Exploring the Dynamics of Gender Subordination and Resistance

Gender subordination – the systematic positioning of women as lesser within social, political, and economic life – is not a simple or uniform experience. It is shaped and sharpened by the society a woman inhabits, the caste she is born into, the class she belongs to, and the religion she practices. Understanding how subordination works, and how women have resisted it, requires looking beyond individual experiences toward the structures that produce and sustain inequality. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in India, where centuries of feminist debate, social reform, and grassroots resistance offer a rich and complex picture of gender, power, and change.

What does gender subordination really mean? 🔗

Gender subordination refers to the systematic and institutionalized marginalization of women, positioning them as subordinate to men across social, economic, and political domains. It is not simply about individual attitudes or prejudice. As feminist sociologists argue, it operates through institutions – family structures, religious frameworks, educational systems, and the economy – that together reproduce and normalize women’s lower status. The key insight here is that subordination is structural: it is embedded in the very organization of society, not merely in the behaviour of particular individuals.

Feminist historian Uma Chakravarti argued that studies of women in Indian history have too often focused on “the status of women” as a standalone question, rather than examining the structural framework of gender relations as a whole. This narrower focus, she contended, produces a limited understanding of the processes that have shaped social institutions and the specific forms of women’s subordination over time. Moving to a structural lens changes the entire analysis – from asking “how are women treated?” to asking “what social arrangements make that treatment possible and persistent?”

The historical roots of feminist debate in India 🔗

The history of feminism in India can be divided into three broad phases. The first, beginning in the mid-19th century, was largely initiated by male social reformers who challenged oppressive customs including child marriage, the prohibition of widow remarriage, and the denial of education to women. Figures like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, and Jyotirao Phule were pivotal in this era. Women-led feminism emerged shortly after in Maharashtra, with Savitribai Phule founding India’s first school for girls in 1848, and Tarabai Shinde authoring the country’s first feminist text in 1882.

The second phase, from 1915 until independence, saw women drawn into the nationalist movement. Gandhi mobilized women on a mass scale within the freedom struggle – but this came at a cost. Women’s rights became entangled with nationalist rhetoric, with dominant discourse framing citizenship through the lens of “maternal” roles, using the image of “Mother India” to symbolize the nation. Despite women’s active participation in drafting the Constitution and fighting for independence, maternalism was systematically used to exclude them from full political recognition.

The third phase, emerging from the late 1970s onwards, brought a more confrontational and autonomous feminist politics. It began with outrage over sexual violence – particularly the 1972 Mathura rape case, in which a tribal teenage girl was raped by two policemen – which galvanized a new wave of activism around rape law, dowry-related violence, and women’s safety. This period also saw feminist class-consciousness sharpen, as activists began to recognize that inequalities were not only between men and women, but also within power structures defined by caste, tribe, religion, and class.

Why social structure matters: the lens of stratification 🔗

One of the most important contributions of feminist sociology is insisting that gender cannot be analyzed in isolation. Women’s subordination is always mediated by where a woman sits within the broader system of social stratification – the hierarchical arrangement of society based on wealth, status, power, and social prestige. In India, this stratification is defined primarily by three overlapping systems: caste, class, and religion.

As sociologists emphasize, these systems are deeply interconnected and cannot be understood by studying each factor in isolation. A Dalit woman, for instance, faces discrimination based on caste, class, and gender simultaneously – an experience entirely different from that of an upper-caste urban woman, even if both face forms of patriarchal control.

Caste and gender: a deeply entangled relationship 🔗

Caste and gender are not parallel systems that merely coexist – they are structurally fused in Indian society. According to sociological analysis of caste and gender, women are positioned as “gateways” into the caste system because of their reproductive role: it is through the control of women’s sexuality and marriage choices that caste purity is maintained across generations. Endogamy – marriage within the same caste – restricts women’s agency and bodies in the interest of preserving caste boundaries.

Uma Chakravarti’s analysis of Brahmanical patriarchy identifies how ancient legal codes institutionalized the subordination of women’s sexuality to maintain patrilineal succession and caste purity, thereby preserving established property and status orders. Indian feminist scholars like Flavia Agnes, Nivedita Menon, and Uma Chakravarti have argued that the connection between gender and caste makes subordination in India far more deep-rooted than those depicted in Euro-American feminist theories. The exploitation of Dalit and Adivasi women, for example, cannot be explained by patriarchy alone – it must be understood through the framework of Brahmanical patriarchy, which simultaneously upholds both gender and caste domination.

Brahmanical patriarchy is a system in which caste hierarchy and patriarchal control are coupled together – upper-caste men hold power, while women, particularly those from lower castes, face what scholars describe as “double oppression”: first by caste, then by gender. Upper-caste women may experience gender discrimination and have their autonomy restricted, but lower-caste women additionally face economic exploitation, sexual violence, and social exclusion based on caste. The experiences of Dalit women, marked by systemic violence and marginalization, illustrate how these axes of oppression compound each other.

There is also a counterintuitive dimension here worth noting. Research by the Pew Research Center found that Brahmin women are less likely to be permitted to work outside the home, while Scheduled Caste women often face fewer restrictions on mobility and employment – yet are disproportionately victims of sexual violence. This is not evidence that lower-caste women are freer; it demonstrates that different caste positions produce different, not lesser, forms of subordination.

