In popular perception among tribal societies in Arunachal Pradesh, women’s rights and gender equality are generally understood in terms of advancement in education, the ability of women to migrate for careers, freedom in choice of clothing, and more significantly, their partner. Based on this narrow understanding of the subject, patriarchal tribal societies in Arunachal Pradesh have contributed to the romanticised view that tribal societies have been gender-inclusive since time immemorial, with an elevated position for indigenous or tribal women, compared to other regions of India. However, this interpretation of gender equality among tribal societies is a profoundly problematic narrative that needs to be reimagined and interrogated. In reality, women in indigenous communities do not enjoy equal rights and opportunities. Access to political power, social status, and economic security remains diminished for women compared to men. In political representation, the tribal state of Arunachal Pradesh, for instance, has only four women MLAs in the current assembly of 60 mandated members, and it has never had a woman MP since the attainment of statehood in 1987. Further, concerning the participation of women in economic activities, the National Sample Survey Office (2016) report showed that women make up 51.6% of the workforce in the employment index of Arunachal Pradesh. Nevertheless, this index is not an accurate indicator of women’s empowerment or economic mobility. A closer look reveals that, similar to the usual trend across other Indian states, most women in the workforce who were included in the NSSO data are primarily employed in agrarian and informal sectors. Men, thus, still dominate important bureaucratic positions and formal job sectors in Arunachal Pradesh. Further, women also remain under-represented in decision-making bodies such as the assembly or parliament and community leadership roles. It is in this context that the Arunachal Pradesh State Women Commission (APSWC), in collaboration with Arunachal Pradesh State for Protection of Child Rights (APSPRCR) and Arunachal Pradesh’s Women Welfare Society (APWWS), drafted the Arunachal Pradesh Marriage and Inheritance of Property Bill (APMIP Bill), 2021.The Bill aims to address the broader issues of socio-economic conditions and rights of the women. The Bill has proposed to regulate marriage registration, alimony and divorce. It has also pushed to treat polygamy as an offence and ensure property rights for legally married wives and widows. Besides, section 43 of the bill has advocated for securing immovable property ownership rights by Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) women married to non-APST men. This particular clause of the Bill was seen by many as radical yet progressive. It states that:“An APST woman married to a non-APST man shall enjoy the legal right over any immovable properties acquired or inherited from her family in her lifetime. In the event of her death, the spouse and her heirs would have full rights over it for disposal and alienation to any indigenous APST tribal”. Nonetheless, in mid-August 2021, when the Bill draft was made public, it was intensely opposed by all the tribal civil society organisations (CSOs) and the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU), which claimed that the section 43 clause in the Bill is “anti-tribal”. They argue that the Bill would allow a non-APST to settle permanently in the state by marrying APST-women, potentially ‘polluting’ the demographic structure and creating political unrest and resource depletion in the long run.Also read: Hurt, Angst and Struggle: How the Pandemic Impacted Gender-Based Violence in Arunachal Pradesh The tribal CSOs and students’ unions invoked customary laws and Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 to defend their opposition to the Bill. Under customary laws, an APST woman who marries a non-APST man is considered as non-APST and is therefore, no longer eligible to inherit or acquire immovable properties as per Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. Eventually, the CSOs succeeded in stopping the Bill from being passed in the assembly without any deliberations or debates by relying on customary laws. However, the public discourse around this bill has unmasked the gender fault lines and highlighted the deep-rooted patriarchal structure of tribal societies in Arunachal Pradesh. As was evident during the stir, even the compositions of the tribal CSOs, including the students’ union protesting against the Bill, is male dominated. Unsurprisingly, they used a masculine approach of tactics such as threats of protest and aggression to pressure the state government to reject the draft bill unconditionally without following legislative procedures and debating the Bill. In this manner, the CSOs have attempted to frame the discussion on the Bill as an ‘APST versus non-APST’ issue and have completely ignored the more significant questions of gender equality in the name of protecting tribal customary laws and indigenous identities. The issue of gender equality and properties rights of APST women in particular, thus, cannot be discussed in isolation without analysing the intersections of tribal patriarchy, state laws, and customary laws that have