YOGESH DEVARAJ in San Jose, California, draws attention to a November 2007 story by Soutik Biswas on the BBC website about women in the Banda area of Uttar Pradesh wearing pink sarees, forming a vigilante “gang for justice”, and striking fear in the hearts of corrupt officials and boorish men.
The women unabashedly take law into their hands and thrash men who have abandoned or beaten their wives. They have stormed a police station and attacked a policeman after he refused to register a case involving a dalit.
“When men can’t stop giving or taking bribes, there is not the slightest chance of their fighting corruption. It is good to read that UP women have taken this initiative to punish corrupt officials. Hope this movement percolates to other parts and States of India or is it too much to wish for? Can women in Karnataka start a similar movement in the name of “Chamundi” who fought over evil Mahishasura…,” writes Yogesh.
On the other hand, given the track record of Jayalalithaa and Mayawati as chief ministers, and the performance of women ministers and bureaucrats, MLAs, corporators and zilla panchayat members, is there anything to suggest that women are less susceptible to corruption than men?
Photograph: courtesy BBC
Read the full story here: India’s ‘pink’ vigilante women
If you ask which eye is more powerful it is difficult to give the correct answer. So is the case of corruption. There are ample instances in the history. Nay, they have excelled in that field also. Let us not say let their increase.
jaya lalitha and mayawathi are not corrupt in the same league as men. They have been hard on criminals as in the case of veerappan and other dacoits while in UP the criminals are running to delhi and Orissa to escape death from encounters.
I will anyday prefer these corrupt women to our manmohan Deshmuhs,dharamsinghs,advani and vajpayee.
Chris Blattman has blogged about this:
http://chrisblattman.blogspot.com/2008/01/vigilantes-versus-vindicators-women-in.html
and sees it (so do I) as a manifestation of collective action.
Yes I agree with gaddeswarup. It is manifestation of collective action.
Women are equally corrupt. I recently had the privilege of receiving a notice from the Professional Tax office, though my company doesn’t even qualify to pay PT. The surveyor/ inspector happened to be a lady (sic). Post notice I trooped into her office. I must admit not expecting to see a lady there. She came in a few minutes later. There was someone else waiting before me to meet her. She asked me to take a chair and continued business with the guy. They finished and the guy whipped out a bundle of 100 Rupee notes. She dint even flinch, counted the notes and tucked it into her blouse.
Corruption doesn’t need a gender; all it needs is a bit of greediness and a place to tuck in the bribe.
sm.
“bundle of 100 rupees notes…tucked into her blouse”!!!!??? Reee bari Olu. bandal bidbedi guru. adella hale kaalaa saaru. these days women put the money in their bag or table drawer.
Corruption doesn’t need a gender…all it requires is a BLOUSE
Aren’t the sarees burgundy or some other colour. Not pink for sure.
Mrignayani, nimma mele Upendrana prabhava jasthi antha kanuthe. Adakke kandaddu, keliddu ella Ole !!! Adu ondu 100 notgala bundle antha heldne horthu, 100ra notgala 100 note antha hellilla!!! Kannu swalpa testu maadisi
I dont care if corruption requires a blouse or an undie or a pink saree… it only indicates the decrease in values even among women tooo
Well, I posted here what I saw… take it or leave it
Kopa yaake guru? swalpa kichaayiside aste… cool it
I am neither a male chauvinist nor a feminist. While it is good to see anyone fight injustice (man or woman), I have in my experience found that when there is a group uprising in rural areas, an NGO is behind the movement. Of course, it is still kudos to the women or men who take up a a cause. As for corruption, there is no gender distinction.
If one takes a count…of say those involved in bribery cases, men may appear to outnumber women. But then corruption is not only about making money through unfair means (though that is the general understanding). Women are “corrupt” when they indulge in character assassination, grant favours to kith and kin, misuse official perks and services. Not to mention a host of petty, mean and calculative offences they commit on the domestic front –not just in family circles, but in dealings with maids, vegetable vendors and so on. How does one react when it is revealed that sometimes it is the woman who prods her husband to ask her parents for dowry so that she gets her rightful share?
On a lighter note, if men were to form groups in coloured shirts to protest nagging, spend thrift habits, emotional blackmailing and other “harassment” by women, they would soon run out of colours and all its shades.
Of course corruption is not limited to one gender but it is my opinion that when women indulge in it, the spotlight is on them more often as compared to when men do the same, as it is taken for granted in their case. Of course in most cases, people irrespective of gender want to be part of the system rather than oppose it, so they just go along.
There are corrupt women and there are corrupt men. If women are acting against corruption gandasru Yaake Bale thotkond Koothidaare?
one thing, if i go to an office, and need something done, i always try to find a woman, because it will be done, and done correctly. more often than not, while “sir” may be on extended tea break, out of office, or out of station. not saying this is true, just my experience