In India’s Elections, Female Candidates Still Need Men’s Blessings

It's hardly perplexing. Not sure why anyone thinks American men are mature and enlightened.

It's not only India - the 2020 election in USA will prove the same.

First and foremost, India has ten's of thousands of year old culture, which may not suit American, culture? narrative? Let's take look at our own house; (1) Lawless president, (2) POTUS separating children at the border, (3) Cruelty against everyone other than white supremacists, (4) Abolishing women's rights, (5) A senate refusing to do its constitutional duty. Now, let's look at the spin. POTUS candidates routinely say they are consulting with the family. How is this any different? Did men become not part of the family in writers mind? Did I miss something here?

Are you covering a huge voting event involving the vote-casting-and-counting of over half a billion votes, in free and fair elections, or writing a sanitary inspector report that you noticed an untidy nook here and an unclean corner there? Has any of your reporters noticed that there has been a complete absence of vote suppression moves? And no attempt at gerrymandering? Not even the inconvenient placement of voting stations to discourage voting by your opponents? No question of chads? Nor putting the thumb on the scale by a group of partisan judges? But then you want to feel good about yourself and one easy way to achieve that end is to cut others down. And, why not? It's your paper, your purse, your dough. Naturally, you get to call the tunes.

Not just women, men contesting also invoke the blessings of the party leaders. Most of those leaders happen to be men.

If you travel to states such as Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal or Tamil Nadu during elections, you will find male and female candidates seeking votes in the name of dominant female chief ministers such as Mayawati, Mamata Banerjee or Jayalalitha. You could equally write a story about male candidates needing the support of women leaders! Your point about unequal representation of women in Parliament is valid. However, the way the story has been narrated may not be the most appropriate way to make that point.

NYT doesn't cover interesting and important topics like how India is conducting an election of a billion people using electronic machines with paper trails and provide insight to the debate over here in US about electronic vs paper ballots. But their journalists write articles about politics which in India is considered a dirty profession which no respectful middle class individual will never enter. Knowing this it is not surprising at all that very few women without political background contest elections, actually very few men without political background contest elections. Funny how your journalists focus on a candidate whose father was a politician with huge political heft and do not cover other politicians whose families were never in politics. Again I urge you to find better journalists who will do justice to your newspaper and the country they cover.

This article presents a biased picture. India has a parliamentary form of government and elects legislators mainly on the basis of confidence on the leadership of the legislator's party. For example, more than 90% of the legislators of the current ruling party, in my state Tamil Nadu, were elected based on their confidence on their female leader Jayalalitha. Also, in any constituency there are only 2-5 serious candidates. But another 10+(sometimes even around 50) people who have same names as these 2-5 candidates are propped up by the political parties as Independent candidates to cause confusion amongst voters, many of whom are uneducated. It is due to the presence of these 'frivolous' candidates (most of whom are Men) that the winning percentage of men is very less.

Evoking party leader’s name and show a close connection with him for winning an election is not limited to India. In the US today, even well-established Republican politicians with years in US Senate and Congress feel compelled to evoke Trump name to curry favor with his base. In private they may curse Trump, but when stumping for votes they will pay homage to Trump. For many years Republicans of all stripes tried to bask in Ronald Reagan’s reflected light. For a female politician in India evoking the name of the party leader, even with a criminal record, is the coin of the realm. Except in the US, trying to defend Trump’s many proven yet non- indictable crimes because of the DOJ’s policy is another badge of honor for all Republican politicians. Apparently the need to pray to the reigning party leader Trump is a necessity even in the US for the politicians who otherwise claim not to lack testosterone.

As a New Yorker of Indian descent and a global mindset - I prefer to “Tell it Like It is”: institutionalized patriarchal chauvinism is very much present (in varying degrees, of course) all over the world. India is no exception - neither is United States - look at the current incumbent of the White House. ‘Nuff said

I am an Indian, now a US citizen since the last 15 years and someone deeply engaged to India and its politics. I am also a subscriber to NYT since the last 12-15 years atleast. Here is my humble opinion to NYT - get better people to write your pieces. People who use a pre-conceived bias and a political weapon bring about a cognitive dissonance in their writing. When writing about India try to get a better view point - e.g. hiring Bret Stephens was a great idea - now think the same for your India opinion writers and India topics.

