Women outraged: ‘Keep’ is primitive word

Additional solicitor-general (ASG) Indira Jaising has criticised the Supreme Court judges — M Katju and TS Thakur — for their “sexist language”, and requested the court to desist from using gender-insensitive words while passing judgments.
Jaising is not alone in her outrage.

Well-known poet and novelist Eunice D’Souza said the use of such words was primitive.

“This can only be part of the mental framework of people who are dinosaurs,” she pointed out, adding, “In a live-in relationship, the woman is not being kept. She is equally contributing to the relationship. But most people use the word rakhel for that, which means a ‘keep’. There is a difference there, and there is absolutely no excuse for not knowing what the difference is.

Though we still have such exploitative associations, they verge more toward prostitution, which is a purely commercial arrangement. The woman has to be around and the man has total rights over her. A live-in is totally different as it is equal and completely voluntary.”

Even those in the women’s movement who think it was a good judgment in spirit say they are queasy about the language.

“I am not happy with the word “keep” and its connotations but largely one wants to go with the spirit of the judgment. If we start equating marriage with the live-in relationships of convenience, we will reach a stage where there’ll be demands for polygamy to be legalised,” said Madhu Kishwar, founder-editor, Manushi.
Within the legal fraternity, there are those who think the use of such language takes the debate on gender semantics and language decades back.

Women’s rights lawyer Veena Gawda told DNA, “The reference to a woman as a ‘keep’, who is ‘maintained financially’ and ‘used’ mainly for sexual purpose, is irresponsible since it commodifies her. It defeats the whole purpose of the Domestic Violence Act which protects women.”