Gendering the land

Image courtesy Angela Ferrao (https://www.facebook.com/Ferraodesigns/?fref=ts)

Earlier this month, I wrote about the ongoing urbanization of Goa. When I shared the piece on a public forum, someone posted a comment lamenting the disappearance of ‘Virgin Goa’. Such statements are common. That they can be uttered so nonchalantly demonstrates how deeply rooted patriarchy is.

The concept of virginity—and it is merely a concept and not, as patriarchs would have us believe, a physical condition—is typically used to convey the image of land whose natural beauty has been preserved, or which is ‘pure’ or ‘untouched’. This in and of itself may seem harmless enough, but this concept runs much deeper, as the notion of land being virginal is generally juxtaposed to that of the evildoers coming to ‘rape’ it. This is problematic for several reasons. First, it reinforces the idea that virginity is a community/public matter, rather than a personal one. Second, it lends support to the idea that virginity is something that is forcibly taken. Third, it illustrates that virginity is something to be prized, and thus the lack of it, something egregious. The commonality among these first three issues leads to the fourth problem—the land is almost always feminized (e.g., Mother Earth, Mother Goa, motherland, Bharat Mata)—and accordingly treated as an object that either needs protection or whose virtue can be sold to the highest bidder. This latter point bears similarity to the purchase of another person’s virginity, for example, in the prostitution of a minor, where the deal is rarely brokered by the owner of said virginity.

Indeed, what the female does with her genitals is not actually up to her. They are the business of everyone in her society and are controlled physically (e.g., female genital mutilation) and mentally (e.g., lack of sex education, slut shaming). In addition to myths and proscriptions relating to menstruation, different cultures have rules surrounding the proof of virginity or proof of the loss of virginity on the wedding night. A female who is accused of impropriety can be subjected to a so-called virginity test, where her genitals are physically examined. She can easily be deemed impure if the examiner does not detect a hymen—that is, if there is no physical impediment to the examiner sexually assaulting her under the guise of performing this test—or if the vagina seems wide—because patriarchy assumes that one body is the same as the next and that the penis, or numerous penises, can stretch out the vagina. Furthermore, if a new bride fails to spill blood on the sheets on her wedding night—which would more likely be the result of her husband having rushed or rough sex with her than him penetrating a thin membrane—the woman will be accused of having lied about her virginity. Therefore, if, when put to the test, a female is unable to prove that she is ‘pure’, she can bring shame on her family and community and be punished.

The violence associated with the de-virginization of the female is unmistakable in the aforementioned practices. This imagery carries over to the feminized land that is categorized as virginal until colonized, ironically, even when it is already inhabited and used. Isn’t it also ironic that to confirm purity, much like the female genitalia, the land must be examined and thereby encroached upon? I think this is further evidence that virginity is but a myth. The point, however, is that the feminine is always subject to being penetrated or taken. This concept is used frequently in Goa, where the land is being gobbled up by capitalists and well-off colonizers. Ads such as the one below have occupied the front pages of newspapers.

In response to a similar ad displayed at the Dabolim airport wooing investors with the call, ‘It’s time to claim your piece of Goa’, Jason Keith Fernandes highlighted that ‘the act of claiming, or the act of any conquering power, is an act of patriarchal power. It sees territory as female, appropriate for exploring, dominating and consuming’. So, it is the job of the masculine conqueror to stake his claim, take what rightfully belongs to him, without asking. To deny the connection to rape would be to wilfully ignore it.

Gendering also occurs from the masculine perspective. The concept of the ‘fatherland’ propagated by the Nazis provides an interesting example of this. Pride in the nation and in one’s ancestors—or forefathers—stinks of patriarchy. The distinction here is clear: the Nazis were fascists and invaders. Their concern was not about defending the fatherland. Rather, like the male who must spread his seed, it was their job to expand the domain of the fatherland—that is, to conquer other lands by force. So, while the land is associated with femininity when it concerns protection from invasion or destruction, it is associated with masculinity vis-à-vis the issues of nationalism/patriotism and imperialism/expansion. Once again, we can see a relationship between violence and gender, as well as the theme of de-virginization, particularly within the framework of nationalism.

India offers some intriguing examples of the nationalist connection to gendered land. First, we can look back at M.K. Gandhi. Though he has been applauded for his belief in, and work towards, gender equality and women’s empowerment, his actions and thoughts reveal a patriarchal mindset. There is a game that patriarchs play when they want to sweep all this messy gender business under the rug. They simultaneously praise you and exercise control over you by encouraging you to emancipate yourself by being true to your supposedly feminine nature. The following is a clear attempt by Gandhi to police women’s sexuality: ‘Woman must cease to consider herself the object of man’s lust. The remedy is more in her hands than man’s. She must refuse to adorn herself for men, including her husband, if she will be an equal partner with man.’ This sounds a lot like the logic used to justify purdah (the cloistering of women)—a practice that Gandhi denounced. Since Gandhi believed that women were the personification of self-sacrifice and silent suffering, he logically extolled their virtue in relation to the non-violent freedom struggle. Thanks, girls, for taking abuse and keeping quiet! You’re great role models; don’t ever change!

There is much to be said about M.K. Gandhi, but let me not digress. He is remembered for having feminized Indian nationalism by making women equal partners in the freedom struggle, equating India’s liberation with its purification (i.e., the removal of the British), and depending on preserving women’s purity, with an emphasis on chastity, to achieve this. Gandhi’s preoccupation with women’s purity was so extreme that he believed in cases of rape, ‘a woman, if she has the requisite courage, will be ready to give up her life rather than her virtue’. Although Gandhi’s philosophy promoted non-violence, his ideas seamlessly transitioned into the modern concept of Bharat Mata. This personification of the motherland is associated with devotion, selflessness, and spiritual (i.e., Hindu) inclination. To show their appreciation, Hindu sons are therefore expected to shed their blood to preserve her honour and punish those who would defile, violate, or insult her, and this includes those who do not worship her. Such gendered nationalism, again, promotes violence.

The gendering of the land exemplifies the fluidity of concepts and how easily they can be revised in pursuit of new ends. The next time you want to discuss your ‘virgin land’ or feel compelled to protect her from barbarians, remember that you’re not showing respect or fighting for anyone’s honour; you’re perpetuating patriarchy.