The proverbial ‘glass ceiling’ in the US Presidential elections, remains un-shattered. As a country which has perceptibly championed women’s rights and causes and is conspicuous as a rare industrialised democracy, it has never had a woman Head of State. Of course, women have served in the House of Representatives since 1917 (Jeannette Rankin, a Republican) and in the Senate since 1932 (Hattie Caraway). The number of women in the US Congress has risen steadily from 1.9 per cent in 1949-51 to 19.4 per cent in 2015-2017 (with Democrats leading with 62 members vis-à-vis 22 of the Republicans). Still, the two consecutive concessional speeches given by Hillary Clinton in her bid for US Presidentship, alluded to the glass celing analogy with her “conceding speech” last week — “To all the women and especially the young women who put their faith in this campaign and in me, I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion”. And then adding somberly, “Now, I know, I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but someday, someone will”.

Now, contrast this with the electoral reality in the Indian subcontinent — an area marked by traditional Third World misogynistic perceptions. All countries in the region have had a strong and pervasive culture of women in leadership roles. Sri Lanka’s Sirimavo Bandaranaike was the modern world’s first female Head of State, as early as 1960. This was soon followed by Indira Gandhi in 1966, Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto in 1988 and Bangladesh’s Khaleda Zia in 1991 — even though, there is a more ‘ceremonial’ President in all these countries, the real powers of executive governance are with the popularly elected Prime Minister. Beyond this, the reins of power in neighbouring Myanmar is effectively in the hands of Aung San Suu Kyi, who but for a technicality, rules the national destiny and goes by the position of the ‘First and incumbent State Councellor’. Similarly, the ceilings in Nepal were shattered recently with the appointment of Bidhya Devi Bhandari as the President in October 2015, and earlier in June 2015, Ameenah Gurib-Fakim had powered her way as the first woman President of Mauritius. This list belies the impressive list of both national and provincial leaders in India like Sonia Gandhi, Mayawati, Jayalalitha, Mamata Banerjee, Vasundhara Raje, Sushma Swaraj, Sheila Dikshit, Mehbooba Mufti, to name a few of the active, though extremely popular leaders.

One could argue that most of the national leaders in the subcontinent owe their electoral success to genealogical or ‘dynastic’ connections, pre-eminently Indra Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Sheikh Hasina and Sirimavo Bandaranaike. It cannot be denied that each of them had emerged as a powerful ‘leader’ in her own right, with each of them returning to positions of power after having been dismissed electorally, and subsequently, winning back in the fair battle of the ballot boxes.

Misogynistic and sexist opprobriums like Gungi Gudiya for Indira Gandhi and almost all other women politicians at the beginning of their political journey are reflective of the equally regressive and worst instincts of subcontinental reality. With honour killings, female infanticide, dowry, sati and other practices of social disempowerment, the sudden emergence of women in the political sphere of the subcontinent is suggestive of a certain dichotomy. Inherently, women enjoy a cleaner reputation for administrative efficacy, fighting corruption and social ills. This, combined with the participatory upsurge of women voters who typically prefer a woman candidate, and the added advantage as second generation ‘legacy’ carriers (Jayalalitha carries the legacy of MGR and Mayawati for Kanshi Ram), the electoral prospects of such women are powerful. The initial advantage notwithstanding, it is the subsequent consolidation of position and the absolutist control over the party that ensures the supremacy of women leaders, even though they remain under-represented in national and state legislatures. Indira Gandhi was referred to as the ‘only man’ in the cabinet, given her decisiveness on matters of governance.

Unlike the Western civilization, where power was historically equated with men, the predominant Hindu framework of the subcontinent has metaphysically and consciously posited the feminine form as being the very manifestation of shakti (‘power’ or ‘energy’). The philosophical undercurrent of shakti cuts across the modern religious divides and affords a higher reverence for the female form in the sub-conscious mind and belief systems. Historically and culturally, from Draupadi, Sita, Padmini, Meera to Rani of Jhansi, women have risen from the moral high-ground and positions of power that is unfathomable in the Western cultural or historical contexts. Beyond the Western veneer of modernity and civility, lurks the undercurrent of hidden misogynistic sentiments that are usually thought to exist, only in the Third World, and especially in the subcontinent.

The elections in the US mirrored the gender play, Trump’s support among men (especially Whites was a strong 53 per cent to Hillary Clinton’s 41 per cent. This negated the advantageous 54 per cent overall women preference votes for Ms Clinton. Secondly the polarization owing to the parallel and the more compelling narrative of the ‘White fear’, ensured that even among the white women, 53 per cent of them cast their votes in favour of Trump. Even though Trump has played down what he calls his ‘locker room banter’, he has had an undeniable track record of making sexist, derogatory and regressively misogynistic comments over the years. However, his successful stoking of topical paranoia, latent prejudices and instinctive demagogy has got the better of his misogynistic comments, as can be seen by the voting pattern of white women voters who were prepared to overlook his unforgivable comments.

Europe fares much better, with Theresa May, Angela Merkel, Kersti Kaljulaid, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, Dalia Grybauskaite among the many other Heads of State who have risen through sheer merit and dint of their own efforts, aided by the relatively better socio-economic framework for women and a history of a more progressive outlook.

Instinctive murmurs have started among the defeated Democrats of depending on Michelle Obama to finally break the proverbial ‘glass ceiling’ after her inspiring and powerful speech at the Democratic convention. While it is still in the realm of conjecture, her persona, beliefs and perception are exactly opposite to that of President-elect Trump. This will ensure the spotlight on her. Michelle’s profound statement is a pointer to the same, “Success isn’t meant for little black girls from the South Side of Chicago. And you know what? When I listened to my own voice and cast the cynics aside, when I forged ahead and overcame the doubts and fears of others about who I was and what I could become, I found that their doubts and fears were misplaced”.

The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry