In a recent case in Maharashtra, which was rather peculiar considering the ease with which it kept happening over a span of 12 months, over 1,400 candidates registered for the Kanya Bahin Yojna, a government scheme meant especially for women from backwards classes, turned out to be men. This scheme was introduced as a political agenda by the Mahayuti coalition for the development of women from the struggling class aged from 21 to 65. This wasn’t just popular for its women-centric actions but also because of how this move led the party to power. According to reports, the government spends ₹3,700 crore to pay ₹1,500 per month to 24.1 million beneficiaries under this scheme.

Even though it was a rapid and instantaneous political move, the state has faced an economic crisis because of the huge amount they have to provide to the candidates. Yet, there were 1,400 men who managed to get a total amount of ₹1,640 crore over the course of their fraudulent participation. It is not just a political or institutional failure but also raises questions about gendered privileges and barriers. These men did not just loot money from the government, leading to an indirect crisis, but also took the very necessary economic help away from the challenged community of women.

As a woman, the question that strikes me the most is: Would women have done the same if they replaced the characters of these 1,400 men? The question has a very obvious answer—a big NO—because the character of a female doesn’t allow her to commit these actions over such a long period, constrained by societal conditioning. Secondly, this fraud would have received a major backlash all over the internet, calling women indirect “gold diggers,” demanding with the same tedious tone, equality for men. The recent online controversies are clear proof that women are ready to be attacked by men, facing “gender inequality” the moment something goes even a little wrong.

But there has been no backlash now. Men seem to be pleasurably unaware of this incident. But is it plain unawareness, or a conscious social ignorance wrapped in misogynistic viewpoints, still valid? The ease with which men have the audacity to be ignorant is not unknown to society. The case is not even widely talked about, discussed, or debated socially, like it would have been glorified in an anti-agenda equality propaganda if a woman were at fault. Where is the backlash now?

Another inevitable question that begs to be raised is: Where are those men now who demand equality for men with all their vague allegations against the opposite gender? Where are their questions now, and where is their virtual movement? What does their silence say about their gender? If one attempts to answer this obvious question, the answers will be deeply embedded in the theory of accountability associated with gender. Not a single man has come forward to be accountable for their community. The general avoidance and subconscious dissociation from the fraud men is automatic proof of their constant denial and delusions about their gender.

These socially miserable men haven’t just taken the space of these socially and economically backwards women. They have directly robbed them of their constitutional and institutional rights. They have robbed them of their opportunity to establish a place for themselves in the developing atmosphere. The validity of their suffering has lost its value. For the state and the nation, they are still hidden. They were conditioned never to emerge, and yet again, they have been snatched away from their second chances. Their sufferings remain out of the government’s hands of acknowledgement.

Another perspective that becomes a point of debate is that of women’s status in the political backdrop. The scheme was specifically meant for women from poorer sections of the social sphere. The authorisation of such schemes traditionally takes a long time due to the typical verification and cross-checking of justifiable profiles. But the most interesting fact is that even the most secure procedures couldn’t identify these fraudsters’ sleek moves. That speaks louder for the party’s failure than the commitment made by it. It is very clear that the scheme and its execution were being taken for granted by the masses.

Are female sufferers, then, only a medium for gathering votes? Is their vulnerability just a political play? Women of the poorer universe have been doubly marginalised since the beginning—due to their gender, their social status, and their economic background. This fraudulent act was an indirect means of suppressing women. It is a collective reflection of gendered envy and grudge gathered against women. The help, when propagated for women, is counted as a privilege by the opposite gender. Thus arises a very diabolical urge to exploit the ones subjected to such “privileges.”

This hugely digitised and modernised world still faces a gendered conflict. As women continue to be suppressed and lose their voices due to reasons associated with their gendered character, men like these social cheaters continue to take a major part of their space. It's not just a matter of “HOW” but also “WHY.” This case is a very recent and modern public evidence that men do not just enjoy the privilege of their gender and their social conditioning, but also in the political playground. The question of gender being a privilege thus becomes very tangible.

.    .    .