Endangered Gender: Half The Sky Under The BJP’s Patriarchal Misogyny

Posted on 12th August, 2025 (GMT 09:14 hrs)

ABSTRACT

India’s gender inequality persists as a contradiction between constitutional promises and patriarchal realities, evidenced by its 2025 Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) rank of 131 out of 148 countries (score: 0.644). This article examines three core issues—educational disparities, women’s malnutrition, and female foeticide—challenging overstated claims of literacy parity (98% women vs. 99% men). Drawing on Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2023–24, it reveals a 12.6-point literacy gap (87.2% men vs. 74.6% women), malnutrition’s dual burden (18.7% underweight, 24% overweight per NFHS-5), and ~307,000 annual foeticides (2013–2017) skewing sex ratios (108.9). These intersect with low economic participation (28.3%) and caste divides, worsened by data opacity (jugupsā). Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach frames these as entitlement failures, while feminist intersectionality highlights caste and regional disparities. Comparisons with Bangladesh, Sweden, and Pakistan underscore policy gaps. The dystopian film Matrubhoomi (2003) illustrates gender imbalance’s consequences. Recommendations emphasize targeted literacy drives, nutrition fortification, foeticide enforcement, and transparent data to foster equity.

I. Introduction

India embodies a gender paradox: constitutional guarantees of equality clash with patriarchal norms, yielding a 2025 GGGI score of 0.644 (rank 131), with deficits in health (0.964, rank 142), economic participation (0.461, rank 142), and political empowerment (0.185, rank 65). This critical analysis of gender-as-index probes educational gaps, malnutrition, and female foeticide, debunking inflated claims of literacy parity (98% women vs. 99% men) against PLFS 2023–24 data (12.6-point gap). Malnutrition’s dual burden—18.7% underweight, 24% overweight—ties to low female labour participation and caste inequalities. Female foeticide (~307,000 annually) distorts demographics, undermining GGGI Health and Survival scores. Data jugupsā (will to hide/erit celare) obscures truths, aligning with Sen’s entitlement theory, where patriarchal structures deny women capabilities.

In addition to Sen’s capabilities approach, feminist intersectionality, and necropolitics, this analysis employs Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence to explain how patriarchal norms are internalized and reproduced through everyday practices—school curricula, religious rituals, and popular media—that render discrimination invisible. Judith Butler’s notion of gender performativity further clarifies how Hindutva’s ideological apparatus scripts female identity as performative obedience, producing docility as both a social and political outcome.

Methodological Note: This article reconciles conflicting datasets (PLFS, UNESCO, AISHE, NFHS, NCRB, GGGI) by prioritising the most recent, methodologically robust, and independently verifiable figures. Where official claims contradict independent surveys—such as literacy parity or anemia prevalence—those divergences are explicitly highlighted to expose the political implications of statistical distortion.

Historical Context: India’s gender crisis is not purely contemporary. Colonial census classifications, codification of Hindu personal laws, and post-independence policy compromises entrenched patriarchal norms that contemporary Hindutva ideologues have amplified. From colonial enumeration that reinforced male headship to constitutional debates that left personal laws untouched, the roots of present inequities are centuries deep. Through regional comparisons and limited/conditional projections, this article proposes solutions to bridge India’s gender gap, addressing systemic barriers for equitable progress.

II. Educational Attainment: Debunking Parity Myths

The GGGI’s Educational Attainment sub-index (0.964, rank 124) suggests progress, yet claims of near-literacy parity (98% women vs. 99% men) and female tertiary enrollment advantages (28% vs. 27%) are misleading. PLFS 2023–24 reports an overall literacy rate of 80.9% (ages 7+), with men at 87.2% and women at 74.6%—a 12.6-point gap. For ages 5+, the gap is 11.9 points (85.6% men vs. 73.7% women). This reflects feminist intersectionality theory, where gender intersects with rural-urban divides (rural female literacy: 70.4%) and caste (Scheduled Tribe women: 66%). Such disparities are perpetuated through Bourdieu’s symbolic violence, as school curricula and everyday educational practices internalize patriarchal priorities, rendering the devaluation of girls’ learning invisible.

