradually become even more volatile. What are nationhood and national identity for women?
The pervasiveness of difficult questions with no answers, such as the stateless and the nationless, can be seen in the Rohingya camps today.
The essentialist argument that “women as peacemakers and men as war makers” needs to be questioned. Women have been associated with violence. Black widows, suicide bombers and Nadia Yezidi are just a few examples. There is a need not only to recognise. but also to address rape as an instrument of war. Rape should be seen as a war crime.
“Women say no to war. Women’s voices should reverberate in peace discussions,” said Dr Gopinath.
The presence of women at the official peace-making discussion is empowering. We need to recognise the participation of women around the peace table and what is brought to the peace table.
Political power is signified in structures and institutions. To access this power, women have to be part of both global and domestic political institutions.
Peacetime and war timeline is thin for women. Women’s engagement with resistance and armaments needs to be studied. Symbols and substance of protesting the war and participating in the war, both, have to be equated with gender.
Breaching public and private spheres by bringing children’s diapers and flowers, are powerful examples of gendering the public of conflict.
“As a woman, my country is the whole world,” said Virginia Woolf.
Trans-national solidarity is important, and women’s role is important in both achieving and sustaining solidarity. For example, in Northern Ireland, women built bridges between Catholics and Protestants; the women’s peacekeeping force in Liberia; reconciliation process in the 1990s of south Asia.
Take the Indo-Pak women’s peace bus (2000), or the Naga Mother’s Association quote that said: “shed no more blood”. At present, there is a condition of ambivalent empowerment as women too are inducted into cultures of violence.
“We need to have a holistic understanding of women’s motivations and move beyond the victimhood identity,” said Dr Gopinath.
Victimhood and agency have a complex and dynamic relationship. Structural constraints and enabling space need attention. We have to move away from smoke-filled rooms. As a society, we have to give voice to the voiceless and speak in the language of connectedness.
Peace is a perpetual hypothesis, which invents and re-invents the song of democracy. Gender is at the center of SDGs and to move toward an equitable future.
“Peace is not a target, it’s a process and like a kaleidoscope, it sticks together hopefully,” said Dr Gopinath.
Transitional Justice And Reconciliation
Dr Kashyap focused her discussion around the post-conflict situation, where transitional justice and reconciliation are involved. She paid attention to the conceptual issues.
According to her, the relationship between transitional justice and reconciliation is inevitable. This relationship has been transformed into a single clustered concept. Thus, it is important to analyse its elements.
Transitional justice asks ‘who and what is in transit?’ What does it mean to be in transit and what does it mean to an individual and society? What is justice?
“The concept of justice keeps evolving,” said Dr Kashyap.
We cannot have peace without justice. Work by Martha Minow and Fiona Ross, is relevant here. They point out that reconciliation is the outcome of transitional justice. We have to see these concepts in an intimate relationship.
The Concept Of Justice Is In Transit
There is inevitable collateral damage in pursuit of peace. For example: lord Krishna’s eldest sibling was sacrificed for divinity, particularly in terms of negative peace here.
Dr Kashyap further said that let’s not discount negative peace, as Hobbes said way back in the 17th century that without negative peace, there can’t be any art, culture, or industry. Negative peace is the important passage of peace in post-conflict situations.
“Justice is not stillborn,” said Dr Kashyap.
Dr Kashyap said that the idea of justice has to be re-defined, and not be made a mockery in transitional justice. There has to be a focus on dynamism and the movement of justice.
In 1950, when India was transiting from colonialism into independence, the constituent assembly postponed the idea of social justice because of a resource crunch.
The constituent makers thought that the concept of justice will be enriched gradually. Jawaharlal Nehru’s “tryst with destiny” speech is important here.
Justice gets compromised and reconciliation is forced as in the case of the truth of reconciliation in Africa. There is a perception that, “If you don’t forgive, you are not a good Christian.” It is important to understand that we can’t force forgiving, as it’s not restorative justice.
Dr Kashyap mentioned the following feminist concerns:
1. How to retain radical and emancipatory possibilities of agenda?
2. Prevent arguments from being caricatured as anti-men and aggressive posturing.
3. Mainstreaming of gender is not its co-option, and
4. Ensure its ubiquitous presence at all tables including foreign policy and peace tables.
The gender lens has to contextualise itself with other relevant lenses. According to a feminist lens, people are gendered and gender is a power relationship. Any monocratic lens is inadequate. There has to be a subscription to generosity and magnanimity.
