FROM THE EDITORIAL DESK

It is more likely than not that Northeast India would figure in any discussion forum and intellectual deliberation on gender and women in the country. Both in the general perception as well as critical reflections, women in the region occupy a significant role in terms of status and role vis-à-vis their counter-parts in the rest of the country. There is both myth and reality in this perception. While it may be empirically verified that women in the region enjoy more power and status than women of the mainland, further scrutiny of their roles and status would reveal that all is not well. A study on the gender relationship and sharing of space and role vis-à-vis men in the region often reveals that the region is also rooted in patriarchal social structure. This is not to trivialise the issue, but to highlight the importance of a deeper and engaged study of gender in the region.

It is with this objective that we, at the Eastern Quarterly, strongly feel that an attempt to probe into the conception of gender in the Northeast has to begin with and by questioning the traditionally and structurally rooted gendered perspectives and sex-based roles intrinsic to dominantly patriarchal societies. For this given exercise, gender could be understood at least from two perspectives. Firstly, gender could be primarily understood with reference to the roles ascribed to individuals in a society on the basis of their sex. Here, gender is differentiated from sex as it refers to the socially sanctioned cultural definition of the roles that are deemed adaptable to members of each sex rather than the behavioural aspect of biology. Secondly, the differentia-tion between the “natural” state of biologically determined sex and socially produced gender could be blurred once one begins to look at the very constitution of the “natural.” This understanding calls for a more critical and nuanced engagement with gender.

Keeping this in mind, there is a need to take note of the fact that gender studies become all the more complex in the Northeast given the multi-ethnic social backdrop. Though mostly patriarchal in structure, the region is also home to matrilineal societies. This led many to imagine that the matrilineal society, such as that of the Khasis, will be correspondingly patriarchal. This is a myth. An attempt, thus, is needed to understand the deeper politics of power inbuilt in such a matrilineal system.

While today women seem much more active in their choice of roles with the advent of modern education, they are still hobbled by “structures” embedded in traditional role demarcations. In recognising and highlighting “women’s potentials/achievements,” we seem to have been diverted from questioning the basic assumptions of “what is gender” and the structures and processes through which it is produced. It is with these thoughts in mind that we bring out “Gender Studies in the Northeast” (Volume 5, Issues  II & III). Needless to say, this particular issue proposes to break the ice in the gamut of gender issues in the context of Northeast India. Down the line we hope to devote more issues to read gender through alternate perspectives than has so far been done.

Proceeding from the understanding that the status of women and gender relations require an initial deconstruction of the existing order of power structure (patriarchy), we have initiated the discussion with an article by Tiplut Nongbri titled, “Deconstructing Masculinity: Fatherhood, Matriliny and Social Change.” She focuses on the construction of masculinity among the Khasis of Meghalaya. Set against the backdrop of strident “men’s lib” campaign, spearheaded by some students and youth organizations, ostensibly with an aim to liberate Khasi men from “obscurity,” the article seeks to closely examine men’s position by looking into their gendered identity through their roles as brothers, fathers and husbands. Relying on indigenous categories to make sense of men’s roles within the family and community at large, the article begins with a critique of a highly controversial book, Ka Main u Shynrang Khasi (The Personality of the Khasi Male) written by a Roman Catholic priest. Nongrbi dissects the masculine identity as it is revealed in the domain of language and everyday speech. This is done along with an analysis of men’s place within the matrilineal system in terms of their rights, roles and responsibilities. The article not only brings to the fore the diverse ways in which men manipulate/negotiate with the matrilineal system to maintain their dominance but also explodes the myth that such societies are the bastion of women’s power.

