THE NEW ‘MASVAW MEN’:
STRATEGIES, DYNAMICS AND
DEEPENING ENGAGEMENTS. A
CASE STUDY OF A NETWORKED
APPROACH TO CHALLENGING
PATRIARCHY ACROSS
INSTITUTIONS IN UTTAR PRADESH
Empowerment of Women and Girls

Jerker Edström, Thea Shahrokh and Satish Kumar Singh
August 2015

The IDS programme on Strengthening Evidence-based Policy works across seven key
themes. Each theme works with partner institutions to co-construct policy-relevant
knowledge and engage in policy-influencing processes. This material has been
developed under the Empowerment of Women and Girls theme.
Input was provided by the Centre for Health and Social Justice (CHSJ) and Men’s
Action to Stop Violence Against Women (MASVAW).
The material has been funded by UK aid from the UK Government, however the views
expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK Government’s official policies.
AG Level 2 Output ID: 115

THE NEW ‘MASVAW MEN’: STRATEGIES, DYNAMICS AND
DEEPENING ENGAGEMENTS. A CASE STUDY OF A
NETWORKED APPROACH TO CHALLENGING
PATRIARCHY ACROSS INSTITUTIONS IN UTTAR
PRADESH
Jerker Edström,a Thea Shahrokha and Satish Kumar Singhb
a
b

Institute of Development Studies, UK
Centre for Health and Social Justice, India

August 2015
This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are clearly
credited.
First published by the Institute of Development Studies in August 2015
© Institute of Development Studies 2015
IDS is a charitable company limited by guarantee and registered in England (No. 877338).

Executive summary
Uttar Pradesh is ranked second among Indian states in ‘crimes against women’, which
includes rape, abduction, dowry-related deaths, mental and physical torture and sexual
harassment (Government of Uttar Pradesh 2006: 130). The majority of such crimes against
women are committed by family members, but this gendered violence and inequality also
permeates the broader economy, systems and structures that govern everyday life. During
the past 10–15 years, the issue of gender equality has been raised by civil society and
government, and there have been some positive changes too. Yet, there is increasing fear
among some men about decreasing opportunities as a result of women’s empowerment,
reflected in the evolution of ‘men’s rights’ organisations, with anti-feminist agendas
(Chowdhury 2014). Bucking this trend, since 2002, a growing group of men have built an
engagement for addressing gender-based violence (GBV), in Men’s Action to Stop Violence
Against Women, or MASVAW. This case study explores the role of men and boys in
addressing sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) through collective action; a
collaboration between the Centre for Health and Social Justice (CHSJ) in New Delhi, the
network MASVAW in Uttar Pradesh, and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) in the
United Kingdom (UK). This partnership grew in an attempt to problematise and politicise the
way the terms of the debate were being set in the broader field of engaging men in
addressing GBV in the development field.
This case study looks specifically at the MASVAW campaign’s experience in Uttar Pradesh
in order to explore the dynamics of a networked and institutionally nested approach to
collective action; one which is not based within one organisation, but which is nevertheless
nested within and across institutions. In jointly planning the study, three central questions
were agreed as the focus of this research, namely: (i) in what ways is MASVAW’s networked
and institutionally nested approach to addressing gendered violence with men and boys
appropriate and effective in the Indian context?; (ii) given that MASVAW is a ‘campaigning
network’, covering multiple levels, institutional settings and strategies, how can we best
understand the dynamics of their networked approach?; and (iii) what contributes to
MASVAW’s successes, in which ways, and what missed opportunities can be identified to
strengthen the approach?

Conceptual approach
The approach to this study of MASVAW is an interactive, participatory peer-enquiry. Drawing
on key insights from feminist theory, research on masculinities and on power, MASVAW’s
collective action is explored against a critical understanding of ‘patriarchy’ as a ‘dynamic
system’ in which we are all involved. Focused on the importance of developing critical
consciousness through collective action, the approach draws on insights into how policy
influence can be wielded through contestation, linking: the role of actors and networks, set in
constellations of institutional interests, to the (re/)framing of evidence and policy narratives.
Focusing down on three institutional settings of MASVAW’s campaign (work in universities,
in the local Panchayat governance bodies, and with youth in local communities), the study
explores four dimensions of the Uttar Pradesh context. It does so by applying a set of four
gendered lenses on: (i) ‘male centeredness’ (in a representational or sociocultural
dimension), (ii) ‘male privilege’ (in a material and institutional dimension), (iii) ‘male
supremacy’ (in an ideological and political dimension), and (iv) ‘male order’ (in an
epistemological or ‘evidential’ dimension). The first three are readily linked to the feminist
calls for recognition, redistribution and representation, whilst the fourth calls for a pro/feminist ‘reframing’ of evidence, knowledge and study method.

