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.

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

Human Rights in Everyday Life in India: The Praxis from Below

Human Rights in Everyday Life in India: The Praxis From Below

Cambridge Scholar Publishing UK  

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-0364-4929-2

Today, I received the author copies of this book. It deals with the rhetoric of human rights that is being contested and debated theoretically at various levels. Drawing on several field-based examples from the Indian context, it illustrates how the frameworks of oppression and resistance operate in tandem. It argues that the oppressors manipulate the rights paradigm to justify oppression, whereas the oppressed leverage the same discourse to contest marginalization and assert their dignity in everyday lives. Despite challenges, the wretched of the Earth articulate the language of rights to ‘educate, organize, and agitate’ to challenge oppression and formulate positive rights to demand their dues. In the process, these people's struggles harness lok-shakti (people’s power) to consolidate the idea of swaraj (self-rule) while shattering the monolithic discourse of rights to imagine a diverse worldview. This work suggests reimagining a just world by strengthening the struggles of ordinary people to consolidate the rights framework. 

While relying on Richard Falk's theory of globalization, which contrasts the phenomenon of Globalization from above with Globalization from below, in the context of the Third World, this work argues that the situation of marginalization is based on dual dynamics. The dominant regressive narrative is hostile, whereas the progressive discourse emerging from everyday struggles of the poor and the vulnerable is based on the praxis of rights and challenges the dual hegemony of neoliberalism and authoritarianism. Human rights advocacy, therefore, is more than just ratifying treaties or addressing the cases of rights violations. It is a tool for the defranchised to right the wrongs. The vocabulary of rights operates in numerous ways, from demanding policies and laws to check barbarism and foster democracy. The rights-based approach is being used to contest for redistributing resources and challenging oppression, guised as patriarchy, casteism, poverty, and other forms of structural discrimination.  

Reframing Scholarship of Pain and Resistance: Praxis and the Politics of Voice

Someone recently asked me why my writing style differs from that of scholars who focus on gender, law, human rights, or governance. The answer lies in the perspective I bring to my work. As both an activist and a practicing lawyer, my writing is grounded in the lived realities of survivors, victims, and their families, with whom I engage directly. These are not abstract issues for me; they are deeply personal and urgent.

I didn’t begin with theory. I began by listening to stories of pain, injustice, resilience, and survival. I began by documenting what I witnessed and what was shared with me in spaces far removed from academic institutions or policy think tanks. These narratives became the foundation of my writing. From there, I started to reflect, analyze, and develop theoretical frameworks rooted in those experiences. This method, which I sometimes describe as a “bubble-based” approach, allows for theory to emerge organically from real-life contexts, rather than imposing pre-existing frameworks onto them.

In contrast, I have encountered several academic scholars—though certainly not all—who adopt what might be described as an “armchair” approach to theory. They produce work that is intellectually sophisticated and methodologically rigorous, yet remains curiously detached from the lived realities of the very communities they analyze or claim to represent. This disconnection between scholarship and the social worlds it purports to understand, in my view, reflects a troubling contradiction. It is a form of academic abstraction that, while cloaked in the language of neutrality, effectively sidelines the voices and struggles of those most impacted by the issues under study. The politics of divorcing research from on-the-ground realities is not just an epistemological choice—it is, I would argue, a hypocritical stance that sustains the very structures of inequality many scholars claim to critique.

The academic establishment often valorizes objectivity and neutrality, holding them up as hallmarks of legitimate scholarship. But in a world structured by systemic oppression, neutrality becomes complicit. As historian Howard Zinn aptly observed,

“Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now.”

Neutrality, in this sense, is not a position of distance but of alignment—with the status quo. Zinn further argues that “objectivity is not desirable because if we want to have an effect on the world, we need to emphasize those things which will make students more active citizens and more moral people.” His call is a reminder that knowledge production is never apolitical.

Another important point is that laws and policies are often written by those in positions of power who benefit from privilege. As a result, the language used can be complex and inaccessible, creating barriers for ordinary people. To ensure fair access to justice, the public must simplify and decode this language. When academic or legal discussions rely on overly technical or elitist language, they alienate the very people they claim to serve. In this way, the language of the privileged becomes a tool of exclusion. This is why demystifying the law is not just helpful—it is necessary.

For me, research must be a practice rooted in both theory and praxis—it is a deeply engaged practice that must be rooted in both critical theory and lived experience, in both analysis and action. It should not only analyze the world but also engage with it—intervening where possible, proposing policy alternatives, and informing legal or structural change.

Scholarship should not be a passive enterprise, limited to the distant observation or interpretation of societal phenomena. Rather, it must be an active force that engages with the world—immersing itself in the urgent realities faced by individuals and communities. True scholarship carries a responsibility not only to understand and explain injustice but also to intervene where such injustice persists. This involves more than critique; it demands the courage to challenge entrenched power structures, to offer visionary alternatives to systems of oppression, and to contribute meaningfully to legal, policy, and institutional reforms.

Such engagement is not optional—it is central to the ethical mission of scholarship. It is about righting historical and present wrongs, advocating for those who have been systematically marginalized, and working toward the emancipation and liberation of all people. This kind of transformative scholarship recognizes that knowledge is not neutral. It can be a tool of domination or a vehicle for justice. Therefore, scholars must use their intellectual labor to advance equity, dignity, and freedom, both within and beyond the academy.

I believe in a mode of research that is grounded, participatory, and accountable—one that is developed in conversation with, and in service to, the communities it seeks to understand and uplift. This kind of intellectual work does not treat suffering as an object of curiosity but engages it as a site of resistance and possibility. Writing about pain and struggle is not an act of voyeurism—it is a weapon of theorization, a means of narrating survival, defiance, and hope. It stands in stark contrast to armchair scholarship that maintains the illusion of objectivity while remaining complicit in the status quo.

My writing often resists conventional academic norms, and this resistance is intentional. I write in ways that center the voices of those who have been ignored, silenced, or erased by dominant systems of knowledge production. I strive to amplify marginalized perspectives and construct knowledge from below—starting with lived realities, not imposed frameworks.

This approach to scholarship is unapologetically political. It acknowledges that all knowledge is produced within power relations and that choosing how and what to write is itself a political act. In doing so, I hope to contribute to a more just and engaged form of scholarship—one that does not shy away from the moral and political dimensions of intellectual work.

In that sense, my work is a form of rebellion—a refusal to conform to depoliticized intellectual traditions, and a commitment to using research as a tool for justice, resistance, and transformation. I see research not just as a way to understand the world, but as a step toward changing it.

 

 Zinn Howard (1990) Declaration of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology, Harper's Collins

Zinn Howard (2008) A People’s History for the Classroom

 

Of Nationalism, Jingoism, Othering, and Belongingness

 

The article was published on countercurrents.org on 12 June 2025

https://countercurrents.org/2025/06/of-nationalism-jingoism-othering-and-belongingness/

It explored the concept of nationalism in India, highlighting its historical trajectory and the troubling ways it has been manipulated in contemporary politics. I critique the rigid, exclusionary form of nationalism that has emerged, particularly under the influence of neoliberal and authoritarian ideologies, leading to the marginalization of various groups. Here's a breakdown of the key points:

1. Historical Context of Nationalism

• Nationalism in India, like in other parts of the world, began as a means to unite people against colonialism and imperialism. It was initially shaped during the 19th and 20th centuries, often drawing from shared language, culture, and history.

• However, there have been two strands of Indian nationalism: a progressive, inclusive vision based on constitutional morality and democratic values, and a reactionary, exclusionary version that glorifies a mythic past and is rooted in religious identity.

2. Weaponization of Nationalism

• The piece argues that nationalism, traditionally a unifying force, has been weaponized by those in power. It has been used to suppress dissent, undermine civil liberties, and consolidate power, often at the expense of minorities.

• In India, nationalism has increasingly merged with religious identity (especially Hindutva), neoliberalism, and authoritarianism, leading to an aggressive form of nationalism that prioritizes the interests of the dominant groups.

3. Nationalism vs. Belongingness

• Nationalism is often equated with belongingness, but this article emphasizes that belonging is a multi-dimensional concept shaped by caste, class, race, gender, and nation. Thus, belongingness is not a one-size-fits-all idea and must be inclusive of all these intersecting identities.

• The rise of pseudo-nationalism (rooted in exclusion and rigidity) has made it harder for diverse groups to feel included in the national fabric.

4. Impact on Women

• Nationalism has had particularly detrimental effects on women, especially during Partition. Women were often seen as the embodiment of national honor—their bodies became battlegrounds for territorial claims and communal violence. The recovery of abducted women was framed as a matter of national prestige rather than addressing the trauma and agency of the women themselves.

5. Critique of Nationalism by Intellectuals

• Key figures like Rabindranath Tagore, Dr. Ambedkar, and MN Roy critiqued nationalism for its moral perversion and its potential to undermine individual freedoms. Tagore warned that nationalism could numb moral consciousness and promote collective egoism, while Ambedkar argued that nationalism in a deeply hierarchical society like India, marked by caste and religious divides, was incompatible with true national unity.

6. Contemporary Nationalism and Jingoism

• In today's India, nationalism has evolved into jingoism—an aggressive, hyper-patriotic sentiment. This version of nationalism often equates criticism of the state with disloyalty or treason, leading to a polarized society where dissent is silenced, and minorities are marginalized.

• Nationalism has become synonymous with militarism and emotional spectacle, with symbols like the national flag or the army being used to demand unquestioning loyalty rather than promoting civic responsibility or inclusiveness.

• 7. Role of the State and Society

• The article critiques how the state and political movements (like the BJP) have co-opted nationalism to serve their own agendas, particularly through the promotion of a masculinist version of nationalism.

• Scholars have noted the intersection of Hindutva, neoliberalism, and authoritarianism, which has further entrenched exclusionary nationalism, focusing on narrow, majoritarian views of identity that fail to include India's pluralistic society.

• 8. Gendered Aspects of Nationalism

• Nationalism is not a neutral force but inherently gendered, prioritizing male experiences and values in the dominant narrative. National identity often draws from masculinized ideals like valor, sacrifice, and authority, positioning men as central to history and citizenship while relegating women to symbolic or supportive roles.

• Political theorists like Carol Pateman and Cynthia Enloe argue that nationalism often marginalizes women by assigning them symbolic roles (e.g., "mother of the nation") while overlooking their political agency and intellectual contributions.

• Challenging this masculinized nationalism is crucial to developing an inclusive national identity that recognizes the diverse experiences shaping the nation.

• 9. Nationalism and Rising Populism

• There's a growing convergence of nationalism and populism, with right-wing populists using nationalist rhetoric to rally support through fears of immigration, globalism, and cultural dilution.

• Leaders in countries like the USA, Brazil, and Hungary exploit nationalism to justify policies that curtail freedoms, suppress opposition, and consolidate power, often undermining democratic institutions

• The rise of religious nationalism has fueled division, xenophobia, and the erosion of human rights, with nationalist ideologies manipulating people's fears to create an "us vs. them" mentality.

• 10. Phony Nationalism and Othering

• Phony nationalism refers to superficial patriotism that manipulates national pride for political control, using exclusion, fear, and spectacle to stifle democratic values and social cohesion.

• • The concept of "Othering" comes into play here—where individuals or groups deemed "different" or "outsiders" are stigmatized, excluded, or oppressed based on race, ideology, gender, or religion.

  • This form of nationalism breeds division, obscuring India's rich pluralism and making the national identity narrower, exclusionary, and increasingly majoritarian.

  11. Nationalism and Global Inequality

  • In the wake of global crises like economic downturns, mass migration, and the COVID-19 pandemic, nationalism has widened global inequalities. Countries increasingly prioritize domestic interests over international cooperation, weakening global solidarity.

  • For instance, vaccine nationalism during the pandemic left poorer nations with inadequate supplies, deepening disparities in health and economic outcomes.

  • Nationalist policies often exacerbate economic inequality, restrict migration, and fuel xenophobic or protectionist policies, which only strengthen global hierarchies and reinforce inequalities both within and between countries.

  12. Nationalism and War

  • Ethnic nationalism or ultranationalism often promotes the belief in the superiority of one nation, which can rationalize conquest, colonialism, or ethnic cleansing.

  • Nationalism plays a significant role in wars and secessionist movements, often justifying the use of force in the name of national unity, honor, or restoration of national greatness.

  • This fuels internal and external conflicts, creating a climate of fear and division where national security is prioritized over diplomacy and human rights.

  13. Globalization, Neoliberalism, and Nationalism

  • Forces like globalization, neoliberalism, and digitalization have reshaped nationalism by fostering interconnectedness and eroding traditional national boundaries.

  • While globalization and digitalization have enhanced global integration, they have also exacerbated economic disparities within nations, contributing to the rise of economic nationalism.

  • Economic nationalism seeks to reclaim economic sovereignty and resist global capitalism’s adverse effects, but it often reinforces exclusionary politics and undermines democratic ideals. This can be seen in both the USA and India, where economic nationalism has been used to foster polarization and social division.

