On November 26 this year, India will celebrate 75 years of its Constitution. Formulated and drafted after intense debates and meticulous deliberations by the Constituent Assembly over three years (1946-49), the Constitution is a testament to the collective will of pioneering individuals who, despite their numerous differences in matters of society, culture, politics, and policy, came together to produce a living and evolving document that continues to inspire millions to strive for a democracy built on principles of freedom, equality, and social justice.
Of the Constituent Assembly’s 299 members, 15 were women. In their book titled The Fifteen: The Lives and Times of the Women in India’s Constituent Assembly, the authors Angellica Aribam, a political activist, and Akash Satyawali, a public policy professional, chronicle the stories of these trailblazing women and their influences, experiences, and the convictions they stood for, besides their invaluable contribution to the making of the Indian Consitution. In an interview with Frontline, the authors contend that while these were “remarkable women but not without their flaws”, they navigated extraordinary challenges to leave a lasting imprint. Edited excerpts:
What inspired you to research and write about these 15 women in the Constituent Assembly? Walk us through your process.
Angellica Aribam: The idea of this book came to me in 2018 when I was going through the Constituent Assembly debates as a way of dealing with a mental health episode. I came across a speech by Begum Qudsia Rasul wherein she called reservation a “self-destructive weapon”. As a representation activist, I didn’t agree with her but I was very intrigued. I wanted to know more about her and the other women members—who were they, what was the sociopolitical climate that shaped their worldview, what were their politics, and why did they do the things they did. It soon became a rabbit hole.
Unfortunately, there was a lack of information about these women leaders. Our history books have invisibilised the contributions of women leaders in forging modern India, and it didn’t feel right. Therefore, I reached out to [co-author] Akash and we decided to embark on this journey. Our attempt with this book is to provide the reader with a comprehensive knowledge of the women behind India’s Constitution and a window into the world wherein these women navigated extraordinary challenges and left lasting imprints.
Also Read | Emerging challenge to the Constitution
You describe how Ammu Swaminathan confronted Dr B.R. Ambedkar over women’s representation in the Hindu Code Bill committee, prompting laughter from male members. How pervasive was such sexism in the Constituent Assembly, and how did these women navigate/manage it?
Akash Satyawali: Parsing through the debates, we find that sexism was very common. A male member, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, rose and called for “protection against women”, essentially implying that recognising women’s rights put men at a disadvantage. The fierce opposition to the Hindu Code Bill, which was seen as a vehicle for religious reform and women’s emancipation, shows how patriarchal the environment was.
Renuka Ray wrote in her autobiography how Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was the binding factor amongst the women members. All of them regularly met, ideating on the way forward regarding women’s rights. It helped that most of them had been members of the All India Women’s Conference [AIWC].
Published by Hachette India, The Fifteen brings alive the history of the Indian Constitution in rich detail and pays tribute to the undeniable contribution of women to the Indian republic.
In 1952, Constituent Assembly member Annie Mascarene noted women comprised only 5 per cent of Parliament in the First Lok Sabha. Today, that figure stands at 14 per cent. What has perpetuated this low representation? How do you view the Women’s Reservation Act in light of some of the Fifteen’s scepticism toward gender quotas?
Angellica: There are several issues at play here. Ingrained patriarchy and the inability of men to cede space are two prominent roadblocks leading to the low representation of women in politics. Sexism is prevalent in the political system even seven decades after independence. It is to be noted that the subject of a gender quota in legislative bodies was extensively discussed in the Constituent Assembly. But the women members objected to it on the grounds that it would limit women’s representation as well as cause divisions in the freedom struggle. In July 1947, Renuka Ray spoke in the Constituent Assembly: “When there is reservation of seats for women, the question of their consideration for general seats, however competent they may be, does not usually arise. We feel that women will get more chances in the future to come forward and work in free India, if the consideration is of ability alone.”
In my opinion, if they were alive today and saw the abysmal number of representation of women in the Assemblies and Parliament, they would have vociferously fought for a gender quota.
Many of these women held simultaneous positions in organisations like the AIWC, the Congress, and the Muslim League. How did they balance these potentially conflicting allegiances?
Akash: AIWC was formed in 1927 by the merging of various women’s groups to further the agenda of women. Initially, AIWC focussed on women’s education, later on expanding its ambit to include social reform. They pushed for outlawing child marriages, raising the age of consent, and banning polygamy. AIWC believed that women’s emancipation was not possible without reforming the various religious laws (personal codes). Over the next decades, women leaders worked towards building consensus for reforming the existing personal laws to ensure gender parity.
The individual politics of the women leaders were undoubtedly different but they were tied by the common thread of reforms for women. There were of course conflicts but mostly it was between senior women activists who didn’t agree with the progressive thoughts espoused by the young women leaders. Renuka Ray faced criticism for advocating for the right to divorce and women’s right to an inheritance. Similarly, Hansa Mehta’s commitment to affecting substantive change also brought her into conflict. They tried to affect compromise where possible and bring the conversation back to social reforms.
The announcement of the Communal Award caused major fissures. AIWC decided to oppose women’s reservation as they felt reservation was a divisive tool. The Muslim members were not pleased with this position. A formal break in unity did happen when the Muslim League demanded a separate nation.
“Without a robust feminist movement, the Indian Constitution may have glossed over several fundamental issues.”
Dakshayani Velayudhan’s journey from Gandhian thought to the Ambedkarite movement (in her post-political career) is fascinating. Does her shift reflect the broader success of Ambedkar’s approach to Dalit emancipation?
Angellica: Dakshayani faced caste oppression throughout her life. She belonged to the Pulaya caste, an untouchable or “slave” caste. Despite the abolition of slavery in the latter half of the 19th century, the Pulayas were forced into bonded labour and were not allowed to draw water from public wells or walk on the same roads as upper-caste people. Dakshayani’s family members were involved in the resistance movement and were inspired by Sree Narayana Guru’s social reform movement. Growing up in this backdrop, Dakshayani was vocal against casteism. As a follower of Gandhi, she believed in the power of his message of changing mindsets of the upper-caste people.
She was a strong woman who was unafraid of speaking her mind. She called untouchability “a sin against humanity”. In the Constituent Assembly, she used her voice to highlight the plight of the Dalits. In the 1970s, she formed a Dalit women’s organisation and worked to upskill them. To me, it is clear that though she had differences with Dr Ambedkar’s approach, there was never any disrespect. Dakshayani referred to him as “one of the greatest sons of India”. It was not uncommon in politics to be respectful and critical at the same time.
Akash Satyawali. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement
The Hindu Code Bill emerges as a crucial battleground in your book. Could you elaborate on its significance for women’s rights and how some of the Fifteen shaped its passage?
Akash: For decades, women’s groups had been agitating for progressive laws. The women leaders were conscious that any major gain in the status of women was not possible without a holistic reform of the religious laws. The biggest challenge to women’s education was child marriages. Should the husband pass away, a widow was at the mercy of the husband’s family, having no formal right in the property. The enactment of the Sarda Act and the Age of Consent Bill were some of the earlier victories. In 1930s, the Deshmukh Act recognised a widow’s right in the husband’s property. Although effective, these were piecemeal reforms.
At least three of the 15 women were at the receiving end of regressive laws. Durgabai Deshmukh and Ammu Swaminathan were child brides and Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit stared at a tumultuous future when her husband died. Vijaya and Ranjit [Pandit] did not have a male heir and the latter did not write a will. Her in-laws refused to give her a share.
The incessant advocacy by the women leaders was essential in creating support for the Hindu Code Bill. In 1945-46, AIWC adopted a charter of rights and duties and presented it to the Constituent Assembly. The Charter comprised several demands that struck at social inequities. When Prime Minister [Jawaharlal] Nehru decided to defer the enactment of the Bill, it left the women leaders disappointed. Renuka Ray and Durgabai Deshmukh complained to the Prime Minister who assured them his support. Eventually, in 1955, the Bill was broken down into separate bills and passed.
The fight for the Hindu Code Bill was concurrent with the demands for a Uniform Civil Code [UCC]. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Hansa Mehta moved an amendment to make UCC a part of fundamental rights. Their proposal was shot down.
You mention consciously avoiding personal bias while analysing these women’s stories. Why did you choose this approach, and what are your thoughts on critical historical analysis while acknowledging historical context?
Akash: We wanted to give the reader an accurate portrayal of their politics, ideologies, and what shaped their beliefs. It would be unfair to the protagonists and the readers if we let our biases come in the way. This choice was based on our experience during the research when we came across material that was often hagiographic and devoid of the context of the women’s lives. These were remarkable women but not without flaws.
Angellica Aribam. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement
In a deeply patriarchal society, these women achieved remarkable success. What role did the men in their lives—fathers, husbands, mentors—play in their journey?
Angellica: The families played a crucial role in the lives of the women. Often, they had to juggle domestic lives and political activism. A supportive family and partners who were understanding helped the cause immensely. Husbands of Hansa Mehta, Leela Roy, Malati Choudhury, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, and Sucheta Kripalani were fellow travellers in the freedom struggle. Renuka Ray’s husband was a bureaucrat who supported her activism even when it threatened his career. Begum Rasul, Hansa Mehta, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, and Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit benefitted from the mentorship of their fathers, who were stalwarts of the era.
Also Read | A vote for constitutional values
How different might India’s Constitution be if these 15 women had not been part of its creation?
Akash: One objective of our book was to show that there was more to constitution-making then what transpired in the Assembly debates in the three years from 1946 to 1949. By the time the framers set down to write the Constitution, the demand for equality to be expressly enshrined had taken root. Similarly, there was consensus on the need for a governing structure that addressed social and economic inequities. This was the result of years of advocacy by different groups. For nearly three decades before the assembly first convened, women leaders had been demanding equal civic rights. It was their advocacy that ensured the Uniform Civil Code was seriously deliberated upon and eventually formed part of the directive principles of state policy.
Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Begum Qudsia Aizaz Rasul’s interventions were significant in building support for the abolition of religion-based reservations. Kaur and Hansa Mehta played a crucial role in ensuring the scope of the right to religion was subject to social welfare. G. Durgabai’s amendment to reduce the age of Rajya Sabha membership from 35 years of age to 30 was accepted by the House. Renuka Ray and Purnima Banerji’s opposition to the right to property as a fundamental right was not paid heed to in the Constituent Assembly. But in 1978, it was removed from fundamental rights and turned into a legal right.
Without a robust feminist movement, the Indian Constitution may have glossed over several fundamental issues. A good illustration of this is the US Constitution that proclaims “all men are created equal”. But since it did not expressly mention “women”, they were denied basic rights for over a century. While drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Hansa Mehta intervened and expressly demanded that they use gender-neutral terminology.
COMMents
SHARE