1

Study method
Based on a mapping of issues in addressing SGBV with activists of MASVAW (Shahrokh
et al. 2015), the research was undertaken between August and December 2014 in Uttar
Pradesh. The team developed a methodology for collective, qualitative and emergent inquiry,
using a range of mixed methods: one in-depth group analysis workshop by 12 MASVAW
activists, exploring and fine-tuning the identified research questions; ten semi-structured key
informant interviews; four guided focus group discussions; and participant observation by
researchers. In total, 50 local participants took part: 21 women and 29 men. The
methodology offers unique advantages, such as relatively direct reflection and analysis and
the ability to capture how processes and outcomes are perceived by different stakeholders
from different vantage points, reframing questions and reflecting on the learning process
itself. Triangulation of perspectives enables the building up of a nuanced and
multidimensional account of a shared – if contested – reality. Findings are illustrative rather
than definitive, and sometimes provocative rather than conclusive, thus resisting a male
ordered and positivistic approach.

Analysis
In exploring the question of how MASVAW’s networked and institutionally nested approach
to addressing gendered violence with men and boys may be appropriate and effective in the
Indian context, the analysis centred on how MASVAW is ‘building and nurturing activism
across different settings’. There are multiple entry points for MASVAW engaging men – and
pathways for nurturing action – on gender inequality, but there are also some common
elements that connect personal experience, critical reflection, political action and structural
change.
Five common steps to mobilising men: First, ‘politicising the personal’: the importance of
disclosing personal experiences to peers and ‘role modelling’ how to engage differently as
men has been key for mobilising men. Second, ‘beyond the personal’: one key feature is
adopting a dynamic, yet structural analysis of patriarchy, where gender-based oppression
becomes seen as intersecting and working through caste and social class in activists’ own
lives. Third, ‘self-identification through critical consciousness’: acknowledging that this
change is a personal and emotional process means that mechanisms to support the internal
sense of self and confidence are important in the process of reconstructing both personal
and collective identities as activists for gender equality. MASVAW is made up of informal
bonds among like-minded peers, which has contributed to their becoming more confident in
themselves and in their roles. Fourth, ‘deliberate, directed collective action’: this strength
enables collective action in response to specific cases, in support of those exposed to
gendered injustice. Fifth, ‘sustaining momentum by observing and describing change’:
activists also noted that where they see change in the lives of people around them and
feeling able to support others, their motivation is strengthened.
Building new constituencies for change: An important ‘inroad’ for mobilising members
and expanding the movement has been a focus on ‘youth’; particularly visible in the
community outreach work, both in and out of school. The framing of young men as ‘agents of
change’ involves two key aspects, namely: (a) their more open minds as to questioning
traditional gender roles and inequalities, and (b) a type of demographic momentum effect, as
more enlightened young cohorts gradually shift prevailing norms, by numbers and over time.
Another dimension to this latter effect appears to be tapping into a gradually changing makeup of families, with smaller and more nuclear families becoming more possible in Uttar
Pradesh, as compared to the traditional set-up where young families typically reside with the
husband’s parents, or extended natal family. Here, again, role modelling is seen as
important, as they point to real improvements in their lives to validate their dissidence, in the
face of resistance.