  14. Oligarchy and Nationalism

  • Rising economic inequality has empowered a small elite to accumulate disproportionate wealth and political influence, often exploiting nationalist sentiment to protect their interests.

  • In many cases, nationalist rhetoric is used to suppress dissent, distract from structural injustices, and consolidate power in the hands of the elite. This undermines democratic institutions and fuels a system where the elite thrive at the expense of the broader population.

  15. Rethinking Belongingness

  • Belongingness is redefined as more than just membership in a nation-state. It means being accepted, valued, and integrated into a community, with the agency to participate and influence the structures that define society.

  • True belonging goes beyond national identity and must consider how intersectional factors—such as caste, class, race, gender, and religion—shape individuals' experiences of inclusion or exclusion.

  • In the age of polarization, identity politics, and rising nationalism, fostering genuine inclusion requires expanding the concept of belongingness to embrace diverse experiences and create inclusive communities.

  16. The Redundancy of Nationalism in the 21st Century

  • The article argues that nationalism, in its exclusionary, jingoistic forms, is inadequate to address the challenges of the 21st century, like climate change, migration, and rising inequalities. The regressive focus on national identity obstructs global solidarity, hindering progress on issues that require international cooperation.

  • In contrast, alternatives like targeted universalism, cosmopolitan belonging, and globalism emphasize human dignity, freedom, and justice beyond borders. These frameworks allow us to move beyond toxic polarization and build cohesive societies grounded in social justice.

  Conclusion

  The article critiques the traditional notion of nationalism in India and how it has been manipulated to serve political interests, particularly in the age of neoliberalism and authoritarianism. It warns that contemporary nationalism, particularly in India, has taken a dark turn toward jingoism and exclusion, and advocates for a return to the inclusive, progressive ideals that originally shaped the national movement. It advocates for an inclusive, globally connected vision of belongingness that transcends national borders and majoritarian ideologies. It imagines a future grounded in progressive universal values—such as human rights, sustainability, and diversity—is necessary to reflect the aspirations of a pluralistic society and India’s role in the global community. It stresses the importance of embracing a more inclusive, democratic, and global vision of belongingness that can truly unite people, rather than dividing them based on rigid, exclusionary national identities

Conceptualizing Freedom: M.N. Roy’s Revolutionary Blueprint for India’s Constituent Assembly

 

https://amzn.in/d/aiN4bMd

This book is available at Amazon 

It is about the significant contribution made by the Indian intellectual leader, M.N. Roy, who first proposed the idea of convening a Constituent Assembly in 1928, amid opposition to the Simon Commission. He argued that Indians must independently frame their Constitution, rejecting any Assembly under British control as lacking true sovereignty. 

This book explores Roy's vision of the Constituent Assembly. As a revolutionary, he visualized the CA as a democratic body arising from mass struggle, not a mere legal formality. Over time, he developed this vision through speeches and writings. He also advocated for including Fundamental Rights, as seen in the 1931 Karachi Resolution. For Roy, constitution-making was a transformative act of collective political will, rooted in the people’s active participation. He also authored the draft Indian Constitution in 1944, which was circulated by the Radical Democratic Party.

This work argues that Roy’s conception of the Constituent Assembly differed from his contemporaries and extended far beyond the procedural mechanics of constitution-making. For Roy, constituting the Constituent Assembly was a radical, democratic, and revolutionary project rooted in the active participation of informed, conscientious citizens addressing the immediate concerns of the masses.

This book concluded that if applied today, Roy’s vision could serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of participatory democracy. It underscores the need for civic engagement, transparency, and public accountability in constitutional governance, especially in times when democratic institutions are under stress. His ideas remain relevant as they challenge us to envision constitution-making not as a bureaucratic task but as a continuous, inclusive, democratic, people-driven process.

A quote from this book to demonstrate Roy's idea of the Constituent Assembly:

In his address at Faizpur, Roy elaborated on his idea of the Constituent Assembly, stating, “A Constituent Assembly means nothing less than a challenge to the self-assumed prerogative of the British Government to dictate the political right of Indian people…For us the Constituent Assembly is not only an agitation and propaganda slogan but also a slogan for practical politics. When we raise the slogan, we raise the issue of the capture of power.”

Another quote by MN Roy, as mentioned in this book 

"The idea of the Constituent Assembly means the determination of the Indian people to create an organ of power for asserting their right to self-determination."

Mahila Smriti not Manu Smriti

 

The current government is enforcing the Uniform Civil Code based on its idea of Manu Smriti. 

This top-down approach is coercive and imposed without democratic consultation. Driven by vested political interests, not by genuine concern for gender justice. It risks erasing religious and cultural diversity, especially affecting minority women.

 

In my work on 'Towards an Inclusive Gender Just Code in India: Women's Rights are Non-Negotiable' available at https://amzn.in/d/0IHzOSL, I countered this proposition to argue that in the 21st century, India needs Mahila Smriti not Manu Smriti

#MahilaSmritiNotManuSmriti

The bubble-up approach, which I advocate, aims for inclusive reforms led by women from diverse communities. Based on the concept of intersectionality, I focused on the real-life experiences of women across caste, class, and religion.

I proposed a new Feminist Code based on:

• Substantive equality
• Solidarity
• Respect for community rights
• Democratic consensus

In this work, I urged for the revocation of the Uttarakhand UCC, as it is undemocratic and exclusionary.

I argue that rather than a one-size-fits-all UCC, India needs pluralistic, rights-based family law reforms that:

• Uphold constitutional morality
• Are gender-just and inclusive
• Are written by and for women from all communities

 

Towards an Inclusive Gender Just Code in India: Women’s Rights are Non-Negotiable 

This book is available at Amazon 

https://amzn.in/d/gM7XgbQ 

It is regarding the Common Civil Code (the UCC) in India and argues for a feminist-led and women-led reform of personal laws. It rejects any changes that are anti-women. 

It argues that the UCC was initially introduced during the making of the Constitution to create a common legal framework for marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption with a focus on gender equality. 

While it aimed to eliminate harmful practices and promote justice, the inclusion of UCC as a fundamental right was blocked due to potential conflicts with religious freedoms, resulting in its placement as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 

In post-colonial India, family laws remain governed by diverse religious norms. These laws are different for various communities. 

However, over the years, despite difficulties, women from diverse backgrounds have increasingly sought reforms through courts. 

These women-led reforms followed the framework of intersectionality, are progressive, democratic, just, and based on their everyday realities.
Simultaneously, the dominant narrative initiated by political parties and religious leaders has politicized this debate for their vested agendas while suppressing women's voices. This top-down approach, driven by vested interests, seeks to restrict women’s rights. 

This work highlights that the current push for a UCC is coercive, unconstitutional, anti-secular, and anti-women. It forcefully imposes a discriminatory law and lacks a democratic process; therefore, refused by many.

While rejecting this arbitrary law, this work argues that to navigate the complex terrain of religious freedom and gender justice, the family law reforms should be comprehensive, inclusive, consensus-based, progressive, rights-based, uphold a person’s dignity, women-led, and should involve the consent of women from various communities it affects.

 This work suggests that the state should revoke the Uttarakhand UCC law. Instead, the state should facilitate conditions that allow women to exercise their rights through transformative constitutionalism across all communities.

The family law reforms should adhere to democratic norms, constitutional morality, transformative governance, and gender justice. 

Grounded on the concept of women’s autonomy, this work proposes to rewrite a feminist code based on feminist principles of substantive equality, solidarity, acceptability, and respect for community rights while forging unity across diversity—a feminist code written by women, of women, and for women from diverse communities.

It suggests replacing Manusmriti with Mahilasmriti. 

MN Roy Memorial Lecture 2025 at Jaipur by Aruna Roy

The program began with MN Roy's quote

"Who is a revolutionary? A revolutionary is one who has got the idea that the world can be remade, made better than it is today; that is was not created by a supernatural power, and therefore could be remade by human efforts. A revolutionary further starts with the knowledge that the world has been remade time and again, and that the process of remaking the world takes place of necessity. "

 

Speaker Aruna Roy

Topic: Radical Humanism and its Relevance in Contemporary Times

The Videos of the MN Roy Memorial Lecture, 2025, are available here 

Part 1: https://youtu.be/o9g0TdFj67I

Part 2: https://youtu.be/s6zK63hZVXY

Part 3: https://youtu.be/BfY7G6iEhX4

Part 4: https://youtu.be/EZQNGdStwaE

Part 5: https://youtu.be/ISpAPkY_B8E

The MN Roy Memorial Lecture for 2025 was delivered by renowned social activist Aruna Roy on March 23, 2025, at Samgrah Sewa Kendra in Jaipur, Rajasthan. In keeping with the legacy of MN Roy—philosopher, political thinker, and the pioneer of Radical Humanism—Aruna Roy’s lecture explored the continued relevance of his ideas in today’s rapidly changing political and social landscape.

Focusing on Radical Humanism, Roy emphasized that in the current era, marked by political polarization, digital surveillance, and the erosion of democratic institutions, Roy’s call for a cultural and political revolution is more relevant than ever. She argued that meaningful change cannot be achieved solely through legal reforms or policy shifts; it also requires a deep transformation in public consciousness. Citizenship, she insisted, must go beyond the act of voting—it must be rooted in critical thinking, participatory governance, and a collective sense of responsibility.

In the face of increasing technological control and the commodification of data, Roy called for reimagining citizenship education. She spoke about the urgent need to equip people—especially youth—with the tools to question authority, understand their rights, and actively engage with democratic processes. She warned that without such awareness, democratic spaces risk being hollowed out, and the promise of equality and justice remains unfulfilled.

Aruna Roy also celebrated the power of grassroots movements in challenging systemic injustice and asserting the rights of the marginalized. Citing landmark struggles like the Right to Information (RTI) movement, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), and the Right to Food campaign, she underscored how sustained people's movements have succeeded in pushing the state toward greater accountability. These movements, rooted in community participation and democratic values, are living embodiments of Radical Humanism in action.

The lecture served not just as a tribute to MN Roy’s intellectual legacy but as a clarion call to reclaim democracy through humanist values, collective action, and moral courage. In Aruna Roy’s words and work, Radical Humanism found a powerful and timely contemporary voice. 

Aruna Roy stands as an enduring inspiration for millions across civil society, particularly for those committed to grassroots activism and working in solidarity with the marginalized. Her lifelong dedication to transparency, accountability, and participatory democracy has empowered countless individuals and communities to assert their rights and demand justice. Through her leadership in transformative movements like the Right to Information campaign and NREGA, she has not only influenced policy but also shaped a powerful model of people-centric governance rooted in ethical politics and radical empathy.

Moreover, her recent book, "The Personal is Political: An Activist Memoir," reflected on the personal dimensions of activism. The memoir offers a nuanced exploration of the intersections between personal choices and public action. Through it, Roy illustrates how intimate, everyday experiences of injustice and resistance are inextricably linked to larger macro-level struggles for democracy, equality, and justice. Her life and work challenge the false binary between the personal and political, showing how the two are fundamentally interconnected.

Remembering the Founding Mothers of the Indian Constitution

March 8, 2025

In my article that appeared here https://janataweekly.org/remembering-the-founding-mothers-of-the-indian-constitution/, I wrote about the Indian women who played a key role in pre-colonial times, contributing immensely to the freedom struggle and shaping the Indian Constitution. 

The pioneer women paved the way for democracy, and it is because of their efforts that Indian women today enjoy equal citizenship rights. They serve as a role model for future generations. Their legacy continues to inspire generations of women to engage with the state and assert their citizenship rights. 

Decades later, the impact of their work is visible. Then, 15 women participated in drafting the Constitution; today, 1.4 million women serve as panchayat leaders. While more women must be joining the top-level decision-making bodies, including the Parliament, the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the Legislative Assemblies, it is important to celebrate the role of the Founding Mothers. 

As the world celebrates Women's History Month, India could take a moment to recognize the contribution of its Founding Mothers, who advocated for lasting changes. 

As early as 1939, women's collective, in their report of the Sub-Committee on Women's Role in Planned Economy, reimagined the Indian woman as a complete, self-sufficient, and pro-active citizen. 

This report noted, 

"We do not wish to turn a woman into a cheap imitation of a man or to render her useless for the great tasks of motherhood and nation-building. But in demanding equal status and opportunity, we desire to achieve for women the possibility of development under favourable circumstances of education and opportunity, and while doing so, urge upon the State its responsibility towards women in this respect."

Based on this report, the Indian Women's Charter on Rights and Duties was prepared, which highlighted that educated and capable men and women, enjoying their rights to freedom and equality, could contribute to societal progress. 

The outcome of their struggles was a radical step towards liberation. The writing of the Constitution refuted the colonial logic of natives being incapable of self-rule. 