historically oppressed and persist in contributing to the unequal positions of APST-women sexually, socio-economically, and politically.Tribal women’s struggles and oppressive experiences By and large, due to constitutional provisions such as the Sixth Schedule and Inner Line Permits under Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, customary laws have precedence over state laws related to property rights, marriage, and other social practices in tribal states of the northeast, including Arunachal Pradesh. The state laws have primarily been incorporated to supplement or strengthen these customary laws as community rights are considered superior to individual rights in tribal traditions. However, tribal customary laws per se is a social construct that has historically excluded women from decision-making and participations and favoured men whenever the question of social status, property ownership and other cultural rights come up. The APST man, for instance, does not lose his indigenous status if he marries a non-APST woman, as per the customary laws. Resultantly, APST men’s identity as both an individual and a member of the community is more clearly defined compared to the fluid identity attributed to women. A woman’s identity is considered as changed upon marriage, while a man’s identity remains the same. Even if APST women marry within the community, they do not have direct ownership of the property. Also, it is a man who inherits ancestral or family properties. Moreover, men take major decisions concerning social practices such as inheritance laws, marriage, and management of common community resources, such as land in the tribal societies. Based on these social realities in Arunachal Pradesh, the proposed draft Bill had advocated for a divorce provision, marriage registration, alimony, and individual rights over immovable properties for APST women.Besides, the debates over the implications of state laws and contradictions of individual or women’s rights and community rights in tribal societies of Arunachal Pradesh have always been sensitive, contentious, and controversial. The reactions of the tribal CSOs to draft bill validates this.Also read: Mrs Yaji and the Lockdown: The Plight of a Nyishi Woman in a Patriarchal Society But, the fact remains that APST men have never been affected by it. Here, men’s identity as individuals and members of the community remains unquestioned, while patriarchal norms suggest that women can only be members of the community via natal families or through the link of marriage – both are mediated through relations, not thanks to their rights as individuals. Due to this reason, APST women find themselves in oppressive, discriminative, and exploitative positions. For instance, when a woman gets married, she also enjoys co-rights over her husband’s land as per customary laws. Yet, this conception of women’s rights over property or land in relation to a husband is fundamentally precarious as it does not allow APST women to own property as individual beings or independently. Since the APST women do not have the individual right over ownership of properties, they become primarily dependent on their husband socio-economically and live at the mercy of in-laws or clan members when their husband dies. As a result, these circumstances put APST women into vicious circles of unhealthy polygamous marriages, domestic violence, socio-economic insecurity and sexual exploitation, among other problems, throughout her lifetime. Furthermore, the increase in the rate of women’s education in Arunachal Pradesh has not brought any significant structural changes so far in tribal societies. On top of that, whenever educated women speak up for gender equality and women’s rights, they usually face public backlash. The recent case of Roshni Dada is one such example. She was publicly labelled across social media sites as ungrateful and anti-tribal for speaking up in an MTV reality show about the practices of polygamy, patriarchy, and the preference for a male child among her tribe (Nyishi) and tribal societies of Arunachal Pradesh in general. This public shaming of Roshni Dada right after the vicious counteractions of the tribal CSOs against the Bill yet again expose the relevance of culturally embedded masculine and patriarchal ways of disciplining and oppressing women in tribal societies. Tribal CSOs’ protests against APST women’s rights over immovable properties demonstrates how difficult it is for tribal men to let go of the power which they have been exercising over women through entitlements secured by customary laws. Moreover, deeply entrenched norms of patriarchy have meant many APST women, too, have opposed the Bill and also condemned Roshni Dada. It must be mentioned that a few sections of APST men have also supported both. This is the dilemma that tribal societies in Arunachal Pradesh have been confronting, which requires more mutual engagement and an intersectional approach to address the issues of gender equality and property rights. The Bill is yet to see the assembly floor, however, the debate over property rights of APST women and gender equality in Arunachal Pradesh have breathed new life into an old concern.Manta Wangsu is a PhD scholar at Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) Delhi.
