Phoolan Devi: Perceptions of Power
The purpose of this paper is to analyze and index gender and power as they factor
into the life of one Dalit woman, Phoolan Devi. Particularly, I have chosen to examine
the idea of whether or not she wielded real power. In an attempt to make it more useful
to speak of this slippery thing called power, I would like to make some declarations and
pose some questions about its' nature. Cynthia Emerson has suggested that power is
ultimately based on dependency relationships (Emerson 1962). It is important to remember
that almost all manifestations of power require a power holder and at least one other
party that believes that the first holds power. I would like to stress the word
"believes" in the previous sentence because I think it is one of the key ingredients in
understanding relationships of power. I realize that in many instances the power of the
first party may not be undone merely by the second party ceasing to accept it, and that
the power of one individual over another may sometimes be physically or otherwise
inescapable. Often, the belief follows the direct experience of power, but regardless of
the order in which it is conceptualized, I feel the nature of power is inextricably
founded in belief and perception.
One of the most striking characteristics of Phoolan Devi is her refusal to accept
her power-deficient positions in her relationships. From the time that she was a child,
she seems to have refused to conform to her society's hierarchical indexing. She
resisted attempts to categorize and fix her into typical gender, class, and matrimonial
positions. This is not to say that her resistance was always successful, but I am trying
to show a lack of willingness to conform and accept her positions in her power relations.
Her belief that the status that had been prescribed to her was unjust and her reluctance
to accept it are key factors that led to her gaining power and breaking from her power
deficient relationships. Her belief in her upward mobility made it possible. This
belief in her self and resistance towards accepting the power forced on her helped
undermine that same power. This is the one factor that makes Phoolan so different from
so many of her Indian sisters that are still living under the thumb of Manu's Code.
Does Phoolan Devi possess real power? So far we have considered theoretical power
in relationships, but what about physical manifestations of power? The first example
that comes to mind is the fact that over two hundred items containing references to
Phoolan Devi come up on my screen when I do an Internet search on her name. Photographs,
newspaper reviews, magazine articles, newsgroup posts, all proving her power to reach out
across the planet and touch people or infuriate them, depending on an individual's
personal philosophies. Through her story many have become more conscious of the plight
of her caste and gender in modern India. She has the power to inspire and inform. I
have read on the Internet that she has been invited to the White House by the Clintons
and that veteran British Opposition Labour Party MP, Mildred Gordon, has nominated her
for the next Nobel Peace Prize. Activities of this type are usually connected with what
we think of as powerful people. In addition, she has clearly shown her political power
by getting elected to India's Parliament. Among other things, she is currently
attempting to use the momentum of that power to introduce laws preventing child labor in
rug-making factories.
But does all of this constitute genuine power? One could argue that she herself
does not posses the power to inspire, that it is an indication of how the inspired are
seeking an icon, a champion of their cause. Does her membership in a low caste reduce
her power or is it the backing of her caste that is the source of it? And if the latter
is the source, does that means that the power lies in the solidarity of her caste and not
within her? It could be argued that if she possessed so much power, why did she remain
incarcerated for such a long period? Every major event in her public life, from her
surrender to her release ten years later, seems in some way connected to the political
aspirations of the Indian officials manipulating these events.
And what of her gang? The movie and myth seem to conjure up imagery of an iron
fisted woman driving a band of fearless bandits with the crack of her whip. Did they
really serve her because of her power over them, or did they work under her employ
because the myth of Phoolan worked to their advantage as well?
In each of these cases against her possession of power she is argued to be a tool to
focus power rather than the real source of the power itself. Does the source of power
really matter as long as one retains the ability to wield it? There is no simple
answer. The answer to the question "How do you calculate absolute power" is that you can
not. It is an objective phenomenon based primarily on the two factors discussed at the
beginning of this paper: belief and perception. The amount of power held by Phoolan Devi
is largely dependent on the amount of power that she is perceived to possess. As long as
Indian officials continue to see her as a figurehead of her caste, she will continue to
have political power. As long as she is perceived as an icon of the rights of the
oppressed, she will retain the power to inspire.
SOURCES
Nelson, Cynthia
1974 Public and Private Politics: Women in the Middle Eastern World. American
Ethnologist 1:551-563
Internet Newsgroup: Soc.Feminism 1/6/97 Posted by: vhelmle@earthlink.net
Bandit Queen Directed by Shekhar Kapoor 1996
|