Social Stratification and Gender in Contemporary Society: Examining the Division of Labour and Its Impact on Family, Work, and Property
Domain: Sociology
Course Level: Sociology Major
Course Name: Sociology of Gender
Course Code: SOC MJC 304
Unit 3: Social Structure and
Gender Equality: (a) Division of Labour, (b) Family, Work, and Property
The crucial points are in bold,
italic, and/or underlined text. However, for a holistic understanding, you are
required to study the entire text thoroughly.
Lecture Prepared by
Dr. Anil Kumar Assistant Professor of Sociology
Patna Women’s College, Autonomous
Understanding Division of Labour
In sociology, the division of labour
refers to how societies distribute work and tasks among people or groups.
Instead of everyone doing everything, jobs are specialised—think of it like a
team where one person cooks, another cleans, and a third serves. This concept
helps explain how societies grow, function, and sometimes face challenges. It's
not just about factories or offices; it's a lens to view everything from
families to global economies. Coined by thinkers like Adam Smith and Émile
Durkheim, it shows how specialisation boosts efficiency but can also
create inequalities.
The Basics: Meaning of Division of
Labour
At its core, division of labour is
about specialisation. In simple societies, like
hunter-gatherer groups, people often did similar tasks—everyone hunted or
gathered food. But as populations grew, it became inefficient for one person to
make tools, build homes, and farm. So, societies divided tasks: some
became farmers, others blacksmiths, and so on. This division increases
productivity because experts get better and faster at their jobs. For example,
in a modern kitchen, the chef focuses on cooking, the sous-chef preps
ingredients, and the waitstaff handles customers. As a result, meals come out
quicker and tastier. The same things are happening in every sector.
Adam Smith (Scottish, Economist and
Philosopher, Moral Philosopher, 1723-1790), an economist, popularised this in
1776 with his pin factory example. He calculated that if ten
workers each made pins from scratch, they'd produce very few. But if they
divided tasks—one draws wire, another cuts it, a third sharpens—the team could
make 48,000 pins a day. Sociology borrows this to study how work shapes social
bonds and structures.
Durkheim's Sociological Twist
Émile Durkheim (French Philosopher,
Sociologist, Educationalist, 1858-1917), a founding father of modern sociology,
took it further in his 1893 book The Division of Labour in Society.
He saw it as the glue holding societies together—or tearing them apart.
Durkheim contrasted two types of societies based on the stage of division of
labour in society:
- Mechanical
Solidarity: In traditional, small-scale
societies (e.g., rural villages), division of labour is minimal. People do
similar jobs, like farming or herding, creating "mechanical"
bonds—like identical gears in a machine. Unity comes from shared values,
beliefs, and similarities (think religious festivals uniting everyone).
It's stable but limits innovation. These kinds of societies are governed
by traditional values, institutions, and leaders.
- Organic
Solidarity: In modern, industrial societies
(e.g., cities), division of labour explodes. Jobs diversify
wildly—doctors, teachers, coders, and delivery drivers— creating
"organic" bonds, like organs in a body, depending on each other.
Unity arises from interdependence: you need the farmer for food, the
engineer for your phone. This fosters progress but requires complex rules
(laws, contracts) to coordinate. These kinds of societies are governed by modern values, institutions, and legal-rational leaders.
Durkheim argued that as societies
industrialise, we shift from mechanical to organic solidarity. It's evolution,
not just economics—specialisation reflects denser populations and advanced
tech.
Why the Division of Labour Matters:
Merits and Demerits
Division of labour has upsides. It boosts
efficiency and innovation. Specialised workers innovate within their niche—
a car designer dreams up electric vehicles, while assembly line workers perfect
production. It also creates interdependence, promoting tolerance and
cooperation in diverse societies. In India, for instance, the caste system
historically enforced division of labour, which stabilised rural economies but
rigidified social mobility.
But it is not all rosy. Drawbacks
include alienation, a term Karl Marx (German Philosopher, 1818-1883) highlighted.
Workers might feel like cogs in a machine, detached from the final product.
Picture a factory worker screwing the same bolt all day—boring, meaningless,
leading to burnout or resentment. It can also widen inequalities:
high-skill jobs (e.g., IT engineers) pay well, while low-skill ones (e.g.,
cleaners) don't, fueling class divides. In global terms, it enables even
international exploitation, like cheap labour in developing countries assembling
iPhones designed in Silicon Valley.
Feminist sociologists like Silvia
Federici (Italian, Feminist, Born 1942) add that gender
divides labour too: women often handle unpaid "reproductive" work
(childcare, cooking), undervalued compared to men's "productive"
jobs. This hidden division sustains patriarchy.
Division of Labour Today
In our modern economy, which is also
identified as the gig economy—Uber drivers, delivery men and women, freelance
graphic designers—the division is hyper-flexible, blurring lines between work and
life. Globalisation spreads it worldwide: Bangladesh weaves clothes for Zara,
designed in Spain. COVID-19 exposed vulnerabilities; supply chains broke when
specialised factories shut down. Yet, it drives progress—Artificial Intelligence
(AI) specialists now handle data, freeing humans for creative tasks. Infosys
founder N. R. Narayana Murthy (Born 1946)
and Larsen and Toubro Limited (L&T) CEO S.N. Subrahmanyan have emphasised
working more than 70 hours, which sparked worldwide wide about the balance between work
and life.
For sociology students, this concept is
a toolkit. It links micro (part-time job) to macro (capitalism's flaws). For
example,
When you order food online, try to
trace the divisions: A coder builds the platform, a farmer grows the
ingredients, someone cooks it, someone packs it, and a rider delivers it. Many
people are involved in the entire process. Who benefits? Who loses?
In sum, the division of labour in society
is a way of slicing the pie of work for efficiency and connection. It propels us
forward but demands balance to avoid fractures. As Durkheim warned,
without strong social ties, specialisation breeds "anomie"—normlessness
and isolation.
Emile Durkheim saw that the division
of labour is inevitable in modern society. In other words, without the
division of labour, society cannot move from simple to complex. The division of
labour not only affects economic production but also affects the entire social,
spiritual, and philosophical life. As a result, new institutions emerged and
developed.
#THINK-ABOUT-IT
Study it to question: How does it shape
your world?
Gender
and Division of Labour: Origins, Meaning, and Sociological Insights
In
sociology, the gender
division of labour refers to the systematic allocation of
tasks, roles, and responsibilities based on gender—typically assigning women to
domestic, caregiving, and unpaid work, while men dominate paid, public, and
decision-making spheres. This is not just a practical split; it's a social
construct that reinforces inequality, shapes identities, and sustains power
structures.
For
undergrads, think of it as society's "gendered job board":
women as homemakers or nurses, men as CEOs or engineers. Coined through
feminist lenses, it builds on the broader division of labour (from Adam
Smith and Émile Durkheim) but zooms in on how patriarchy carves up work
unequally. Understanding its origins and meaning helps unpack why gender gaps
persist in wages, politics, and homes.
Origins:
From Prehistory to Patriarchal Shifts
The
roots of gender division of labour trace back to human evolution and early
societies, but sociologists emphasise it is not "natural"—it's
culturally forged.
Anthropological
evidence from hunter-gatherer groups, like the !Kung San in Africa shows
flexible divisions: women gathered (80% of calories) and men hunted, but roles
overlapped, with shared childcare and minimal hierarchy (as per Marjorie
Shostak's Nisa,
1981). This is "primitive communism," according to Friedrich
Engels (German, 1820–1895, philosopher, social scientist, journalist, and
businessman).
Note: Brief Key Facts About !Kung The !Kung San (also spelt ǃKung or Kung) are an indigenous people of Southern Africa. They are one of several groups of San peoples, who are often collectively referred to as "Bushmen." Who They Are: The !Kung are one of the oldest cultures on Earth, with a history as hunter-gatherers stretching back tens of thousands of years. They are part of the larger San or Khoekhoe-San language and ethnic group. Location: They traditionally live in the vast, arid expanse of the Kalahari Desert, with populations in Botswana, Namibia, and southern Angola. The "!" in !Kung: The "!" is not a punctuation mark. It represents one of the many "click" consonants in their language. The !Kung language is part of the Khoisan language family, famous for its unique sounds.