2

Institutional transformations from within: Another key feature of MASVAW’s approach is
the way that specific institutions are targeted, and used, not merely as ‘sites’ where to carry
out the work, but also as institutions to leverage for their own implications on gender justice.
On the one hand, activists in the university are using their role in teaching to make visible the
structural dimensions of patriarchy in order to raise awareness and recruit new members; on
the other hand, they have also challenged their institution to establish anti-harassment
committees. Similarly, whilst activists in the Panchayats are using the provisions of women’s
representation in these local bodies to support women representatives (e.g. through lobbying
other male representatives) and to support women to utilise the space of the forum to
become ‘heard’ (within this traditionally male-centred public space), both Panchayat
members and local school teachers have challenged and lobbied their institutions to provide
for gender-sensitive and safe, separate lavatory facilities for women and girls (thus reducing
de facto institutional forms of gender discrimination). Importantly, it was also found that
institutions have been used strategically against each other to wield pressure for redress on
cases of GBV.
Gender-relational alliances of change: MASVAW’s work in solidarity with women – for
women’s rights – provides a gender-relational dynamic crucial to their political approach,
from interpersonal to institutional alliances. This is critical for MASVAW in order to learn
across gendered perspectives; seeing manifestations of male supremacy as informed by
experiences of women’s subordination, or male privilege from a perspective of facing
discrimination. Thus, the analysis of gender injustice was seen as deepened when working
together. A number of women met also highlighted the importance of women and men
coming together ‘as a common group’, although recognising that a space for men only within
the campaign also remains essential to its purpose. Formal relationships have been started
with a number of women’s organisations working to support women survivors of violence and
these partnerships were seen as transformative also in that they aim to recognise and
promote women’s positions of leadership, which itself shifts the male activists’ perceptions of
their own types of leadership roles in agitating for gender justice.
Structures of constraint to progressive change: In all the settings studied, resistance and
backlash to MASVAW men agitating for changing gender norms came from both families and
their broader home communities. It was also clear that the formal institutions, within which
the activists live and work, provided sources of institutional resistance, sometimes co-opting
progressive agendas to shore up their basic day-to-day functioning. We saw several
examples of the former, where activists faced ridicule from community members or
estrangement from families, although – crucially – this can be mitigated by activists’ peer
solidarity. The university itself provides an example of institutional resistance, where
MASVAW has addressed institutional management around policies and procedures with the
establishment of ‘progressive’ anti-sexual harassment committees, whilst it appears that the
function of these anti-harassment committees is broadly seen as having been co-opted to
primarily safeguard the reputation of the institution itself, with both the disincentives for
reporting and pursuing cases and the common outcome of ‘compromise’. As to the internal
workings of the Panchayats, it was clear from women representatives met that even a
50 per cent proportional representation was seen as insufficient for them to be heard in the
male-centred culture of the institution.
MASVAW faces a number of other challenges and tensions as well, including in the area of
allying with women’s organisations: it was suggested that many organisations are engaging
women through a ‘welfare’ approach, as a patriarchal co-option of a ‘progressive’ cause;
there is suspicion from some women that groups like MASVAW are not legitimate, or that
men’s groups may divert the resources away from women’s organisations; and, some
representatives of women’s organisations highlighted that women cannot be full members of
the campaign, asking what this might mean for the future of MASVAW’s work with women.

3

Recommendations for MASVAW










A key question is: ‘To what extent does “men” need to remain the defining – or
exclusive – category?’ A re-visioning and realigning of MASVAW’s make-up and
partnerships could be held in dialogue with women to ensure the process reflects the
politics.
MASVAW should build on the approach of combining a dynamic structural analysis
with personalising the political with examples from activists’ own lives, e.g. through
developing accessible materials in Hindi for explaining complex ideas with real-life
cases.
Further development of practical methods for intersectional analyses is flagged as a
need, to support new work with dalit groups, with children and for older people.
MASVAW should build on its advances in addressing various institutions, by
developing ways of documenting co-option of progressive policies, whilst protecting
the safety of its members, by drawing on peers across institutions (e.g. in media), or
student projects.
Balancing further growth with support for new members will mean working out how to
nurture mentoring connections, as the campaign branches into new settings.
Action research could enable further in-depth exploration of what is working. For
example, the issue of transitions within the network (e.g. students into leaders).

Implications for broader practice and policy









With little current constructive engagement of men in policies and laws against
gender discrimination, policies should frame the role of men as equal and responsible
partners.
There is a need to create an enabling environment in the cultures and systems of
institutions, for progressive policies to be effective, especially on GBV.
Policy needs to create the opportunity to support progressive strategies for sustained
awareness amongst men to challenge inequitable systems and cultures driving
SGBV.
But, men and boys must not be treated as homogenous groups – intersecting
markers of identity and experience must be recognised in engaging men/boys as
agents of change.
Resist facile frameworks where men’s engagement gets instrumentalised and
co-opted through notions like ‘men-streaming’ gender, or reinforcing men’s roles as
‘protectors’.
Challenge the instrumental and binary constructions of gender and the common
misconception that ‘funding gender equality’ simply means ‘funding women’s groups’.
Protect funding for progressive, effective work on women’s empowerment; but
crucially,
Escalate investments in gender equality work overall, as it is fundamental to social –
and societal – development, and to achieve goals of social justice for both women
and men.

4