kravarty's main contentions were that women were still absent, that any female-centred interpretation required both reading between the lines, and a consistent questioning of conventional sources like Manu that had only served to reinforce patriarchal norms. A classic example of this was how, for centuries, all of us who had studied history, were conditioned to believe that ancient Indian women had freedom of education, thought and speech. The famous debate between Gargi and Rishi Yagyavalkya was quoted as proof. The message being: women were so free that Gargi could dare take on a "Rishi." The truth, however, was distorted. Gargi was actually forced into silence by Yagyavalkya, who, when he realised he had lost the argument, cursed her: "Be quiet, foolish woman, or your head will burst into a thousand pieces." A typical case of male intellectual dominance, couched in a facade of liberalism. Historians were responsible for this, because they did not lead new trends but merely follow agendas set by others. Which was why a gender-sensitive history had to wait for the women's movement and was not an automatic trend that emerged out of scholarship. It was not, however, all darkness and gloom, as any student of women's studies would tell you. During the last decade women's history had taken off with a recognition that it was a perspective that needed further exploration. Feminist scholars had not only been able to insert women into history, but also examined the relationship between gender and various social and economic processes. They had been aided in that by the rise of feminist publiations and journals. The talk threw up some interesting issues. Today, women were more visible, but they continued to be marginalised. Witness the backlash against feminist scholars at the highest levels in universities. The political dimensions of such marginalisation needed to be seriously noted. Did it mean then that a woman either toed the malestream lin...
