"What's Patriarchy Ya?" Indian Finance Minister Dismisses Feminism as Leftist Jargon.

In a country as vast and diverse as India, where cultural traditions merge and clash with modern ideals, discussions around gender equality remain turbulent. These tensions were reignited when Nirmala Sitharaman, India’s Finance Minister, dismissed patriarchy with a casual “What’s patriarchy, ya?”—a remark that resonated like an echo of the countless dismissals women have endured for generations.

The minister was attending an event at Jain University in Bengaluru when a student said a lot of women do not get support from their families despite working hard. “Even if they do, they are pushed into a patriarchal world,” she stated and sought Nirmala’s advice to tackle such a situation. Responding to this, Nirmala Sitharaman said, “What’s patriarchy ya? If you are able to stand up and speak for yourself logically, which is that patriarchy which is going to say shut up, sit down. Impossible. Not certainly in a country like India. Impossible. But if Patriarchy is a guise we want to give ourselves and say my inefficiency and my not being ready, we want to cover it up by saying oh patriarchy is stopping me..no way. Who stopped Mrs Indira Gandhi from becoming the Prime Minister of the Country (sic).”  

She also mentioned Aruna Asaf Ali and Sarojini Naidu as examples to prove her claim that patriarchy has not stopped anyone. “I want to appeal to the young minds, do not get carried away by these fantastic jargons like patriarchy is stopping us otherwise we women would have gone to Mars yesterday. Women are sending such wonderful satellites, rockets, and spaceships, and most of the women are like you and me. They wear sarees, their hair is long, and they are clumsy. But are doing such fantastic work in ISRO. Which patriarchy stopped these scientists?” she asked. However, Nirmala said there was a need to provide more facilities to women and that is what they are trying to do with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policies. “But ultimately let’s not forget the comfort and security a family gives you, in many countries, women are suffering due to lack of this. Many women feel insecure because they do not have a family to fall back on. Let there be an equal argument over patriarchy. Only in India do many of the leftist jargon hold currency because we do not stand up. Sometimes intellectual engagement is equally important. Because narratives will have to be countered, narratives will have to be countered with substantial answers,” she concluded.

These remarks may have been flippant, but their implications were far-reaching, underscoring the enduring relevance of patriarchy, feminism, and the power of sensitivity in shaping societal progress.

Patriarchy is so deeply woven into India’s social fabric that it often masquerades as culture or tradition. Ironically, this is a land that venerates goddesses like Durga and Saraswati, symbolic of strength and wisdom, while simultaneously curbing the autonomy of its women. This duality—celebrating the divine feminine but subjugating mortal women—reveals a chasm between ideology and practice. The construct of patriarchy has long relegated women to secondary roles, stripping them of opportunities and silencing their voices. As Simone de Beauvoir famously stated, “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” This becoming, within the constraints of patriarchy, is a gradual erasure of autonomy, as women are taught to accommodate, endure, and diminish themselves.

Virginia Woolf’s lament in A Room of One’s Own captures this poignantly: “For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.” This anonymity is not an absence of agency; it is the result of a system that refuses to recognize it. Indian women today, like their foremothers, continue to navigate this system, often forced to make impossible choices between personal aspirations and societal expectations. Sitharaman’s remarks diminish not just the concept of patriarchy but the very real struggles of women. By branding feminism as “Western” and dismissing sensitivity as a weakness, she aligns with a narrative that devalues women’s voices. This tactic is neither new nor unique—it is a tool

used to delegitimize movements that challenge entrenched power structures. Sensitivity,

however, is far from a weakness. It is a strength that fuels empathy, understanding, and

resistance against injustice. As Maya Angelou wisely observed, “You may encounter many

defeats, but you must not be defeated.” Sensitivity is what allows individuals to feel the weight of inequality and act to dismantle it. Framing sensitivity as a flaw shifts the focus away from systemic issues and places the onus on women to endure injustice silently. This undermines the legitimacy of their experiences and discourages them from voicing their struggles. By trivializing their pain, such remarks not only dismiss personal stories but also perpetuate the structures of oppression that feminism seeks to

dismantle.