The Founding Mothers significantly shaped the Preamble, advocating for equality, liberty, justice, democracy, and secularism, besides affirmative actions for the marginalized. 

Despite facing numerous challenges, they championed the rights of women in a male-dominated society. 

Their legacy continues to inspire future generations. 

Quotes by MN Roy

M.N. Roy: A Global Intellectual and Revolutionary Thinker

While working on the fifth volume of Selected Works and Writings of M.N. Roy, I was struck by the depth, clarity, and foresight of his ideas. Roy emerges not merely as an Indian political thinker but as a truly global intellectual and revolutionary, one whose contributions spanned continents and ideologies. His writings reveal a powerful synthesis of Marxist thought, radical humanism, and democratic ideals.

Throughout his career, from his involvement in international communist movements to his later advocacy of reason, individual freedom, and ethical politics, Roy remained committed to the pursuit of truth and the emancipation of human consciousness. 

Many of his quotes reflect a profound concern for the moral and intellectual development of society, making his work as relevant today as it was in his time.

I am adding some of these here

“Who is a revolutionary?

What is a revolution? And who is a revolutionary? A revolutionary is one who has got the idea that the world can be remade, made better than it is today; that is was not created by a supernatural power, and therefore could be remade by human efforts. A revolutionary further starts with the knowledge that the world has been remade time and again, and that the process of remaking the world takes place of necessity. Those Indians who have felt the necessity of remaking our country, and are convinced that the people of India have the power to do so, are revolutionaries. One cannot be a revolutionary, without possessing scientific knowledge. One must have the conviction that not only human beings can remake the world, can make and unmake gods, but ever since the birth of the race have been doing that. Human nature is to set up gods, topple them down, and set up new ones.”

― MN Roy

"Freedom is the supreme value of life, because the urge for freedom is the essence of human existence."

M.N. Roy, Reason, Romanticism and Revolution

"Freedom is not a beautiful castle built in the air of imagination. It rests on the triple pillar of humanism, individualism, and nationalism."

MN Roy

"It is true that the common people are illiterate; they may not be able to govern the country. But at the same time, is it not a fact that, left to themselves, even the most ignorant peasants can manage their affairs better than our present government? The distrust for the ability of the common people to think for themselves and take care of themselves is only a pretext for seizing power in their name and abusing that power to suppress their liberty.”

MN Roy

"Science has given confidence to a growing number of human beings that they possess the power to remake the world."

 MN Roy, Science, Philosophy, and Politics, 1942

We stand for a thorough reconstruction of national life. Our political objective is the establishment of democratic freedom, which will mean effective political power for the people. We strive not only for national freedom, but also for the social emancipation of the toiling masses. Our task is to spread enlightenment, which will dispel obscurantism in the political and spiritual life of the country. We advocate modernism in every walk of life against revivalism. We want the disinherited to come to their own and enjoy the richness and fullness of life on this earth. We want man to be the master of the world and the maker of his destiny.”

MN Roy

"The spirit of inquiry into every physical phenomenon confronting us is a spirit of science."

MN Roy, Science, Philosophy, and Politics, 1940

https://www.academia.edu/127727821/Science_Philosophy_and_Politics 

"… the purpose of all rational human endeavour must be to strive for the removal of social conditions which restrict the unfolding of the potentialities of man. The success of this striving is the measure of freedom attained."

"Human beings starts with science. Baffled in primitive efforts to explain natural phenomenon in physical terms, he fell back on metaphysical assumptions, but in the last analysis, these also are analogous to the hypotheses of the scientific enquiry." 

MN Roy, Science, Philosophy, and Politics, 1940

https://www.academia.edu/127727821/Science_Philosophy_and_Politics 

"The realisation of the possibility of a secular rational morality opens up a new perspective before the modern world… It must be realised that human existence is self-contained and self-sufficient; and that, therefore, man can find in himself the power to work out his destiny, to make a better world to live in."

