Examine the scope and limitations of women’s movements in India. (2014, 15 Marks)
A women’s movement is sustained collective action by women about the position of women — distinct from women’s participation in general movements. In India it has worked against a patriarchy that orders family, religion, economy and state alike. That context explains both its unusual breadth and its shallow reach.
Scope: a widening agenda
| Phase | Character | Agenda |
|---|---|---|
| Reform (19th century) | Male reformers; Tarabai Shinde, Pandita Ramabai | Sati, widow remarriage, education |
| Nationalist (1917–47) | Mass entry under M. K. Gandhi; All India Women’s Conference (1927) | Satyagraha, picketing, the vote |
| “Grey years” (1947–74) | Constitutional equality; the state trusted to deliver | Welfare, Hindu Code Acts |
| Autonomous (1975–90) | Towards Equality (1974); non-party collectives | Rape, dowry, sati, sex selection |
| Diversified (1990s–) | Global feminism, NGOs, Dalit and Muslim women’s groups | Representation, work, identity |
- Law as achievement: the Mathura judgment (1978) produced the 1983 custodial-rape amendment; anti-dowry campaigns produced Section 498A; Bhanwari Devi’s case led to Vishaka (1997) and the POSH Act 2013; the Nirbhaya protests to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013.
- Livelihood and resources: SEWA (1972), Chipko and the Andhra anti-arrack agitation carried the movement to poor, rural women.
- Presence in power: reservation in panchayats (1992) and the 106th Amendment (2023).
- Knowledge: women’s studies, from the Centre for Women’s Development Studies (1980) onwards, gave campaigns evidence and a vocabulary of their own.
Limitations
- Entrenched patriarchy: self-reproducing and sanctified by religion; Uma Chakravarti‘s brahmanical patriarchy ties caste purity to control of women. At Deorala (1987) women themselves defended sati.
- Ideological division: Vandana Shiva‘s ecofeminism (Staying Alive, 1988) was faulted as essentialist by Bina Agarwal; Madhu Kishwar rejected the “feminist” label itself.
- Class, caste and religion: leadership was urban, middle-class and upper-caste. Gopal Guru (1995) argued that Dalit women “talk differently”; Sharmila Rege (1998) criticised a politics of “difference” that stopped at recognising it, and proposed a Dalit feminist standpoint. The National Federation of Dalit Women (1995) and the Shah Bano split (1985–86) showed “women” was not one constituency.
- Reactive and issue-based: campaigns rose around atrocities and ebbed, and there was no all-India charter of demands.
- Legalism: laws outran enforcement — Flavia Agnes documents statutes celebrated and then neglected. NCRB recorded 4,48,211 crimes against women in 2023; the marital-rape exception survives in Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Co-optation: NGO-isation shifted accountability to donors; parties absorbed demands selectively.
- Representation: women are 13.6% of the Lok Sabha, and the 131st Amendment Bill to hasten the quota was negatived in April 2026.
Conclusion
The movement has changed what the Indian state says about women far more than what society does. Its scope widened once it took caste and class seriously; its limits will narrow only through joint pressure — organised women and an enforcing state.