Ask any of the hordes of young admission-seekers whether the capital’s women’s colleges should open their doors to men, and watch as the deluge of opinions breaks.
Women’s colleges are an anachronism, say some; no, they’re necessary, especially if you come from a conservative family, say others. Another set splutters: No way, women’s colleges are actually progressive, they give women far more autonomy than a co-ed institution would. But even Oxford’s doing away with its women-only colleges, point out more informed souls. Look at the US, someone else counters, where women-only colleges are thriving. After an hour of this, I am convinced that today’s youth can score debating points better and with more decorum than any Parliamentarian.
Who are the women queuing up for admission at LSR, Miranda, Jesus and Mary College and a few other women-only institutions? Some come from families just getting used to the idea of allowing daughters to have a higher education. This is still a strong, if reactionary, reason to keep some colleges open only to women: if you don’t, you cut off access to women from deeply conservative families.
Some women are from out of town — they have a higher chance of getting college and hostel admission in a women’s institution. Some just feel that a woman’s college allows more personal growth and provides a more empowering atmosphere than co-ed colleges.
I went from a girl’s convent in Delhi to a girl’s school in Calcutta to co-ed institutions in the capital. The convent was a nightmare: the conversation centred around those alien creatures called boys; it was definitely not empowering for women in other ways. The girl’s school in Calcutta had the best of both worlds: we ran everything from school fests onwards with absolute confidence, and the authorities encouraged regular interactions with the boys’ school next door, so we had a healthy attitude to the opposite gender.
The college I attended in Delhi is very well regarded, and in some ways it delivered. But it also brought women up against the “real” world. Men ran most of the college institutions; women contributed but we formed only a smattering of office-bearers. Catch-22 ruled in an era when there were no residential facilities for women. No woman could successfully run for president of the students’ body, because college dogma dictated that the president should live on campus. The college now has a few residential wings for women, but the contrast between frequently embattled women in the co-ed colleges and the effortless confidence of women in all-girls institutions was often stark.
Perhaps the co-ed college introduced us to the pressures of a real world where women have to fight for small victories, be aggressive about demanding their rights: the alumni from my college include Barkha Dutt, who doesn’t appear to have had her confidence dented from the experience. Or perhaps a women’s college provides a necessary respite, a period when you can grow in confidence and exercise your skills without having to fight gender battles as well.
In an ideal world, I’d agree that reverse gender discrimination is a bad thing, that all colleges should be open to all people. But in case you hadn’t noticed, we don’t live in an ideal world. Women’s colleges provide a choice: let that choice remain open for at least a few more decades.
