The Right to Say No: Gender, Class, and the Limits of Liberalism in Urban India
Abstract
This article examines the paradox of women’s emancipation in contemporary urban India through Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. Focusing on educated, economically self-supporting women from middle-class and upper-middle-class families—particularly in Haryana and North India—it argues that while education and employment have expanded women’s public autonomy, their freedom remains sharply constrained in matters of marriage, sexuality, and reproduction. Drawing on Beauvoir’s concepts of the “Other,” immanence, transcendence, and bad faith, the article shows how the Indian middle class practices a pseudo-liberalism that celebrates women’s achievements while denying them the right to refuse marriage or define intimate life on their own terms. The persistence of family honour, respectability, and moral anxiety ensures that women’s apparent freedom collapses at the altar, reproducing patriarchal control in modern form.
I. Introduction: Education Without Exit
In the last two decades, North India—particularly Haryana, Delhi NCR, Punjab, and western Uttar Pradesh—has witnessed a visible transformation in women’s education and employment. Young women from middle-class and upper-middle-class families now populate universities, courts, hospitals, corporate offices, media houses, startups, and public administration. Many live independently in cities, earn salaries commensurate with their qualifications, speak confidently in professional spaces, and participate in public life with an assertiveness their mothers could scarcely imagine.
Yet, this apparent emancipation reveals a sharp limit. When it comes to marriage—its timing, its terms, and most crucially, the right to refuse—autonomy collapses. The same families that invest heavily in daughters’ education and celebrate their professional achievements often insist, sometimes gently and sometimes coercively, that marriage remains non-negotiable. Choice is offered conditionally; refusal is treated as deviance.
This contradiction—between modernity in public life and conservatism in intimate life—forms the central dilemma of the contemporary Indian middle-class woman. Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949), despite its mid-twentieth-century European origins, offers a remarkably prescient framework to analyze this paradox. Beauvoir’s claim that woman is socially produced as the “Other,” and that liberation requires not merely legal or economic reform but existential freedom, speaks directly to the Indian context today.
This article argues that the Indian middle class practices a pseudo-liberalism that permits women’s education and employment but denies them full subjecthood in matters of sexuality, marriage, and reproduction. Drawing on Beauvoir’s concepts of Otherness, immanence, transcendence, and bad faith, and grounding the analysis in examples from Haryana and North India, the article demonstrates how women’s apparent freedom is systematically withdrawn at the moment it threatens patriarchal control.
II. Simone de Beauvoir: Freedom, the “Other,” and the Limits of Emancipation
Beauvoir’s foundational insight—that “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”—rejects biological determinism and exposes femininity as a social and historical construction. Across The Second Sex, she shows how women are positioned as the Other: men occupy the position of the Subject, the default human, while women are defined relationally, as wives, mothers, daughters, and lovers.
Central to this structure is the opposition between transcendence and immanence. Men are encouraged to transcend—to act, create, risk, and project themselves into the future. Women, by contrast, are confined to immanence—repetitive, bodily, domestic tasks that maintain life but do not transform it. Even when women enter paid work, the gravitational pull of immanence remains strong, especially through marriage and motherhood.
Crucially, Beauvoir insists that liberation is not achieved merely through education or employment. Without the right to choose, refuse, and redefine intimate life, women remain existentially subordinate. Economic independence is necessary but insufficient; what is required is recognition of women as autonomous subjects whose choices are not subordinated to family, tradition, or male desire.
This distinction is vital for understanding contemporary India, where women’s public visibility has increased dramatically while private control remains intact.
III. The Indian Middle Class and the Performance of Liberalism
The Indian middle class, especially in urban North India, prides itself on being modern, rational, and progressive. It distances itself rhetorically from overtly patriarchal practices such as child marriage, purdah, or explicit denial of education. English language, professional degrees, and global exposure are treated as markers of advancement.
Yet, this liberalism is carefully circumscribed. Women’s autonomy is celebrated only insofar as it does not disrupt the marital imperative. The educated daughter is welcome as long as she eventually becomes a wife. Her education is framed as an asset in the marriage market—enhancing family prestige, improving matrimonial alliances, and producing “better” mothers.
In Haryana, this contradiction is particularly stark. The state has made significant investments in girls’ education through schemes like Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao. Female literacy and higher education enrolment have improved, especially in urban districts such as Gurugram, Faridabad, Panchkula, and Rohtak. Women from these regions increasingly work in MNCs, IT firms, hospitals, and universities.
