Finance minister P Chidambaram has allocated Rs 1,000 crore in the budget to make women “nirbhaya”, or fearless. While the scope of this fund is yet to be worked out, it is likely to focus on safer transport for women. In India, safe travel for women means segregated public transport — buses, trains and taxis reserved exclusively for women.

Following the Delhi gangrape in a bus on December 16 last year, surveys and media reports indicate that a section of women prefer to stay at home rather than enter public spaces for fear of molestation. An ASSOCHAM survey found that one in every three women in the national capital region (NCR) had left their jobs or reduced working hours after the bus rape.

It also said that 82 percent women in metros across the country feel insecure when travelling at odd hours.

The government's usual solution is to provide segregated public transport for women —  a sort of gender apartheid. India is one of the 15 countries in the world which offer transport facilities reserved exclusively for women. Mexico City has “pink” taxis, which do not stop for men (so does Cairo, but the cabs are yellow). Bangalore has pink women's special buses. Mumbai's local trains have coaches reserved for women, as do Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro.
All four metros in India have ladies' special commuter trains.

“Pink” transportation is a quick-fix solution to a complex problem. While there is little doubt that women feel much safer in “ladies only” buses or coaches, there are far too many drawbacks associated with gender-segregated public transport.

First, men deeply resent women's-only public transport. Many refuse to respect it and occupy women's coaches and seats. This attitude effectively excludes women from general compartments, trains and buses. So, when a woman gets into a general coach rather than a ladies' coach, men treat her with hostility. It is the same mentality which prompts men to say that if a woman is wearing a skirt rather than a salwar kameez, she is “inviting” male attention. There is enough evidence to show that dress has no correlation with sexual harassment but the moral police continue to insist on linking “modesty” with safety.
Similarly, though woman may get into a general coach or bus because it is less crowded, or because she is in a hurry and cannot wait for the ladies' special, it is assumed that she is inviting molestation.

Second, having women's-only public transport facilities reinforces the impression that they are the weaker sex.

Third, segregating women in the public space is an attempt to keep them confined. In Israel, women in some conservative areas are expected to travel only at the back of the bus. Those who try to sit in the front have been verbally and physically abused by male passengers. So, if you cannot prevent women from travelling, make sure their freedom to travel is restricted.

Fourth, physical segregation of sexes creates a psychological segregation.

Fifth, it allows the state to abdicate its responsibility for the safety of women. Physical security is the right of every citizen; it is not a Rs 1,000-crore “gift” from the finance minister. Rather than increasing government spending on public safety, Chidambaram prefers to set up an exclusive fund for security of women. What happens when the fund is exhausted? Will the government plead inability to ensure protection to its citizens because of lack of funds? Given the vastness and complexity of the problem, Rs 1,000 crore is nothing.

A more effective option to protect women would be to adopt zero tolerance to sexual harassment with immediate punitive action against offenders, undertake anti-harassment campaigns, raise public awareness through the media and have better security on public transport systems.

Violence against women has a social, legal and cultural context. There has been a generalised increase in assault on women in both rural and urban areas, as well as attempts to police them in terms of dress, use of mobile phones, moving around in public, marrying outside caste, etc. This is probably a result of women moving increasingly into the public space and asserting the right to determine their own future. But segregating women on the grounds of safety is to play into the hands of the patriarchy by reinforcing the stereotype of women as weak creatures.

Segregation of women in sports, or in residential schools and colleges, or in the use of public toilets, makes sense. But in the classroom, the workspace or the public sphere, segregation may suppress symptoms of the sexual harassment disease, but will not eliminate it.

Chidambaram's other great initiative for women is the women's bank, with a capital of Rs 1,000 crore. Why not ensure women get equal access to loans in a regular bank? Why this “gender apartheid”, especially when several banks already have women-only branches?

Most likely, when women want to open accounts in a regular bank, they will be told to go to the women's bank instead. It would be far better if they were given equal treatment by the financial system.

Segregation is not the answer to women's problems. If anything, it will make matters worse in the long run, by treating women as basically unequal.