Advertisement

When State Policy Refracts the Mother

Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Performance InterActions book series (CPI)

Abstract

This chapter explores how the Indian State’s parental leave provisions can get deployed to naturalize the maternal, gate-keep the ‘ideal’ patriarchal family and, thereby, institutionalize the gendered terrain of citizenship. Specifically, it focuses on two leave provisions for the female government employees: (a) the Maternity Leave, an apparent entitlement of the birth-giver and (b) the Child Care Leave (CCL), meant for child-care responsibilities. Via field interviews, government files accessed through a Right to Information petition and analysis of court cases, the chapter examines the two provisions—the maternity leave and the CCL—through the lens of non-normative claimants: mothers who ‘commission’ children through commercial surrogacy and whose request for Maternity Leave is either rejected or delayed and a range of single fathers who are denied the Child Care Leave. Despite their ‘genetic’ links to their children and the legal legitimacy such kinship carries, what makes the State deny these parents the performance of their care-giving role? While the State clearly conjoins the care-giving role with the female body, thus denying CCL to its male employees, Assisted Reproductive Technologies(ARTs) complicate the State’s simplistic naturalization by separating the ‘genetic’ and ‘gestational’ aspect of mothering and thus transforming what parental relatedness denotes. The chapter shares and deconstructs official responses, definitions and legal texts to point to the State’s discursive and essentialized construction of the body that gives birth, of parenthood and the family. While the State seems to re-inscribe biological motherhood, compromise women’s public roles and discourage men’s care-giving, the accounts of these male and female ‘mothers’ carry the potential to expose the performativity of care, de-naturalize the identity of the caregiver as well as open private-public roles to contestations and re-signification.

Bibliography

  1. Arya, Divya. 2015. Why Motherhood Makes Indian Women Quit Their Jobs. BBC News, 23 April, URL: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32377275. Accessed 8 Sept 2015.
  2. Bhasin, Ruhi. 2015. HC Notice to CR on Woman’s Maternity Leave Plea. Indian Express, Mumbai, 25 Feb, URL: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/hc-notice-to-cr-on-womans-maternity-leave-plea/. Accessed 8 Sept 2015.
  3. Government of India. 2008. Office Memorandum, No.130l8/212008-Estt.(L), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) URL: http://document.ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02est/_2_2008-Estt.(L).pdf.
  4. Kalaiselvi v Chennai Port Trust (Writ Petition No. 8188 of 2012) in The High Court of Judicature at Madras, 4 Mar 2013, by Justice K. Chandru, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/28691523/. Accessed 7 Sept 2015.
  5. Mahajani, Urvi. 2015. Can Benefits be Denied to Mums Whose Babies are Born to Surrogates? Bombay High Court to Decide. Daily News and Analysis, Mumbai, 25 Feb, http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-can-benefits-be-denied-to-mums-whose-babies-are-born-to-surrogates-bombay-high-court-to-decide-2063891. Accessed 7 Sept 2015.
  6. Mumbai Mirror Bureau. 2015. A Woman Who’s Had A Surrogate Baby Should Get Maternity Leave: HC. Mumbai Mirror, 25 Feb. http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/A-woman-whos-had-a-surrogate-baby-should-get-maternity-leave-HC/articleshow/46362354.cms. Accessed 7 Sept 2015.
  7. Nandy, Amrita. 2015a. Annexure 9, ‘Feminist Debates on Motherhood and Choice: A Case Study of Non-Normative Mothers in Delhi’. PhD thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  8. Nandy, Amrita. 2015b. Annexure 10, ‘Feminist Debates on Motherhood and Choice: A Case Study of Non-Normative Mothers in Delhi’. PhD thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  9. Nandy, Amrita. 2015c. Annexure 13, ‘Feminist Debates on Motherhood and Choice: A Case Study of Non-Normative Mothers in Delhi’. PhD thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  10. Pandey, Vineeta. 2008. Childcare Leave Sparks Debate. Daily News and Analysis, 17 Sept, http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1190858/report-child-care-leave-sparks-debate. Accessed 7 Sept 2015.
  11. Rama Pandey v Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 844 of 2014) in The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, 17 July 2015 by Justice Rajiv Shakdher, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/125365715/. Accessed 7 Sept 2015.
  12. Sharma, K., V. Raman, P. Dhawan. 2013. Need Assessment for Creches and Child Care Services. Forum for Creches and Child Care Services (FORCES) and Centre for Women’s Development Studies (CWDS), New Delhi.Google Scholar
  13. Sudhir, Uma. 2015. Woman Denied a Break to Feed Six-Month-Old Baby, He Dies. NDTV, 17 Feb, http://www.ndtv.com/andhra-pradesh-news/woman-denied-a-break-to-feed-six-month-old-baby-he-dies-740319. Accessed 7 Sept 2015.
  14. The Central Hindu College Magazine. 1907. Moral Training and the Making of Patriots 7 (2): 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations