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.