Enrollment trends show mixed progress. Primary education achieves near-parity (GER ~100%, girls 47.8% of 12.73 crore students, per UDISE+), driven by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and the Right to Education Act (2009). Secondary levels (GER ~78%) have girls at 47.9% (Classes 9–10) and 48.3% (11–12), but rural female dropouts are higher (13% vs. 10% male). Tertiary enrollment is near-parity (28.5% women vs. 28.3% men, AISHE 2021–22), not a female advantage, with regional variations (e.g., Uttar Pradesh: 30% male vs. 27% female). Learning quality falters: ASER 2024 notes ~50% of Class 5 students struggle with basic reading, with girls facing added barriers like early marriage (23% of women aged 20–24 married before 15, NFHS-5). Butler’s gender performativity underscores how these barriers script female identity as obedient and domestic, producing docility that discourages educational pursuit.

Since 2021 (GGGI rank 112, score 0.645), the literacy gap narrowed from 16.68 points (2011 Census) to 12.6 points, driven by faster female literacy growth (rural: 57.93% to 70.4%). However, secondary/tertiary dropouts and poor learning outcomes persist. Key dimensions in this regard include the following:

• Policy Successes: BBBP, SSA, and ULLAS – Nav Bharat Saaksharta Karyakram have reportedly/apparently/supposedly improved enrollment and child sex ratios (918 to 933 girls per 1,000 boys, NFHS-5).
• Barriers: Patriarchal norms prioritize male education (e.g., Rajasthan: 20.1-point gap; Bihar: 16.2-point), poverty forces girls into domestic roles, and rural infrastructure lags (70.4% female literacy vs. 88.9% urban).
• Challenges: Persistent gaps, high dropouts, poor foundational skills, regional disparities (Kerala: 2-point gap vs. Bihar: 16.2-point), and data inconsistencies in tertiary enrollment.

India lags behind Bangladesh (GGGI 99th, 76% female literacy), Nepal (109th), and Sri Lanka (82nd) but outperforms Pakistan (145th, 57.5% score). Bangladesh’s higher female participation (36%) contrasts India’s 28.3%.

What India probably needs is the following:

• Expand ULLAS in low-performing states (e.g., Bihar, Rajasthan).
• Reduce dropouts with scholarships, transport, and sanitary facilities.
• Enhance learning quality via teacher training and NEP 2020.
• Align PLFS, UNESCO, and AISHE data for accuracy.

III. Malnutrition Among Women: A Dual Burden of Deprivation

Malnutrition afflicts Indian women through undernutrition (18.7% underweight, BMI <18.5), overnutrition (24% overweight), and micronutrient deficiencies (57% anemic, NFHS-5 2019–21), reflecting a dual burden per WHO. Sen’s capabilities approach frames this as an entitlement failure: patriarchal intra-household food distribution favors men, denying women nutritional equity. This favouritism illustrates Bourdieu’s symbolic violence, internalized through religious rituals and media that normalize women’s deprivation as dutiful sacrifice. Intersectionality highlights caste (24.1% Scheduled Tribe women underweight) and regional disparities (Bihar: 25.6% underweight vs. Tamil Nadu: 28% overweight).

Trends:

• Undernutrition: Declined from 36% (NFHS-1, 1992–93) to 18.7%, but rural women (21.2%) and Scheduled Tribes (24.1%) remain vulnerable.
• Micronutrient Deficiencies: Anemia rose from 51.8% to 57% (non-pregnant women); 52.2% in pregnant women; 60% lack iron, 15% lack vitamin A.
• Overnutrition: Overweight doubled from 5% to 24%; urban: 33.2%, rural: 19.7%.
• Pregnant Women: 32% undernourished, with 50% of maternal deaths linked to anemia-related complications.

Causal factors:

• Socio-Economic: Poverty (21% food-insecure households, FAO 2024) and female unemployment (9.2%, PLFS 2023–24) limit access. SC/ST women face 60% higher poverty; only 7% hold top jobs (Oxfam 2023).
• Gender Inequality: Women eat last (30% fewer calories in rural households); early marriage (23% before 15) exacerbates anemia. Low economic participation (28.3%, GGGI rank 142) restricts dietary diversity. Butler’s performativity reveals how such inequalities script female obedience, where docility manifests in self-denial of nutrition.
• Health/Environmental: Only 50% access antenatal care; 30% lack clean water, increasing infections.
• Policy Gaps: ICDS and Poshan Abhiyaan face 30% leakages; anemia reduction lags (1% vs. 3% target).
• Data Jugupsā: Underreporting (e.g., 57% anemia vs. claimed 40%) skews GGGI health scores (0.964, rank 142).