Yet Haryana also remains marked by deeply entrenched patriarchal norms: strong kinship controls, anxiety over honour, and intense social scrutiny of women’s sexuality. Marriage is not merely a personal milestone but a collective obligation. An unmarried woman beyond her mid-twenties becomes a site of social discomfort, gossip, and moral speculation—regardless of her achievements.
The result is a double discourse: women are told they are free, but only within boundaries they did not choose.
IV. Education and Work: Necessary but Not Sufficient
Beauvoir argues that economic independence is the first condition of liberation, but she also warns that work alone does not dismantle patriarchy. This caution resonates strongly in India.
Data from the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) and the Time Use Survey (2019) reveal that women’s labour force participation in urban India remains low and declines sharply after marriage. Even among educated women, employment is often treated as provisional—something to be balanced, adjusted, or abandoned once marital responsibilities intensify.
In Haryana’s urban middle class, this pattern is visible in everyday narratives. A woman working in Gurugram’s corporate sector may enjoy financial independence in her early twenties. But upon marriage, questions arise: Will she manage household duties? What about children? Is her job too demanding? Her income, once celebrated, becomes negotiable.
Beauvoir would describe this as the persistence of immanence beneath the surface of transcendence. Paid work does not automatically grant women an open future if marriage reasserts domestic primacy.
V. Marriage as Institution: The Return to Immanence
In The Married Woman, Beauvoir dismantles the romantic myth of marriage, showing it to be an institution that restores male privilege even after apparent equality. Marriage grants men stability and support while confining women to repetitive, service-oriented roles.
In North India, marriage remains the most powerful mechanism of social control over women. Even when framed as “choice,” the choice is heavily managed. Matrimonial websites, caste endogamy, horoscope matching, and family negotiations ensure that women’s preferences are filtered through collective approval.
The educated woman who hesitates—who says she is “not ready”—encounters subtle coercion: emotional appeals, comparisons with peers, warnings about age, fertility, and reputation. Rarely is her refusal accepted as final.
Beauvoir’s insight is crucial here: freedom without the right to refuse is not freedom. Indian middle-class women are encouraged to choose among options presented to them, but they are denied the right to reject the institution itself or delay it indefinitely.
VI. Haryana and North India: Honour, Anxiety, and Control
The regional specificity of Haryana sharpens Beauvoir’s analysis. The state’s history of skewed sex ratios, khap panchayats, and honour-based violence forms the backdrop against which “liberal” urban practices must be understood.
While educated urban families may distance themselves from khap politics, the underlying logic of honour persists. Women’s bodies continue to be sites of family reputation. An unmarried, independent woman—especially one who expresses sexual autonomy or rejects marriage—invites suspicion.
Cases reported in NCRB data and media accounts show that psychological pressure, emotional coercion, and forced compliance are far more common than overt violence among middle-class families. Control operates not through threat but through moral obligation.
Beauvoir’s concept of bad faith is instructive here. Women often comply not because they believe in the institution but because resistance appears too costly—emotionally, socially, and economically. Compliance becomes a survival strategy.
VII. The Girl Who Cannot Say No: Interior Chaos
Beauvoir’s chapters on The Girl and The Woman in Love capture the interior consequences of denied autonomy. The woman who is confident at work but powerless in intimate decisions experiences a fractured self.
Interviews and anecdotal evidence from urban Haryana reveal recurring themes: anxiety, insomnia, depression, and a sense of betrayal—both by family and by the self. The woman is told she is mature and capable, yet treated as incapable of deciding her own life partner.
This contradiction produces what Beauvoir calls existential nausea—a sense that one’s life is being lived for others. Consent becomes performative; resistance turns inward.
VIII. Class Paradox: Why the Middle Class Is More Restrictive
One of the most striking paradoxes in India is that the upper elite often permits greater flexibility in women’s choices—late marriage, divorce, cohabitation—while the middle class enforces stricter norms.
Beauvoir helps explain this: the middle class relies heavily on respectability for social mobility. Women become its moral anchors. Any deviation threatens the family’s fragile status.
Thus, the class that speaks most fluently of values practices the most stringent control over daughters.
IX. Sex, Consent, and Reproductive Time
Beauvoir insists that women’s liberation requires control over sexuality and reproduction. In India, even educated women often lack this autonomy within marriage. Sex is assumed, childbirth expected, refusal pathologized.