Engels,
in The Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State (1884), marks a pivotal origin
story. Drawing from Lewis Henry Morgan's (1818–1881, American anthropologist,
social theorist, and ethnologist) ethnology, he argued that with agriculture
and private property (around 10,000 BCE), men seized control of surplus
production (ploughing, herding), relegating women to reproduction and household
maintenance. This "world historic defeat of the female sex" birthed
monogamy, inheritance through male lines, and the patriarchal family, dividing
labour to ensure patrilineal wealth. Engels tied it to class: capitalism
amplified it, turning women's domestic work into unpaid support for male wage-labourers.
Colonialism
and industrialisation deepened these origins. In Europe, the 19th-century
factory system (per Durkheim's organic solidarity) pushed women into low-wage
textile mills while idealising the "angel in the house"
(domesticity).
In
colonised India, British policies rigidified caste-gender divides, confining
women to purdah and agrarian drudgery. Globally, these shifts weren't
biological (women aren't "weaker" for housework) but
ideological—rooted in control over bodies and resources.
Early
sociologists like Talcott Parsons (1902–1979, American sociologist) (functionalism,
1950s) naturalised it: men as "instrumental" (breadwinners), women as
"expressive" (emotional nurturers), stabilising families. But
feminists critiqued this as ahistorical, ignoring how colonialism and capitalism
engineered divisions.
Sociological
Interpretations of Gender and Division of Labour
At
its core, gender division of labour means inequitable specialisation by sex, producing
value hierarchies. In Marxist terms (e.g., Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch, 2004),
women's "reproductive labour"—birthing, cooking, cleaning—subsidises
capitalism unpaid, worth trillions globally (per Oxfam estimates). It's not
"leisure"; it's essential yet invisible, enabling men's
"productive" work. This dual economy (paid vs. unpaid) means women
work a "double shift" (Arlie Hochschild, 1989), juggling office and
home, leading to exhaustion and lower career mobility.
Feminist
sociology expands the meaning. Liberal feminists (Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, 1963)
see it as barring women's potential, advocating equal access. Radical feminists
(Catharine MacKinnon) view it as sexual domination: labour divisions stem from
men's control over women's bodies, perpetuating violence and subordination.
Intersectional lenses (Kimberlé Crenshaw, 1989) add race and class: Black women
in the U.S. face "triple shifts" (domestic, paid, community), rooted
in slavery's legacy of forced labour.
Durkheim's
framework adapts here—gender creates "organic" interdependence but
fosters inequality, not harmony. In modern terms, it means glass ceilings:
women comprise 70% of health workers, yet only 25% of leaders (WHO data).
Meaningfully, it socialises gender: girls learn dolls (nurturing), boys trucks
(building), scripting lifelong roles.
Contemporary
Relevance of Gender Division of Labour and Critiques
Today,
gender division thrives in neoliberalism. Gig economies (e.g., care apps)
commodify women's labour while underpaying it. In India, 80% of rural women
toil in agriculture unpaid (National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) surveys),
echoing Engels' property traps. Pandemics like COVID-19 widened gaps—women lost
jobs first, shouldered homeschooling (UN Women, 2021).
Critiques
highlight resistance: #MeToo exposed workplace harassments tied to divisions;
policies like paternity leave (Sweden's model) challenge binaries. Yet, origins
linger—neoliberal "lean in" feminism (Sheryl Sandberg) blames women,
ignoring structural patriarchy.
#ASSIGNMENT for Self Improvement
Dear
students, find the Laws related to the Workplace and Gender.
For
sociology students, this concept demystifies daily inequities. Why do ads show
dads "helping" with chores? It's division, not sharing. Origins teach
history's hand; meaning reveals power's playbook. To dismantle it, question:
Who benefits from gendered work? As bell hooks urged, feminism is for
everybody—redividing labour equitably builds just societies.
#ASSIGNMENT
Dear
students, please find the latest ads that promote gender equality. And
let us know in the comments section. It will be added in the lecture with your
credit.
In
essence, gender division of labour originated in property's grip on bodies,
meaning the undervaluation of women's worlds. It propels inequality but invites
transformation. Probe it in essays, fieldwork, or life—sociology's power lies
in seeing the splits to stitch them anew.
Economic
Gender Justice in India: Constitutional Provisions and Laws
Economic
gender justice means dismantling the patriarchal division of labour that traps
women in low-wage, undervalued roles while denying them equal opportunities.
In
India, where women earn 20-30% less than men for similar work (as per International
Labour Organisation (ILO) data), laws aim to bridge this gap, fostering equity
in pay, safety, and work conditions.
