1 Introduction
Twenty-five years ago was a tipping point in prioritizing and measuring progress on women’s development at national and international levels, with the 4th Conference on Women in Beijing and the introduction of the Gender Development Index, the first ever index seeking to measure and rank nations based on gender gaps in life expectancy, education, and per capita income (UNDP,
2019). Since this time, a growing number of global indices have been designed to assess gender empowerment at the national level (Raj,
2017), built from indicators available for most national contexts. These advancements have been important in bringing recognition of national-level progress on gender equality, but they provide little insight into the role of normative and institutionally supported patriarchy—male dominance over women—as an indication of ongoing inequality (Walby,
1989). From an eco-social theoretical standpoint (Krieger,
2011), an understanding of these broader social structures of patriarchy is essential if the international community is to meaningfully improve gender equality and empowerment.
Though a variety of definitions of patriarchy exist within the social sciences, a broad, working definition is as follows: “a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women” (Walby,
1989). Patriarchal norms contribute to gender inequality, in part, by dictating that men should have priority in access to resources in the family, market, state, and society writ large (Walby,
1989). In Indian society, patriarchal ideology is formalized and enforced through laws, customs, and rituals and is evidenced by power relations within households. For example, the majority of households within India are headed by a male, with only 15% of the total number of households in India having a female head of household (IIPS and ICF,
2017). Household headship, especially for males, imparts control over familial resources and is reflective of power relations (Blumberg,
1988). These power relations extend across generations, and seniority also plays a crucial role in determining household authority. As such, the oldest male relative in a household is traditionally considered to be the household head (Gruber & Szołtysek,
2016; Ruggles,
2015). Relatedly, sons are rarely permitted to establish their own independent households even after marriage, and, once married, women are traditionally required to live with their husbands in the home of their in-laws.
Although patriarchy manifests in multiple social spheres (e.g., political, economic, media coverage), taking a family demographic analytic approach (see, e.g., Seltzer,
2019) provides demographers and other social scientists the ability to empirically assess important insights into patriarchal power dynamics that are associated with gender inequality. This is particularly critical in the context of India where issues linked to gender inequality are deeply rooted and reinforced through norms and familial traditions (Littrell & Bertsch,
2013; Malhotra et al.,
1995; Sev'er,
2008; Vishwanath & Palakonda,
2011). Notably, in the demographic and health sphere, this issue has received little attention, and we could only identify one study using data from India that examined the association between patriarchy and fertility (Malhotra et al.,
1995). The paper was published 25 years ago and used data more than a decade prior to that. Nonetheless, it found that districts in India with higher patriarchy had higher levels of fertility, an indicator of women’s primary value as child bearer. The authors measured three dimensions of patriarchy—active discrimination, marriage system, and economic value of women—via six variables: sex ratio of mortality, female literacy share, proportion of unmarried female age 15–19, excess female migration, female labor force share, and area under rice cultivation (Malhotra et al.,
1995). While the authors argue that most of the indicators related to patriarchy mentioned in the literature fall within their three dimensions of patriarchy, their examination of the marriage system fails to capture the full familial context in which patriarchal ideologies are both created and enforced.
Although quantitative research focused on measurement of patriarchy in India has stagnated, recent analysis from Europe has examined this issue, including the context of household and family structure. Gruber and Szołtysek (
2016) developed a Patriarchy Index which theorizes patriarchy as based on gendered power relations in marital and family dynamics, using demographic indicators on marital age and practices, family structure and roles by age, sex of offspring, and power relations within the household, to allow for cross-cultural and cross-national analysis. The Index was conceptualized and empirically tested in the European context using historical census data and demonstrates good validity in terms of its expected associations geographically. The index has been validated via testing against several other indexes, including the Female Friendliness Index, Family Ties, Contemporary Patriarchy, Gender Inequality Index, Emancipatory Value Index, Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), etc. (Szoltysek & Poniat, ). However, it has not yet been applied outside of Europe.
The widely used indices of gender inequality in India such as the Gender Development Index (GDI), the Women’s Empowerment Index (WEI), and the Gender Vulnerability Index (GVI) do not fully capture gender inequality. For example, GDI developed by the United Nations assesses gender differences in development in three areas: life expectancy, education, and estimated earned income (UNDP,
2019). While the WEI (Bansal,
2017), created in 2017 for India, assesses women’s social positioning and safety, the GVI (Plan India,
2017) (also created in 2017 for India) focuses on women and girls’ education, health and survival, poverty, and protection. Gender inequality in outcomes such as health and survival, education, safety, etc. are often the result of deep-rooted patriarchal norms in a country like India where these norms can determine the rights of women (Jayachandran,
2015). The construction and functional form of indices like Gender Inequality Index, GDI, and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) are often too confusing and complicated. Scholars have argued that these indices are an odd combination of absolute welfare levels and gender equality (Dijkstra,
2006; Permanyer,
2013). Because of these limitations, some indices of gender inequality, used earlier, are no longer used; the best example of such indicators are GEM and GDI. Newer indices such as the SIGI are evolving to fulfill the important gaps in the existing literature on gender inequality (Jäger & Rohwer,
2009; OECD,
2019). However, it is difficult to measure these indices at the sub-national level. Ferrant and Nowacka (
2015) highlight the important role played by formal and informal laws, social norms, and practices in driving gender inequality. Noted Gender Specialist Prof. Naila Kabeer has argued that patriarchy is working against India’s gender inequality (Kabeer,
2015). Given the deep-rooted patriarchal norms in India and the complications and confusions arising out of existing indices of gender inequality, there is a need for an index of patriarchy that can comprehensively capture such norms prevalent in Indian society for different time points, geographies and populations.
An important advantage of the patriarchy index developed by Gruber and Szołtysek (
2016) is that it can be easily estimated using Census or population-based household surveys such as Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), which are routinely conducted at regular intervals in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), including India (Gruber & Szołtysek,
2016). This allows for index calculation at lower administrative levels such as districts. Indices estimated at the national and state levels in India may hide widespread within-state heterogeneity in a country as diverse as India. Moreover, unlike Malhotra et al. (
1995), this approach more comprehensively captures patriarchy using four domains—domination of men over women, domination of the older generation over the younger generation, patrilocality, and son preference—and 11 indicators.
The present study aims to adapt and psychometrically test the Patriarchy Index developed by Gruber and Szołtysek (
2016) for use in India. We use nationally-representative DHS data (the National Family Health Survey [NFHS]), and evaluate state, temporal, and socio-economic variations in India Patriarchy Index between 1992–93 and 2015–2016. We psychometrically validate our India Patriarchy Index with the GDI, as well as with two more recently developed gender empowerment measures created for India, and recognized by the Government of India, the WEI and the GVI. Finally, we examine the geographic variation of the India Patriarchy Index across the 640 districts of India. Findings from this work can offer important insight into how to measure patriarchy at scale, contribute to the broader literature aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender Equality and Empowerment of All Women and Girls, and support ways to more comprehensively track progress against this Goal.
4 Discussion
This study documents the internal reliability and validity of the India Patriarchy Index, designed to quantify household level relational imbalances due to sex that disadvantage women and girls, an approach not seen in existing global indices on gender equality and empowerment. Building on work from Gruber and Szołtysek (
2016), this index has been adapted to the Indian context, and is comprised of indicators on (1) male domination of men over women in nuptiality and household positioning, (2) generational domination of the older generation over the younger generation, (3) patrilocality, (4) son preference, and (5) socio-economic domination, the last of which was not included in the European Index. Validity of this newly developed India Patriarchy Index was demonstrated by its association with three indices on gender equality and empowerment (WEI, GVI, and GDI), which assess women’s social positioning, safety, and well-being, but not patriarchy per se. Hence, the India Patriarchy Index can provide an additional lens through which to understand women’s empowerment and gender equity in different communities across India. Importantly, these indicators are available via most Demographic and Health Survey data, which means that many LMICs would be able to construct a locally contextualized Patriarchy Index, though the India Patriarchy Index may be particularly useful in other South Asian settings with similar social values and norms surrounding issues of son preference and socioeconomic power imbalances. Broader application of patriarchy indices would allow for more comprehensive assessment of gender equality and empowerment at a global scale. Further, because the nature of the Demographic and Health Survey—known as the National Family Health Survey in India—offers representative data sub-nationally and over time, geographic and time variability on this index is also available, and as seen in our study, offers important insight into variations by space and time.