It is not perplexing why so few Indian women run for politics: the politicians and the politician grounds are dirty machinery in India; only the ill-educated, dynastic, criminal, couldn’t make it in college or all of the above enter the fray. And when they do they are a not necessarily misogynistic but definitely uncomfortable bunch for women. In other words, politics in India is a dirty business. No educated, modern sensibility keeping person is likely to enter politics. Women in India find far greater prosperity, respect, status and accomplishment by going the private sector route. Similar to how things are in US.

India has broken the glass ceiling with women in highest office decades back. US is yet to break one. Just highlighting a one-off thing with a controversial headline is unbecoming of NYTimes. Please do Fair reporting.

"If I do well, it will send such a good message everywhere — that if you are a nobody and you want to enter politics you can, and you can make a difference.” She went to the USA and spent 10 years; has a Master's degree and has money and a family with influence and is among the top 0.1% of women in India. So how is she a nobody unless she is implying that every Indian woman who is not from a political dynastic family is a nobody. If she win it will be thanks to the guy who leads the party she is affiliated with and she is with them as they are likely the only ones who agreed to have her as their candidate.

I just left India after spending my 4th consecutive winter. The article is absolutely right on its merits. Women in India still do not have equality as we in America think even though we have yet to elect a female POTUS - but that's a different story all together. And indeed, this woman's 10 years in America has allowed her to campaign the way she has. Exposure to our ways of doing things makes a big difference. Heck, all these dynastic families, many of these sons were educated abroad including the so called opposition leader, Mr. Rahul Gandhi. While he and his family have totally misappropriated Gandhi name - him without his western education - he may not amount to much. It is reported that he cannot read Hindi written in its script. So, this woman is a better reflection of how many folks get transformed by exposure to America. There is not one politician or a bureaucrat who would not want his son or daughter to be educated in America. And many of these dynastic children return home to enter family business which is politics. In India, democracy is much mistaken with elections. Everything stops with elections and no one talks about goveranace. Enter this candidate with exposure to America where she believes in governance and not just getting elected. If many candidates with similar attitude get elected - India may have a chance to rise. But ugly nepotism, outright corruption and in it only for money - defeats a noble purpose of elections.

NYT’s report on Indian election and women in politics sounds like a pot is calling the kettle black. I think NYT will serve better if it pays attention to primitive behavior of the law makers in Alabama, GOP’s attitude towards women of America, or how some old bald white men in senate degrade their female colleagues. May be NYT should focus on American president trump who has reduced women to nothing more than sex toys. I’ve been reading NYT for forty five years and still waiting to see a positive reporting on India. A Muslim getting beaten up on the Indian street is a national disaster but a black man getting dragged behind a truck to death in southern USA is merely a news. Please NYT you can do better than that..... if you want to.

India is the most populous and the most ethnic sectarian diverse parliamentary democracy on Earth. India is the most populous Hindu nation. India has the third most Muslims of any nation. India is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation and has nuclear weapons.

This is an interesting piece, but is not very sharp analytically. It could have explored the links between caste and patriarchal values in India.

I am in India and recently voted in both assembly and parliamentary, doesn't matter man or woman, young or old, if you are a new person contesting an election you have to use party leader's name, there are people who'll vote for the party even if the local leader is bad just because they like the leaders at the top, this is an out of context article, expected better from NYT

Indian politics is mainly name recognition first and everything else is secondary. There are plenty of examples in Indian regional politics, where the jailed or criminal politician is a woman and the party headliner. People still vote for that recognizable name on the ballot and everyone running on the party ticket, men and women alike have to show deference to the leader. In fact the Indian public's tolerance to political corruption is strangely gender neutral, given the bias/misogyny they bring to every other sphere. There are so many challenges to a woman in India today but what this article highlights is at best a flawed example.

Sadly, the NYT (and Western society in general) likes to seek out the negatives in other societies without highlighting (or possibly even knowing) about the positives. Putting out a headline about women’s ‘disempowerment’ in India on a day when Alabama has completely banned abortion is somewhat ironic. Such regressive laws in the main, do not exist in India (even if the attitudes do linger). Moreover, in an article highlighting women’s position in politics why not also mention the success stories - and it does not need to be that old chestnut about Indira Gandhi’s dynastic rule (even if she first became PM in 1966 and was re-elected in more or less fair elections for a total of over 20 years). Mamata Banerjee, Jayalalitha, Mayawati - all chief ministers of states with populations of 70-200 million; each without a brother, husband or father to boost their careers and each an icon in their state (whether one loves or hates their politics) - are they not even worth a mention? There are many more besides. By all means mention the gender inequalities (which are very real) but it’s a disservice to the country, it’s people and your readers to write biased and uninformed articles.

