Founding mothers of the Indian Republic: gender Politics of the Framing of the Constitution Founding mothers of the Indian Republic: gender Politics of the Framing of the Constitution , by Achyut Chetan, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2022, GBP 90 (hardback)

Surbhi Karwa
{"title":"Founding mothers of the Indian Republic: gender Politics of the Framing of the Constitution <b>Founding mothers of the Indian Republic: gender Politics of the Framing of the Constitution</b> , by Achyut Chetan, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2022, GBP 90 (hardback)","authors":"Surbhi Karwa","doi":"10.1080/24730580.2023.2273180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTIn this review, I argue that Achyut Chetan’s book makes two contributions: Firstly, it sets the record of Indian constitutional history straight by relocating the authorship of women constitution-makers, who have hitherto been forgotten in the memory of the Indian republic. Secondly, the book creates potential for reshaping our current constitutional and feminist discourse on multiple issues by rereading the position of women constitution-makers. I then argue that the book should have engaged more critically with the challenges posed to the claim of radicality of the 15 women constitution-makers by two factors: the nationalist discourse and the elite-ness of the All India Women’s Conference. I thus pose a question—Can there be a project of reviving “founding mothers” without the necessary precondition of “radicality”?KEYWORDS: Constitution-makingfounding-mothersConstituent Assembly DebatesfeministconstitutionalismgenderAchyut Chetanfeminism AcknowledgmentsI thank Dr Shreya Atrey, Dr Dinesha Samararatne, Akbar Zaheer, and the anonymous reviewers of the journal for their valuable comments on a draft of this review. I am also thankful to Dr Aparna Chandra for multiple conversations on the topic at hand over the last four years. I have benefited immensely from those discussions. All mistakes remain mine.Notes1 Achyut ChetanFounding Mothers of the Indian Republic: Gender Politics of the Framing of the Constitution (CUP 2022) 21.2 This is a dialogue from the documentary “Sisters with Transistors”, written and directed by Lisa Rovener. The documentary tells the story of electronic music’s unsung heroines, its women pioneers. Lisa Rovener, “Sisters with Transistors” (17 October 2020) <https://sisterswithtransistors.com/> accessed 19 January 2023.3 Chetan (n 1) 4 (emphasis added).4 See Charu Gupta, ‘Hindu Women, Muslim Men: Love Jihad and Conversions’ (2009) 44(51) EPW 13. See also Tanika Sarkar, “Is Love without Borders Possible” (2018) 119 Feminist Review 7; South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, “Anti Conversion Laws: Challenge to Secularism and Fundamental Rights” (2008) 43(2) EPW 63.5 B Shiva Rao (ed), The Framing of India’s Constitution (Indian Institute of Public Affairs 1967) vol 2, 177–178.6 Madhav Khosla, for instance, similarly relies on pre-ICA documents. See also Madhav Khosla, India’s Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy (Harvard UP 2020); Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (Harper Collins India 2019) 20–33.7 Chetan (n 1) 22.8 Sandipto Dasgupta, ‘Conflict, Not Consensus: Towards a Political Economy of the Making of the Indian Constitution’ in Udit Bhatia (ed), The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy (Routledge 2017) 38–57; Udit Bhatia, “Introduction” in Udit Bhatia (ed), The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy (Routledge 2017) 2–3. The consensus framework is visible in the scholarship of: Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (OUP 1966); Sarbani Sen, The Constitution of India: Popular Sovereignty and Democratic Transformations: The Constitution of India (OUP 2007); Rajeev Bhargava, “Introduction: Outline of a Political Theory of the Indian Constitution” in Rajeev Bhargava (ed), Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution (OUP 2008). The conflict-oriented framework is visible in the scholarship of: Arvind Elangovan, “The Making of the Indian Constitution: A Case for a Non-Nationalist Approach” (2014) 12(1) History Compass 1.9 Austin (n 8).10 ibid 22.11 ibid 425.12 ibid 444–461.13 Khosla (n 6) 10–12.14 See also Anupama Roy, Gendered Citizenship: Historical and Conceptual Explorations (Orient BlackSwan 2013) 126–180.15 Article 3, Indian Women’s Charter of Rights and Duties 1946, submitted by Mrs Hansa-Mehta for Information of Sub-Commission (UN, 1 May 1946) <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1494728?ln=en> accessed 19 January 2023.16 Khosla (n 6) 14.17 Bhargava (n 8) 33.18 Elangovan (n 8) 5.19 Vatsal Naresh, “Pride and Prejudice in Austin’s Cornerstone: Passions in the Constituent Assembly of India” in Bhatia (n 8) 58–82.20 Kalyani Ramnath, ’We, the People’: Seamless Webs and Social Revolution in India’s Constituent Assembly Debates’ in Bhatia (n 8) 181–195.21 Arvind Elangovan, ‘We, the People?’: Politics and the Conundrum of Framing a Constitution on the Eve of Decolonization’ in Bhatia (n 8) 10–37.22 Elangovan (n 8) 4.23 See also Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (Princeton University Press 1993) 116–157.24 Chetan (n 1) 14.25 Catharine A MacKinnon, “Foreword” in Beverley Baines, Daphne Barak-Erez and Tsvi Kahana (eds), Feminist Constitutionalism: Global Perspectives (CUP 2012) ix. Emphasis added.26 For instance, Sucheta Kriplani’s voice was only heard when she sang the national anthem twice. Ammu Swaminathan and Vijaylakshmi Pandits each spoke only once. Surprisingly, Amrit Kaur never spoke in the Assembly. See Surbhi Karwa, ‘Constitution Itself Is a Feminist Document’- Is It?’ (LLM thesis, National Law University Delhi 2019) 30–31.27 Chetan (n 1) 59; Referring to the vacating of seats by Chaudhury and two other women, Purnima Banerji demanded in the assembly that seats vacated by women members should be filled by women members. Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol X (11 October 1949) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C11101949.html> accessed 19 January 2023.28 A member lamented that the Drafting Committee has sent “a lady to fight their cause” referring to Durgabai Deshmukh who often presented the proposals of the Rule Making Committee to the house. See Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol X (15 October 1949) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C15101949.html> accessed 19 January 2023.29 Durgabai Deshmukh was targeted on multiple occasions. See Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol X (15 October 1949) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C15101949.html> accessed 19 January 2023. Similarly, on another occasion during the Constituent Assembly Debates (Legislative), Durgabai had to seek intervention from the Chair for being allowed to speak amidst interruptions and an off handed comment by Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri. This happened when she was arguing against the male members during a debate on the Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Bill. In a deeply troubling development, some male members had demanded that women on the Indian side of the border should not be returned unless Pakistan returns an equal number of women. See Constituent Assembly Debates (Legislative) (15 December 1949) 662 <https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/761566/1/cald_06_15-12-1949.pdf> accessed 19 January 2023. For a discussion on the bill, see generally Urvashi Butalia, The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India (Duke UP 1998) 172–245.30 On two occasions, first, when RV Dhulekar compared a man’s “right to protect cows” to that of his right to protect “his women”––RV Dhulekar, Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol VII (24 November 1948) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C24111948.html> accessed 19 January 2023; second, when Rohini Kumar Chaudhari asserted the need of protection “against women” just like the need of protection ‘against cows’––Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol XI (21 November 1949) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C21111949.html> accessed 19 January 2023.31 Naziruddin Ahmad, while commenting on the difference between accession and integration of territory, compares wives to property, see Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol VII (5 January 1949) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C05011949.html> accessed 19 January 2023.32 Purnima Banerji, Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol X (11 October 1949) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C11101949.html> accessed 19 January 2023.33 Chetan (n 1) 110. See also Article 8, Indian Women’s Charter of Rights and Duties, 1946, Submitted by Mrs Hansa-Mehta for Information of Sub-Commission (UN, 1 May 1946) <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1494728?ln=en> accessed 19 January 2023.34 Chetan (n 1) 28. See also Flavia Agnes, Family Law: Family Laws and Constitutional Claims (OUP 201) 149–150.35 ibid 28.36 ibid 259.37 Nivedita Menon, ‘A Uniform Civil Code in India: The State of the Debate in 2014’ (2014) 40 Feminist Studies 480, 484.38 Minutes of Dissent of MR Masani, Hansa Mehta, Amrit Kaur to the Draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Right in Rao (n 5) 162.39 ibid. See also Hansa Mehta, Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol XI (22 November 1949) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C22111949.html> accessed 19 January 2023.40 Flavia Agnes, Family Laws and Constitutional Claims (OUP 2011) 148–176; see also Janaki Nair, Women and Law in Colonial India (Kali for Women 1996) 180–203.41 As seen in Shayara Bano v Union of India AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC) (more commonly known as “the Triple Talaq case”). See also Flavia Agnes, “The Politics Behind Criminalizing Triple Talaq” (2018) 53 EPW 12–14; Flavia Agnes, “Women’s Movement within a Secular Framework – Redefining the Agenda” (1994) 29 EPW 1123.42 Shreya Atrey, ‘Feminist Constitutionalism: Mapping a Discourse in Contestation’ (2022) 20 International Journal of Constitutional Law 611, 618.43 ibid 615.44 Chetan (n 1) 243.45 See also Nira Yuval-Davis, Gender and Nation (Sage 1997).46 Chetan (n 1) 79.47 ibid 78.48 See generally Geraldine Forbes, Women in Modern India (CUP 1999). See also Maitrayee Chaudhuri, The Indian Women’s Movement: Reform and Revival (Palm Leaf Publications 2011).49 Roy (n 14) 44.50 Chatterjee (n 23) 117.51 Chetan (n 1) 214.52 ibid 215.53 On limits of outcome-oriented feminist inquiries, see Atrey (n 42).54 B Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol XI (25 November 1949) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C25111949.html> accessed 19 January 2023; see generally Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol IV (18 July 1947) <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C18071947.html> accessed 19 January 2023; see also Roy (n 14) 167.55 Annual Report, AIWC 10th Session 1935 as cited in Forbes (n 48) 113. In the assembly Renuka Ray similarly asserts that there has not been “strife between men and women”. See Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol IV (18 July 1947), <https://loksabha.nic.in/writereaddata/cadebatefiles/C18071947.html> accessed 