I observe that posts are being circulated on the internet against Babasaheb, attempting to portray him as an opponent of women.
काँग्रेसी राजनीति के बारे में कुछ समझ नहीं आ रहा। स्वधर्म छोड़ कर महिलाएं राजनीति करते
हुए घूमें इसके जैसी शर्म की बात कोई और नहीं। महाराष्ट्र की महिलाओं द्वारा अब केवल
'कासोटा' (महाराष्ट्री ढंग से साड़ी पहनते हुए नौ गज की साड़ी का पीछे की ओर खोंसा
गया सिरा। इसके खुलने से एक तरह से साड़ी खुल जाती है। व्यंजनार्थ है - लाज-शरम या
मर्यादा का त्याग करना) खोलना ही बाकी रह गया है। काँग्रेस द्वारा 292 महिलाओं को
लोकसभा में लेने का निर्णय लिया गया है। महिलाएं विधानसभा में जाएंगी तो पुरुष क्या करेंगे?
दिन भर लोकसभा में रहने के बाद जब फाइलें बगल में दबाए महिलाएं घर लौटेंगीं तब क्या उनके
पति टेबिल पर भोजन रखेंगे? ये महिलाएं दिन भर पार्लियामेंट-एसेंब्ली में जाएंगी और शाम को
घर लौटने के बाद पति से पूछेंगी
- अजी सुनते हो, मैं पार्लियामेंट से आ गई हूं। घर का सारा कामकाज हुआ है कि नहीं?' ये
महिलाएं पार्लियामेंट में जाएंगी और उनके बच्चे कौन सम्हालेगा? एक बच्चा रो रहा है, दूसरे
की नाक बह रही है, तीसरा कहीं चला गया है- कौन इन बच्चों का खयाल रखेगा? यह सब
उलटा हो रहा है। यह उलटी दुनिया है। अच्छा, पार्लियामेंट में जाकर ये महिलाएं करती
क्या हैं? इस बारे में कुछ कहने में मुझे शरम आती है। उनके बारे में बताने का मेरा इरादा नहीं
था, लेकिन अब बता ही देता हूं। (हंसी)।-बाबासाहेब डॉ॰ अम्बेडकर सम्पूर्ण वाङ्मय
-40,p467
being increased. I don't understand anything about this women's
Congress politics. There is nothing more shameful than women abandoning
their 'Swadharma' (one's duty) and wandering around doing politics.
It only remains for the women of Maharashtra to remove their 'Kasota'
(the end of a nine-yard sari tucked in at the back in the Maharashtrian
style; untying it is a metaphor for abandoning shame, modesty, or
dignity). Congress has decided to take 292 women into the Lok Sabha. If
women go to the Legislative Assembly, what will men do? After spending
all day in the Lok Sabha, when women return home with files under their
arms, will their husbands serve them food at the table? These women will
go to Parliament and Assembly all day, and when they return home in the
evening, they will ask their husbands:
• "Hey, listen, I've come from Parliament. Has all the housework been done or not?"
Who will take care of these women's children when they go to Parliament?
One child is crying, another's nose is running, a third has wandered off somewhere
-- who will take care of these children? Everything is being turned
upside down. This is an upside-down world. Well, what do these women do
after going to Parliament? I am ashamed to say anything about it. I
didn't intend to talk about them, but now I'll just say it.
- Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar: Complete Works --- Vol. 40, p. 467
When I first encountered this, I found it difficult to digest. Some people argue that this dates back to 1956, and that people of that era held precisely such views regarding women. They believed that women should not possess the right to engage in politics, nor should they be permitted entry into Parliament. Although Babasaheb was a proponent of modern ideology, a reformer, and a staunch defender of women's interests, even he did not subscribe to the view that women should participate in politics. Perhaps the interpretation seems plausible that, while Babasaheb was indeed a champion of women's rights, he was not a proponent of their right to engage in politics or to enter Parliament.
However, such an interpretation is also completely baseless. Reading Babasaheb's writings makes it evident that he was a staunch advocate of women's participation in politics.
Reservation as an Interim Measure: To help "familiarize the public mind with the idea of women taking an active part in political life," he supported a proposal that 5% of the seats in the first three Councils should be reserved for women
"No claim for separate electorate or for the reservation of seats in joint electorates was made on behalf of women who should continue to be eligible for election on the same footing as men. But, in order to familiarize the public mind with the idea of women taking an active part in political life and to secure their interim representation on the legislature, it was urged that 5 per cent. of the seats in the first three Councils should be reserved for women and it was suggested that they should be filled by co-option by the elected members voting by proportional representation." - Writings and Speeches of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, vol-9, page 53
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar explicitly and repeatedly stated that women have the right to participate in politics, specifically through the right to vote (suffrage) and the eligibility for election to legislative bodies.
Presence in the Provisional Parliament: During the transition to independence, he expressed his confidence that the President would use rule-making powers to ensure a "certain number of women members... will be brought in as members of the Provisional Parliament"
"With regard to the amendment of Shrimati Purnima Banerjee, I do not think it is necessary to make a specific provision for the retention of women in this Constituent Assembly. I have no doubt about it that the President in the exercise of his powers of rule- making will bear this fact in mind and see that cerain number of women members of the Constituent Assembly or of the various parties will be brought in as members of the Provisional Parliament" - Writings and Speeches of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, vol-13, page 1085
He strongly opposed an amendment that sought to remove the words "men and women equally" from Article 31 of the Draft Constitution. He stated he had "considerable objection" to deleting that inclusive language
"Mr. Vice-President : The House will now take up article 31, for discussion
Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal : Muslim) : Sir, I beg to move :
"That in clause (i) of article 31, the words 'men and women equally' be omitted."