Class and its compounding effect 🔗

Class intersects with both caste and gender to shape women’s life chances. Women from economically disadvantaged backgrounds face compounded barriers: limited access to quality education, healthcare, and employment restrict their ability to challenge patriarchal norms even when they may wish to. At the same time, class can also shape the nature of patriarchal control. Research on middle-class women in post-liberalization India shows that while employment and economic agency can provide some leverage against patriarchal structures within households, women often navigate a contradictory space – using economic agency to assert independence while simultaneously reinforcing traditional gender roles to retain social respectability. Economic growth and opportunity, in other words, do not automatically translate into gender equality; the interplay of capitalism and patriarchy can reproduce subordination in new forms.

Religion, personal law, and gender 🔗

Religion is another powerful axis shaping women’s subordination in India. Religious prescriptions across traditions have historically placed women in subordinate positions – defining their dharma as service to father, husband, and son in sequence, and tying their social value to their relationship with male relatives. However, the specific form this takes varies considerably by religious community and personal law.

The situation of Muslim women in the personal law sphere – particularly through controversies around triple talaq and polygamy – illustrates how religious identity can determine the scope and limits of feminist legal reform. Hindu women received partial legal reform through the Hindu Code Bills of the 1950s, yet feminist theorists note that even these changes asserted emancipatory intent while often maintaining the underlying social relations they nominally addressed. The Indian Constitution, as B.R. Ambedkar envisioned, was designed to guarantee equality and prohibit discrimination based on sex – yet the gap between formal constitutional equality and lived social reality remains wide across all religious communities.

Forms of resistance: historical and contemporary 🔗

Subordination has never been passively accepted. Across Indian history, women have resisted oppression in personal, collective, and institutional forms. The first wave of Indian feminism targeted concrete social evils: the ban on widow remarriage (addressed through the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856), child marriage, and the exclusion of women from education. Savitribai Phule’s pioneering work in girls’ education was an act of direct resistance against the structures denying women literacy and agency.

The contemporary women’s movement, surging from the late 1970s, achieved tangible legal changes – rape law reform, the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), and workplace harassment legislation – as results of sustained grassroots activism, demonstrations, sit-ins, and street campaigns. More recently, the #MeToo movement demonstrated how feminist resistance can generate new narratives that challenge entrenched cultures of silence and confront hegemonic masculinity.

Yet resistance in India has always faced an internal challenge: the diversity of women’s experiences makes unified mobilization difficult. Feminist scholars have noted that the Indian women’s movement is deeply cleaved by class, caste, and community differences. Activists have debated whether organizing around gender alone is sufficient, or whether the movement must explicitly address caste discrimination and economic oppression to be meaningful for women at the margins. The concern that elite, high-caste feminist leadership marginalizes Dalit voices remains a live and unresolved tension. Some activists, like Madhu Kishwar, have further argued that Western feminist frameworks cannot simply be imported wholesale – resistance in India must reckon with its own cultural and historical specificity, using what is valuable in tradition while challenging what is oppressive.

The law as both instrument of subordination and site of resistance 🔗

Perhaps one of the most telling paradoxes in understanding gender subordination in India is the role of law itself. As feminist legal scholars have observed, the same legal system that historically provided the framework for women’s subordination has increasingly become the primary instrument through which their liberation is sought. The Indian Constitution enshrines gender justice, equality, and human dignity – making it, for many feminist activists, the central site of resistance to patriarchal power. Yet legal reform, as theorist Upendra Baxi has cautioned, often amounts to “symbolic constitutionalism” – law asserts an emancipatory intent while rarely dismantling the deeper social relations that made reform necessary in the first place.

This tension – between formal legal equality and persistent social inequality – is precisely why understanding women’s subordination through the lens of social structure remains so important. Laws change more readily than the caste hierarchies, class distinctions, and religious norms that continue to shape women’s daily lives. True resistance, feminist sociologists argue, must work at both levels simultaneously.

What do you think? If gender subordination is produced by overlapping structures of caste, class, and religion rather than by individual attitudes alone, what does that mean for how we approach resistance and social change? And given the internal divisions within the Indian women’s movement along caste and class lines, what would a truly intersectional feminist politics look like in practice?

References

1. https://ruralindiaonline.org/en/library/resource/conceptualising-brahmanical-patriarchy-in-early-india-gender-caste-class-and-state/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_in_India
3. https://riverapublications.com/article/resisting-gendered-citizenship-the-politics-of-colonialism-nationalism-and-maternalism-in-india
4. https://www.tate.org.uk/research/in-focus/seven-lives-dream-sheba-chhachhi/contextualising-indian-womens-movement
5. https://hubsociology.com/social-stratification-in-india-caste-class-and/
6. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/41947/1/Unit-4.pdf
7. https://layman2lawman.substack.com/p/feminist-legal-theory-in-india-between
8. https://gender.study/gender-based-violence/caste-religion-culture-patriarchy-india/
9. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/08/23/what-role-does-caste-play/
10. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwao.13278
11. https://pulr.puchd.ac.in/index.php/pulr/article/download/260/65/1118
12. https://blog.ipleaders.in/gender-power-resistance-diversity-feminism/
13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237432451_Toward_a_Feminist_Politics_The_Indian_Women's_Movement_in_Historical_Perspective
14. https://triumphias.com/blog/womens-movement-in-india/