19 January 2023.56 Article IV, Indian Women’s Charter on Rights and Duties, 1946, Submitted by Mrs Hansa-Mehta for Information of Sub-Commission (UN, 1 May 1946) <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1494728?ln=en> accessed 19 January 2023.57 Article XII, Indian Women’s Charter on Rights and Duties, 1946 Submitted by Mrs. Hansa-Mehta for Information of Sub-Commission (UN, 1 May 1946) <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1494728?ln=en> accessed 19 January 2023.58 Rohit De, A People’s Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic (Princeton UP 2018) 170.59 Forbes (n 48) 189.60 Nair (n 40) 197–199.61 Chetan (n 1) 97.62 On history of the All India Depressed Women’s Conference, see Urmila A Pawar and Meenakshi Moon, We Also Made History: Women in the Ambedkarite Movement (Zubaan 2004) 135–156.63 Austin (n 8) 2.64 Ruth Houghton and Aoife O’Donoghue, ‘Ourworld’: A Feminist Approach to Global Constitutionalism’ (2020) 9 Global Constitutionalism 38.65 There has been growth in scholarship on “people” and the constitution. See De (n 58); Ornit Shani, “The People and the Making of India’s Constitution” (2022) 65 The Historical Journal 1102.66 Beverley Baines, Daphne Barak-Erez and Tsvi Kahana, “Introduction: The Idea and Practice of Feminist Constitutionalism” in Baines, Barak-Erez and Kahana (n 25).67 Elizabeth Katz, ‘Women’s Involvement in International Constitution-Making’ in Baines, Barak-Erez and Kahana (n 25) 204.68 Helen Irving, Gender and the Constitution: Equity and Agency in Comparative Constitutional Design (CUP 2008) 16.69 Women’s Caucus, Nepal Law Society, ‘Women Members of the Constituent Assembly: A Study on Contribution of Women in Constitution Making of Nepal’ (2012) <https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/women-members-constituent-assembly-study-contribution-women-constitution> accessed 19 January 2023.70 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, ‘Constitution Assessment For Women’s Equality’ 2016 <https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/constitution-assessment-for-womens-equality.pdf> accessed 6 January 2023.71 Irving (n 68) 1.72 Tom Ginsburg, ‘Does the Process of Constitution-Making Matter’ (2009) 5 Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 201.73 Recent work has begun to focus on constitution-making in Asia. See Kevin YL Tan and Ridwanul Hoque (eds), Constitutional Foundings in South Asia (Hart Publishing 2021).74 For collection of all speeches by women members, see Selected Speeches of Women Members of the Assembly (2012) <https://cms.rajyasabha.nic.in/UploadedFiles/ElectronicPublications/Selected%20Women%20Speech_Final.pdf> accessed 19 January 2023.","PeriodicalId":13511,"journal":{"name":"Indian Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24730580.2023.2273180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTIn this review, I argue that Achyut Chetan’s book makes two contributions: Firstly, it sets the record of Indian constitutional history straight by relocating the authorship of women constitution-makers, who have hitherto been forgotten in the memory of the Indian republic. Secondly, the book creates potential for reshaping our current constitutional and feminist discourse on multiple issues by rereading the position of women constitution-makers. I then argue that the book should have engaged more critically with the challenges posed to the claim of radicality of the 15 women constitution-makers by two factors: the nationalist discourse and the elite-ness of the All India Women’s Conference. I thus pose a question—Can there be a project of reviving “founding mothers” without the necessary precondition of “radicality”?KEYWORDS: Constitution-makingfounding-mothersConstituent Assembly DebatesfeministconstitutionalismgenderAchyut