Within the context of India, this Index allows for a ranking of the different states of India on the issue of patriarchy for the first time, while simultaneously allowing us to see temporal trends in our spatial analyses. Findings at the national level demonstrate little change in the level of patriarchy across the past three decades, with geographic variation such that certain states maintain greater lag on this issue over time. States from the northern and western regions of India depicted higher levels of patriarchy. Haryana, a north Indian state known for poorer gender indicators, ranks highest in the nation on our India Patriarchy Index. Haryana is a largely agrarian society, and agrarian societies tend to see kinship, family and marriage relationships holding a strong influence on day to day life, as economic viability and transference is built on these (Dyson & Moore,
1983). Haryana is also the state known for
khap panchayats—extra judicial bodies—that police marriage thereby enforcing traditionally held kinship norms and territorial exogamy (Bharadwaj,
2012; Kukreja,
2017). Rajasthan in the north-western region, known for Rajput warriors, nomadic and tribal communities adhering to traditional customs including young and mass marriages, and sati (Unnithan,
1991),
1 ranked the second highest in level of patriarchy.
Khap panchayats also function in
Jat dominated areas of western Uttar Pradesh and parts of Rajasthan. The word khap was actually used for the first time in Rajasthan in the context of Rajput ruling class during the medieval period (Sadiq and Khan
2015). Uttar Pradesh ranked the third highest in NFHS-4, fifth highest in NFHS-3, and fourth highest in NFHS-1. In contrast, Meghalaya, a north-eastern state known for its matrilineal structure (Bhutia & Liarakou,
2018; Chakraborty & Kim,
2010; Roy,
2018; Subba & Ghosh,
2003), sees the lowest level of patriarchy. Kerala, in the South, also has communities
2 which followed a matrilineal system in the past, and this state has some of the highest rates of education in the country (Centre for Development Studies,
2005; Chakraborty & Kim,
2010; Jeffrey,
1992; Pillai,
2016); it occupied the 4th rank in NFHS-1 and 5th rank in NFHS-3, and 4th rank in NFHS-4. States from the southern region depicted lower levels of patriarchy. These findings are in line with the findings of sociological literature which also indicates lesser patriarchy in this region (Agarwal,
1994; Chakraborty & Kim,
2010; Dyson & Moore,
1983; Karve,
1953). Studies have shown that patriarchy is closely related to gender division of labor (Durkheim,
1933; Engels,
1884) and this may explain the geographic variation in our findings. In the north, where the average landholding size is big, agriculture is mechanized, and wheat is predominantly cultivated. Hence, women’s involvement in agriculture or outside the home is limited. Whereas, in the south and to some degree in the east, agriculture is more labor intensive because of rice cultivation, and women’s involvement in agriculture is high. Consequently, the value of women’s work for economic contribution is greater, and this may affect patriarchal norms in the south (Jeffrey et al.,
1988; Miller,
1981; Moore,
1973; Sharma,
1980; Sopher,
1980a,
1980b).
Sociological literature also suggests that kinship structure in India varies by caste, class, and religion (Karve,
1953), a finding that has held since the historical times in India, though with greater influence among the upper castes (now termed ‘Others’ in our variables) (Mandelbaum,
1959). In fact, research from the last century indicate higher woman’s bargaining power within family or kin group among the lower castes (now SC, ST, and OBC) relative to higher castes (Gough
1956). Though we lack comparable data on this issue today, there is some suggestion that this may continue to hold true due to greater likelihood of income generation among lower relative to higher caste women (IIPS and ICF,
2017; IIPS and Macro International,
2007). Women from lower castes earned a significant proportion of family income, whereas upper caste women were not allowed to work outside the home (Chakraborty & Kim,
2010). Sociological literature also indicates significant differences in kinship structures and inheritance rules between the Hindus and Muslims of India. Nasir and Kalla (
2006) reported that Muslim kinship system shared similarities with the southern system, where cross-cousin marriages and women’s property inheritance were allowed. Our findings indeed suggest higher patriarchy levels among upper castes (i.e. those who do not belong to SC, ST or OBC) and Hindus compared with their counterparts. Our study also indicates higher patriarchy in rural than in urban areas. This finding is also in line with previous literature that suggests that societies that largely depend on land for their livelihoods are more likely to firmly hold the kinship ideals compared with their counterparts (Arokiasamy,
2007; Bagchi,
1981; Chakraborty & Kim,
2010). Notably, a central belief in eco-feminist theory is that “male ownership of land has led to a patriarchal structure in society” (Larsen,
2011; Thomas-Slayter & Rocheleau,
1995). Importantly, our refined India Patriarchy Index includes these issue of socio-economic domination, key elements not seen in the original European Patriarchy Index, that may be particularly relevant in LMIC settings where agrarian cultures still predominate and have heavy influence on the gendered norms that maintain patriarchy in these cultures.