Rooted
in the Constitution's socialist vision, these provisions reflect Dr. Bhimrao
Ramji Ambedkar (14.04.1891- 06.12.1956), who pushed for women's emancipation as key
to social reform.
They
combat "invisible" inequalities—like the double burden of paid and
unpaid care work—aligning with feminist theories of intersectional oppression.
Let's unpack the framework.
Constitutional
Foundations: Pillars of Equality
The
Indian Constitution, Enacted on 26 January 1950 (Māgha Śukla Saptamī, Vikram
Samvat 2006), embeds gender justice in its core.
The Preamble promises "social,
economic, and political justice," setting a transformative tone
against colonial and caste-based exclusions.
Fundamental
Rights under Article 14
ensure equality before the law, prohibiting arbitrary discrimination in
economic spheres. Article
15(1) bans sex-based discrimination, while Article 15(3) allows
affirmative action like reservations for women. Article 16 mandates equal opportunity in
public employment, extended judicially to the private sector via equality
principles.
Directive
Principles of State Policy (DPSP, non-justiciable but guiding) are crucial. Article 39(a) directs the
state to secure equal right to livelihood, and Article 39(d) explicitly mandates
"equal pay for equal work for both men and women." Article 42 requires
humane work conditions and maternity relief, linking economic rights to dignity
under Article 21
(right to life). Article
51A(e) urges citizens to renounce practices derogatory to
women's dignity. These provisions, per Supreme Court rulings like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(1997), birthed landmark laws, viewing economic justice as integral to
gender democracy.
#ASSIGNMENT
Find
the case, judgment, and their impact of Supreme Court rulings on Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(1997). Also, find the further development after the SC judgement in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
(1997).
Key
Laws: From Pay Parity to Workplace Safety
Building
on the Constitution, statutes operationalise these ideals.
The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976,
directly enacts Article 39(d). It prohibits wage discrimination for "same
work or work of a similar nature," covering recruitment, promotions,
and transfers. Employers must maintain pay registers; violations invite fines
up to ₹20,000 or imprisonment. Amended in 1987 for broader coverage, it applies
to all establishments, yet enforcement lags—women's labour participation hovers
at 37% (PLFS 2023-24), often in informal sectors exempt from scrutiny.
Sociologically, it challenges Marxian alienation by valuing women's labour, but
neoliberal gig economies (e.g., Zomato, Swiggy, Zapto, etc, delivery) evade it,
perpetuating precarity.
#ASSIGNMENT
Find
the debate on the rights and laws of gig workers in India
Workplace
safety is fortified by the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013 (short popular name POSH Act). Stemming
from Vishaka
guidelines, it defines harassment broadly (unwelcome advances, quid pro quo
demands) and mandates Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) in
organisations with 10+ employees. Time-bound redressal (90-day inquiry)
ensures anonymity and appeals. Penalties include dismissal or compensation. For
unorganised sectors, Local Committees handle complaints. This law reframes
harassment as a public economic issue, not private shame, aligning with
Catharine MacKinnon's dominance theory—harassment enforces gender hierarchies,
deterring women's workforce entry.
Maternity
protections underscore reproductive justice. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
(amended 2017) grants 26 weeks of paid leave for up to two children (12 weeks for
others), plus nursing breaks and no dismissal during pregnancy. It
covers factories, mines, and shops with 10+ workers. Creche facilities are
required for 50+ employee firms. This counters the "motherhood
penalty," where women lose promotions post-childbirth, echoing Arlie
Hochschild's "second shift."
Other
workplace laws bolster this: The Factories
Act, 1948, limits women's night shifts (with consent) and
ensures safety; the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948, sets gender-neutral floors but often under-enforces
for women; the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948, provides medical benefits. The Code on Social Security, 2020
(yet to be fully notified) consolidates these, promising gig workers'
inclusion.
Recent
Developments: Towards Accountability
Post-2023,
momentum builds. The Maternity
Benefit (Amendment) Rules, 2025, digitise claims and extend
protections to contractual workers, easing access via portals. In May 2025, the
Supreme Court (Dr. Kavita Yadav
v. Secretary, Ministry of Health) expanded 26-week leave to all
women, including contractuals, invoking Article 42. The Companies (Accounts) Second Amendment
Rules, 2025 mandate annual disclosures of POSH
complaints and maternity compliance in board reports, enhancing transparency
for listed firms. India's 182-day leave shines in BRICS reports, yet informal
workers (90% of female labour) remain sidelined.
