The Founding Mothers of the Indian Constitution

 I had the honour of participating as a panellist in a discussion titled "The Founding Mothers: 15 Women Architects of the Indian Constitution" held on 12 August 2025. 

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/08/11/nliu-bhopal-panel-15-women-architects-indian-constitution/ 

The session offered a valuable opportunity to reflect on the often-overlooked contributions of women to the making of the Indian Constitution and to evaluate the broader implications of their legacy in today’s socio-political landscape.

One of the central questions that emerged during the discussion was the socio-economic background of these pioneering women. It was observed that, except for two, the majority of these women hailed from elite, well-connected families. This fact, while seemingly exclusionary at first glance, needs to be understood within the historical and societal context of early 20th-century India.

During that time, female literacy was alarmingly low—according to the Census of India conducted in 1930, only 2.39 percent of women were literate. By the time India gained independence in 1947, the rate had only risen to 8 percent. Women's participation in public life was severely constrained by patriarchal norms, cultural taboos, and limited access to education. These conditions meant that leadership roles, especially in national politics and constitutional affairs, were often restricted to women from privileged families who had the rare advantage of education and public visibility.

In contrast, today the female literacy rate stands at approximately 70 percent. An increasing number of women are pursuing education, entering the workforce, and aspiring to positions of leadership. Yet, systemic barriers persist. Despite significant progress, women remain grossly underrepresented in institutions of power. For example, women currently constitute only 14.7 percent of India’s Parliament, and their presence in the Higher Judiciary—including the High Courts and the Supreme Court—remains disproportionately low. This is not due to a lack of qualified women, but rather the persistent reluctance of political parties and institutions to share power on equal terms. Even today, few parties nominate women in numbers proportionate to their male counterparts.

The 73rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced reservations for women in Panchayati Raj institutions, was a landmark reform. Today, over 1.4 million women serve in local self-government bodies. However, many of these women face institutional and social resistance, with some reduced to proxy representatives while male relatives continue to wield real control. This practice undermines the very spirit of democratic decentralization and gender empowerment.

We also examined the political dynamics that influenced the selection of members for the Constituent Assembly. Historical research reveals that orthodox nationalists at the time opposed the inclusion of women, arguing against their participation in the nation's foundational processes. Moreover, male leaders from the same communities often actively obstructed women's entry, using both formal and informal mechanisms to limit their involvement.

Another important subject of debate was the Women’s Reservation Bill, a proposal that remained stalled in Parliament for decades. The resistance to this bill was, and continues to be, rooted in the unwillingness of many male leaders to relinquish political space. Even though the Women’s Reservation Law has now been enacted, the promised 33 percent reservation for women in Parliament and State Assemblies remains far from implementation, largely due to delaying caveats and a lack of political will.

If we were truly equal, there would be no need for reservation. But equality in principle does not mean equality in practice. Social and economic hierarchies continue to affect access to education, employment, and power. Until we achieve genuine political equality—where everyone has an equal voice and opportunity—reservation remains essential as a corrective measure to address historical and structural injustices.

The conversation concluded with a consensus that any discussion around reservation and representation must go beyond symbolic gestures or numerical quotas. True empowerment requires us to confront the structural barriers that prevent marginalized groups—not just women, but also those from oppressed castes, classes, and communities—from accessing and exercising power. Representation must be paired with reforms that ensure meaningful participation and agency. It is not enough to have a seat at the table; one must also be heard, respected, and empowered to lead.

This discussion was a timely reminder that the legacy of the Constitution’s founding mothers is not just a matter of historical record—it is a living call to action. Their contributions challenge us to continue striving for a more inclusive, equitable, and democratic society.

Logic, Not Magic. Sanity, Not Irrationality: The Abandonment of Scientific Temper in India

 

India’s Constitution, a visionary document for a modern and inclusive republic, doesn’t merely prescribe laws—it envisions values. Among these is Article 51A(h), which urges citizens to develop a “scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” This clause is more than symbolic. It reflects the aspirations of a nation that emerged from colonial rule with the hope of building a society rooted in reason, progress, and democratic dialogue.

Yet today, this constitutional value stands not just neglected but deliberately undermined, especially by those wielding power. The dominant discourse amplified by mainstream media and political rhetoric is increasingly shaped by appeals to emotion, faith, and mythology rather than reason, science, and evidence. A growing emphasis on building temples, glorifying a selectively curated “Golden Vedic past,” and promoting a reactionary cultural agenda has led to a departure from rational thought. This shift risks replacing logic with superstition and critical inquiry with unquestioning beliefs. 

Instead of fostering rational discourse, public attention is diverted through a celebration of myth over history, ritual over science, and spectacle over substance. Temples are inaugurated with great fanfare while schools and research institutions struggle for basic funding. Political leaders promote pseudoscientific claims—from ancient aircraft in the Vedic era to cow-based cures—without evidence or accountability. Public policy is increasingly shaped not by scientific advice but by religious symbolism and emotional populism.

The mainstream media, far from being a watchdog, often becomes a megaphone for these narratives, glorifying mythology while marginalizing scientists, educators, and activists who raise rational concerns. Questioning is branded as anti-national. Debate is replaced by dogma.

The narrative being pushed encourages a mindset where complex social, economic, and scientific issues are met not with data and deliberation, but with simplistic solutions rooted in mythology and magical thinking. Whether it is the promotion of pseudo-science in education, the distortion of historical facts, or the sidelining of experts in favor of demagogues, the cumulative impact is a shrinking space for rational public discourse.

These irrational ideas are not harmless—they are cultivating an environment of collective delusion. When belief takes precedence over reason, it becomes easier to suppress dissent, to ignore the needs of the present by idolizing an imagined past, and to manipulate public opinion through spectacle rather than substance.

The result? A public sphere where irrationality is normalized, dissent is demonized, and critical thinking is on the retreat. This is not merely cultural regression—it is dangerous. 

At a time when the world is tackling challenges like climate change, AI ethics, health crises, and economic inequality, India needs evidence-based policy and scientific leadership, not magical thinking.

We must remember: Scientific temper is not anti-religion—it is anti-superstition. It does not oppose faith—it opposes blind faith. It encourages questioning, critical thinking, and reform—values that are not just essential for science, but for democracy itself.

India’s strength has always been its ability to question, to innovate, and to evolve. Upholding logic over magic, and sanity over irrationality, is not just a philosophical preference—it is essential for a modern, just, and progressive society. The path forward must be guided by evidence, reasoned debate, and scientific temper—not by dogma disguised as tradition.

To abandon a scientific temper is to betray the Constitution. To revive it is to reclaim the future.