We also find evidence for the landholding-patriarchy relationship. Our analysis indeed suggests that the notion of patriarchy varies considerably by the size of household landholdings—households having 5 hectares or more of landholding had a much higher India Patriarchy Index value compared with households having no landholding. This finding is consistent with the study by Arokiasamy and Goli (
2012) who found that the child sex ratio (CSR) in India consistently increased with household landholding size. Other studies from India have also documented widespread female discrimination and female feticides in areas where landholding households are dominant (Bhatnagar et al.,
2005; George & Dahiya,
1998; Harris,
2007; Kakar,
1978; Mies,
1980; Singh & Talwar,
2014; Vishwanath,
2000,
2001,
2004). This could be due to the co-existence of patriarchy and landlordism (male land ownership) in India since the historical times (Bagchi,
1981; Mies,
1980).
Findings also demonstrate that geographic variation in the India Patriarchy Index occurs not only at the state level, but also within states. Using this index, we could identify cluster of districts that have high and low levels of patriarchy. For example, 32
3 districts out of the 33 districts of Rajasthan formed one cluster of very high level of patriarchy in Rajasthan. Likewise, a cluster of very high level of patriarchy can be seen in inland western and central Maharashtra. These findings suggest the potential social influence of patriarchal norms in geographic “hot spot” areas. Our index is also helpful in identifying clustering of high-high and low-low districts in terms of patriarchy. The clustering of high-high and low-low districts corroborates well with the Dyson & Moore (
1983) north–south divide in India; high-high clusters located mostly in northern, and western parts of India and low-low clusters predominantly in the south. These findings demonstrate that patriarchy, rooted in social norms, is likely geographically, as well as culturally, influenced, a point further reinforced by the significant and strong spatial autocorrelation in the Index values across the 640 districts of India.
The India Patriarchy Index adds to and supplements Malhotra et al. (
1995) who measured three dimensions of patriarchy—active discrimination, marriage system, and economic value of women in India. They capture the three dimensions of patriarchy using six variables: sex ratio of mortality, female literacy share, proportion of unmarried female age 15–19, excess female migration, female labor force share, and area under rice cultivation. We go beyond these six indicators and use 12 carefully measured indicators combined in one index to fully capture patriarchy. Moreover, Malhotra et al. (
1995) failed to capture the marriage and kinship system in a nuanced way. The India patriarchy Index captures five closely-knit dimensions of patriarchy in India. The India Patriarchy Index provides social scientists and demographers with a unique opportunity to relate demographic as well as development indicators such as fertility, mortality, women’s schooling, involvement in productive economy, violence against women, etc. with gender inequality in India. This new index may also help in better understanding of the spatial variations in demographic and development indicators in a large and diverse country like India.
While findings from this study offer important contribution to the field with regard to measurement and monitoring of patriarchy, certain limitations of the present analysis warrant consideration. Our India Patriarchy Index is specific to family structure and should not be generalized to aspects of patriarchy outside of families and households, such as political leadership. This measure is an additional tool that may be used to better equip researchers with methods to assess aspects of gender equity. Data limitations also exist in the NFHS data. All variables included in analyses are self-report and the survey was not originally designed to comprehensively assess patriarchy. That said, use of existing nationally-representative data from Demographic and Health Surveys presents the opportunity to test this measure (or local adaptations thereof) in other LMIC country contexts globally.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.