Sociological
Lens: Progress and Pitfalls
These
laws embody Durkheim's organic solidarity—interdependent roles with equity—but
reveal gaps. Intersectionality (Crenshaw) highlights Dalit/Adivasi women's
exclusion; only 15% report harassment due to stigma (National Family Health
Survey (NFHS-5). Enforcement is weak: 70% firms lack ICCs (2024 surveys).
Neoliberalism privatises risks, as seen in #MeTooIndia exposures.
Yet,
they empower agency—POSH filings rose 20% post-2023—fostering collective
resistance. For sociologists, they illustrate law as a tool for structural
change, per Jürgen Habermas's (Born 1929, German philosopher and Sociologist)
communicative action.
In
sum, India's framework advances economic gender justice, from constitutional
equity to targeted statutes. But true justice demands vigilant implementation,
cultural shifts, and inclusive reforms. As undergrads, interrogate: Do these
laws liberate or merely regulate inequality? Engage via fieldwork or
advocacy—India's tryst with gender destiny continues.
Towards
Gender Equality in Participatory Democracy
Provisions
for Women under the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts
From a sociological perspective, the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts
(1992, effective 1993) revolutionised local governance by institutionalising
Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), respectively.
These
amendments, inspired by Gandhian decentralisation and Ambedkar's
vision of inclusive democracy, empowered women by mandating reservations,
countering patriarchal exclusions in grassroots politics. They shifted power
from elite males to marginalised groups, fostering organic solidarity (per Durkheim)
through diverse representation.
For
undergrads, these acts exemplify how constitutional tools dismantle gender
divisions of labour, enabling women to influence economic and social policies
like sanitation and education.
73rd
Amendment: Women's Empowerment and Inclusion in Rural Areas
The
73rd Amendment added Part IX to the Constitution, establishing a three-tier PRI
system (Village, Block, and District) in rural areas, excluding Tribal Regions.
Article 243D is pivotal for women: It reserves not less than one-third (33%) of total seats
for women in Panchayats at all levels, including Scheduled Castes (SC)
and Scheduled Tribes (ST), proportional to population. Additionally, one-third of Pradhan/Sarpanch
(chairperson) posts are reserved for women, rotated across
constituencies to prevent entrenchment. States can exceed this quota.
This
provision spurred women's entry: Over 1.4 million women now serve in PRIs,
influencing schemes like The full form of MGNREGA is the “Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005” popularly known as MGNREGA
for rural wages. Sociologically, it challenges intersectional barriers—Dalit
women leaders combat caste-gender violence—but "proxy" representation
(sarpanch-pati syndrome) persists, where husbands dominate. Yet, studies
show increased focus on water, health, and domestic violence, embodying
feminist standpoint theory.
74th
Amendment: Women's Empowerment and Inclusion in Urban Areas
Mirroring
the 73rd, the 74th Amendment (Part IXA) constitutionalised ULBs—Municipalities,
Corporations, and Councils—for urban areas with over 3 lakh population. Article
243T mandates one-third
reservation for women in direct elections to ULBs, including SC
and ST seats, and one-third
of chairperson positions. Like PRIs, reservations rotate,
ensuring periodic access.
This
urban focus addresses migration-driven gender inequities; women now hold 40%+
seats in many municipalities, advocating for slum infrastructure and creches.
It
aligns with Marxist views on urban alienation, as women's voices shape
pro-labour policies. Challenges include urban-rural divides and elite capture,
but it promotes gender budgeting in cities.
Beyond
33% Reservation for Women: States with 50% Reservation
Emboldened
by the amendments' flexibility, many states enhanced quotas to 50%, amplifying
women's agency. As of August 2025, 21
states and 2 UTs provide 50% reservation in PRIs: Andhra
Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab,
Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, West Bengal,
Lakshadweep, and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu. Bihar
pioneered this in 2006.
For
ULBs, 17 states and 2 UTs
follow suit: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal
Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha,
Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Tripura, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and
Daman & Diu, and Delhi. These hikes, per state acts, reflect federalism's
role in gender justice.