NFHS-5 data shows that a significant proportion of married women report lack of agency in reproductive decisions, even in urban areas. The right to decide when and whether to have children remains constrained.
Without sexual autonomy, Beauvoir argues, women remain immanent beings—defined by biological function rather than chosen projects.
X. Conclusion: Freedom Must Include the Right to Disappoint
The contemporary Indian middle-class woman stands at a cruel threshold: educated enough to recognize her subordination, constrained enough to be unable to escape it.
Simone de Beauvoir teaches us that liberation is not measured by degrees, salaries, or surface freedoms, but by existential sovereignty—the right to choose, refuse, and redefine one’s life.
Until Indian society accepts that a woman may remain unmarried, marry late, reject imposed partners, control reproduction, and say no without moral trial, she remains—despite all progress—the Second Sex.
True liberalism begins where permission ends.
References
1. Agarwal, Bina (1994): A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2. Basu, Srimati (2015): “The Trouble with Marriage Reform in India,” Feminist Studies, Vol 41, No 3, pp 582–607.
3. Beauvoir, Simone de (1949): The Second Sex, translated by H M Parshley, Vintage Books, New York (1989 edition).
4. Butler, Judith (1990): Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge, New York.
5. Butler, Judith (2004): Undoing Gender, Routledge, New York.
6. Chakravarti, Uma (2003): Gendering Caste: Through a Feminist Lens, Stree, Kolkata.
7. Chatterjee, Partha (1993): “The Nationalist Resolution of the Women’s Question,” in The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
8. Dasgupta, Sanjukta (2017): “Middle-Class Women and the Politics of Marriage in Urban India,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 52, No 21, pp 45–52.
9. Desai, Sonalde and Lester Andrist (2010): “Gender Scripts and Age at Marriage in India,” Demography, Vol 47, No 3, pp 667–687.
10. Firestone, Shulamith (1970): The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, William Morrow, New York.
11. Fraisse, Geneviève (1994): Reason’s Muse: Sexual Difference and the Birth of Democracy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
12. Ghosh, Shohini (2015): Fire in the Belly: The Politics of Sexuality in Contemporary India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
13. Government of Haryana (various years): Statistical Abstract of Haryana, Department of Economic and Statistical Analysis, Chandigarh.
14. Government of India (2019): Time Use Survey, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), New Delhi.
15. Government of India (2021): National Family Health Survey–5 (NFHS-5), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.
16. Government of India (2022): Crime in India, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), New Delhi.
17. Gupta, Charu (2014): Sexuality, Obscenity, Community: Women, Muslims, and the Hindu Public in Colonial India, Permanent Black, Ranikhet.
18. John, Mary E (2008): Women’s Studies in India: A Reader, Penguin, New Delhi.
19. John, Mary E and Janaki Nair (1998): A Question of Silence? The Sexual Economies of Modern India, Zed Books, London.
20. Kabeer, Naila (1999): “Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment,” Development and Change, Vol 30, No 3, pp 435–464.
21. Kaur, Ravinder (2008): “Khap Panchayats, Sex Ratio and Female Agency in Haryana,” Contributions to Indian Sociology, Vol 42, No 2, pp 235–260.
22. Menon, Nivedita (2012): Seeing Like a Feminist, Zubaan, New Delhi.
23. Moi, Toril (1999): What Is a Woman? And Other Essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
24. Narayan, Badri (2011): Gender, Caste and Politics in North India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
25. Neetha, N (2010): “Flexibility and Female Labour Force Participation in India,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 45, No 52, pp 49–57.
26. Raman, Anuradha (2020): “Why Educated Women Are Opting Out of Marriage,” The Wire, 14 February.
27. Rangarajan, C, Ishwar Kaul and Seema (2011): “Where Is the Missing Labour Force?” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 46, No 39, pp 68–72.
28. Sangari, Kumkum and Sudesh Vaid (1990): Recasting Women: Essays in Colonial History, Kali for Women, New Delhi.
29. Sangwan, S and R Punia (2020): “Marriage, Honour and Women’s Autonomy in Haryana,” Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Vol 27, No 3, pp 389–411.
30. Young, Iris Marion (2005): “Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective,” Signs, Vol 19, No 3, pp 713–738.
No comments:
Post a Comment