From the study of gender relations in matrilineal society of the Khasis, we move to the patrilineal society of the Nagas. In the case of the Nagas too, the subordinated status of women in the gender relations seems to spring from traditional structures. Anungla Aier in her article“Folklore, Folk Ideas and Gender among the Nagas”highlights this by studying the status of women in folk traditions of the Nagas. She deals with the folklores and oral narratives of the Nagas and contends that they unfold a “symbolic and ritual representation of the social construction of the role of men and women.” The creation myth of each Naga tribe contains elements that subsume the idea of women as the caregiver or the nurturer. They equate women with the mother earth while men are equated with the qualities of bravery and strength. While highlighting the origin myths of the Nagas, Aier stresses that the construction of gender identity within the patriarchal system of the Naga society draws sustenance from such narratives that immortalizes and reveres male ancestors as progenitor. This, she says, is a way of legitimizing the patriarchal form of the society impacting upon the internal arrangement of power structure between men and women. She also argues that Naga women still continue to struggle against male-biased structure of the society where they cannot inherit land and are often not allowed to occupy seats of political importance and decision making.

Looking from the contemporary discourse of public space and civil society, Ningthoujam Irina in her article “Solidarity as Social Capital: Gender, Roles and Potentials” traces the collective solidarity among the Meitei women of Manipur. She points out that this solidarity functions as social capital in promoting civic actions and social reforms. She maintains that traditional and informal solidarity based institutions have unique characteris-tics, norms and functions which help in producing “public good” as well as resisting power regimes. Though Meitei women have been at the forefront of the uprisings against the British colonial policies as well as against the contemporary state atrocities, Ningthoujam argues that the “aggregate of the actual or potential resources” of the Meitei women do not necessarily translate into actual power sharing.

Sukalpa Bhattacharjee in her article “Gendered Constructions of Identity in Northeast India” further probes the issue of actual power sharing in the contemporary politics and shows the complex roles that women play in the society. Highlighting these roles, she argues that women create different fates for themselves and, thus, transforming conflict situation as a site of “potential change.” A probe into women’s roles in conflict situations reveals that they are not only fighters and victims, but also negotiators. Critically examining women’s participation in formal and informal peace-building activities in the Northeast, Bhattacharjee brings out three types of identity constructions from a gendered perspective. In these identity constructions, the female body becomes a crucial site for the inscription of power. The first two cases are based on realistic political narratives while the third captures a moment of violence through a fictional narrative.

We hope that these initial explorations on the question of gender in the Northeast, diverse with different problematics, calls for specific issue-based engagement in future. Though gender has so far been studied, they are generally caught with the dichotomy of men-women relationships. We believe that there is a need to go beyond this discourse and critically explore the possibility of imagining an alternate gender discourse by engaging with “marginal sexualities.”

The Kaleidoscope section consists of two articles. The first article by Patrick Hoenig titled “Tough times for tough guys: Can the Northeast do without heroes?” examines the relevance of heroes in the past as well as in contemporary times. Specifically in the context of the Northeast, he studies two leaders whose mystiques have occupied larger than life spaces in their own life times as well posthumously – A.Z. Phizo, who did not compromise with his vision of an independent and sovereign Nagaland, and Lal Denga, a charismatic leader of the Mizos who nonetheless settled for statehood.

The second article by Laitonjam Muhindro Singh titled “Naga Movement in Manipur: Its Genesis and Impact on State Politics” traces of the Naga movement in Manipur. He points out that while many of the Naga leaders have genuinely worked towards the goal of integrated Naga territory, this political demand has intersected with the internal ethnic politics in Manipur. This has become manifested even in the electoral politics in the state.
Lastly, in Take Two titled “Mediating Northeastern Reality through the Prism of Literary and Cultural Studies,” Anuradha Ghosh critically evaluates Eastern Quarterly’s last issue on “Literature, Society, Polity: Trends and Perspectives.” While appraising the overall exposition of the themes and issues, she highlights the need to take oral tradition seriously. She states that the exclusive emphasis on the written literature and the accompanying silence on oral traditions is inexplicable, particularly given the strength and richness of the oral folk traditions in the Northeast.

We in Eastern Quarterly hope that the fare would engage our readers and that they would continue to give their input from their engagement with the issue.