Shohini Banerjee

Muslims, Dalits, women, sex workers, migrant workers and other marginalised populations are the worst affected during COVID-19 in India. Countless stories of discrimination, access to services being affected, inhumane treatment and a range of other adversities are surfacing. Each community faces their own set of barriers; for women, one of the concerns growing gender inequality. 

Experts surmise differing effects along gender lines during such crises. Women face increased burden of unpaid care, decreased access to sexual and reproductive health, loss of livelihood, increased violence and more. In India, evidence of increased gender-based violence has already emerged.

Stakeholders are undertaking gendered analyses of COVID-19, but there remains a dearth of intersectional analyses to address the multiplicities of women. A Muslim woman faces discrimination both as someone from the Muslim community and as a woman. Similarly, rural women, Dalit women, Muslim women, women with non-traditional livelihoods like sex workers, trans women and women from other marginalised communities face the double and often triple barriers due to their multiple identities. Therefore, to better address the needs of women, particular attention should be paid to the following intersectional issues:

1. Economic support: The Indian government announced a relief package to assist the poor. The package ensures that women account holders and women’s self help groups are provided with additional cash transfers. It also outlines financial assistance for workers from specific industries like construction. However, the government scheme has three major shortcomings. First, it does not include work spaces that are women-dominated like domestic workers, sex workers, garment workers, informal workers and especially home-based workers. Second, it does not consider the gender difference in particular industries. For example, 85% of rural women are engaged in agriculture, yet only about 13% own land. The relief package provides support for farmers but does not account for the underrepresentation of women. Lastly, it does not account for gendered difference in accessibility related to finances and livelihoods. For example, the Prime Minister asked citizens to continue to pay their domestic help. However many domestic worker neither have access to digital bank accounts nor can they travel during lockdown. Additionally, in most households, men continue to enjoy primary control finances. Therefore, even if there are cash transfers to women account holders, what are the accessibility realities? 

2. Sexual and Reproductive Rights: Abortion and other reproductive health services have been identified as essential services to be available during the mandatory lockdown. However, even before COVID-19, women in India had unmet access to sexual and reproductive health services like access to abortion, contraceptives, and knowledge about safe sex to name a few. A crisis situation exacerbates this further for women who are already locked out of such systems. For example, pregnant women from areas marked as highly contagious (some of whom are from Muslim dominated areas) are hesitant to access services for fear of discrimination. Therefore it is inadequate to merely provide services without ensuring better accessibility for marginalised women.

3. Using technology: Solutions that incorporate technology, radio or the phone address the service accessibility gap during lockdown but not the pre-existing gap for women.  A 2014 study by IT for Change shows that women in India are 27% less likely to have Internet access than a man; the numbers got worse in 2017 to 29%. When providing solutions, it is important to look at who has access and how to bridge the gap. Furthermore, women from impoverished backgrounds and homeless women may also lack the privacy required to access these services. Trans and Queer women who are in their family homes but without the support of their family may also not want to bring attention to their identity while accessing these services.  Lastly, solutions also need to account for illiteracy and communication gaps of women users. Addressing these intersectional hindrances can make services more effective.  

The above points illustrate the need to ensure that women from various communities have equal rights and services during this crisis. To address intersectional gendered effects of COVID-19, the following philosophies need to be embedded into any proposed solutions:

1. Rights-based response: The right to life, dignity, equality, food, shelter, health and others should the at the centre of every solution. In a recent webinar Vrinda Grover, lawyer and women’s rights activist, said that people are falsely positing individual rights against public betterment. For example, migrant workers who were without livelihood were not allowed to return home to prevent the spread of the virus. A rights-based approach would be aware of this potential problem and provide adequate warning so that workers could have safety measures in place.  Yet the current government policies focus more on citizen responsibilities over rights. Instead of a thoughtful policy support, the Prime Minister resorted to appealing for citizen support. In fact, civil society provided a better response to the basic rights of individuals. A rights-based approach would ensure that the needs of vulnerable communities are identified and addressed proactively. 

2. Meeting women where they are: Women face various physical and structural barriers in society. Simply providing solutions without addressing these difficulties render solutions as ineffective. For example, having abortions as an essential service without providing rural women access to services which are hours away is ineffective. Possible solutions can equip grassroots health workers with personal protective equipment to go to the homes of vulnerable women to bridge the gap between government services and the citizens. These health workers can also provide support in safer spaces for issues like domestic violence. Civil societies can also spread awareness or share services in public spaces that continue to be accessed by women such as markets.

3. Targeted support: There are pre-existing discrimination, bias and structural barriers for marginalised communities. Solutions by both the government and to a smaller extent by the civil society assumes that women from all communities will have equal access or will receive equal treatment; this is not reflected in reality. Therefore, response needs to be targeted to address the barriers of each community. 

The mandatory lockdown has ended in some areas of India. However, the effects from COVID-19 will be far reaching and long term. As India opens up, it needs to re-imagine a more equitable future; one that acknowledges and addresses intersectional differences.