Paper-11 Module-1

Social Reform Movement and Women’s Participation.

Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Sumita Allahabad University,
Parmar Allahabad
Paper Coordinator Prof. Chairperson ,IIAS, Shimla,
Chandrakala Professor, Dept. of Political
Padia Science, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi and
Ex-Vice Chancellor, MGS
University, Bikaner
Content Writer/Author Dr. Preeti Singh Assistant Professor, Dept. of
(CW) Political Science, Vasanta
College for Women, Rajghat,
Varanasi
Content Reviewer (CR) Prof. Chairperson ,IIAS, Shimla and
Chandrakala Vice Chancellor, MGS
Padia University, Bikaner
Description of the Module
Subject Women’s Studies
Name
Paper Name Women, Governance and Politics
Module Social Reform Movement and Women’s
Name Participation
Module Id Paper-11 Module-1
Pre- The reader is expected to have a basic
requisites understanding of the 19th century social
reform movement.
Objectives To make the reader understand how the
 social reform movement created a niche for
women in the public sphere, and critically
analyze the social reform movement from
Women’s Studies perspective.
Keywords Public-Private; Reformist, Revivalist,
Radical, Patriarchy

The Social Reform Movement

Introduction

The 19th century occupies a very significant place in the history of

modern India. This was the period when many images of India and
Indians were constructed, mis-constructed and reconstructed by the
British imperial power as well as the revivalists, radicals and the
reformists. In this process, the question of women was at the
centre. What is significant to note is that though the question of
woman was at the centre during the 19th century reform
movement, voices of women remained at the margin. Forbes
(1998) rightly writes that "in the 19th century, the ‘woman
question’ loomed large. This was not a question of ‘what do
women want’ but rather ‘how can they be modernized". [Forbes,
1998]. In fact, in the early 19th century, as a response to colonial
encounter and imperial allegation of backwardness of the Indian
society, women were converted from the "object of oppression" to
the "site of reform". The issues of social reform movement related
to women were mainly determined by the male social reformers. In
fact, apart from the revivalist/reformist divide, the social reform
movement can be divided into three categories: social reform
movement by upper caste male reformers; social reform movement
by low caste male reformers, and social reform movement by
women reformers. However, these three categories cannot be
understood in total separation with each other, because one created
space for the other.

During the early phase of the social reform movement, the male
social reformers were the dominant actors. To illustrate, Raja
Rammohan Roy raised his voice against the inhuman practice of
sati. In his historical article, "A Conference between an Advocate
for and an Opponent to the Practice of Burning Widow Alive" he
argued that none of the scriptures prescribe the practice of sati. His
attempt was widely opposed by the orthodoxy.
However, finally efforts of Roy and many of his supporters led to
promulgation of Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829 which declared the
practice of Sati illegal and punishable by the criminal court.

Legal abolition of Sati though paved the way for right to life for
Hindu widows, but still, the right to a dignified life for widows was
a far goal to achieve due to the hardships imposed on them. Ishwar
Chandra Vidyasagar took up the cause of widows and it led the
campaign for legalizing widow remarriage which ultimately
resulted in the passing of the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856.
He also challenged the Hindu practice of polygamy and presented
a petition to the government signed by twenty five hundred persons
to legally prohibit polygamy.

Another major issue taken up by the reformers was child marriage.

Social reformers like Behram Malabari and G.H. Deshmukh
blamed the practice as responsible for weakness of the Indian
nation and race. These reformers fought for raising the age of
consent and this time women also came forward to support the
cause. A petition signed by sixteen hundred women was sent to
Queen Victoria for raising the age of consent in 1890. Amid the
oppositions by the orthodox and nationalists, the social reformers
kept on fighting for the cause and could get the Age of Consent Act
passed in 1891.

Unlike the issues of Sati, child marriage, tonsure of widows,

widow remarriage and polygamy, the issue of education for
women got acceptance of reformists, revivalists as well as of
radicals. However, though all these groups agreed that women
should be educated, but there was disagreement on ‘what to teach
women’ and ‘why to teach women’. The major issue was whether
to educate women as individuals to develop their rational faculty or
as wives and mothers to enable them to perform their roles in a
better way. However, the main stress was on educating women to
be better wives and mothers.

Unlike the elite upper caste male social reformers who were mostly
either conservative or moderate in their approach, Jyotirao Phule,
representing the depressed section of the society, unravelled the
connection between the subordination of women and caste
hierarchy. He openly challenged Brahmin patriarchy through his
radical arguments and social reform initiatives.

The above account makes it clear that the male social reformers
did not form a homogeneous group. But it cannot be denied that
these male social reformers whether moderate, revivalist or
radical-knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally
created a space for women and hence facilitated their participation.
Women’s Participation in Social Reform Movement

Since the question of woman constituted the core of the 19th

century social reform movement, there are few questions relating
to women’s participation which need to be answered, like where
were the voices of women in the social reform movement? How
did women look upon the woman’s question? Was there any
difference between the perspectives of female and male social
reformers?

So far the matter concerned with the issues, we find that both the
male and female social reformers fought for almost similar causes.
Few major names of women who played a very significant role in
the social reform movement are Francina Sorabjee, Parvati
Ayyappan, Ramabai Ranade, Rakhmabai, Pandita Ramabai, Mataji
Maharani Tapaswini, Begum Rokeya Sakhawat etc. Like male
social reformers, these female social reformers also raised their
voices against social evils, but their main focus was on educating
women, to mention a few significant steps taken by women
reformers in this direction. Francina Sorabjee founded three
schools at Poona and also started a Teachers Training School in
1872; Lakshmi Bayamma from Andhra Pradesh founded
Saradaniketan, a residential school for women at Guntur; and
Ramabai Ranade, along with her husband Justice Ranade, founded
Seva Sadan and the Seva Sadan Nursing and Medical Association.

Further, when we look at the approach of women social reformers,

we find that women social reformers may be classified into two
different categories: first, those women who did not raise their
independent voice rather followed the agenda set by their male
counterparts–either reformist or revivalist; second; women who
directly challenged patriarchy by raising their voices against
female subordination and other social evils in their personal life as
well as in public life by leading social campaigns against such
practices. The second category of women can be regarded as the
forerunners of modern day feminists. But these two categories are
overlapping and hence no watertight compartment can be made
between the two.
Women’s Participation in Social Reform Movement: The
Traditionalist View of Women’s Education

Revivalist vision, which was in favour of social reform on Indian

lines, was one of the most dominant views during this phase. One
very significant woman figure who immensely contributed to the
cause of women’s education was Mataji Maharani Tapaswini. Her
views on women’s education were in full agreement with the
revivalist vision which wanted to educate ‘girls on strictly
nationalist lines in the hope that they might regenerate Hindu
society’. [Forbes,1998] Mataji Maharani Tapaswini started her first
school with thirty students with the purpose of educating women in
accordance with the Hindu religion and moral principles. She
founded the Mahakali Pathshala in Calcutta in 1893.The founders
of the school supported the cause of women’s education, but their
approach was quite conservative, as they opposed co-education
and advocated the idea of different syllabi for girls to meet the
specific needs of their roles as wives and mothers. Mataji
Maharani Tapaswini was of the opinion that girls’ syllabus should
include "knowledge of sacred literature and history, an
understanding of myths and legends that spoke of the duties of the
daughter, wife, daughter-in-law and mother and practical skills
such as cooking and sewing." [Forbes, 1998] The syllabus of the
Mahakali Pathshala, based on the traditional view of women’s role
in family and society, was widely praised by the conservative
middle class Hindu men who were of the opinion that any attempt
to educate women on modern lines would ultimately ‘demoralize’
and ‘denationalize’ young Hindu women. Due to its conventional
syllabus, the popularity of the school grew very rapidly and within
ten years of its establishment the school had twenty three branches
with 450 students.
Like Mataji Maharani, Anandibai and Parvatibai also stressed upon
the need of educating women but with a traditional perspective.
Anandibai was a child widow who at the age of twenty two got
married to Dhondo Keshav Karve. Parvatibai, Anandibai’s sister,
was also a widow who decided not to remarry and to lead a
meaningful life. These two women worked for women’s education
under the leadership of Karve who was an advocate of education
for women, especially widows, to make them economically self
dependent. What must be underlined here is that though Karve was
a great supporter of women’s education, he was not in favour of
giving same kind of education to all women. His argument was
that the purpose of education for widows should be to make them
economically self-sufficient, but for unmarried girls education
should be a means to make them ‘good wives, good mothers, good
neighbours.’[Parvati Athavali, 1930] With these dual goals he
founded the Mahila Vidyalaya. In 1916 Karve established
Women’s University with the same goal as an alternative to
Western co-educational university. In this Women’s University
focus was on instructions in vernaculars and courses like Home
Science. Karve was of the opinion the women must be educated
like men but they need not be given the same education as both
have different roles to play. To quote him:
“ we must recognize that both national and social economy require
that women should occupy a station of their own distinct from that
of men… but that the office they have to fill is different, through
equal – perhaps greater in importance.”[D.K. Karve, 1936]

Parvatibai Athavali who became the superintendent of the Mahila

Vidyalaya was in full agreement with Karve’s vision on women’s
education and was of the opinion that women should be educated
for performing their ‘natural roles’ more perfectly and not at all for
entering into the public realm. Like Karve, she also considered
‘public roles for women as an aberration rather than the norm’.[
Forbes, 1998] It is significant to point out here that Parvatibai’s
stand on women’s issues was somewhere between reformist and
conservative. On the one hand, she refused to accept the orthodox
view that widows were a worthless section of the society who
could not lead a meaningful life after the death of their husbands
and hence advocated education for widow to make them self
reliant; on the other, she was against the reformist agenda of
widow remarriage. Further, her views on girls’ education testify
her conservative position as she argued that the purpose of
education for girls is not to make them self dependent because the
ultimate purpose of a girl’s life is to marry and so the education for
girls should be such as would prepare them for their marital and
family responsibilities. Therefore, she supported curriculum of the
Mahila Vidyalaya where emphasis was on training in child care
and home craft.

Thus, efforts of these traditionalist women social reformers

for women’s education were based on the principle that though
men and women both have a role to play in betterment of the
society, their roles are different and complementary.

Muslim Women’s Education and Contribution of Begum

Rokeya Sakhawat

While Maharani Tapaswini, Anandibai and Parvatibai took up the

task of educating Hindu girls, Begum Rokeya Sakhawat became a
significant figure in educating Muslim girls. She started an
institution for Muslim girls in Bhagalpur, Bihar in 1909. Then in
1911 she founded Sakhawat Memorial Girls’ School in Calcutta.
Begum Rokeya understood that any radical move on her part
would be damaging to her goal of educating Muslim girls.
Therefore, Purdah rules were strictly followed in her school while
transporting the girl students. She made it clear that education
would not divert women from their traditional roles, rather would
enable them in performing these roles more efficiently. Keeping
this goal in mind, the curriculum in Rokeya’s school included
practical subjects like handicrafts, home Science, gardening etc.

Begum Rokeya, on the one hand, appears to be a moderate who

wanted to educate Muslim girls without intervening into the
practices prevalent in the then Muslim society; on the other she
expressed her radicalism through her writings. She was a prolific
writer who wrote several articles on women’s pathetic condition
where she stressed the need to educate women, especially Muslim
women who were deprived of economic means and were
compelled to live a life of deprivation and permanent confinement.
She realized that it is only education which could free women from
this life of permanent deprivation and would help them in playing
their due role in society. Some of her famous essays are – ‘Borka’,
‘Ardhangi’, ‘Griha’ and ‘Sugrihini’. Raising her voice against the
practice of seclusion, she boldly wrote that seclusion ‘is not a
gaping wound, hurting people. It is rather a silent killer like carbon
monoxide gas.’ [Forbes, 1998] For such writings – which were too
radical for the 19th century Muslim society – Rokeya was widely
criticized and was even accused ‘of being Pro-Christian and
Europhile’. [Forbes, 1998]

Radical Women Voices and the Social Reform Movement

Unlike Anandiba and Parvatibai whose position was somewhere

between reformist and conservative, there were women who
blatantly took a radical position and directly objected to the
patriarchal structure of the Indian society. They challenged the
beliefs and norms of the Hindu society and thus met with strong
opposition and were projected as women who would ‘degenerate’
and ‘denationalize’ young Hindu women. Representatives of this
radical strand were Pandita Ramabai, Rakhmabai and Savitribai
Phule, who did not confine their efforts only to the cause of
education but directly attacked upon the gendered norms of the
Hindu society.

Pandita Ramabai overtly challenged Hindu patriarchy in her book

The High Caste Hindu Woman. Pandita Ramabai was a great
Sanskrit scholar and had studied the Hindu Shastras and Purans.
She was also an eloquent speaker. Being influenced by her oratory
she was given the title of ‘Saraswati’ by the Calcutta elite. In
Poona, she started working with the reformers to educate women
through the Arya Mahila Samaj. While presenting evidence before
Hunter Commission, she stressed on the need of educating women
and the need for women doctors and teachers. Gradually her acts
and views turned radical. She decided to learn English and study
medicine and with the financial help of the Anglo Catholic
Community of St. Mary the Virgin, she went to England where she
decided to accept baptism. Her move was harshly criticized in her
native country and her reforms were viewed with much suspicion.

With the goal of educating women for making them self-reliant,

she started Sharada Sadan, a school for widows in Bombay. Her
school was targeted by the revivalists and orthodoxy as a centre to
convert Hindu widows to Christianity. To reject such charges,
Ramabai made it clear at the opening of the school that the school
‘would not actively preach Christianity or try to make converts.’
[Radha Kumar, 1993] But despite this, Pandita Ramabai’s project
of educating women to make them self-reliant met with much
opposition.

This suspicion was further increased by a news published in the

December 1889 issue of the Christian Weekly which reported that
‘at present there are seven young widows in the Sharda Sadan, two
of whom have expressed their love for Christianity’ [Radha
Kumar, 1993].This news led to much outrage in revivalist circles.
To stop such criticisms and oppositions, Ramabai formed an
Executive Committee composed of reformers having a staunch
Hindu image. She thought that this step would silence the charge
of Anglicization, but this did not work and the orthodoxy and
revivalists kept criticizing Sharda Sadan as a centre of
degeneration and denationalization of Hindu womanhood. The
nationalist newspaper Keshari charged that Ramabai was
converting widows to Christianity. Finally, the school was shifted
to Poona due to financial crisis. Under the influence of revivalists
and conservatives many families withdrew their girls from the
school. But amid such criticisms and hardships Sharda Sadan did
not deviate from its primary goal of making women self reliant.
Eighty women had been trained by the school, and could earn their
livelihood through nursing and teaching by the year 1900.
In 1897 she established another school ‘Mukti’ at Kedgaon near
Poona where 2000 women and children were attending school as
well as getting industrial training. This school received funding
from an American Committee and due to financial support of the
committee–which did not have any objection to Ramabai’s
innovative and sometimes even radical schemes – Ramabai could
implement her plan of imparting such education which would not
make the inmates only materially self reliant but would lead to
generation of democratic spirit. A glance at the curriculum of the
school – which included Physiology, Botany, and industrial
training in printing, carpentry, tailoring, masonry, wood-cutting,
weaving and needle work and training in farming and gardening –
exemplifies the innovative ideas of Ramabai. When this
curriculum is compared to curriculum of Mataji Maharani
Tapswini’s Mahakali Pathshala and D.K. Karve’s Women’s
University where the focus was on subjects like Home Science and
handicrafts, the difference between the traditionalist and radical
approaches is quite evident. While the former wanted to make
women self-reliant citizens, the latter intended to make them better
wives and mothers. Though, both the groups agreed on the need of
educating women, they had major differences of opinion on the
purpose and content of women’s education. Recognizing
Ramabai’s unique contribution to the 19th century Social Reform
Movement, Forbes rightly comments: “Ramabai’s educational
work impressed contemporaries but her connection with
Christianity has obfuscated her contribution to women’s
education. An acknowledged Christian when hatred of the ruling
power was growing daily, her work angered some of the most
powerful men in Western India. [Forbes, 1998]

Ramabai could see the caste dimension of such criticisms and

boldly argued that, this new education is opposed by the high caste
men because it poses challenge to their dominant position.
‘Ramabai believed that the intensity of their [high caste men] anger
related to the fact that many of her pupils came from the higher
castes. She argued that these men would have remained
unconcerned if her work were confined to low-caste women.’
[Forbes,1998] .

Rakhmabai, another major radical figure made her life itself a site
for radical social reform. She got married to Dadabhai Bhikaji in
her childhood but when she grew up, she refused to live with her
husband and thus started a fight against the practice of child
marriage. Bhikaji filed a petition for restitution of his conjugal
rights and also won his case in the High Court of Appeal. But even
the decision of the Court could not stop Rakhmabai’s radical zeal
for freedom. She refused to obey the order of the Court and rather
preferred to pay the fine imposed by the Court. Her audacious step
was supported by Ramabai who openly condemned the judgment
of the Court and wrote: “Our only wonder is that a defenseless
woman like Ruhkamabai dared to raise her voice in the face of the
powerful Hindu law, the mighty British Government, the
129,000,000 men and the 330,000,000 Gods of the Hindus; all
these have conspired together to crush her into nothingness. We
cannot blame the English Government for not defending a helpless
woman; it is only fulfilling its agreement made with the male
population of India.” [Pandita Ramabai,1888]

Thus, Rakhmabai not only opposed child marriage but translated

her ideas into action. Uma Chakravarti addresses her as ‘the
recalcitrant wife whose education was the source of her desire for
a companionate marriage and the disavowal of her conjugal
obligations.’ [Uma Chakravarti, 2000]. However, her resistance
was not limited to her personal life. She became one of the
strongest voices against patriarchal Hindu institutions and
practices. Opposing the Hindu institution of marriage, she argued
that the Hindu institution of marriage is suffocating for women, as
it is based on total submission of wife to her husband. She was of
the view that this hierarchical marriage should be replaced by
companionate marriage. She was also a staunch critic of the
imposed widowhood. In her letter to The Times of India on
‘Enforced Widowhood’, Rakhmabai questioned the harsh
treatment given to Hindu windows. Unravelling the double
standards of Hindu Shastras and customs, she raised the point that
while a man is allowed to remarry immediately after the death of
his wife, but a woman after the death of her husband is treated as
sexually and morally dead being. She further charged that while
prescribing the rules to be followed by the widow, the Shastras did
not take into consideration the age of the widow and prescribed
one set of rules for all the widows. Ridiculing the practice, she said
that if a girl of five or six years married for the gratification of her
parents, loses her ‘child–husband’, this ‘child–wife’ – who hardly
knows the meaning of the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, ‘wifedom’
and ‘widowhood’ and ‘happiness’ and ‘misery’ – is as much a
widow as an elderly woman who loses her husband at the age of
seventy. Rakhmabai divided widows into three categories: (a) from
the age of 5 to 15 (b) 15 to 25 and (c) 25 to 35. Lamenting the
pathetic state of the widows of the first category, Rakhmabai said
that a widow of tender age ‘grows up in blessed ignorance till she
becomes a young woman and is able to comprehend the terrible
future that has been reserved for her by the gentle decree of her
human legislators.’ [Chakravarti and Gill, 2001]

Rakhmabai unflinchingly spoke against such double standards and

opined that these inhuman laws have remained unchallenged
because these laws were formulated by men to protect their
interests. In her letter to Ramabai she argued that these laws are
outdated and should be removed. To quote from her letter : “the
learned and civilized judges of the full benches are determined to
enforce in this enlightened age the inhuman laws enacted in
barbaric times, four thousand year ago.” [Quoted in Pandita
Ramabai, the High Caste Hindu Woman, 1888]

