Decoding the Uttarakhand UCC

 Someone asked me that in your piece, you argue that the Uttarakhand UCC law should be revoked. Can you provide an overview of your reasons and key concerns with this law?

In my response, I stated that 

My work on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) https://amzn.in/d/9gVOmlz explores it from a rights-based and gender justice perspective. It is always valuable to engage critically with the law, its intent, and its impact—particularly on marginalised communities. 

I addressed this question in two parts. First, I will outline the historical and constitutional context of the UCC. Then, I will elaborate on my specific concerns regarding the Uttarakhand UCC.

---

I. The Historical and Constitutional Context of the UCC

To evaluate any law, including the UCC, it is crucial to examine its historical origins, the political conditions in which it emerged, and the vision of those who advocated for it. Law is not a neutral instrument; it can either empower citizens or be used to curtail their rights. Colonial India, for instance, witnessed the implementation of laws like sedition that were meant to suppress dissent, while post-Independence India has enacted progressive legislation like the Right to Information Act, designed to foster transparency and accountability. Thus, a critical understanding of the law requires us to ask: Who makes the law? For what purpose? Whose rights does it protect—or undermine?

In my another academic work https://riverapublications.com/article/resisting-gendered-citizenship-the-politics-of-colonialism-nationalism-and-maternalism-in-india, I have explored how, during the freedom struggle and the framing of the Indian Constitution, three forces shaped the discourse on women’s rights and citizenship: 

(1) a top-down approach followed by the colonial state and many nationalist leaders, which viewed women as belonging to their religious or community structures; 

(2) a progressive approach championed by key Indian reformers and the women’s movement, which imagined women as autonomous citizens; and 

(3) the lived experiences of women who resisted gendered forms of exclusion and demanded inclusion on equal terms.

The drafting of the Constitution was deeply informed by feminist and human rights discourses of the time. Women such as Hansa Mehta, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, and leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad advocated for a Common Civil Code not as a tool of homogenisation, but as a mechanism to ensure equality, secularism, and justice—principles enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution. The objective was to eliminate discriminatory practices, particularly those based on religion and gender, and to bring personal laws in line with constitutional morality.

However, due to the tumultuous context of Partition and the accompanying communal tensions, the Constituent Assembly decided to include the UCC not as a fundamental right but as a Directive Principle of State Policy—an aspirational goal rather than an enforceable mandate. This compromise reflected a desire to balance the demand for gender justice with the need to respect cultural and religious diversity.

Even so, women across communities have consistently approached the courts since Independence to demand reforms in personal and family laws, thereby advancing the project of gender justice incrementally and constitutionally.

---

II. Concerns with the Uttarakhand UCC

Against this historical backdrop, the recent enactment of the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand raises serious concerns. When analysed through the lens of citizenship, autonomy, and constitutional rights, the current legislation reveals a deeply problematic orientation. It reflects a coercive, top-down approach that runs contrary to the vision of the Constitution-makers. My key concerns are as follows:

1. Lack of Democratic Process:
   The law has been introduced in a rushed and opaque manner, without adequate consultation with stakeholders, legal experts, civil society, or marginalised communities. Notably, the Law Commission of India in its 2018 report concluded that a UCC was neither necessary nor desirable at that stage. This hasty imposition undermines democratic deliberation and consensus-building.

2. Erosion of Women’s Rights:
   While the Code claims to promote gender justice, it does not expand women’s rights. Instead, it reinforces paternalistic narratives that depict women—particularly Muslim women—as victims in need of state protection. This approach not only infantilises women but also selectively targets certain communities under the pretext of reform, while ignoring systemic misogyny within dominant caste and religious groups.

3. Selective and Communal Framing of Justice:
   The rhetoric surrounding the law often draws upon communal tropes—such as "saving Muslim women from triple talaq" or preventing “love jihad”—while failing to address the violence and structural inequalities faced by Hindu, Muslim, Dalit, Adivasi, and other marginalised women. There is no serious attempt to challenge caste-based patriarchies or to address gender-based violence perpetrated by dominant caste men.

4. Criminalisation of Personal Autonomy:
   The law criminalises live-in relationships, regulates inter-caste and interfaith marriages, and mandates the registration of marriages. More troublingly, it links this registration to access to welfare schemes and government benefits. This effectively penalises those who choose to live outside the framework of heteronormative, state-sanctioned marriage and is a clear violation of constitutional rights to privacy, liberty, and dignity.