Chetanfeminism AcknowledgmentsI thank Dr Shreya Atrey, Dr Dinesha Samararatne, Akbar Zaheer, and the anonymous reviewers of the journal for their valuable comments on a draft of this review. I am also thankful to Dr Aparna Chandra for multiple conversations on the topic at hand over the last four years. I have benefited immensely from those discussions. All mistakes remain mine.Notes1 Achyut ChetanFounding Mothers of the Indian Republic: Gender Politics of the Framing of the Constitution (CUP 2022) 21.2 This is a dialogue from the documentary “Sisters with Transistors”, written and directed by Lisa Rovener. The documentary tells the story of electronic music’s unsung heroines, its women pioneers. Lisa Rovener, “Sisters with Transistors” (17 October 2020) accessed 19 January 2023.3 Chetan (n 1) 4 (emphasis added).4 See Charu Gupta, ‘Hindu Women, Muslim Men: Love Jihad and Conversions’ (2009) 44(51) EPW 13. See also Tanika Sarkar, “Is Love without Borders Possible” (2018) 119 Feminist Review 7; South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, “Anti Conversion Laws: Challenge to Secularism and Fundamental Rights” (2008) 43(2) EPW 63.5 B Shiva Rao (ed), The Framing of India’s Constitution (Indian Institute of Public Affairs 1967) vol 2, 177–178.6 Madhav Khosla, for instance, similarly relies on pre-ICA documents. See also Madhav Khosla, India’s Founding Moment: The Constitution of a Most Surprising Democracy (Harvard UP 2020); Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (Harper Collins India 2019) 20–33.7 Chetan (n 1) 22.8 Sandipto Dasgupta, ‘Conflict, Not Consensus: Towards a Political Economy of the Making of the Indian Constitution’ in Udit Bhatia (ed), The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy (Routledge 2017) 38–57; Udit Bhatia, “Introduction” in Udit Bhatia (ed), The Indian Constituent Assembly: Deliberations on Democracy (Routledge 2017) 2–3. The consensus framework is visible in the scholarship of: Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (OUP 1966); Sarbani Sen, The Constitution of India: Popular Sovereignty and Democratic Transformations: The Constitution of India (OUP 2007); Rajeev Bhargava, “Introduction: Outline of a Political Theory of the Indian Constitution” in Rajeev Bhargava (ed), Politics and Ethics of the Indian Constitution (OUP 2008). The conflict-oriented framework is visible in the scholarship of: Arvind Elangovan, “The Making of the Indian Constitution: A Case for a Non-Nationalist Approach” (2014) 12(1) History Compass 1.9 Austin (n 8).10 ibid 22.11 ibid 425.12 ibid 444–461.13 Khosla (n 6) 10–12.14 See also Anupama Roy, Gendered Citizenship: Historical and Conceptual Explorations (Orient BlackSwan 2013) 126–180.15 Article 3, Indian Women’s Charter of Rights and Duties 1946, submitted by Mrs Hansa-Mehta for Information of Sub-Commission (UN, 1 May 1946) accessed 19 January 2023.16 Khosla (n 6) 14.17 Bhargava (n 8) 33.18 Elangovan (n 8) 5.19 Vatsal Naresh, “Pride and Prejudice in Austin’s Cornerstone: Passions in the Constituent Assembly of India” in Bhatia (n 8) 58–82.20 Kalyani Ramnath, ’We, the People’: Seamless Webs and Social Revolution in India’s Constituent Assembly Debates’ in Bhatia (n 8) 181–195.21 Arvind Elangovan, ‘We, the People?’: Politics and the Conundrum of Framing a Constitution on the Eve of Decolonization’ in Bhatia (n 8) 10–37.22 Elangovan (n 8) 4.23 See also Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories (Princeton University Press 1993) 116–157.24 Chetan (n 1) 14.25 Catharine A MacKinnon, “Foreword” in Beverley Baines, Daphne Barak-Erez and Tsvi Kahana (eds), Feminist Constitutionalism: Global Perspectives (CUP 2012) ix. Emphasis added.26 For instance, Sucheta Kriplani’s voice was only heard when she sang the national anthem twice. Ammu Swaminathan and Vijaylakshmi Pandits each spoke only once. Surprisingly, Amrit Kaur never spoke in the Assembly. See Surbhi Karwa, ‘Constitution Itself Is a Feminist Document’- Is It?’ (LLM thesis, National Law University Delhi 2019) 30–31.27 Chetan (n 1) 59; Referring to the vacating of seats by Chaudhury and two other women, Purnima Banerji demanded in the assembly that seats vacated by women members should be filled by women members. Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol X (11 October 1949) accessed 19 January 2023.28 A member lamented that the Drafting Committee has sent “a lady to fight their cause” referring to Durgabai Deshmukh who often presented the proposals of the Rule Making Committee to the house. See Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol X (15 October 1949) accessed 19 January 2023.29 Durgabai Deshmukh was targeted on multiple occasions. See Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol X (15 October 1949) accessed 19 January 2023. Similarly, on another occasion during the Constituent Assembly Debates (Legislative), Durgabai had to seek intervention from the Chair for being allowed to speak amidst interruptions and an off handed comment by Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri. This happened when she was arguing against the male members during a debate on the Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Bill. In a deeply troubling development, some male members had demanded that women on the Indian side of the border should not be returned unless Pakistan returns an equal number of women. See Constituent Assembly Debates (Legislative) (15 December 1949) 662 accessed 19 January 2023. For a discussion on the bill, see generally Urvashi Butalia, The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India (Duke UP 1998) 172–245.30 On two occasions, first, when RV Dhulekar compared a man’s “right to protect cows” to that of his right to protect “his women”––RV Dhulekar, Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol VII (24 November 1948) accessed 19 January 2023; second, when Rohini Kumar Chaudhari asserted the need of protection “against women” just like the need of protection ‘against cows’––Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol XI (21 November 1949) accessed 19 January 2023.31 Naziruddin Ahmad, while commenting on the difference between accession and integration of territory, compares wives to property, see Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol VII (5 January 1949) accessed 19 January 2023.32 Purnima Banerji, Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol X (11 October 1949) accessed 19 January 2023.33 Chetan (n 1) 110. See also Article 8, Indian Women’s Charter of Rights and Duties, 1946, Submitted by Mrs Hansa-Mehta for Information of Sub-Commission (UN, 1 May 1946) accessed 19 January 2023.34 Chetan (n 1) 28. See also Flavia Agnes, Family Law: Family Laws and Constitutional Claims (OUP 201) 149–150.35 ibid 28.36 ibid 259.37 Nivedita Menon, ‘A Uniform Civil Code in India: The State of the Debate in 2014’ (2014) 40 Feminist Studies 480, 484.38 Minutes of Dissent of MR Masani, Hansa Mehta, Amrit Kaur to the Draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Right in Rao (n 5) 162.39 ibid. See also Hansa Mehta, Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol XI (22 November 1949) accessed 19 January 2023.40 Flavia Agnes, Family Laws and Constitutional Claims (OUP 2011) 148–176; see also Janaki Nair, Women and Law in Colonial India (Kali for Women 1996) 180–203.41 As seen in Shayara Bano v Union of India AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC) (more commonly known as “the Triple Talaq case”). See also Flavia Agnes, “The Politics Behind Criminalizing Triple Talaq” (2018) 53 EPW 12–14; Flavia Agnes, “Women’s Movement within a Secular Framework – Redefining the Agenda” (1994) 29 EPW 1123.42 Shreya Atrey, ‘Feminist Constitutionalism: Mapping a Discourse in Contestation’ (2022) 20 International Journal of Constitutional Law 611, 618.43 ibid 615.44 Chetan (n 1) 243.45 See also Nira Yuval-Davis, Gender and Nation (Sage 1997).46 Chetan (n 1) 79.47 ibid 78.48 See generally Geraldine Forbes, Women in Modern India (CUP 1999). See also Maitrayee Chaudhuri, The Indian Women’s Movement: Reform and Revival (Palm Leaf Publications 2011).49 Roy (n 14) 44.50 Chatterjee (n 23) 117.51 Chetan (n 1) 214.52 ibid 215.53 On limits of outcome-oriented feminist inquiries, see Atrey (n 42).54 B Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol XI (25 November 1949) accessed 19 January 2023; see generally Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol IV (18 July 1947) accessed 19 January 2023; see also Roy (n 14) 167.55 Annual Report, AIWC 10th Session 1935 as cited in Forbes (n 48) 113. In the assembly Renuka Ray similarly asserts that there has not been “strife between men and women”. See Constitutional Assembly Debates (Proceedings), vol IV (18 July 1947), accessed 19 January 2023.56 Article IV, Indian Women’s Charter on Rights and Duties, 1946, Submitted by Mrs Hansa-Mehta for Information of Sub-Commission (UN, 1 May 1946) accessed 19 January 2023.57 Article XII, Indian Women’s Charter on Rights and Duties, 1946 Submitted by Mrs. Hansa-Mehta for Information of Sub-Commission (UN, 1 May 1946) accessed 19 January 2023.58 Rohit De, A People’s Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic (Princeton UP 2018) 170.59 Forbes (n 48) 189.60 Nair (n 40) 197–199.61 Chetan (n 1) 97.62 On history of the All India Depressed Women’s Conference, see Urmila A Pawar and Meenakshi Moon, We Also Made History: Women in the Ambedkarite Movement (Zubaan 2004) 135–156.63 Austin (n 8) 2.64 Ruth Houghton and Aoife O’Donoghue, ‘Ourworld’: A Feminist Approach to Global Constitutionalism’ (2020) 9 Global Constitutionalism 38.65 There has been growth in scholarship on “people” and the constitution. See De (n 58); Ornit Shani, “The People and the Making of India’s Constitution” (2022) 65 The Historical Journal 1102.66 Beverley Baines, Daphne Barak-Erez and Tsvi Kahana, “Introduction: The Idea and Practice of Feminist Constitutionalism” in Baines, Barak-Erez and Kahana (n 25).67 Elizabeth Katz, ‘Women’s Involvement in International Constitution-Making’ in Baines, Barak-Erez and Kahana (n 25) 204.68 Helen Irving, Gender and the Constitution: Equity and Agency in Comparative Constitutional Design (CUP 2008) 16.69 Women’s Caucus, Nepal Law Society, ‘Women Members of the Constituent Assembly: A Study on Contribution of Women in Constitution Making of Nepal’ (2012) accessed 19 January 2023.70 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, ‘Constitution Assessment For Women’s Equality’ 2016 accessed 6 January 2023.71 Irving (n 68) 1.72 Tom Ginsburg, ‘Does the Process of Constitution-Making Matter’ (2009) 5 Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 201.73 Recent work has begun to focus on constitution-making in Asia. See Kevin YL Tan and Ridwanul Hoque (eds), Constitutional Foundings in South Asia (Hart Publishing 2021).74 For collection of all speeches by women members, see Selected Speeches of Women Members of the Assembly (2012) accessed 19 January 2023.
《印度共和国的开国之母:宪法框架的性别政治》,阿奇尤特·切坦著,剑桥,剑桥大学出版社,2022年,90英镑(精装本)