GGGI Correlation: Malnutrition lowers life expectancy and productivity (20% loss from anemia), impacting Health and Survival (0.964) and Economic Participation (0.461). Foeticide links to son preference, devaluing female nutrition.

Comparisons: Bangladesh (14% underweight, GGGI 99th) excels via microfinance; Sweden (<2% underweight, GGGI 3rd) via equity; Pakistan (20% underweight, GGGI 145th) shares opacity. X users criticize anemia rates, caste exclusion, and jugupsā, tying malnutrition to foeticide.

Recommendations:

• Fortify ICDS for SC/ST and pregnant women; expand Poshan Abhiyaan for 3% annual anemia reduction.
• Promote kitchen gardens and dietary diversity.
• Boost economic participation (target: 40% by 2030) via childcare and skills training.
• Reform RTI to curb jugupsā and align NFHS/WHO data.

IV. Female Foeticide: The Ultimate Gender Negation

Female foeticide (~307,000 annually, 2013–2017, per Lancet) embodies Sen’s “missing women” concept, with ~9 million abortions (2000–2019, Pew 2020) and 45.8 million missing girls (UNFPA). The sex ratio at birth (SRB) remains skewed at 108.9 (2011), with northern states like Punjab (118) and Haryana (120) worst-affected. NCRB’s 114 cases (2022) vastly underreport due to jugupsā, lax Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act (PCPNDT, 1994) enforcement, and illegal clinics. Bourdieu’s symbolic violence is evident here, as popular media and religious rituals reproduce son preference, making female erasure seem natural and invisible.

Trends:

• 1990s–2000s: Surge with ultrasound access (1.2–12.1 million foeticides); SRB rose from 104.2 to 107.5.
• 2000s–2015: Peaked at 3.1–6.0 million; Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (2015) reduced rates.
• 2015–2025: Declined to ~307,000, but persists in northern states.

GGGI Correlation: High foeticide drags Health and Survival (0.964, rank 142), reinforcing economic exclusion (0.461). Patriarchal norms view daughters as liabilities (dowry: 91,200 deaths, 2001–2012), per feminist critiques of hegemonic masculinity. Through Butler’s lens of gender performativity, Hindutva scripts female identity as obedient vessels for male lineage, producing docility that justifies foeticide. Jugupsā underreports, inflating GGGI inputs.

Comparisons:

• China: ~700,000 missing births; GGGI 107th (0.682) via economic inclusion.
• Iceland: Negligible foeticide; GGGI 1st (0.912).
• Pakistan: ~20,000 foeticides; GGGI 145th (0.575), similar opacity.

Recommendations:

• Strengthen Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) or PCPNDT enforcement, targeting affluent families in Punjab/Haryana.
• Expand anti-dowry campaigns and community monitoring (e.g., Bibipur model).
• Boost economic participation and political empowerment (33% reserved seats by 2029).
• Align NCRB/UN data to reduce jugupsā.

V. Broader Contradictions: Violence and Ideological Roots

Sexual violence compounds inequality: NCRB 2022 reports 31,516 rapes, 89,387 molestations, and 11,706 harassments. NFHS-5 shows 6% lifetime sexual violence prevalence (ages 18–49), 32% spousal violence, with only 14% seeking help. SDG 5 indicators (UN Women: 18.4% intimate-partner violence) highlight gaps. Necropolitics frames women’s bodies as sites of control, exacerbated by underreporting.

Hindutva ideology, via Savarkar’s glorification of rape as conquest and Manusmriti’s dictates (women as inferior), justifies subjugation. Durga Vahini trains women as warriors yet enforces docility, embodying gendered contradictions. The film Matrubhoomi: A Nation Without Women (2003), directed by Manish Jha, depicts a dystopian village without women due to infanticide. Ramcharan buys Kalki for his five sons, subjecting her to violence in a polyandrous arrangement. Her daughter’s birth offers hope, but the film critiques patriarchal chaos.

Theoretically, Sen’s capabilities approach frames educational gaps, malnutrition, and foeticide as entitlement failures. Feminist intersectionality highlights caste, region, and class disparities (e.g., SC/ST women’s higher malnutrition). Necropolitics (Mbembe) explains foeticide and violence as state-sanctioned control, reinforced by political Hindutva’s patriarchal ideology. Bourdieu’s symbolic violence elucidates how these controls are internalized via everyday practices like religious rituals and media, rendering subjugation invisible. Butler’s gender performativity shows how Hindutva scripts female obedience as a repeated act, producing political docility.