NYT coverage of India always seems to be "an angle to softly demean, debase and degrade". With this agenda, they miss the point completely. BJP was voted not because the hindu population liked them. They hated the corrupt congress. Now, they hate BJP too. Irrespective of the color of the political party, gender, caste, religion, regionalism, one thing we all agree upon is, the politicians are corrupt idiots. We vote out one idiot and elect the other idiots. The attempt to over intellectualize this basic fact by foreign press, is pure idiocy. Regarding women - we have come a long way. Look at any medical, engineering, business schools in India. Girls outnumber boys in most cases. They just don't want to join the idiotic politicians. Sweta Yadav's dad is no saint. He is so corrupt, he is one of the very very few politicians in India that got sentenced. Sweta Yadav is no saint either. Probably, this is where she is showing equality, a very very corrupt politician.

Political parties in India are often reliant on the charisma and popularity of a strong leader, be it a man or woman. It has nothing to do with gender. Indira Gandhi was all powerful and all the men in her party and her cabinet took orders from her. In more recent times, there was Jayalalitha of AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, there is Mamta Bannerji of the TMC in West Bengal and Mayavati of BSP in Utter Pradesh. Every candidate in these parties, including men, has to invoke the leaders blessings and greatness before every election rally. This rally that the writer has mentioned in this news article is no exception.

Isn’t it ironic that the article speaks of how women need to mention the validation provided them by men in power, yet NYT too chooses to cover those women ( ie the one featured in this article) who are validated by years spent in the US?

Misogyny in America equally bad. Old white men make women’s health decision for them. In Alabama, the law says that an 11-year old girl who has been impregnated by her father must carry that pregnancy to term.

Enough with the negative coverage of India! Let us know when you elect your first female President or Vice President. And, no, Veep doesn't count.

Intelligent women in India stay away from politics. I in 5 politicians are accused (often rightly) with heinous crimes. Do you want to hang out with these folks? Women 'leaders' in India are often puppets-they do the biddings of their incarcerated husbands and fathers. Often these female ministers are worse than their male counterparts. So how come India is voting so many women into power? Simple answer: A form of affirmative action for women. About 10-15% of seats in Parliament are reserved for women; And male politicians field their wives, sisters and daughters. Trust me, India (and its neighbors) have a long way to go.

Misogyny in India seems 'alive and well' as well; 'macho' societies don't know the harm they are doing to themselves by belittling our better half. And shortsighted!

I am an immigrant from India. It is interesting to read this article. India elected its first woman Prime Minister just 20 years after independence. Indira Gandhi wielded enormous power. There many states in India led by powerful women for many years. United States has not elected a woman President as yet. And every day, states are passing laws banning abortions and taking away a woman's right to choose. It is true, women in India need to progress even more but at least they are not regressing. Need I remind ourselves why Hillary lost?

Sometimes it just doesn’t seem humanity is progressing as fast as it should be. Maybe you forgive the ignorance of the dark ages through the 20th century. With all the information and lesson learned you would think people would move beyond these petty stereotypes and oppressive behaviors towards women and minorities the world over. We still have 200 to 300 years before society looks and acts “just”.

India is still [and likely to remain for decades] a country with super economic and gender inequality. On paper it is a secular state, but with BJP and RSS it has turned in to a Hindutva nation. It has high rate of crimes of violence against women and poor. While honor killings in neighboring countries reported are more often, it is much more common in India. As in most other countries, women from ‘rich’ families do make it in the man’s world / in this ‘rally’ it seems [just as with tRump] the people will have been paid to attend, and bused in.

It's not weird, it's just that they perceive gender differently than we do. A daughter of a famous man, like Indira Gandhi, is considered much closer to a reincarnation of her father than (say) Chelsea Clinton of Bill, or Ivanka Trump of Donald. They are voting for people because of their overall record and connections, not because they are women.

A lone woman addressing a rally of mostly men points to her strength and not weakness. And to say that a women need a man's support to run for election is quite a distortion; in fact any young candidate would need a leader's support whether the leader is male or female. Your report is off the mark mainly because it fails to recognize a politician's dynamic in any part of the world and is not specific to India. it's surprisingly naive in some ways!

This is really exaggerated. Even for men it is the same. Many men have to remind the people that they have the blessings of the party leaders. But when do it it is not a issue. When women do it it is becomes an issue.

The picture says it all. A lone woman candidate addressing a crowd that appears to be exclusively men. How can political representation change until civic participation and women's mobility change?