The question is: “what is transitional justice seeking to reconcile?” It has been noted that the survivors of mass violence want dignity and validation of their truth. They rarely demand punishment for their perpetrators. So, why does reconciliation elude us?
“Human beings are not abstract beings as we are situated in structures of class, caste, and gender. These structures need to be questioned,” said Dr Kashyap.
Let’s Look At The International Sphere
Dr Basu focused on the international sphere in her discussion. She talked about women’s peace truths situated in the context of Africa. Women peacekeepers’ exclusion from peacekeeping needs attention. For the same, trans-national solidarity is crucial.
“When you see women as women, you also start seeing men as men,” said Cynthia Enloe.
The universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) provides a normative standard for gender-based rights. It is important to note that the international is not benign, it has echoes of bygone colonialists.
Economic and cultural globalisation has local manifestations, which is reflected in a cutback in public services and natural resources.
Dr Basu mentioned the specific entailments as follows:
1. Gender budgeting
2. Sexual violence office resolution 1888
3. More women peacekeepers
4. Leading to more sustainable peace
5. The Radhika Goswami report
The conversation then reeled into limitations:
1. Resources are scarce.
2. Postcolonial critique – an excuse to intervene in the names of emancipation and empowerment.
3. Just catering to symptoms and not underneath causes.
Dr Basu concluded by affirming that women’s peace and security, resolution needs fair engagement of India.
Some Concluding Thoughts And Questions
Dr Gopinath spoke about the dialectical relationship between restorative and retributive justice. She affirmed that asking women to forgive is not justice. Toxic masculinities today, are affecting both men and women.
She asked an overarching question of what a gender-sensitive foreign policy will look like; and whether the word transitional justice is in itself a rumor. What should be the appropriate phrase for the trajectory of prevention, reconciliation and management?
Dr Kashyap asserted that peace is a process and not an event. She agreed that the word transitional justice is not a proper adjective. These two words may not sit very well, but it’s talking about societies in transition. Gandhi’s vision of modern India has segmented the idea of justice due to resource crunch.
She said that we have to address the structures of violence. The agenda of transitional justice is important and not its nomenclature.
“What are we transiting to?” questioned Dr Kashyap.
Dr Basu stated that feminist foreign policy is associated with Sweden, representation of women and given resources. Some countries don’t want to use the word feminist foreign policy. It is important to consider the following points when we are talking about feminist foreign policy:
1. Big arms exporters and feminist policy is a paradox.
2. Foreign policy needs to reflect in domestic policy. Contextualising feminist policy is important.
“The feminist lens should not be exclusionary in any sense,” said Dr Gopinath.
Dr Kashyap pointed to a book named “Sex and World Peace”. The researchers of this book collected empirical state. The data shows that the best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is how well it treats its women. Thus, a strong case to argue for feminist foreign policy.
“It is not a man versus woman story. The question is how peacemaking can be equitable and people-centric,” said Dr Gopinath.
The question of the policy on Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India), as this decade is named, arose in the age of action and non-traditional measures of security.
Dr Kashyap answered the question by pointing out the vast literature on “responsibility to protect during Covid-19” and international conferences on the same.
How women leaders have responded to the crisis is an important point. Dr Kashyap said that the feminist question is that they will not look at vaccines as a panacea, but they will ask how a pandemic became possible, a disease became a pandemic; what is this globalisation packed with; and whose carbon footprint are we talking about?
Dr Basu said that the UNSC resolution has reference to women. Women are affected in particular during a crisis. The July resolution of 2020 has a paragraph on civil society, that includes women whereas the February resolution of 2021 has only one line about women.
Recognition of women’s works during the pandemic is important. Dr Gopinath concluded the discussion by saying that the vocabulary on international security will change post the Covid-19 pandemic.
The artificial divide between traditional and non-traditional security will wither away, as it was imagined during the cold war. It is not relevant in the 21st century. Dr Gopinath said that we can have approaches to non-traditional and traditional security which meet the current challenges that humanity faces.
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), women lost more jobs than men during the pandemic. Very few measures for unpaid care work have been taken all over the world. Feminist questions on the pandemic, are important for future discussions.
__
Written By Sakshi Sharda