VI. Conclusion

India’s 2025 GGGI rank of 131 reflects a gender crisis: a 12.6-point literacy gap, malnutrition’s dual burden, and ~307,000 annual foeticides, driven by patriarchy, caste, and jugupsā or will-to-hide. Sen’s capabilities approach, feminist intersectionality, Bourdieu’s symbolic violence, Butler’s gender performativity, and necropolitics illuminate these deprivations, while comparisons with Bangladesh’s literacy gains and Sweden’s equity underscore India’s lag. Matrubhoomi warns of the dystopian consequences of gender imbalance.

Addressing this crisis demands simultaneous structural reform and ideological dismantling. On the structural front, scaling Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (BBBP) and ULLAS literacy programmes in low-performing states such as Bihar and Rajasthan, with gender-sensitive teacher training, is essential. Strengthening ICDS and Poshan Abhiyaan for SC/ST and pregnant women, with a target of 3% annual anemia reduction, must be prioritized. Enforcing PCPNDT provisions against both rural and affluent urban violators—especially in Punjab and Haryana—will directly tackle foeticide. Increasing female economic participation to 40% by 2030 through childcare infrastructure, skills training, and employment guarantees can expand women’s agency. Finally, legislating data transparency reforms to dismantle jugupsā and align NFHS, WHO, and UN datasets will restore truth as the foundation of policy.

Yet policy alone is insufficient. The contemporary Indian political executive’s Hindutva embodies a paradox: it deploys the language of women’s empowerment in public campaigns as mere lip-service while granting impunity or even political shelter to convicted rapists and those accused of gender-based violence. From mass celebrations of men convicted in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case to selective silences over sexual abuse allegations by notable female wrestlers against politically connected figures like Brij Bhushan, this duplicity corrodes the very moral legitimacy of any state-led emancipation project.

Beyond metrics, dismantling Hindutva’s ideological violence—from Manusmriti’s codified inferiority of women to Savarkar’s glorification of sexual violence—is crucial for achieving what may be called ontological equity. Gender justice must mean more than statistical parity; it must transform women’s very social being, recognising them as full, wholistic, autonomous human persons rather than economic assets or reproductive instruments. This transformation requires not only legislative action but also cultural revolution: rejecting scriptural justifications for subjugation, de-normalizing symbolic violence, exposing state complicity in protecting predators, and elevating feminist icons such as Savitribai Phule or Begum Rokeya into the national canon. Only then can metrics translate into lived dignity.

Appendix: The Scriptural, Ideological, and Patriarchal Justification of Gender Subjugation in Hindutva Thought and Practice

i. Savarkar’s Ideological Violence

In his 1963 work Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar redefined “Hindu virtue” to justify the use of rape as a political tool. He criticized Maratha ruler Shivaji for returning captured Muslim women to their families, viewing this act as a missed opportunity to assert dominance. Savarkar’s narrative portrays Hindu resistance as not only a military endeavor but also a moral one, where the subjugation of women from adversary communities is depicted as a legitimate strategy to deter future invasions. This perspective highlights how Savarkar’s writings rationalized sexual violence as a means to achieve political objectives.

ii. Manusmriti’s Patriarchal Dictums

The ancient legal text Manusmriti, as translated by Patrick Olivelle, codifies deeply patriarchal gender norms that continue to influence Hindutva ideology and social policy proposals:

• “Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust, and totally devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a god” (Manusmriti 5.154) (Feminism in India, 2018).
• Women are instructed “to never live independently,” lacking the right to conduct sacrifices, vows, or fasts on their own (Wikipedia: Women in Hinduism).
• Unfaithful women are condemned as “born in a jackal’s womb,” symbolizing disgrace and moral pollution (Academia.edu).