5. Disregard for Cultural and Legal Pluralism:
   India’s constitutional ethos is built upon unity in diversity. The Uttarakhand UCC disregards the plural legal traditions of various communities—particularly Adivasi and minority groups—and instead seeks to impose a homogenised cultural framework. Such an imposition not only undermines the rights of minorities but also deepens the trust deficit between citizens and the state.

6. State Overreach and Moral Policing:
   Rather than expanding rights, the law enhances the state’s ability to monitor and regulate the personal lives of citizens. It reflects an ideological project aimed at moral policing and cultural control, rather than genuine reform based on equality or justice.

---

Conclusion

The Uttarakhand UCC does not further the cause of gender justice or constitutional morality. It is not about Viksit Bharat, Nari Shakti, or women’s empowerment. Rather, it represents a regression—a centralised, authoritarian, and discriminatory attempt to rewrite personal law through a narrow ideological lens.

For these reasons, I believe the Uttarakhand UCC should be revoked. Instead, we need a democratic, inclusive, and rights-based process of legal reform—one that respects pluralism, advances substantive equality, and upholds the spirit of the Constitution.

Because I Am a Woman, I Write

 Because I Am a Woman, I Write

"Why waste your time with books and screens?"
They ask with furrowed brows and sighs,
"Why not just cook, and clean, and care,
Be what tradition still implies?"

 

But listen now, I will explain,
Why ink and thought must be my light:
Because I am a woman, I write.

Long kept silent, denied my say,
I write to carve a freer way.

For dreams once caged to take their flight,
For truth to blaze, I must write.

No hand but mine shall script my fate,
No silence stitched by fear or hate.
For every battle yet in sight,
With every breath—I choose to write.

 

To voice the fire that won’t sit still,
To break the mold, to bend the will,
To tear down walls of false power, hypocrisy, and pride,
To bring lost justice to my side.

To shatter the embedded misogyny

To reclaim my dignity, I write

To challenge the myths and to shatter the hegemony

Because I am a woman, I write

 

 To challenge rules that chain and bind,

To free the body, soul, and mind,
To build a world of equal rights, 

To power my fight, to write the rights

Because I am a woman, I write.

 

Inspired by the poem Because I am I Girl I must Study by Kamla Bhasin 

 

Shalu Nigam 

 

 

India Must Inculcate Scientific Humanism

  India Must Inculcate Scientific Humanism

India must cultivate scientific humanism to advance in the 21st century. Both India and China, neighboring countries with large populations, faced social and economic challenges in the past. India endured colonial exploitation, while China experienced semi-colonial domination until its 1949 revolution.

In recent decades, India has made significant strides in science, including the launch of ISRO's Mars mission and the development of vaccines. However, it has also placed considerable emphasis on cultural and religious projects, such as the Ram temple and the Kumbh Mela. Meanwhile, China's emphasis on scientific humanism has driven its rapid technological progress, with significant investments in research and development.

To truly progress, India must increase its investment in scientific research and foster a national culture that prioritizes scientific temper alongside humanist values. This balance of financial investment and cultural shift is crucial for India's long-term growth.

What is Scientific Humanism?

Scientific humanism is the philosophy that combines the rigor of scientific inquiry with the compassion and ethical grounding of humanistic values. It combines scientific inquiry with humanistic values, like empathy, ethics, and justice. At its core, it upholds that science should not be an isolated pursuit of knowledge or power, but a tool to enhance human welfare, dignity, and justice.

As MN Roy, a global thinker and revolutionary in the 20^th century, put it,

"The rise of modern science represents a reassertion of a fundamental human trait — the spirit of inquiry. Human beings are not passive observers of nature; action and exploration define our existence. The evolution of science is deeply tied to the evolution of humanity itself." [1]

Scientific humanism promotes rationalism, critical thinking, and evidence-based decision-making, not just for technological or economic advancement, but for inclusive and equitable social development. It insists that science must be guided by ethical reasoning and social responsibility.

In today’s context, this means ensuring that scientific progress addresses public needs, reduces inequality, and respects cultural and environmental values. Scientific humanism advocates for a balanced, people-centered approach to progress — where innovation serves not just profit or power, but the broader, shared goals of human flourishing and global well-being.

Scientific humanism and progress in China

After 1949, China had a centralized, authoritarian system under the Communist Party. This allowed long-term planning and massive state investment in key sectors (e.g., nuclear weapons, aerospace, education). Projects were often prioritized regardless of short-term economic costs. Since 1978, China has focused heavily on industrialization, exports, and technology transfer. Directed policy toward building a manufacturing and technology powerhouse. Massive investment in STEM education, government-funded research institutes, and sending students abroad. R&D spending now exceeds 2.4% of GDP (as of the early 2020s). World's 2nd-largest R&D spender, leaders in AI, green energy, 5G, space (Chang’e missions). Strong state support for AI, semiconductors, space, and biotech. Science and technology are seen as key to national power and self-sufficiency (e.g., Made in China 2025, military tech). High political will to challenge U.S./Western tech dominance. used science as a tool for national pride (e.g., nuclear bomb in 1964, space missions).

Scientific humanism in China has played a significant role in modern development. By fostering a culture that prioritizes education, inquiry, and technological progress, China has been able to align state policies with long-term scientific goals. The inculcation of scientific temper in the public consciousness, promoted through educational reforms and public discourse, has been instrumental in this transformation.

The concept of scientific humanism in China seeks to harmonize scientific progress with humanistic considerations. Historically, this integration has been influenced by both Western and Chinese philosophical traditions, aiming to balance empirical inquiry with ethical and societal concerns[2].

China has significantly increased its investment in research and development, focusing on areas such as quantum technology, artificial intelligence, aerospace, and biotechnology. The nation has established national laboratories, launched ambitious space missions, and developed advanced infrastructure to support scientific research[3]. China’s programs like the "863 Program" have been instrumental in fostering technological innovation, leading to numerous patents and advancements in various scientific fields

China has actively sought international collaboration in science and technology, engaging with over 160 countries and regions. The nation has signed numerous intergovernmental agreements and participated in global initiatives addressing challenges such as climate change, clean energy, and public health[4] .  Despite geopolitical tensions, China continues to advocate for open scientific cooperation, recognizing its role in addressing global issues and contributing to the collective advancement of knowledge.

China aims to become a global AI leader by 2030, with AI integrated into key sectors like healthcare, education, and manufacturing. In January 2025, China launched a National AI Industry Investment Fund with an initial capital of 60 billion yuan (approximately $8.2 billion) to accelerate AI innovations[5]. has developed extensive data centers and cloud platforms to support AI research and applications. Chinese AI models have demonstrated performance parity with leading global models, showcasing the country's advancements in AI research and development[6]. Its DeepSeek AI compares with the AI developed by the USA.

Recognizing the importance of cultivating a scientifically literate society, China has implemented educational reforms to strengthen science education at all levels. The Ministry of Education has mandated that primary and secondary schools intensify their science curricula, aiming to inspire interest and support students' pursuit of science studies at higher education institutions[7] . These reforms are designed to foster a generation that values scientific inquiry and understands its implications for society, thereby promoting a culture of informed public engagement with science.

China's scientific development is characterized by a strong state-led approach, significant investment in research and development, and active participation in international collaboration. The integration of scientific humanism into this framework is an evolving process, aiming to ensure that scientific advancements serve the public good and align with humanistic values. As China continues to advance scientifically, the ongoing dialogue between innovation and humanism will play a crucial role in shaping a future where science contributes positively to society.

While China has made significant progress in scientific and technological innovation, the integration of humanistic values into its scientific endeavors presents ongoing challenges. The nation's rapid development must be accompanied by careful consideration of ethical, social, and cultural factors to ensure that scientific advancements contribute positively to society.

The evolving discourse on scientific humanism in China reflects a commitment to aligning scientific progress with the broader goals of human development, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers both technological innovation and humanistic values.

China offers a compelling comparative model. Its rapid technological advancement has been driven by massive state investment in research, infrastructure, and education. The state-led push toward innovation has turned China into a global leader in fields like artificial intelligence, green energy, and high-speed transportation. However, critics argued that China’s model often sidelines democratic values, human rights, and the ethical debates that should accompany scientific progress. The result is a highly efficient but technocratic system where the humanist dimension of science is often overshadowed by utilitarian goals.

India, by contrast, stands at a crossroads. While it seeks technological rise, it also cherishes a revival of religious and cultural identity. This creates tensions. Scientific humanism offers a bridge between these competing impulses, enabling India to modernize without losing sight of its ethical and pluralistic foundations.