In
sum, these amendments transformed women from passive voters to active
governors, boosting participation from 4% pre-1993 to 46% today in 2025.
Yet,
sociological critiques highlight tokenism and violence against women leaders. But
everyone we can see on the ground knows that things are going in a positive way. They
underscore the law's potential in re-dividing political labour equitably, paving
for national quotas like the 2023 Women's Reservation Bill.
Reservations and Economic Benefits for
Women in Bihar: A Sociological Perspective
In Bihar, a state long grappling with
patriarchal structures and low female literacy (61% per the 2021 Census), Chief
Minister Sri Nitish Kumar's government has pioneered reservations and schemes
to advance gender justice. These interventions, rooted in feminist sociology's
emphasis on structural equity, challenge the gendered division of labour by
boosting women's political, economic, and educational participation.
From 50% local body quotas to targeted
incentives, they embody Ambedkarite inclusion, transforming women from passive
beneficiaries to active agents.
Political Reservations: Grassroots
Power
Bihar leads with 50% reservation for
women in Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs),
exceeding the 73rd/74th Amendments' 33% mandate since 2006. This covers seats
and chairperson posts across three rural tiers and urban councils, rotating to
ensure broad access. Over 1.5 lakh women lead PRIs, prioritising issues like
sanitation and domestic violence. Sociologically, it fosters "organic
solidarity" (Durkheim), weaving women's voices into governance, though
"sarpanch-pati" proxyism persists among marginalised groups.
Employment Reservations: Breaking Wage
Ceilings
In July 2025, Nitish announced a 35%
horizontal reservation for women in all government jobs, across categories
like SC/ST/EBC, with domicile mandatory for eligibility. This builds on the
2023 Bihar Reservation Act, aiming for 1 crore jobs by 2030, including perks
like creches. The Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana (launched August 2025)
grants ₹10,000 to one woman per family for startups, targeting 1.5 crore
beneficiaries via Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT). These combat Marxian
alienation in informal sectors (90% female workforce), promoting self-reliance
amid gig economy precarity.
Educational Reservations and Economic
Benefits: Lifecycle Support
While direct quotas in higher education
remain at 33% (per state policy), economic incentives under Nitish's
"Kanya Kalyan" framework provide stage-wise benefits, slashing
dropout rates from 20% (2005) to 5% (2024).
- Primary
Stage (Classes 1-8): Free uniforms (₹750/year) and
textbooks for girls, plus midday meals, easing household burdens and
boosting enrollment to 95%.
- Secondary
Stage (Classes 9-12): Iconic Mukhyamantri Balika Cycle
Yojana (since 2006) distributes bicycles (₹2,000 value) to Class 9 girls,
enhancing mobility and attendance by 30%; replicated globally by UN. Kanya
Utthan Yojana adds ₹10,000 at Class 10 and ₹5,000 at inter-level, plus
₹25,000 marriage incentive post-12th.
- Higher
Education Stage: Post-matric scholarships
(₹5,000-₹20,000/year) and ₹25,000 graduation completion grants under Kanya
Utthan, covering 10 lakh girls annually. In September 2025, ₹2,920 crore
was transferred for these, including +2 schools in every panchayat.
These DBT-linked benefits, totalling
₹10,000+ per girl across stages, counter the "reproductive labour"
traps theory given by Silvia Federici (Born 1942, Italy, Moved USA in
1967, A Marxist Philosopher), fostering human capital.
In essence, Bihar's model—50% political
quota, 35% jobs, and ₹50,000+ educational aid—redefines empowerment, lifting Labour
Force Participation Rate (LFPR) from 18% (2005) to 28% (2025). Yet, critics
note urban-rural gaps and enforcement lapses. For sociologists, it signals
policy as praxis: reservations redistribute power, schemes economic agency,
scripting a feminist future.
Political Impact of Inclusive Development
Policies for Women
As of 2025, amid assembly elections,
these policies secured the win of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA formed in
1998), with women voters at 58% turnout. For undergrads, they illustrate how
statecraft intersects with intersectional empowerment, addressing
caste-class-gender overlaps.
(Dear students, the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act by which a girl got the property rights in the ancestral property will be added for further enhancement in this lecture. However, the current content of this lecture is sufficient as per your syllabus. - Anil Kumar)
Dear Students, you are welcome to the critical assessment and discussion.
0 Comments