Gandhi himself critiqued these contradictions within Hindu law, yet the Manusmriti’s patriarchal prescriptions remain a foundation for many Hindutva narratives seeking to regulate and limit women’s autonomy.

iii. Durga Vahini’s Contradictions

The women’s wing of the Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini, embodies a paradoxical stance toward women’s roles. According to a BBC report from 2014, its members are trained to be “warriors and wives—strong enough to break the bones of the enemy but docile enough to never question their husbands” (BBC via Ummid.com, 2014). This dual expectation—militant on one hand, submissive on the other—exemplifies the instrumentalization of women as both fighters and guardians of patriarchal order within Hindutva ideology.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a prominent Hindu nationalist organization in India, has historically held views on women that emphasize traditional roles within a patriarchal framework, often portraying them as embodiments of motherhood, cultural bearers, and symbols like Bharatmata (Mother India), while subordinating them to familial and societal duties; for instance, former RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s 2013 statements suggested women are contractually bound to handle household chores and serve their husbands, who in turn provide for the family, framing marriage as a social contract that could be dissolved if unfulfilled. However, more recent perspectives from RSS leadership, including Bhagwat’s 2025 call to empower women and liberate them from regressive traditions, indicate a shift toward promoting self-reliance and societal progress through women’s upliftment, rejecting Western feminism in favor of an indigenous model that integrates women as leaders and agents of positive reform without disrupting family structures. Critics argue this empowerment is conditional, confined within Hindutva ideology that burdens women with preserving cultural nationalism and sometimes involves them in militant or exclusionary activities, as seen in women’s participation in the broader Hindutva movement where they negotiate patriarchal norms while espousing communal practices. Regarding wives of RSS members, perspectives are often aligned with the organization’s ideology, viewing husbands as dedicated protectors and breadwinners committed to national service, with wives expected to support this by managing the home front; anecdotal accounts and ideological texts suggest wives see their husbands’ involvement as a noble sacrifice for Hindu society, though direct voices are scarce, and some critiques highlight how this reinforces gender imbalances where women’s roles remain secondary. The RSS itself does not have female members in its core structure, as its shakhas (daily gatherings) are exclusively male due to rigorous physical exercises and early timings deemed unsuitable for women, a stance explained by RSS spokespersons as practical rather than discriminatory. Instead, women are channeled into the parallel but independent Rashtra Sevika Samiti (National Women Volunteers Committee), founded in 1936 by Lakshmibai Kelkar, which serves as the women’s wing with its own shakhas focused on physical training, yoga, moral education, and social service, emphasizing matritva (motherhood), kartritva (duty), and netritva (leadership) to empower women as nation-builders while prioritizing family and Hindu values. This organization has grown significantly, running programs to address urban women’s challenges like balancing jobs and family, and has inspired increased female participation in RSS affiliates, where women now constitute 25-30% in groups like ABVP and Sewa Bharati, though overall, the RSS ecosystem maintains a separation of genders to preserve its disciplined, paramilitary-style ethos. In broader terms, women’s involvement in RSS-related activities has evolved from quiet social work to more visible roles in Hindutva advocacy, including militant leadership in some cases, reflecting a complex interplay of empowerment and ideological conformity that continues to spark debates on gender equality within India’s nationalist landscape; this apparent evolution in women’s roles within the RSS ecosystem, however, introduces a profound paradox when juxtaposed with the existence of Durga Vahini, the women’s wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)—a key affiliate of the broader Sangh Parivar—highlighting tensions in Hindutva ideology’s framing of the “woman archetype.” On one hand, RSS doctrine traditionally archetypes women as nurturing matrishakti (mother power), emphasizing domesticity, cultural preservation, and subservience to familial harmony, as echoed in the Rashtra Sevika Samiti’s focus on matritva (motherhood) and supportive roles that align with patriarchal structures, where women are seen as homemakers and bearers of Hindu tradition rather than autonomous agents. On the other, Durga Vahini, founded in 1991 and named after the fierce warrior goddess Durga who slays demons in Hindu mythology, actively trains young women aged 15-35 in martial arts, self-defense, and even arms handling, cultivating a militant, aggressive archetype that empowers them as “good soldiers” defending Hindu identity against perceived threats like “love jihad” or religious conversions, thereby positioning women as active combatants in communal conflicts rather than passive guardians of the hearth. This duality creates a ideological contradiction: while RSS leaders like Bhagwat advocate for women’s empowerment within “indigenous” bounds that reject Western feminism and prioritize family stability, Durga Vahini’s mobilization of shakti (divine feminine power) as a weaponized force—evident in camps where women learn karate, rifle shooting, and anti-Muslim rhetoric—challenges the submissive mother archetype by invoking Durga’s ferocity, yet ultimately subordinates this agency to Hindutva’s patriarchal and nationalist agenda, where women’s militancy serves to reinforce communal boundaries rather than dismantle gender hierarchies. Critics highlight this as a selective appropriation of Hindu goddesses—Durga and Kali as symbols of resistance against injustice in mythology, but repurposed here to perpetuate exclusionary violence and injustice toward minorities—revealing how Hindutva navigates the paradox by compartmentalizing women’s roles: nurturing in the home (aligned with RSS views) and warrior-like in public defense of the faith, though wives of RSS members might still perceive their husbands’ commitments as noble, with their own potential Durga Vahini involvement framed as an extension of familial duty rather than true liberation. Thus, while Durga Vahini ostensibly expands women’s participation beyond the RSS’s male-only shakhas and the Samiti’s softer empowerment, it underscores a controlled radicalization that maintains ideological conformity, sparking ongoing debates on whether this represents genuine progress or a strategic paradox that weaponizes gender for Hindutva’s broader goals.

