Since the beginning of the feminist and civil rights movement until the present day, reality demonstrates that challenging patriarchal institutions requires collective action to dismantle patriarchy. The practical execution of this principle particularly through substantial male involvement has proven highly challenging.

In order to ensure gender justice, men need to be a part of the conversation too. Today, that may sound obvious. But it was a progressive idea, three decades ago. The focus then was clear and centred around empowering, supporting, and protecting women. But what about the men who were shaping our homes, clinics, schools, and policies, who make up the other half of the population?

Male involvement efforts

Global initiatives for male engagement in gender justice activities began increasing during the late twentieth century. In 1991 men in Canada started the White Ribbon Campaign in response to the killing of women students in Montreal. Latin America adopted political methods to solve problems of gender equality in its region. People from political backgrounds in Brazil and Nicaragua established groups that examined male roles within structures of gender domination in their society. These strategies for male involvement went beyond merely ‘helping’ women by exploring the interconnections between gender oppression and race, class and power systems.

Global platforms caught up soon thereafter. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo formally promoted ‘Male Involvement’, encouraging male participation in reproductive health initiatives, but unfortunately also restricted it to only this framework. The Fourth World Conference on Women during 1995 adopted the Beijing Platform for Action which integrated male involvement into the worldwide development agenda.

These initial approaches stopped at the surface and received major criticism from experts. Toxic male dominance remained untouched by initiatives which merely asked husbands to join their wife for visits at clinics, and to use contraception. In fact, in India, the male involvement approach reinforced gender norms in practice, wherein men were seen as responsible only for making travel arrangements so their wife could reach a hospital in order to deliver a child.

India’s Early Attempts: Health Over Structural Change

In India, men’s involvement in health, rights and anti-violence interventions pre-dated the ICPD. A notable example is the support of men from groups in Maharashtra to women protesters who opposed the use of amniocentesis for sex-selective abortions in 1986. This engagement with what was then viewed in a simplistic manner as a ‘feminist cause’ led to an expansion of perspectives in subsequent years, helped in no small way by the problematising of this issue by feminist scholars, demographers, and activists such as Malini Karkal, Asha Bhende, Manisha Gupte, Lata PM, and many others.

Following the ICPD, India adopted the Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) approach and initiated efforts towards involving men. Besides this, during the late 1990s both government entities and non-government organisations launched various awareness campaigns for male reproductive health education and HIV and AIDS prevention. The early 2000s also saw a rise in, what could be called ‘vector-based approaches’ in HIV and AIDS programming, where men, particularly Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) and truck drivers, were ‘targetted’ for prevention work. As Dr. Abhijit Das observed, this ‘pathologized’ men rather than understanding them as shaped by and capable of reshaping patriarchal systems.

Thus, the majority of intervention programmes in this period did not resolve core issues of systemic gender discrimination that sustained the problem. ‘Male helpfulness’ was admired while these ‘helpful men’ continued to exert control in their relationships with women. These short-term solutions skipped the core power systems that men dominated thus missing the chance to break male authority at the societal roots.

New Approach Towards Men and Masculinity

A critical turning point came with the emergence of masculinity studies across South Asia. In the early 2000s, a seminar series, Exploring Masculinities: A South Asian Travelling Seminar, conducted by Rahul Roy in six South Asian universities began exploring male identities beyond behaviour change. It brought together scholars, activists and students to examine the intersections of masculinity with culture, politics and social structures in the region. The work of Radhika Chopra, Kamla Bhasin, and Deepak Mehta had already set the context that pushed these discussions into deeper political terrain away from ‘sensitive men’ narratives and towards an interrogation of caste, class, sexuality, and power. This was a decisive moment when masculinities became a critical site of feminist engagement.

The MenEngage Global Alliance’s (established in 2004) reaching South Asia and actively mobilising individuals and groups working with men and boys started a new chapter in the region. During one of the South Asian consultation meetings in Kathmandu in January 2007, unlike Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh, India chose not to be one of the national chapters of MenEngage in South Asia, but to get back to a critical and reflective space within social justice movements in India and explore the possibilities of forming a national platform. As a result, Forum to Engage Men (FEM – as an abbreviation to also express ideological connections with feminist politics) came in to existence in 2007 as a nationwide platform dedicated to a discussion on masculinities and male accountability. It offered an informal space for like-minded practitioners who shared feminist ethics and democratic values in their work with men and boys to talk about masculinity in the broader and critical context of communalism, nationalism and poverty, thus ‘politicising’ discussions on men and masculinities and expanding concepts to go beyond ‘gender-sensitisation’, while delivering community-based insights to national and worldwide platforms.

