By Sharanya Gopinathan

Just last week, we were talking about the new National Policy for Women being discussed by the Group of Ministers. It was at one of these discussions that Sushma Swaraj said she feels boys should study home science to help distribute household more evenly between men and women.

Maneka Gandhi has now made a statement revealing more of what that Policy includes. Some of it is a bit boring, like self-defence classes for girls, and others sound a little scary, like when she spoke of compulsory breast and uterine screenings for women without providing any further details on what exactly that entails, but she did mention something else that caught our interest.

She said, “We would like everyone to look at their policy through a pink lens.” On an unrelated note, this brings a whole new meaning to the term we’d coined early last year, sarkari pink, but, as annoying as her particular choice of words is, this sounds like a pretty good idea.

We’re assuming she recommends that government bodies should start looking at all their policies through a female lens, even at policies that don’t seem obviously linked to women. Right now, the only policies that seem to be viewed through that lens are ones directly and obviously linked to exclusively to women, like say maternal health. But every thing the government works on does have an impact on women in some way, so making all policies and actions mindful and inclusive of gender and keeping in mind the specific needs women have when framing any policy, instead of pushing out plans and policies for women alone through separate schemes, would go a long way in addressing the issues that women face.

Unfortunately though, it feels like Maneka Gandhi’s rose-tinted glasses only take her so far: after saying all this about looking at everything through a pink lens, when asked about five male judges sitting to hear the triple talaq case, she was quick to say that gender has no bearing on the case. She said she was sure the men would decide for the rights of women (which is kind of the problem, no?), and also that in every case, the judge is not required to remember whether she is male or female. Mm, kay.