The impact of these comments extends beyond mere words. When a leader of Sitharaman’s stature undermines the existence of patriarchy, it sends a dangerous message to society at large. It legitimizes those who dismiss gender inequality and emboldens resistance to feminist discourse. For women who fight every day to be heard, such statements feel like a betrayal, reinforcing a culture where their voices are considered secondary. Patriarchy, far from being an abstract notion, defines many aspects of daily life. It determines who gets access to education, who controls resources, and who is seen as deserving of leadership. It is evident in wage gaps, unequal representation in parliament, normalized domestic violence, and countless other areas. Denying its existence is to ignore the structures that keep women marginalized. The stereotype of the “overly sensitive woman” is a weapon patriarchy wields to silence dissent. Yet, history has shown that sensitivity, combined with resolve is a catalyst for change. Women who have dared to speak up—be it for the right to

vote, education, or equal pay—have been labeled “difficult,” “emotional,” or “too sensitive,” only to be later celebrated as pioneers.

Indian society often romanticizes women’s ability to endure injustice as a virtue, disguising submission as strength. Sitharaman’s remarks inadvertently reinforce this harmful ideal, perpetuating a culture that glorifies suffering over resistance. Endurance is not empowerment. The quiet suffering of women valorized in literature and popular culture, has allowed patriarchy to thrive unchallenged. This myth has shaped generations of women, teaching them that silence and sacrifice are noble, while rebellion is disgraceful.

Yet, rebellion has always been the seed of progress. From the fiery rhetoric of Savitribai Phule, who fought for women’s education, to the bold actions of the Gulabi Gang, a vigilante group confronting gender-based violence, Indian feminism has consistently challenged this myth of passive endurance. The cost of patriarchy is borne not only by women but by society as a whole. Women are denied equal pay, harassed in workplaces, overburdened with unpaid domestic labor, and subjected to violence in their homes and on the streets. Meanwhile, society loses the innovation, creativity, and leadership that women bring to the table. As Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie wrote, “Culture does not make people. People make culture.” Patriarchy, sustained under the guise of culture, is a man-made system that can—and must—be dismantled.

This dismantling is not just a moral imperative but an economic one. Studies consistently show that gender equality leads to stronger economies, better governance, and healthier societies. Yet, patriarchal norms persist, depriving women of opportunities and perpetuating cycles of inequality. Feminism, contrary to Sitharaman’s assertion, is not a foreign concept. It is deeply rooted in India’s socio-political history. Reformers like Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and Savitribai Phule championed women’s rights long before “feminism” entered the popular lexicon.

These movements, shaped by India’s unique intersections of caste, class, and gender,

underscore that feminism here is not a borrowed ideology but a lived reality. Feminism is not about opposing men; it is about dismantling systems that oppress both women and men. As bell hooks articulated, “Feminism is for everybody.” It is a call for justice, equality, and the recognition of every individual’s humanity.

Sitharaman’s dismissal of feminism as “elitist” undermines the grassroots movements that have empowered women across rural and urban India. From the self-help groups that enable economic independence to the protests against sexual violence that demand accountability, Indian feminism is as diverse as the country itself. Sensitivity, often dismissed as fragility, is the foundation of empathy and action. It is what drives people to stand against injustice and fight for a better world. As Audre Lorde wrote, “I am deliberate and afraid of nothing.” This deliberate sensitivity—the ability to feel deeply and act with purpose—is what makes change possible. Sitharaman’s remarks, while dismissive, have sparked a necessary conversation about the role of sensitivity in societal progress. They remind us that acknowledging pain is not a sign of weakness but a precursor to healing.

In the words of Rabindranath Tagore, “Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high,” let us envision a future where women live free from fear, their voices unmuted, and their sensitivity celebrated. Patriarchy, far from being an abstract concept, is a lived reality for millions. Dismantling it requires courage, resilience, and the collective will to create a more just society. As we challenge oppressive systems and narratives, let us also create a culture of compassion that uplifts every individual. Feminism, in its essence, is not about division but about unity—about building a world where sensitivity is seen as strength, where equality is not an aspiration but a reality. By embracing sensitivity, feminism, and the courage to challenge patriarchy, we can create a world that honors the dignity and potential of every person.

---