By Sukanti Bhave, Advisory Board, South Asia Students For Liberty 

On 4th February, the debating society of my alma mater, St. Xavier’s College (Mumbai), announced a debate on the motion ‘Feminism is becoming a movement of convenience’. Students and ex-students of the college were not happy and many demanded that the motion should be abandoned altogether.

A common reaction by students  was that of surprise. It was hard for them to comprehend that such a motion was considered debatable in 2018. I feel that this is similar to a  dangerous cult-like allegiance to a political movement; where students find it inconceivable that people can hold views which contradict their own – let alone imagine that there can be any merit to those views.

After a tremendous backlash on social media, including a letter by the founders of the debating society, this debate has been canceled.  

Shouldn’t College Be A Space to Learn and Grow?

In 2013-14, I participated as an adjudicator in a British Parliamentary debate at my college. The essence of the motion for this debate was that the Tibetan refugees and The Dalai Lama should be sent back to Tibet from India. As someone who has always been pro-immigration and pro-refugee,  I wasn’t offended by this motion. I engaged fairly with the arguments in favour of the motion. During my five years at St. Xavier’s college, my opinion on a number of issues has evolved or changed as a result of engaging conversations and arguments with my peers.

I am disappointed to see that the former students of the college, especially those who founded the debating society, have voraciously demanded that the motion be amended. The wonderful thing about higher education is that we encounter new ideas. Some of these might make us uncomfortable; but the purpose of attending college is to learn and grow, not to confirm our existing worldview.

The letter by the founders of the debating society says that they agree with the position that “no motion is beyond the purview of discussion”. However, they state that they “..fail to see how anyone can reasonably or rationally argue that feminism or for that matter any movement fighting against discrimination is ‘convenient’. In the absence of at least two sides to the debate, this motion is undebatable for being purely rhetorical.”

I vehemently disagree with this stance, and can think of more than one example of ‘convenience feminism’ at the top of my head.

In January 2018, L’Oreal Paris included a hijab-clad British model in their hair-care campaign. I think I can safely assume that L’Oreal Paris isn’t too concerned about the struggles of hijab-wearing women.

What they were aiming for, was the increased sales by virtue signaling to the ‘diversity’ folks in the west; as well as pandering to the growing market for cosmetics in the middle east. To be fair, they are doing their job as a brand by adopting the social justice message of diversity and inclusivity for their convenience.

The debating society while announcing the revocation of the debate also apologized to those whose sentiments were hurt and those who “lost faith in their alma mater”.  I have always been of the opinion, that the college as an institution encouraged critical thinking only within the ambit of what is considered as ‘acceptable opinions’. I can safely say that the outrage following the announcement of this debate and the subsequent recall of the motion has only confirmed my assessment.

Classical feminism including the feminist treatise – A Vindication Of The Rights Of A Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft – and the activism of the 19th and 20th centuries, was a movement with the noble intentions of advancing the notion that women are individuals just as deserving of life, liberty, and property as men.

However, feminism in the 21st century should be seen as a movement with distinct socio-political goals. The aims and tactics of third-wave feminism should be open to the same scrutiny and criticism as any other political movement.