Scientific Temper and the Indian Ethos

Scientific Humanism and India’s Developmental Path

India’s post-independence vision, as shaped by leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, strongly emphasized the cultivation of a scientific temper—a mindset grounded in rationality, critical thinking, and inquiry. This was enshrined in the Indian Constitution under Article 51A(h), which urges citizens to develop a scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of reform. However, while India has made impressive strides in areas like information technology, pharmaceuticals, and space exploration, the broader societal embrace of scientific thinking remains uneven.

Superstition, pseudoscience, and religious dogma continue to influence public discourse and policy, often undermining evidence-based decision-making. Despite creating world-class institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and ISRO, India still spends only about 0.6–0.7% of its GDP on research and development—a fraction of what’s needed to drive deep technological innovation or achieve strategic autonomy.

India adopted democracy at independence in 1947, making it more inclusive and participatory than many postcolonial nations. However, social and economic challenges, including poverty, inequality, illiteracy, and corruption, frequently took precedence over building scientific infrastructure. Moreover, economic liberalization began only in 1991, further delaying industrial and technological modernization.

Despite these constraints, India has shown remarkable scientific achievements in recent decades. ISRO’s Mars Orbiter Mission (Mangalyaan) in 2013 and its growing space capabilities—evident in the Gaganyaan human spaceflight programme—have earned global recognition. Similarly, India's leadership in vaccine development and production, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighted its growing role in global health and biotech sectors.

In the realm of artificial intelligence, the Indian government launched the ₹10,000 crore IndiaAI Mission in 2024 to build a national computing infrastructure and foster ethical AI development[8]. States like Odisha have introduced AI education in schools, while companies such as TCS, Infosys, and Wipro are investing in AI solutions, helping build a robust technological ecosystem.

Yet, alongside these scientific gains, a strong resurgence of cultural and religious identity has also shaped India’s public sphere. Projects like the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and the organization of the Kumbh Mela—while fostering national pride and cultural continuity—reflect a growing emphasis on spiritual heritage. The resurgence of cultural nationalism has diverted attention and resources from scientific research and rational inquiry. This dual focus raises important questions: Can India balance its scientific ambitions with its cultural revivalism? And how can both coexist without undermining each other?

The risk lies in allowing cultural nationalism to overshadow the pursuit of scientific humanism. While cultural pride has its place, when it diverts attention and resources from rational inquiry and evidence-based policy, it hampers inclusive development. Public discourse, education, and national priorities must be realigned to ensure that science and critical thinking are not sidelined by ideology or dogma

Despite the constitutional mandate, India has yet to fully internalize the ideals of scientific humanism—a philosophy that combines scientific inquiry with humanistic values like empathy, justice, and equity. Scientific temper must go beyond laboratory achievements; it must be embedded in everyday life, governance, and education.

Moving forward, India must do more than celebrate its scientific milestones. It must foster a culture of curiosity and skepticism at the grassroots level. This includes revamping education to prioritize inquiry over rote learning, promoting public engagement with science through accessible media, and building institutions that uphold reason and transparency.

Crucially, science must be guided by humanist values. Without empathy, social responsibility, and ethical grounding, scientific progress risks becoming exclusive, exploitative, or misdirected. For India to truly thrive in the 21st century, it must embrace a development model rooted in scientific humanism—where knowledge serves humanity, and rationality is paired with compassion.

The Difference

India and China, the two most populous nations in the world, have experienced contrasting historical trajectories and have adopted different developmental priorities in the post-colonial era. While both countries have made significant advancements in the early 21st century, particularly in science and technology, their strategies and societal orientations toward scientific inquiry diverge.

India developed scientifically, but China’s scale, planning, and investment in science and technology have been more aggressive and state-directed. China has strong and clear strategic plans in terms of scientific development. India is yet to take steps to focus on scientific development. China has taken a centralized and sustained approach to scientific development. It has invested heavily in research and innovation across multiple domains, including artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology, and space exploration. This strategic focus is underpinned by a broad societal endorsement of scientific progress and the institutional promotion of scientific humanism, a worldview that emphasizes rational inquiry, human welfare, and empirical evidence as foundations for social advancement.

China's scientific development is characterized by a robust state-driven approach emphasizing innovation, technological advancement, and international collaboration. China's AI development is characterized by significant investments and infrastructure. In contrast, India is building its AI ecosystem through strategic initiatives, educational reforms, and private sector involvement.  While the nation has made significant strides in various scientific domains, the integration of humanistic values into its scientific endeavors—often referred to as "scientific humanism"—remains an evolving aspect of its development trajectory.