iv. Hindutva Policy Proposals and Gendered Oppression

Recent Hindutva-aligned policy proposals have pushed for:

• Replacing the secular Constitution with Manusmriti-based laws.
• Endorsing caste-based procreation policies.
• Reinstating archaic customs such as sati and banning widow remarriage.
• Objectifying women through religious rituals that reinforce subservience.
• Rolling back women’s inheritance and legal rights.
• Censoring feminist figures like Savitribai Phule, who historically challenged caste and gender oppression.

These proposals aim to institutionalize patriarchal control, further eroding women’s rights and agency.

Furthermore, the ritual application of sindoor, traditionally worn by married Hindu women as a symbol of marital fidelity and cultural identity, embodies deep-rooted patriarchal values that have historically reinforced gendered expectations and societal roles. This potent cultural marker extends beyond personal adornment, intertwining gender, tradition, and power within the socio-religious fabric of India. In recent political discourse, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) strategically co-opted this symbolism in Operation Sindoor, naming a military retaliation mission after the vermilion powder to evoke nationalist sentiment and project an image of defending Hindu honour. Framing the operation as an act of avenging the widowed women of a terror attack, the BJP fused religious iconography with militaristic nationalism to mobilize support among its Hindutva base. This fusion of cultural symbolism and state power reveals how gendered religious traditions can be weaponized within political strategies, raising complex questions about identity, autonomy, and the instrumentalization of faith in pluralistic democracies.

v. Recommendations

• Reject Manusmriti-based legal frameworks that perpetuate gender inequality and violence.
• Challenge patriarchal narratives and policies embedded in Hindutva ideology through critical scholarship, grassroots activism, and legal reforms.
• Uphold constitutional gender equity and secular values as bulwarks against regressive, ideological violence.

References

Census of India. (2011). Literacy and Educational Data. Government of India.

GGGI. (2025). Global Gender Gap Report. World Economic Forum.

NFHS-5. (2019–21). National Family Health Survey. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, India.

PLFS. (2023–24). Periodic Labour Force Survey. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, India.

Pew Research Center. (2020). Global Abortion and Gender Data.

Lancet. (2021). Estimates of Female Foeticide and Sex Ratios. The Lancet Public Health.

NCRB. (2022). Crime in India Report. National Crime Records Bureau.

Sen, A. (1981–1999). Development as Freedom; Poverty and Famines; The Idea of Justice. Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.

Mbembe, A. (2019). Necropolitics. Duke University Press.

Scroll.in. (2016). “Reading Savarkar: How a Hindutva icon justified the idea of rape as a political tool.” Scroll.in.

BBC. (2014). “Durga Vahini: Women Warriors of Hindutva.” BBC News.

Olivelle, P. (1999). The Law Code of Manu. Oxford University Press.

Feminism in India. (2018). “Manusmriti and Gender.” Feminism in India.

UNESCO. (2022). Education Statistics. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

AISHE. (2021–22). All India Survey on Higher Education. Ministry of Education, India.

FAO. (2024). Food Security Reports. Food and Agriculture Organization.

Oxfam. (2023). Gender and Poverty Report. Oxfam International.

Ummid.com. (2014). “Durga Vahini Women’s Wing of Bajrang Dal.” Ummid.com.

UN Women. (2023). Global Gender Equality Indicators. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality.