In December 1917, [Sarojini] Naidu led a delegation of women that met Edwin Montagu, the secretary of state for India, and Lord Chelmsford, the viceroy. In their address to Montagu and Chelmsford, the delegation highlighted that women in India had “awakened to their responsibilities in the public life”. They wanted women to be recognised as “people”, specifying that “it may be worded in such terms as will not disqualify our sex” and allowed the right to vote and “same opportunities of representation” as the men. The hectic advocacy, however, met with limited success. Britain enacted the Government of India Act 1919 (based on a report by Montagu and Chelmsford), which listed being a woman as a disqualification to the right to vote. However, it allowed provincial legislatures to enfranchise them. 

• • •

Poll

Who will win the Punjab Elections?

BJP 32.79%

AAP 42.62%

INC 24.59%

Submit

View All In Poll

By 1945, the victory of the Allied Forces was inevitable and Indian independence was finally on the horizon. Women activists were hopeful that their aspirations of equality were going to be realised in an independent India. They had stood against the colonial rule and were now keen on forging a republic that would elevate their status. 

Mehta at a United Nations Commission on Human Rights meet in 1947,  when she objected to the use of gendered words such as “all men” and “brothers” because “she felt they might be interpreted to exclude women  and were out of date”. Pic courtesy UN in India’s X account

Hansa presided over the annual conference of [All India Women’s Conference] AIWC in December 1945. At the conference “members were instructed to collect the relevant clauses dealing with women’s rights from various constitutions”. In her presidential address, Hansa talked about crystallizing their demands through a women’s charter of rights. Hansa also spoke of raising the economic status of women. “It is in the economic sphere that woman will have to fight hard to establish her position,” she said. Hansa then broached a subject that remains unresolved—the issue of unpaid household work, which she felt had not been recognized yet and wanted to highlight. 

Hansa passionately voiced, “It is the work of the housewife. She works from early morning till late at night … It is time that the importance of this work was recognized and conditions of work improved.” She then enumerated another essential but ignored right—the right to leisure. Hansa had put her privilege to good use. She was well-travelled and informed of the advancements around the world. The progressive thinking on display was a testament to her commitment to feminist causes.

The AIWC session of 1945 was in many ways redemption for Hansa. In the 1927 session, she had caused some flutter when she sought to outlaw child marriages and recognize marriages as a “strictly monogamous and equal contract”. Now at the helm of affairs, Hansa made it known that the charter of women’s rights would advocate holistic changes to personal laws vis-a-vis succession, divorce, polygamy, and guardianship. She also made it clear that a woman “shall have a right to limit her family”. At its 1946 session, the AIWC adopted the Indian Woman’s Charter of Rights and Duties. In presenting the ‘Charter of Rights and Duties’ of women, life had come full circle for Hansa since her college days when an errant male classmate thought he could decide the duties of Indian women. The charter was “forwarded to the Central and provincial governments, strongly urging that the fundamental rights and economic and social directives embodied in it form ‘an integral part of the Constitution’”. Hansa was elected to the Constituent Assembly from Bombay on a Congress ticket in 1946.

• • •

The second session of the [United Nations’ Commission on Human Rights] HRC was held in Geneva in December 1947, a few months after India gained independence. At the meeting, Hansa again spoke of the International Bill of Rights forming part of both international and domestic law. She apprised the delegates of India’s commitment to incorporate fundamental human rights into its Constitution. When the matter of implementation of the Bill of Rights came up, she said that the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] UDHR must not contain anything “which would not be implemented”. Subsequently, she was made part of the Working Group of Implementation and elected ‘chairman’. 

Hansa proposed that individuals must have the right to petition for violation of their human rights. Her working group asked the UN Secretariat “to draw up a full and detailed scheme of regulations and procedures regarding the right of petition”. The move was scuttled by the USA which was sceptical about the implementation.

At its thirty-fourth meeting, the HRC discussed draft Article 1 of the UDHR. Hansa objected to the use of gendered words such as “all men” and “brothers” because “she felt they might be interpreted to exclude women and were out of date”. Chairperson [former First Lady of the US Eleanor] Roosevelt disagreed saying “all men” was used in the general sense and implied human beings. The draft Article was put to vote and “all men” was accepted. In the subsequent sessions, the matter was brought up and brushed away. Some members felt it was irrelevant as “all men” automatically included women. The French representative highlighted the translation issues that were to happen if “all men” was substituted with “all men and women”. The United Kingdom and India joined hands and moved another resolution. It was only in the last session of the commission that Hansa’s suggestions for gender-neutral terminology were accepted.

Excerpted with permission from The Fifteen: The Lives and Times of the Women in India’s Constitutent Assembly byAngellica Aribam and Akash Satyawali, Hachette India