在这篇评论中,我认为Achyut Chetan的书做出了两个贡献:首先,它通过重新定位女性制宪者的作者身份,使印度宪法历史的记录变得正确,这些女性迄今为止在印度共和国的记忆中被遗忘了。其次,这本书通过重新解读女性制宪者的地位,为重塑我们当前在多个问题上的宪法和女权主义话语创造了潜力。然后,我认为这本书应该更批判性地探讨两个因素对15名女性制宪者的激进主张所构成的挑战:民族主义话语和全印度妇女会议的精英化。因此,我提出了一个问题——在没有“激进”这一必要前提的情况下,能有一个复兴“开国元勋”的计划吗?感谢Shreya Atrey博士、Dinesha Samararatne博士、Akbar Zaheer博士以及本刊匿名审稿人对本文草稿提出的宝贵意见。我还要感谢阿帕纳·钱德拉博士在过去四年中就这一主题进行了多次对话。我从这些讨论中获益匪浅。所有的错误都是我的。注1 Achyut chetan印度共和国的创始母亲:宪法框架的性别政治(CUP 2022) 21.2这是Lisa Rovener编剧和导演的纪录片“晶体管姐妹”中的一段对话。这部纪录片讲述了电子音乐中未被歌颂的女英雄们的故事。3. Lisa Rovener,“晶体管姐妹”(2020年10月17日),20223年1月19日访问参见查鲁·古普塔,“印度教妇女,穆斯林男子:热爱圣战和皈依”(2009)44(51)EPW 13。另见Tanika Sarkar,“无国界的爱是可能的吗”(2018)119 Feminist Review 7;南亚人权文献中心,“反改信法:对世俗主义和基本权利的挑战”(2008)43(2),EPW 63.5 B Shiva Rao(编),《印度宪法的框架》(印度公共事务研究所1967)第2卷,177-178.6 Madhav Khosla,例如,同样依赖于ica之前的文件。另见Madhav Khosla,《印度的建国时刻:一个最令人惊讶的民主国家的宪法》(Harvard UP 2020);Gautam Bhatia,《变革宪法:九项法案中的激进传记》(Harper Collins India 2019) 20-33.7 Chetan (n 1) 22.8 Sandipto Dasgupta,《冲突,而不是共识:走向印度宪法制定的政治经济学》,Udit Bhatia(主编),《印度制宪会议:民主审议》(Routledge 2017) 38-57;Udit Bhatia,《印度制宪会议:对民主的审议》(Routledge 2017) 2-3中的“引言”。共识框架在以下学术研究中可见:格兰维尔·奥斯汀,《印度宪法:一个国家的基石》(OUP 1966);Sarbani Sen,印度宪法:人民主权和民主转型:印度宪法(OUP 2007);Rajeev Bhargava,“引言:印度宪法政治理论大纲”,载于Rajeev Bhargava(编),《印度宪法的政治与伦理》(OUP 2008)。以冲突为导向的框架在以下学术研究中可见:Arvind Elangovan,“印度宪法的制定:一个非民族主义方法的案例”(2014)12(1)历史指南针1.9 Austin (n 8).10同上22.11同上425.12同上444-461.13 Khosla (n 6) 10-12.14另见Anupama Roy,性别公民:《1946年印度妇女权利和义务宪章》第3条,由Hansa-Mehta女士提交,供小组委员会参考(联合国,1946年5月1日)2023.1月19日查阅。16 Khosla(第6期)14.17 Bhargava(第8期)33.18 Elangovan(第8期)5.19 Vatsal Naresh,“Austin基石中的傲慢与偏见:印度制宪会议中的激情”,巴蒂亚(第8期)58-82.20 Kalyani Ramnath,“我们,人民”:印度制宪会议辩论中的无缝网络和社会革命”(第8期)181-195.21 Arvind Elangovan,“我们,人民?“:政治和在非殖民化前夕制定宪法的难题”,在Bhatia (n 8) 10-37.22 Elangovan (n 8) 4.23也见Partha Chatterjee,国家及其碎片:殖民和后殖民历史(普林斯顿大学出版社1993)116-157.24 Chetan (n 1) 14.25凯瑟琳a麦金农,“前言”贝弗里贝恩斯,达芙妮巴拉克-埃雷兹和茨维卡哈纳(编),女权主义宪政:全球视角(CUP 2012) ix。强调added.26例如,Sucheta Kriplani的声音只在她唱两遍国歌时才被听到。amu Swaminathan和Vijaylakshmi Pandits各自只说了一次。令人惊讶的是,Amrit Kaur从未在大会上发言。 参见Surbhi Karwa,“宪法本身就是一部女权主义文件”——是吗?(法学硕士论文,德里国立法律大学2019)30-31.27 Chetan (n 1) 59;在提到乔杜里和另外两名女性空出的席位时,普尔尼玛·巴纳吉在大会上要求,女性成员空出的席位应该由女性成员填补。制宪会议辩论(议事录),第十卷(1949年10月11日)2023年1月19日见。一位成员遗憾地说,起草委员会派了“一位女士为他们的事业而战”,指的是经常向众议院提出规则制定委员会建议的Durgabai Deshmukh。见制宪会议辩论(议事录),第十卷(1949年10月15日),2023年1月19日见。见制宪会议辩论(会议),第十卷(1949年10月15日),2023年1月19日见过。同样,在制宪会议辩论(立法)期间的另一个场合,杜尔加拜不得不寻求主席的干预,因为他被允许在罗希尼·库马尔·乔杜里的打断和即兴评论中发言。这是在一次关于《被绑架者(恢复和恢复)法案》的辩论中,她与男性成员辩论时发生的。在一个令人深感不安的事态发展中,一些男性成员要求,除非巴基斯坦遣返同等数量的妇女,否则不应遣返边界印度一侧的妇女。见制宪会议辩论(立法)(1949年12月15日)662,查阅日期:2023年1月19日。关于该法案的讨论,请参阅Urvashi Butalia,沉默的另一面:来自印度分裂的声音(Duke UP 1998) 172-245.30在两个场合,第一次,当RV Dhulekar将一个人的“保护奶牛的权利”与他保护“他的女人”的权利进行比较时——RV Dhulekar,制宪会议辩论(诉讼),第七卷(1948年11月24日)访问2023年1月19日;第二,当罗希尼·库马尔·乔杜里(Rohini Kumar Chaudhari)声称需要“保护妇女”,就像需要“保护奶牛”一样——宪法会议辩论(议事录),第11卷(1949年11月21日),2023年1月19日访问。Naziruddin Ahmad在评论领土加入和整合之间的区别时,将妻子比作财产,见宪法会议辩论(议事录),第7卷(1949年1月5日),2023年1月19日访问。制宪会议辩论(议事录),第十卷(1949年10月11日),2023年1月19日见。另见《1946年印度妇女权利和义务宪章》第8条,由Hansa-Mehta女士提交供小组委员会参考(联合国,1946年5月1日),2023年1月19日查阅。参见Flavia Agnes,《家事法:家事法与宪法主张》(OUP 201) 149-150.35,同上28.36,同上259.37。2014年的辩论状态(2014)40女权主义研究480,484.38 Masani先生,Hansa Mehta, Amrit Kaur对Rao基本权利小组委员会报告草案的异议记录(n 5) 162.39同上。另见Hansa Mehta,制宪会议辩论(诉讼),第11卷(1949年11月22日),2023.1月19日访问。另见Janaki Nair,殖民印度的妇女和法律(1996年妇女的Kali) 180-203.41,如Shayara Bano诉印度联盟AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)(更常被称为“三重塔拉克案”)所见。参见弗拉维亚·艾格尼丝,“将三重塔拉克定为犯罪背后的政治”(2018)53 EPW 12-14;弗拉维亚·阿格尼斯,“世俗框架内的妇女运动——重新定义议程”(1994)29 EPW 1123.42 Shreya Atrey,“女权主义宪政:在争论中绘制话语”(2022)20国际宪法杂志611,618.43同上615.44 Chetan (n 1) 243.45参见Nira Yuval-Davis,性别与国家(Sage 1997).46Chetan (n 1) 79.47同上78.48参见Geraldine Forbes,现代印度妇女(CUP 1999)。另见Maitrayee Chaudhuri,印度妇女运动:改革与复兴(棕榈叶出版社2011).49Roy (n . 14) 44.50 Chatterjee (n . 23) 117.51 Chetan (n . 1) 214.52同上215.53关于结果导向的女权主义研究的局限性,见Atrey (n . 42).54B Pattabhi Sitaramayya,制宪会议辩论(会议录),第十一卷(1949年11月25日),2023年1月19日取阅;一般见制宪会议辩论(会议),第四卷(1947年7月18日),2023年1月19日查阅;另见Roy (n 14) 167.55《年度报告,1935年AIWC第10届会议》,引自福布斯(n 48) 113。雷在大会上同样断言,“男女之间没有冲突”。见宪法会议辩论(议事录),第四卷(1947年7月18日),2023年1月19日查阅。56《印度妇女权利和义务宪章》第四条,1946年,汉萨-梅塔女士提交供小组委员会参考(联合国,1946年5月1日),2023年1月19日查阅
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信