SAMYAK: Creating Localised Political Responses to Work on Men and Masculinity

The first decade of 2000 was marked with confusions and tensions between various approaches to work with men and boys in the Indian context. The dominant funding trend restricted this work to the sexual and reproductive health framework. There were hardly any resources for what they would call ‘non-tangible’ issues other than for infection prevention, risk behaviours, contraception use etc. There were debates even within FEM about prioritising quality indicators over numeric evidence of transformation. There certainly were tensions between FEM and global actors as FEM declined to be the national chapter of the global entity, MenEngage, to retain its autonomy and political positions.

Established in October 2007, SAMYAK, meaning ‘the actual truth’, understood these tensions and worked to reveal how masculinities operate not only in gender hierarchies but also through caste, religion, and economic structures. SAMYAK differed from past reproductive health initiatives by focussing on masculinity itself rather than reproductive health. SAMYAK started offering training and workshops to various civil society organisations on working with men and masculinity. SAMYAK’s pedagogy was informed by feminist theorisations of intersectionality, power analysis and reflexivity. Our work is deeply influenced by the contributions of Kamala Bhasin, Rahul Roy, Deepak Mehta, Dr. Abhijit Das, and Satish Kumar Singh in India. We started including “The Personal is Political” conversation with men and boys and asked them to share their stories of privileges. These workshops began challenging the popular argument of “men are victims of patriarchy” by arguing that victimhood needs to be understood differently than men’s perceived notions of being discriminated against. SAMYAK’s community actions argued that it is not enough to address only sexual risks but that we need to challenge the risk-taking in all spheres of men’s lives which is associated with the notion of manhood and has social and cultural sanctions. For example, Youth for Equal Society (YES) was one of our initiatives with young men on Pune campuses that challenged dominant notions of manhood and reached out to ‘difficult youth’ who otherwise would not participate in any social activities on the campus. We started using popular Bollywood portrayals of masculinity in conversation with youth and conducted activities like photography competitions to capture portrayals of masculinity displayed on street commercials.

While SAMYAK shared ideological synergy with global spaces such as MenEngage, we were cautious to not simply adopt international frameworks without critical localisation. Our work remains rooted in South Asian political realities, engaging with diverse cultural scripts of masculinity while challenging their patriarchal foundations. We work primarily in the state of Maharashtra which is deeply influenced by Maratha history that plays out as one of the sites of production of meaning of superior caste masculinity in the state. Social and political institutions are still governed by upper caste Marathas. SAMYAK categorises these men and their institutions as ‘Not-So-Easy-To-Access-Groups’. These groups set the standards of manhood for the rest of the men in communities. Having identified these dynamics, SAMYAK, in 2008, decided to engage with the sugar and dairy cooperatives by offering workshops for their members on men, masculinity and violence against women. These cooperative institutions play an important role in local electoral politics, and therefore in the next two years SAMYAK also reached out to the Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) in western Maharashtra through these cooperatives. Through these connections we are still working with them on SRHR advocacy in PRIs.

Prioritising embedded community engagement over externally imposed metrics, we worked in collaboration with MenEngage, eventually shaping regional networks addressing domestic violence, child marriage, and male participation in SRHR. For example, in response to the call of the Fatherhood Campaign in India, which was part of the global MenCare campaign, SAMYAK worked with local partners in Maharashtra to locally contextualise the campaign. The campaign focused on promoting men’s roles as nurturing and non-violent caregivers, challenging the traditional gender norm that caregiving is solely a woman’s responsibility. It encouraged shared participation in child-rearing and domestic work as a pathway to achieving gender equality. However, SAMYAK found this approach to fatherhood to be linear and limiting the scope of campaign. In the Indian context, especially in Maharashtra, a father’s identity cannot be reduced to just his relationship with his children, and is much complex in the context of social roles, gendered expectations, and internalised patriarchal norms. It is essential to engage not only with men’s caregiving behaviours, but also with their internalised notions of masculinity and power. SAMYAK posited that we must also address men’s relationships with their spouses, other men, women and children in the community, and importantly, their own emotional selves to transform fatherhood. Therefore, engaging with men as fathers must involve a holistic understanding of their socialisation, emotional world, and position within patriarchal structures. By expanding the discourse beyond caregiving skills, SAMYAK helped conceptualise and frame fatherhood not just as a role, but as a relational and transformative space challenging dominant masculinities.

