Prof Narayanan explores the conditions that cause this bias against education of the girl child, conditions that are economic as well as those that are socio-cultural in nature. This article first appeared in the Education Review.

Ours is a gendered world and we are gendered long before we are born - not by pinks and blues, but by fathers envisioning careers for their sons, and mothers preserving recipes for their daughters; by judging men by their work and women by their marital status. There is no denying that today, boundaries are being blurred, but it is a very selective blurring. We are still guided by a patriarchal structure that dictates that men have families to take care of and women have a biological clock to consider. These gender expectations are certainly not exclusive to India, but the question is, being so deeply rooted in cultural and religious traditions where does this patriarchal structure leave the Indian woman? I believe, we are in a place where, as Sara Suleri describes it, “the concept of woman is not really part of an available vocabulary: we are too busy for that, just living, and conducting precise negotiations with what it means to be a sister or a child or a wife or a mother or a servant” (Meatless Days). However, acknowledging this absence of gender consciousness addresses only part of the female question. What many gender discourses have ignored is the economic component that also underlies the question. What is the market place value of a woman? With education seen as a central factor that effects socio-economic change, what is the space the educated Indian woman occupies?

An overview of the literature that examines education in India reveals that there is a huge gender disparity. While in the last decade there has been a significant increase in the country’s literacy rates – a 13.7% increase from 1991 - 2001 (IB), especially in the literacy rates of women, they are still the disadvantaged sex and are at the lower end of the spectrum - 51.4% literate women: 74.5% literate men (AED). Almost all studies that address this gender disparity in education echo Victoria Velkoff’s concern that:
(The) the low level of literacy not only has a negative impact on women’s lives but also on their families’ lives and on their country’s economic development. Numerous studies show that illiterate women have high levels of fertility and mortality, poor nutritional status, low earning potential, and little autonomy within the household. A woman’s lack of education also has a negative impact on the health and well being of her children. For instance, a recent survey in India found that infant mortality was inversely related to mother’s educational level. Additionally, the lack of an educated population can be an impediment to the country’s economic development.

Velkoff’s argument reveals not only a complete absence of understanding of gender but also a naïve assumption that education or literacy, in this case, would resolve gender issues. On the question of infant mortality, it is very clear that the problem is not fuelled by poverty or lack of education. With the census showing the sex ratio as 933 females to every 1000 males - a rate of decline accelerated by 150% in 20 years - it is apparent that female infanticide, foeticide, or selective sex abortion knows no caste, community or socio-economic barriers. Also, situated within a market place rhetoric, Velkoff’s study only understands labor which produces market place goods and thus, it ignores the labor contribution of poor women towards the development of the country. Unfortunately, Velkoff’s argument is not an isolated one. Many non-governmental organizations also function within the same market discourse. Various studies indicate that organizations correlate poverty directly with gender inequality. The danger that such analyses of gender run into is that they come up with a presumed set of common meanings, universalizing the problems of men and women without taking into account other variables. As much as a correlation between gender and economic levels exists, they are also independent of each other; and most importantly, gender and education in India cannot be read outside of the framework of caste and religion. Geeta G. Kingdon’s study of the gender gap is more sensitive to the political educational space occupied by men and women. She notes that:
- regardless of wealth, being a Muslim exerts a negative influence on enrolment for both men and women, as does belonging to particular castes.
- men take advantage of the reservation policy more than women.
- economic status is a major determinant on the quality of education that is received.
- the education of the parents influences enrolment. A mother’s education is important to girls’ schooling, not to boys’.
- labor market discrimination affects the choice of education.
- traditional gender roles affects retention, career choice and investment in education.

What is also particularly interesting in all the studies is the level at which education is interchanged with literacy. The question is: Is there a difference between the educated woman and the literate one? Outside of the obvious connection with economic status, does it really change the definition of what it means to be female?

Like most freedom struggles, the Indian independence struggle conjured an image of a just, social and democratic society where men and women would have an equal voice. However, this was not to be and political freedom did not translate into personal freedom. In spite of economically successful careers, patriarchy continues to dictate both the professional and personal lives of women. What the promises of empowerment offered by education particularly cannot grant women is the social status and protection marriage and motherhood does. Education is thus, a futile exercise if questions of gender are not first addressed:
Who does not have to make a choice between career and home?
Who is sexually harassed at the work place?
Who is regarded as the breadwinner?
Who does household chores?
Who is measured by their career?
Who is measured by their marriage?
Who inherits property?
Who supplements the family income as a child?
Who carries on the family name?
Who changes her name?
Who leaves the parent's home for her husband's?
Who carries the child to its full term? But who legitimizes the child?

The answers tip the scales largely in favor of the male child. So, why is it a fault to prefer a son? Why should money be invested in educating the girl child if girls are only to be married? How do we address the question of equality in education if we cannot operate outside rigid gender norms? Can education be more than a market place commodity?

Before we start thinking education, we need to start thinking about gender. As Anil Sadgopal says, “Literacy by itself is meaningless unless it is linked with the praxis of conscientization and social mobilization…. The Indian stance on women's education and gender sensitization will be meaningful only when it is informed by a socio-cultural and historical perspective on gender.” While all studies on education point out that Kerala has the highest female literacy rate, the lowest infant mortality rates and the highest life expectancies of all the states, there is no context given that explains how the changes occurred. It is important to understand the historical turn of events, the election of a socialist, communist government which forcefully implemented two reforms – that of education and land, to address the issue of caste. Changes, therefore, do not happen only because of education. Public policy effects change and policy changes, like social changes, are a result of governments, of social movements, of individuals, and of groups. With CABE positioned to effect education policy, it imperative that it pushes for an education that is secular; an education that understands, challenges and redefines patriarchal and hegemonic structures; and an education that teaches that all knowledge, thought, and action has consequence. What we need are policy-makers who are not afraid of history, of students becoming aware of injustice, of socio-cultural roots of patriarchy, of caste oppression and who encourage questioning of these issues through the curriculum.

We have come a long way winning official respect for women's rights. Those rights are hard won for some people and classes and castes and may soon be lost again if we disregard the gender, caste and religious dynamics within our families, society and culture. Only when policy makers start to consciously think about these structures can they construct political solutions to tackle social problems.

Pavithra is an Assistant Professor of English/Film/Women’s Studies and can be reached by e-mail at zen.wat@gmail.com.

References
Kingdon, G.G. (2001). The gender gap in educational attainment in India: How much can be explained? Oxford: Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
Sadgopal, Anil. (2003). Gender and education.
Velkoff, Victoria A. (1998). Women's Education in India
AED - Academy for Educational Development
NLM - National Literacy Mission
India Budget

Related Articles:
Thinking about Bhopal in the Era of Globalization – Pavithra Narayanan
Why Our Girls Do Not Go To School!
There Live Enslaved Children
Is Caste Still an Issue?