By – Kadambari Chand

Abstract

This article conceptualises the idea that while the modern state’s policies are cloaked in the rhetoric of protecting women, in reality, they undermine their bodily and sexual autonomy, relegating them to the status of subordinate subjects of the state. This subordination is brought by using both formal legal systems and institutions, and the deeply embedded cultural and traditional norms present in the society. Furthermore, this article will explore the idea of biopolitics and the centrality of controlling the bodily autonomy of women in maintaining the social order and hierarchies foundational to the State, making the modern state inherently gendered.

Introduction

The concept of the Gendered State in feminist theory fundamentally refers to the idea that gender is central to the very formation of the state. The foundation of the modern state is said to lie in the social contract, according to which individuals give up certain rights and their freedom to the state in exchange for protection and benefits offered by the state to society as a whole. However, feminists object to the inclusivity of the social contract. According to them, the social contract is linked to women’s subordination to men. Carole Pateman, a feminist scholar, in her Sexual Contract contends that the classical social contract conceals a prior “sexual contract” through which patriarchal right is reconstituted within modern civil society. Rather than eliminating male dominance, the formation of the state institutionalises gender hierarchy by regulating sexuality, reproduction, and women’s bodies through legal, political, and economic structures, thus declaring the very state as gendered. Furthermore, the state is divided or constructed around the concepts of ‘public and private divide’, ‘masculinity and femininity’, and ‘rational and strong’. These gendered foundations are visible in the state’s proceedings, such as its policies, laws, diplomatic practices, and international stands. 

Women, Bodies, Marriage, and Reproduction: Foundations of Social Order

Throughout history, “women” have been given the status of culture bearers. They are seen as the carriers of culture and the honour of the family, community, and the nation. This makes them the centre of political and cultural conflicts. It is seen as their duty to behave in a certain manner, dress in a certain way and carry forward the culture and tradition. Apart from this, the state interferes with their sexuality, marriage, and reproductive rights.  Nira Yuval-Davis argues that women are constructed as the ‘bearers of the collective’; therefore, who they give birth to and its conditions are decided by who belongs to which identity and who does not. The burden of ensuring that this social division remains intact falls on the shoulders of the women. Consequently, it leads to the infringement of their sexual and reproductive freedom as well as individual freedom as a person. This dynamic plays out in society as moral policing, controlling the selection of marriage partners as well as scrutiny over their regular interactions with other people. These practices result from the fear of the social boundaries breaking down, as romantic relationships and friendships often carry the potential of blurring these boundaries. Therefore, the politics of exclusion of identities from the collective moulds dictates women’s interpersonal relationships and their sexual autonomy. 

Furthermore, this is where Foucault’s construct of biopolitics, or the politics of controlling the life and populations of the subjects in order to maintain order in society, comes into play. The state exercises biopower, a mechanism through which biopolitics takes place in society,  by controlling and managing the means of life, using reproductive regulation, norms of standard family size, birth control policies, statistics, population surveys, laws, healthcare, and establishing social standards of acceptability. Through these, the state regulates fertility, shapes demographics, and maintains the population according to its goals. This makes the bodies of women and their sexuality very much central to the state, as it is the political ground of maintaining the demographics and social hierarchies that constitute the very foundation of the state.

Legal Protection as Control – Contemporary Case Studies

The regulation of women’s autonomy can be observed through government policies, such as the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act,  2006. Within this, the Gujarat government advocated amendments to the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006. It included a provision that makes it impossible to marry without the consent of parents. These amendments constitutionally defy Article 21, which states that the Constitution grants the right to life and personal liberty, including liberty, dignity, and the right to choose one’s partner. Various scholars, such as social scientist Ghanshyam Shah and various advocates, have argued that this type of bill has been put forward with the intent of solidifying boundaries and the divide between caste and religion. Therefore, preserving the existing social hierarchy by reducing mobilisation. Secondly, these policies also play the part of undermining the agency of women.  Due to the prevalence of caste and religious endogamy in the society, such laws often turn out to be extremely dangerous to couples marrying beyond their own community. They might in turn act as an instrument of parental control and that of surveillance on the women regarding their freedom to marry as adults, in turn increasing the already frequent cases of honour killings and violence. Therefore, the authority traditionally exercised over women by the family and society is institutionalised by the state, bringing it from private to public and legal domains.

Similarly, various states adopted anti-conversion policies, with the data regarding post-implementation telling another story. In Madhya Pradesh, the government record of August 2025 showed a 58% acquittal rate, in which 7/300 cases resulted in convictions. The main reason for the acquittal was testimonies from women that these relationships were consensual. This pattern was observed in other states. Furthermore, the 2024 amendments in Uttar Pradesh institutionalised that any party (including third-party vigilantes) could file a complaint, effectively stripping women of the right to define their own harm. These legal interventions demonstrate that the state’s ‘protection’ is contingent upon a woman’s willingness to remain within the domestic and communal boundaries assigned to her. When the state prioritises parental consent over individual choice, it reveals a profound distrust of female agency. Therefore, the law operates not as a shield for the individual but as a fence for the community.

The Politics of the Rhetoric of Protection

Dworkin argues that the state is paternalistic in nature. In his essay Paternalism, Dworkin defined that the state acts as a parent towards its citizens, and thus interferes with their liberty, thinking of their welfare, happiness, needs, and interests. Similarly, in advancing the above-given policies, the state once again invoked the rhetoric of protection. However, various feminist scholars have criticised the state on this take, stating that the majority of the policies which claim to protect women actually limit their freedom and undermine their sexual and bodily autonomy. This reduces women to the position of a naive child to be protected, and the state is portrayed as the ultimate patriarch.

Furthermore, Wendy Brown explains that when the law recognises you mainly through your injury, it builds a political identity that is organised around being seen as harmed rather than seen as capable. Therefore, instead of protection, these laws define the standards for which type of women must be protected and which type should not. For example, a woman who requires protection is the one who aligns more with the requirements of patriarchal culture that adheres to purity, convention and submissiveness. This also sends the message of what you ought to become if you desire protection. The same apparatus that grants protection becomes an object of oppression for sex workers, migrant women and those who do not follow the set standards. These policies institutionalise and legally codify a specific ideal of a ‘good woman’.

Therefore, more often than not, the rhetoric of protection instead of protecting normalises the image of women being weak and at the lower end of the power hierarchy who require protection. Through these official institutions, the state doesn’t just reflect the image of the ‘weak woman’, it codifies it into legal arguments, justifying more control over women in society.

Conclusion

In conclusion,  on the surface, the modern state appears to be the result of a social contract; however, it shows its gendered nature through its persistent regulation of women’s autonomy. The state arguably uses the rhetoric of protection as a biopolitical tool to maintain the social and communal hierarchies which are crucial to the state’s existence. This is done by regulating women’s bodily and reproductive hierarchies through several policies, such as the anti-conversion acts. Therefore, it can be observed that gendered nature is inherent to the state as it is required to maintain the social and power hierarchies in the state.

Author’s Bio

Kadambari Chand is a first-year student pursuing a B.A. (Hons.) in Political Science at O.P. Jindal Global University. Her interests lie in understanding how class, caste, religion, and other intersecting structures of power shape political and social life.

Image source- https://unsplash.com/photos/shadow-of-woman-by-the-metal-bar-window-E0EYD9y43Gc