China's leadership has articulated a clear vision for scientific advancement, underscoring its importance for national prosperity and global standing. President Xi Jinping has emphasized the need for close integration between science, technology, and the economy, advocating for deep collaboration among industry, universities, and research institutions to drive innovation[9]. The "Scientific Outlook on Development," introduced by former President Hu Jintao, encapsulates a socio-economic principle that integrates scientific socialism with sustainable development, social welfare, and a humanistic society. It aims to balance economic growth with the well-being of the populace, emphasizing human-centered development.

Scientific Humanism and India’s Development: Balancing Innovation with Morality

India needs to inculcate the spirit of scientific humanism. This is a philosophy that blends rational inquiry with empathy and ethics, advocating for science as a tool to uplift humanity rather than as an end in itself. In India, this approach is essential—not only to sustain innovation but to ensure that progress benefits all, not just a privileged few. As Roy argued,

“Religion is bound to be liquidated by science, because scientific knowledge enables mankind to answer questions, confronted by which in its childhood it was compelled to assume supernatural forces or agencies.”[10]

Embedding the philosophy of scientific humanism into its developmental model is crucial not only for sustaining innovation but also for ensuring that such progress uplifts society at large.

Despite constitutional commitments to foster scientific temper, India faces serious challenges: low R&D spending (~0.7% of GDP), weak integration of science with policymaking, rote-based science education lacking ethical or humanistic grounding, and widespread pseudoscientific beliefs. Religious dogma and mythologizing of history often distort public understanding, while scientific gains remain concentrated in urban elite spaces, leaving rural and marginalized communities behind.

To embed scientific humanism into national development, India must reform science education to include critical thinking, ethics, and societal relevance; invest in public science communication; and integrate social impact assessments into all major tech projects. A proposed National Scientific Humanism Mission (NSHM) could coordinate cross-sector efforts, establish interdisciplinary advisory boards, and align innovation with public good.

Public engagement should be expanded through vernacular media, “Village Science Fellows,” and support for grassroots innovators, especially women, Dalits, and Adivasis. Institutional ethics boards should be mandatory across emerging fields like AI and biotech, and national frameworks must ensure that technological growth remains equitable, inclusive, and sustainable. India should also position itself globally as a champion of ethical science rooted in values like Ahimsa and Sarvodaya. With the right policy framework and cultural commitment, India can lead not only in innovation but in making science a force for justice, dignity, and human flourishing.

The Path Ahead: Policy, Investment, and Cultural Change

For scientific humanism to take root in India, action is needed on multiple fronts. First, there must be greater investment in research and development. Second, scientific training must begin at the foundational level, with curricula designed to foster creativity, experimentation, and ethical reasoning. Third, public science communication must be improved to combat misinformation and encourage critical thinking in everyday life.

Additionally, scientists and technologists must be encouraged to engage with broader social and ethical questions. Whether it's AI, genetic engineering, or climate innovation, science cannot operate in a vacuum. Ethical foresight, public deliberation, and a commitment to human dignity must shape how these technologies are developed and deployed.

India stands at a defining moment in its development journey. Its achievements in space and technology show the heights it can reach. But to sustain and deepen this progress, India must go beyond mere technical prowess and embrace scientific humanism as a guiding philosophy. This means coupling investment in science with a cultural shift toward rationality, empathy, and ethical responsibility. Only then can India build a future that not only advances human knowledge but also affirms human dignity.

For India to fully realize its scientific and developmental potential, it must not only invest more substantially in research and innovation but also cultivate a widespread commitment to scientific humanism. This involves reorienting public discourse, reforming education, and supporting institutions that champion reason, evidence-based thinking, and critical inquiry. Balancing cultural pride with a future-oriented scientific vision is essential for sustainable and inclusive national progress.

China’s example demonstrates how a coherent alignment of policy, public education, and cultural values can drive transformative change. If India seeks to compete on the global scientific stage and address its developmental challenges, fostering a culture rooted in scientific temper is not merely desirable—it is imperative.