Like Ramabai and Rakhmabai, a very strong voice against

patriarchy in general and specifically against the upper caste
patriarchy was of Savitribai Phule who posed twin challenge to the
caste system and patriarchy.
Savitribai opened many schools in Maharashtra to educate lower
caste women and girls. Her most radical contribution to the social
reform movement was establishment of a centre ‘Balhatya
Pratibandhak Griha’ (Infanticide Prohibition Centre), where
unmarried women and widows could give birth to their illegitimate
children. She established this centre with her husband as a mark of
resistance against upper caste patriarchal morality. Continuing
their resistance against the gendered social customs of the Hindu
society, the couple, further, organized a strike to stop the barbers
from shaving the heads of widows as a mark of resistance against
the inhuman practice of tonsure of widows.
Analyzing Social Reform Movement from Women’s Studies
Perspective
From the above account of women’s participation in the social
reform movement, it is quite clear that women who participated in
the social reform movement vary in their approaches and
perspectives. Further, from the above account of women social
reformers, it cannot be and must not be concluded that women
equally participated in the social reform movement. On the
contrary, women were not the actual actors rather were treated as
the objects of reform. In fact, social reform movement was
dominantly a male movement. Sumit Sarkar rightly argues that the
social reform movement was aimed at only ‘limited and controlled
emancipation’. [Sumit Sarkar, 1973] Despite the few available
names of women social reformers, it is significant to underline that
‘women themselves were not partners in the schemes created for
their regeneration; more often they were portrayed as opposed to
their own liberation’. [Forbes, 1998] It was not at all a movement
for gender equality and gender justice in true sense of the terms. A
scrutiny of the 19th century social reform movement and women’s
participation in it from Women’s Studies perspective discovers the
point that though women participated in the social reform
movement but the perspective of women was largely missing.
Leela Kasturi and Vina Mazumdar rightly observe: “ Barring a
few exceptions, the ‘modernists’ or the ‘revivalists’ were not really
concerned with gender equality, women’s own desires or their
perspectives on dignity and justice. Nor were they aware of the
inter-relationship between patriarchal controls over women’s
freedom, roles and behaviour and the carefully preserved pluralist
hierarchical organisation of Indian society. Issues such as the
radical restructuring of the social order or of bridging the social
gap between different classes/ castes/ communities were very far
from most reformers’ aims. There were however some outstanding
exceptions.”

Summary

 The question of woman was at the centre during the 19th century
social reform movement, but voices of women mostly remained
at the margin.

 The major issues during the social reform movement were: child
marriage, Sati, widow remarriage, widow tonsure, polygamy
and women’s education.

 Women who participated in the social reform movement can be

divided into two categories: women who conformed to the
traditional roles and norms; and women who revolted against
them and were comparatively radical in their approach.
 On the issue of women’s education there was consensus on the
need of educating women among revivalists, reformists and
radicals but these three groups stand in opposition to each other
on the question of ‘why to teach’ and ‘what to teach’.

 Mataji Maharani Tapaswini’s Mahakali Pathshala was in

conformity with the revivalist ideal of education.

 Begum Rokeya Sakhwat took up the cause of Muslim women’s

education.

 Pandita Ramabai,Rakhmabai and Savitribai Phule were the

representatives of radical voices of resistance.

 Though women participated in the social reform movement but

the perspective of women was largely missing
References

 Athavale, Parvati. My Story: The Autobiography of a Hindu

Widow, (trans.) Revd. Justin E Abbott, New York: G.P.
Putnam, 1930.

 Karve,D,K. Looking Back, Poona: Stree- Shikshan

Samsatha,1936.

 Kaur, M,M. The Role of Women in the Freedom Movement

(1857-1947), New Delhi: Sterling, 1968.

 Cowan,Minna, S. The Education of the Women of India,

Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1912.

 Kosambai, Meera. “Woman Emancipation and Equality:

Pandita Ramabai’s Contribution to Women’s Cause”, EPW
23,No.44, October 29, 1988.

 The Letters and Correspondence of Pandita Ramabai,

compiled by Sister Geraldine, (ed.) A.B. Shah, Bombay:
Maharashtra State Board of Literature and Culture, 1977.

 Chakravarti, Uma: Rewriting History, Delhi: Kali for

Women, 2000.

 Ramabai,Pandita. The High Caste Hindu Woman, New

Delhi: Inter – India Publications, 1888.
 Chakravarti, Uma. and Gill, Preeti. Shadow Lives : Writings
on Widowhood, Delhi: Kali for Women, 2001

 Forbes,Geraldine. Women in Modern India, U.K.: Cambridge

University Press, 1998.

 Kumar,Radha. History of Doing, New Delhi: Zubaan, 1993.

 Bala, Usha. Indian Women Freedom Fighters, New Delhi:

Manohar, 1986.

 Everett,Jana, Matson. Women and Social Change in India,

New Delhi: Heritage Publishers, 1995.

 Sarkar, Sumit. “The Complexities of Bengal”, Nineteenth

Century Studies, 4, 1973.

 -------------“ Rammohun Roy and Break with the Past”, in

V.C.Joshi (ed.), Rammohan Roy and the Process of
Modernisation in India, Delhi :Vikas , 1975.