SAMYAK’s rural interventions also started discussions on men’s role in ensuring property rights for women. While retaining a grassroots base, SAMYAK also contributed to the national-level discourse as well as amplified international campaigns such as UN Women’s HeForShe (2014). We did this without becoming subsumed by these campaigns, instead using them to advance local narratives of gender justice. The HeForShe campaign received good publicity and media coverage and we took the opportunity to raise questions on ‘his’ role as a bystander in incidents of sexual violence against women and girls in public spaces.

Intersections, Campaigns, and Structural Interventions

From 2013 to 2020, SAMYAK deepened its interventions by linking masculinity to fatherhood, care, and structural violence. Campaigns like Bapanchi Shala (The Fathers’ School), across 10 districts in Maharashtra, encouraged men to redefine fatherhood. This was done by urging men to think about their own notions of manhood and reflect on what their patriarchal ideas of being a father were offering them, particularly in the context of the missing emotional connection with their children and spouses. They were asked to reflect on the kind of father they wanted to be. Collaborations with popular media, such as the TV show Satyamev Jayate (2014), helped bring these critical conversations into the public domain.

Simultaneously, a platform like Pitrusatta Virodhi Purush (Men against Patriarchy), Maharashtra, interrogated the intersections of patriarchy with caste and religion, affirming SAMYAK’s intersectional lens. The portrayal of men as those who oppose patriarchy was a strategic choice intended to invite and appeal to more men to engage in the conversation against patriarchy. Pitrusatta Virodhi Purush was established as a platform where activists, students, academicians, theatre and film actors, writers and poets, media personalities and lawyers, individuals with different gender and sexual identities, came together and deliberated on varied systemic dimensions of patriarchy and on how patriarchy operates in their lives. Through these initiatives, masculinity was not treated as a static identity but as a political terrain marked by privilege, power, and the potential for transformation.

Building Alliances and Institutional Change

By 2020, SAMYAK had expanded its work beyond the community level to include institutional engagement. It did this by creating training programmes for male leaders in governance, education, and business, equipping them with gender-transformative tools to reshape policies and public life. For instance, as a consultant and knowledge partner for the Government of Maharashtra’s agricultural development programme in the Vidarbha region, we have developed training modules focused on engaging men and boys, tailored for state-wide implementation. Since 2013, SAMYAK has been closely associated with the Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal (MAVIM), the Maharashtra government’s Women’s Development Corporation, successfully integrating its gender-transformative approach within government programming. Most recently, SAMYAK has trained thousands of male allies who are actively involved in promoting gender justice through MAVIM initiatives in 34 districts of Maharashtra.

Collaborations such as these with government agencies led to contributions in shaping public policies on Gender-Based Violence and male engagement. Importantly, SAMYAK has never treated institutional engagement as a substitute for community-based work. Rather, we view structural change as an outcome of synergy between grassroots mobilisation and policy-level transformation. As in the case with MAVIM, a government-run corporation, their decision to allocate financial resources for engaging with men through their own funded programme marks a significant structural shift within the policy domain. Considering the wide reach of MAVIM programmes across the state, this move has the potential to influence gender social norms on a large scale.

Despite progress, the path to radical change contains numerous complicated barriers. Various programmes still treat male involvement as symbolic, a mere gesture, not a commitment. Participation of men sometimes leads to praise even though these men do not face measurable standards that hold them responsible.

Concluding thoughts

A single universal programme design becomes impractical in India because of the diverse social groups spread across caste and religious boundaries as well as class structure and geographical areas. Programmes effectively implemented in Maharashtra may not do as well in northeast territories or Hindi-dominant areas. Nuanced and contextual engagement is key.

Deep patriarchal shackles cannot be broken with mere superficial gestures of men or ‘one size fits all’ strategies. Evidence-based male engagement strategies used in the global-north lack effective solutions for men in India. Instead, there is a need for active contextual efforts to engage with the dominant ideas of masculinities deeply rooted in complex social, cultural, historical, political realities in an India characterised by nationalism, religious traditionalism, social stratification and region-specific class distinctions.

Cover image by Pritam Potdar