---

[1] Roy MN (1947) Science and Society, Indian Renaissance Institute, Calcutta p. 10

[2] On Chinese Historiography Thought of Scientific Humanism in the 1920—1940s

[3] Financial Times (2024) Transcript: China race to tech supremacy – New Frontiers, June 18 Transcript: China's race to tech supremacy — New frontiers

[4] Yu Yan (2024) China’s open sci-tech cooperation benefits humanity, July 5, China's open sci-tech cooperation benefits humanity

[5] Lim Lionel (2024) China is doubling down on local chip development with a new 4.75 billion fund: The Size of fundraising speaks for itself., May 28, China is 'doubling down' on chip investment with $47.5B Big Fund III | Fortune Asia

[6] Global Times (2025) China set up 60 billion yuan investment fund to accelerate AI innovations: media report, January 20, China sets up 60 billion yuan investment fund to accelerate AI innovations: media report - Global Times

[7] China primary, secondary schools to beef up science education | Reuters

[8] S&P Global (2024) India’s AI Ambitions: Can public-private partnership lead the way? September 19, India’s AI ambitions: Can public-private partnerships lead the way? | S&P Global

[9] English.Gov.CN (2017) Xi Jinping’s Remarks on Scientific Innovations, May 27, Xi Jinping’s remarks on scientific innovation

[10] Roy MN (1947) Science and Society, Indian Renaissance Publishers, Calcutta p 9

Women Demanded New Shastras in Colonial Times: Today, Reclaiming Agency is Required to Rewrite History

 

In colonial India, women expressed their concerns and demands for equal citizenship rights through a variety of strategies and platforms, navigating the deeply patriarchal structures of both colonial governance and indigenous traditions. They participated actively in reform movements, formed women's organizations, and engaged in public debates on social and political issues. One significant avenue of this activism was the All India Women’s Conference (AIWC), which became a prominent forum for articulating women's rights.

Historian Janaki Nair noted how women assertively and intellectually engage in forging equality during heated debates on raising the age of consent for marriage.  

"When Madan Mohan Malaviya, an early ideologue of Hindu nationalism, articulated his opposition to raising the age of consent for marriage in 1928 by citing the sanctions of the sastras (Hindu scriptures), some women of the All India Women’s Conference demanded ‘new sastras’.’ This signified a recognition by the Indian middle-class women’s movement of the need to enter the world of knowledge production, and anticipated by several decades the demand of feminist historians not just for new histories but for a reinvention of the historical archive."

This was not simply a rhetorical flourish—it signified a radical challenge to the male-dominated religious and intellectual order that had long been used to justify the subordination of women.

By calling for new sastras, these women asserted the right to reinterpret religious texts and cultural traditions through a feminist lens. As Janaki Nair notes, this demand anticipated, decades later, calls of feminists to forge new ways of writing history. These early activists recognized that true citizenship for women would remain incomplete without challenging and reshaping the very foundations of knowledge and authority that underpinned social inequality.

This feminist assertion—the willingness to challenge foundational structures of authority and to claim the right to reinterpret cultural, religious, and historical narratives—is notably absent or diminished in many contemporary feminist movements in India. Where early 20th-century women boldly confronted patriarchal traditions by demanding not only political rights but also intellectual and cultural agency, today’s feminist discourse often finds itself either co-opted by institutional frameworks or constrained by the pressures of identity politics, state nationalism, or neoliberal agendas.

That spirit of epistemological rebellion, of questioning the very foundations of tradition and authority, has in many ways given way to more cautious or fragmented interventions. While feminist activism today continues in important and diverse forms—from legal battles to social media campaigns—there is often a lack of engagement with the deeper structures of cultural and religious authority that continue to shape gender norms in insidious ways.

Moreover, in the current socio-political climate, where majoritarianism and a renewed emphasis on cultural "authenticity" have taken center stage, feminist voices that question scripture, reinterpret tradition, or critique nationalism are frequently marginalized or labeled as "anti-national" or "Westernized." The space for the kind of radical feminist reimagination that AIWC women called for in 1928—one that sought not just inclusion but transformation—is shrinking.

Reclaiming that legacy today would mean going beyond policy reforms or symbolic representation. It would require confronting dominant narratives, rethinking inherited epistemologies, and insisting on women's central role in producing knowledge, shaping culture, and reinterpreting tradition. In a time when the past is often invoked to justify gender hierarchies, the feminist challenge must rewrite that past—and to demand not only new laws, but new sastras, new histories, and new imaginaries of justice.

References

Nair Janaki (1994) On the Question of Agency in Feminist Historiography, Gender and History, 6(1) 82-100

Nigam Shalu (2025) Resisting Gendered Citizenship: The Politics of Colonialism, Nationalism, and Maternalism in India, Gender and Women’s Studies, 6(1) 1-24 DOI: 10.31532/GendWomensStud.6.1.001