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I oppose the amendment,Sir" - Writings and Speeches of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, vol-13, page 7894
He has expressed this sentiment in so many places. In numerous instances, he has championed women's right to vote and advocated for their participation in politics. To cite every single instance here would be far too extensive.
But the question still remains: if Babasaheb was such a staunch advocate for women---going so far as to endorse their entry into politics---then why did he oppose women entering the House in 1956?
To understand this, one must examine the backstory behind it, as well as the immediate political landscape of that era.
April 11, 1947: Babasaheb introduced the Hindu Code Bill in the Constituent Assembly. This was a major bill that attempted to codify and reform Hindu personal law (marriage, divorce, property, inheritance, adoption, etc.).
1948: It was sent to a Select Committee. Babasaheb was associated with this committee.
1949-1951: Lengthy debates took place in Parliament (over 4 years in total). The main provisions in the bill were: Equal rights for women in property and inheritance. The right to divorce (with certain conditions). Prohibition of polygamy. Recognition of widow remarriage and increased freedom for women.
The opposition was very strong --- the Hindu Mahasabha, some conservative members of Congress, sadhus, saints, and traditionalists strongly opposed it. They said that it would destroy "Hindu religion and culture."
The debate was so long and disrupted that the bill could not be passed.
September 27, 1951: Babasaheb resigned to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. He said that the Hindu Code Bill was not being given priority and that the bill was "killed" (killed and died unused and unsung) due to the reluctance of the Congress.
The Congress party showed no interest in passing this bill. They felt that if they supported this bill, the orthodox Brahmins or the upper castes would not vote for them.
After the 1951-52 general election, the Nehru government changed its strategy. They broke down one large bill into 4 separate smaller bills to reduce opposition and make passage easier.
These four bills were passed:
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (May 18, 1955) --- Marriage, divorce, and a monogamous system.
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (June 17, 1956) --- Equal rights for women in property inheritance (the main revolution was here).
- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (August 25, 1956) --- Laws relating to minor children and guardianship.
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (December 1956) --- Adoption and maintenance.
All these bills were passed by Parliament in 1955-56. Nehru made these reforms an issue in the election, which gave support to Congress.
All of these bills were passed by Parliament in 1955-56. Nehru made these reforms an election issue, which garnered support for the Congress party.
When Babasaheb (Dr. Ambedkar) originally introduced this Hindu Code Bill, the Congress opposed it; yet, later on, that same party passed the bill for its own political gain. Babasaheb's statements on this matter are a direct attack on the Congress's 1957 election strategy.
Congress decided to give Lok Sabha and Assembly tickets to somewhere between 222 and 292 women. Babasaheb remarked that there is nothing more shameful than women abandoning their "Swadharma" (personal/sacred duty) to roam around engaging in politics. He argued that Congress was turning women into mere tokens, awarding tickets based on the names of their husbands or brothers. By pushing responsible women into politics without any preparation, he warned, it would lead to the disintegration of the family.
He stated that:
- The Congress party has decided to field 292 women as Lok Sabha candidates for the 1957 elections.
- If women spend the entire day in Parliament or the Assembly, who will look after the housework, the children, and the husband?
- "These women will go to Parliament, but who will take care of their children? One child is crying, while another has a runny nose…"
This statement was clearly an attack on the Congress party's election strategy of that time, rather than a general comment on women's rights.
Hardly any Dalit women were among those given tickets by the Congress; most were from upper castes (Brahmin, Rajput, Bhumihar, etc.) and urban, educated elite families. These women were granted tickets based on the social dominance of their fathers, brothers, or husbands. Ambedkar's statement against women was, in fact, a strategic political statement. When Ambedkar used to raise the issue of women's participation in politics, these upper-caste groups would often cite scriptures to keep women confined to the home. There was no widespread opposition to these women entering politics because most of them belonged to high castes, and it was understood that power would ultimately remain with the men of the household, even if the woman won the election.
Perhaps Ambedkar felt that by making such "anti-women" remarks, he could cause Congress to lose. He might have intended to remind the upper castes (Brahmins, Bhumihars, Rajputs, etc.) of their traditional religious values---that a woman's duty is solely to manage the home and serve her husband and children. However, he may have overlooked that the Brahmins' earlier opposition to women entering the legislature was partly because that proposal included Dalit women as well. In this case, women were contesting only in name; the actual power was returning to the men of the upper castes.
In reality, Congress did not give tickets to hundreds of women---although the goal or announcement might have been 222--292, very few women actually entered the fray. The status of women in the 1957 Lok Sabha elections was as follows:
Total women candidates (all parties): 45
Congress women candidates: 37
Total women who won: 22 (only about 4.45% of Parliament)
Ambedkar's speech was likely designed to provoke the upper castes and unite them against Congress. Even today, political parties deliver the most effective and sharpest speeches of the moment to defeat their rivals. This is often an immediate strategy to win elections and may not reflect their core personal beliefs. When we look at the story behind Ambedkar's speech, the situation becomes clear as day.
0 Comments