Why the Constitution in a Congress leader’s hand matters for every woman

The rights Indian women enjoy today were not gifts from tradition. They emerged from prolonged struggles against social orthodoxy—led by reformers, women’s movements and constitutionalists such as Dr B R Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru.

More than an election symbol:

When a Congress leader carries the Constitution during an election campaign, it should not be dismissed as mere political symbolism. That book represents India’s decisive transition from a hierarchical social order to a constitutional democracy founded on liberty, equality and individual dignity.

It protects women, Dalits, Adivasis, minorities and every citizen vulnerable to social or political domination. For women in particular, the Constitution transformed them from dependents within a patriarchal order into citizens possessing enforceable rights.

Ambedkar’s work began before Independence:

Ambedkar’s commitment to women’s emancipation did not begin with the Hindu Code Bill. Addressing women’s gatherings, he encouraged women to become educated, organise themselves, oppose oppressive customs and participate in public life. As a member of the Bombay Legislative Council, he supported maternity benefits for women workers in 1928. Later, as Labour Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council between 1942 and 1946, Ambedkar promoted labour-welfare measures, including maternity protection and improved working conditions.

He understood that political democracy could not survive alongside inequality inside the family. His call to “educate, agitate and organise” was not meant only for men. Women’s progress was central to his conception of social progress.

A collective constitution:

The Constitution was a collective achievement, not the work of any one person. The Constituent Assembly originally had 389 members; after Partition, its strength was reduced to 299.

Only 15 members were women. Yet leaders such as Hansa Mehta, Durgabai Deshmukh, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Dakshayani Velayudhan, Ammu Swaminathan and Renuka Ray made important contributions to debates on equality, liberty and social reform.

As Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Ambedkar performed the indispensable task of converting numerous proposals and debates into a coherent constitutional framework.

Women become equal citizens:

Article 15(3) expressly authorised the State to make special provisions for women and children.

Most importantly, independent India introduced universal adult franchise from the beginning of the Republic. Every adult woman received the right to vote without needing property, education, social status or the permission of a male guardian.

The battle for equality within the family:

Ambedkar knew that voting rights alone could not liberate women. As independent India’s first Law Minister, he championed the Hindu Code Bill to reform marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and guardianship.

Traditional Hindu law was not completely devoid of women’s property rights. Stridhana existed, and the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools differed on inheritance. Describing marriage gifts or “pasupu-kumkuma” as evidence of equality confuses a discretionary gift with a legal right. A gift depends upon the giver; a right belongs to the individual.

Why the Hindu Code Bill was opposed:

The Hindu Code Bill faced organised resistance from orthodox groups, conservative Hindu leaders and sections of Congress itself. The RSS and organisations ideologically close to it opposed the reform as governmental interference in religious law. The RSS-associated Organiser also campaigned against the Bill.

The resistance became so intense that the original Bill was repeatedly delayed and eventually stalled. Deeply disappointed, Ambedkar resigned from Nehru’s Cabinet in September 1951, identifying the abandonment of the Hindu Code Bill as a principal reason.

Nehru completed the unfinished reform:

Jawaharlal Nehru did not permanently retreat. After the first general election, his government divided the proposals into separate laws and secured their passage:

* The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

* The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

* The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

* The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act converted many forms of a Hindu woman’s limited estate into her absolute property.

The reform was still incomplete. Daughters received equal coparcenary rights by birth only through the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. Social reform, therefore, was not a single event but a continuing constitutional journey.

The RSS, Manusmriti and the Constitution:

The ideological difference became evident soon after the Constitution was adopted. An editorial published in the Organiser on November 30, 1949, complained that the Constitution contained nothing derived from the ancient constitutional tradition associated with Manu. In February 1950, the publication carried another article titled “Manu Rules Our Hearts.”

Manusmriti reflected a hierarchical social philosophy and contained verses portraying women as requiring male guardianship during different stages of life. The Constitution moved in the opposite direction: it recognised women as independent citizens possessing fundamental rights.

Constitution must remain supreme:

The Constitution ensures that even a parliamentary majority is not unlimited. Laws can be examined by constitutional courts when they violate fundamental rights. Following the Supreme Court’s 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment, Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy the Constitution’s basic structure.

This protection is vital for women and minorities because majoritarian approval cannot legitimise the destruction of individual rights.

A historical choice before women:

This does not mean that every Congress leader was progressive or that every RSS member held identical views. Conservative Congress members also obstructed Ambedkar’s Bill. The more meaningful question is: which political tradition ultimately constitutionalised equality, enacted reform despite opposition and continued to expand women’s legal rights?

Ambedkar may be studied, debated and criticised—as every democratic thinker should be. But abusing him because his constitutional philosophy challenges inherited privilege is unacceptable.

The rights women enjoy today were not generously gifted by tradition. They were debated, opposed, legislated and won.

To defend the Constitution is to defend the dignity, equality and independent citizenship of every Indian woman.

(The writer is Vice-President of the Telangana Mahila Congress)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rekha Boyapalli

[email protected]