M.N. Roy, Reason, Romanticism and Revolution
From time to time, the march of history is obstructed by the requirements of the established social order,which sets a limit to human creativeness, mental as well as physical. The urge for progress and freedom,born out of the biological struggle for existence, asserts itself with a renewed vigour to break downthe obstacle. A new social order conducive to a less hampered unfolding of human potentialities isvisualised by men, embodying the liberating ideas and cultural values created in the past. A newphilosophy is born out of the spiritual heritage of mankind to herald a reorganisation of society.The passionate belief in the creativeness and freedom of man is the essence of the romantic view of life. The idea of revolution, therefore, is a romantic idea; at the same time, it is rational because revolutions take place of necessity. Revolution, thus, may appear to be a self-contradictory concept

MN Roy Reason, Romanticism, and Revolution 

"When, as a school boy of fourteen, I began my political life, which may end in nothing, I wanted to be free. Independence, complete and absolute, is a new-fangled idea. The old-fashioned revolutionaries thought in terms of freedom. In those days, we had not read Marx. We did not know about the existence of the proletariat. Still, many spend their lives in jail and went to the gallows. There were no proletariat to propel them. They were not conscious of class struggle. They did not have the dreams of Communism. But they had the human urge to revolt against the intolerable conditions of life. They did not know exactly how to those conditions could be changed. But they tried to change them anyhow. I began my political life with that spirit, and I still draw my inspiration from that spirit than from the three volumes of the Capital or three hundred volumes by the Marxists."

MN Roy, New Orientation, p. 120-121

मानव अधिकारों की सार्वभौमिक घोषणा के बनने में दक्षिण एशियाई महिलाओं की भूमिका

 This book in Hindi about the Role of South Asian Women in the Making of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is available at Amazon https://amzn.in/d/8PUJ2G3

It argues that the UDHR is a basic and significant document that asserts the rights of the marginalized. When the dominant discourse in South Asia considers human rights as a Western concept, this book argues that people from South Asia played a crucial role in the framing of the document. 

मानवाधिकारों की सार्वभौमिक घोषणा (UDHR) 1948 एक मूलभूत और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण दस्तावेज है। यह दुनिया भर के सभी लोगों, विशेष रूप से हाशिए पर लोगों के अविभाज्य, बुनियादी मानवाधिकारों के बारे में है। दक्षिण एशिया में कई लोग मानवाधिकारों को एक विदेशी, यूरोसेंट्रिक (Eurocentric) या पश्चिमी (Western) के रूप में बदनाम करते हैं, या फिर यह मानते हैं कि केवल पुरुषों ने ही इसे बनाने में योगदान दिया है। इसके विपरीत, इस पुस्तिका में यह तर्क दिया गया है कि

सबसे पहले, UDHR द्वारा उल्लिखित मानवाधिकार वैश्विक स्तर पर साझा की जाने वाली सार्वभौमिक सामूहिक आकांक्षाएँ हैं। यूडीएचआर एक अलग विश्व व्यवस्था के उद्भव के बारे में है।

दूसरे, UDHR के ढांचे को आकार देने में गैर-पश्चिमी महिलाओं, जिनमें दक्षिण एशिया की महिलाएं भी शामिल हैं,  उन्होंने महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई।

इसलिए, मानवाधिकारों को 'विदेशी' के रूप में खारिज करना तीसरी दुनिया के प्रतिनिधियों की महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका को नकारना है। विशेष रूप से, 'उसकी कहानी' (her-story) को पहचानना और इस महत्वपूर्ण दस्तावेज़ को बनाने में दक्षिण एशियाई महिलाओं की भूमिका को reclaim करना अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण है।

"घर के नज़दीक छोटी-छोटी जगहें - इतनी नज़दीक और इतनी छोटी कि उन्हें दुनिया के किसी भी नक्शे पर नहीं देखा जा सकता। फिर भी वे एक व्यक्ति की दुनिया हैं; वह पड़ोस जिसमें वह रहता है; वह स्कूल या कॉलेज जहाँ वह जाता है; वह कारखाना, खेत या दफ़्तर जहाँ वह काम करता है। ये वे जगहें हैं जहाँ हर पुरुष, महिला और बच्चा बिना किसी भेदभाव के समान न्याय, समान अवसर, समान सम्मान चाहते हैं। जब तक इन अधिकारों का वहाँ कोई मतलब नहीं होगा, तब तक उनका कहीं भी कोई मतलब नहीं है। घर के नज़दीक उन्हें बनाए रखने के लिए नागरिकों की एकजुट कार्रवाई के बिना, हम बड़ी दुनिया में प्रगति की उम्मीद व्यर्थ ही करेंगे।"

Eleanor Roosevelt 1948  

– एलेनोर रूजवेल्ट, 1948 में मानवाधिकारों की सार्वभौमिक घोषणा के संयुक्त राष्ट्र आयोग की अध्यक्ष।