India’s Empowerment Paradox: Why Jobs Alone Won’t End Domestic Violence
Work and property give women resources, but only shared decision-making and stronger protections can break cycles of abuse.
View as PDF
Binod Kumar Behera: Centre for Development Studies
Parijata Pradhan: Centre for Development Studies
SDG 5: Gender Equality | SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Institutions: Ministry of Women and Child Development | Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
For decades, policymakers have assumed that jobs, money and property are the safest shields against intimate partner violence (IPV). The logic has long been simple: give women jobs and they will gain independence, dignity, and protection from violence.. But India’s experience tells a more complicated story: when women step into the workplace or acquire assets, they do not always find safety.
This paradox does not suggest that women’s advancement is futile. It points instead to its unfinished nature. True empowerment is not about parallel incomes or property titles; it is about shared decisions, balanced power, and shifting the norms that tie masculinity to dominance.
More than Money or Property
India’s latest National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019–21) covered over 724,000 ever-married women, including more than 72,000 interviewed on gender-based violence. The findings are sobering: 29.3% of ever-married women report experiencing IPV, whether physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.
Yet the patterns of violence defy the standard narrative. Employment, for instance, does not guarantee protection. On the contrary, the study found that working women are more likely to experience IPV than those outside the labour force. But not all jobs carry equal risk. Skilled or professional work reduces the likelihood of IPV, while manual labour or agricultural work increases it, showing that the quality and context of employment matter as much as employment itself.
Ownership tells a similar story. House ownership correlates with a higher risk of IPV, while land ownership has no significant effect. Property on paper without autonomy or control inside the household offers little safety.
Decision-making power makes the biggest difference. Women who control only their own earnings are more vulnerable to violence, as such independence could be read as defiance of traditional roles. But when women have a say in how their husband’s income is spent, their risk of violence fell - suggesting that legitimacy in shared household decisions matters more than formal entitlements.
When Progress Feels Threatening
Why would new income or status invite harm? Sociologists describe a “status inconsistency”: when a wife’s education, job or even age surpasses her husband’s. In a culture where authority is coded as male, such reversals unsettle expectations. Some men, fearing loss of control, resort to violence to reassert it.
Education shows both promise and paradox. Each step up the ladder – primary, secondary, higher–reduces women’s risk of IPV, and husbands’ education offers a similar protective effect. Yet when wives are more educated than their husbands, the risk of violence rises – by nearly 9 percentage points compared to couples where men hold the higher qualification. Education lowers risk overall, but imbalances within couples can turn progress into provocation.
Who is Most Vulnerable
Household dynamics are only part of the picture. Wider social location also shapes risk. Women from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes report higher prevalence of IPV, reflecting disadvantages in education, income and access to justice. Rural women are more vulnerable than urban women, hemmed in by conservative norms and with fewer services to turn to.
Religion plays a role as well. Hindu and Muslim women report higher levels of IPV than Christian women.
Age is another factor. Younger women, especially those married before 18, face sharply higher risks. Child marriage entrenches dependency and widens the power gap within marriage. Alcohol stands out as perhaps the strongest predictor. Women whose husbands drink are three times more likely to report violence than those whose husbands abstain. The association is stark, making alcohol use one of the clearest correlates of IPV in NFHS-5 data.
Attitudes are no less important than resources. More than half of women surveyed – 54 percent – said wife-beating was justified if household or childcare duties were neglected. Such acceptance normalises violence and ensures it is passed from one generation to the next.
Connectivity, Media and Cultural Norms
Communication channels shape women’s exposure to both risk and protection. Greater access to traditional media – television, radio, newspapers – correlates with higher reports of IPV. One explanation is that aspirational messages about rights and autonomy may clash with household expectations; some men interpret women’s interest in such media as neglect of duties, and respond with aggression.
By contrast, internet use is associated with lower IPV. Online access connects women to information, legal remedies, and support networks that reduce isolation and strengthen bargaining power. In rural India especially, where services are sparse, digital access can be the line between silence and support. The gender gap online is therefore not just an economic issue but also a matter of safety.
Towards Holistic Reform
Reducing IPV demands reforms beyond the labour market. A three-pronged approach is needed.
First, shifting household norms. Programmes that shift family planning from a woman’s burden to a shared responsibility – along with joint financial literacy and employment initiatives – can defuse the sense of threatened authority that fuels violence. Social norms must evolve alongside women’s advancement; otherwise, each step forward risks being treated as provocation rather than gain.
Second, strengthening rights and protections. Laws such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act must be more than words on paper. Enforcement remains weak, and services like shelters, helplines, and counselling centres are under-resourced. Expanding them would show the state’s serious commitment to women’s safety. Alcohol use is such a stark predictor of violence that credible prevention strategies must include de-addiction support and tighter regulation of access. Equally, enforcing India’s prohibition on child marriage – still common despite being illegal – is one of the clearest ways to reduce IPV, by closing off a deeply entrenched source of power imbalance.
Third, expanding enabling systems. Schools, internet access, and community institutions are not only social goods but also frontline protections against violence. These interventions must also address how communities enforce family roles and conformity, which sustains vulnerability across caste and religious lines. Embedding IPV awareness into everyday services makes protection part of daily infrastructure, not an afterthought.
Reform as Process, Not Event
India has already transformed women’s education and aspirations within a generation. More young women today see work outside the home not as an exception but as an expectation. Awareness of IPV is far greater than in the past, and reporting is less taboo. These shifts create fertile ground for deeper change.
But the challenge is to extend reform into the private sphere, where decisions about money, mobility, and respect are negotiated daily. Economic growth and jobs are vital, but they must be matched by reforms that redefine partnership at home. Empowerment is not a separate track for women; it is a shared journey for families and communities. Until households are redefined as sites of equality, the paradox will persist: progress in the public sphere shadowed by violence behind closed doors..
View as PDF
Authors:
The discussion in this article is based on the authors’ research published in the Journal of International Development (2025). Views are personal.