Shruthi Viswanathan and Rasha Hameed
The Equals Project
This research examines the women's liberation movement in Madras prior to independence, specifically focusing on the Women's India Association and the Dravidian Feminist movement. Through this paper, we examine the points of convergence and divergence between these two strands of feminist thought and what that tells us about their conceptions of woman, society, and identity. These two movements also serve as a lens to view politics in Madras and the ideological underpinnings of the Tamil identity in the Self-Respect movement.
While both movements were committed to the upliftment of women, they differed in their approach to caste, religion, and nationalism. This paper looks at their common goal of abolishing the devadasi system—a practice that symbolized the intersection of caste, gender, and religious tradition. The WIA, through legislative advocacy and public mobilization, played a central role in pushing for legal reform, while Dravidian feminists challenged the cultural and casteist underpinnings of the practice. We then delve into the differences between the two movements by looking at the differing imaginations of woman, family and nation within the two movements.
We conclude by looking at the constitutional embodiment of gender justice, and how that reflects the aspirations of the two feminist movements originating in Madras.
It is essential to recognize that the concept of "woman" is not a uniform identity; it is shaped by various factors such as caste, class, education, and geographic location. These elements interact with gender to create multifaceted identities that can sometimes conflict, even within the common framework of women's rights. This paper draws out these distinctions and the broader divisions within the feminist imagination of these two movements.
Women’s movements of Madras were both influenced by, and influenced, the broader national movement for freedom from colonial rule. The struggle for Indian independence galvanized several women into political movements. It was only natural that this liberation was confined not just to liberation from the British but also greater political and social rights for Indian women.
The women’s movements brought the focus on the ills within Indian society - specifically child marriage, education, inheritance. In this landscape was born the Women’s India Association (WIA). In 1917, Annie Besant was elected president of the Indian National Congress. In that same year, she, along with other Madras women, founded the Women’s India Association - to advocate for social and political reform for women. The WIA employed a two-pronged strategy: on the one hand work towards social and political awakening of women through outreach programmes and on the other hand actively lobby governments and political parties to influence and enact greater rights and freedoms for women. This would go on to serve as a model for women’s associations across the country. An illustrative instance of the former (social and political reforms) is WIA’s work with women in sex work. Within the confines of the city of Madras, as well as in various regions of the presidency, the existence of brothels was a common occurrence. In a concerted effort to obliterate this practice, the WIA instituted its vigilance and rescue initiatives. Furthermore, the organization’s members, recognizing the need for societal reform, established the Vidhwa Vivah Sahitya Sabha to advocate for the remarriage of widows. In 1923, the WIA furthered its mission by founding the Madras Seva Sadan, which aimed primarily at advancing adult education for women. Subsequently, the establishment of the Madras Children Aid Society in 1924 marked a milestone in the WIA’s pursuit of child welfare within the Madras Presidency. Notable examples of the WIA’s accomplishments in lobbying legislators include its pivotal involvement in securing legislative victories pertaining to the inheritance rights and remarriage of widows, its influential role in the passage of the Children Act and its amendments to the Madras Children Act, as well as its vigorous lobbying efforts with legislators advocating for the advancement of women’s suffrage. The WIA’s work was located within the framework of the nationalist struggle.
Eight years after the founding of the WIA, Madras saw the establishment of a radical social movement founded by E. V. Ramaswamy Periyar. The Self-Respect movement was rooted in rational thinking, anti-caste thought and practice, and a radical assertion of equality. The movement focused on the intersection between caste and gender, arguing that advocating for women’s rights without talking about caste would not lead to true liberation. The Self-Respect Movement comprehended caste not merely as a system delineating divisions of labor and laborers, but as an apparatus that also categorized women in a similar manner. While such segmentation afforded certain women a measure of relative comfort and security, it simultaneously ensnared them in a web of ignorance, leading them to erroneously perceive themselves as superior to their lower-caste, working-class counterparts. In this context, women advocating for self-respect were particularly scathing in their critique of nationalist women, vociferously objecting to their appeals for adherence to tradition and encouragement to serve the nation. In an editorial reflection on a gathering of 'Indian Women' convened in Madras under the auspices of the Congress, Kudi Arasu questioned, how educated, upper-caste women could so readily dismiss the reality of their subordinate status while simultaneously attempting to perpetuate it through the invocation of conventional female role models such as Sita, Nalayini, Chandramathi, and Vasugi, figures whose dedication to husband-worship could hardly be regarded as exemplary.
The feminist here held two separate but interconnected criticisms: on the one hand they chastised their peers such as the WIA for not focusing on the struggles of women from lower castes and focusing on national unity without caste justice, at the same time they spoke of the servitude that all women faced, irrespective of their relative caste and class privilege. The Self-Respect Movement questioned the centrality of religion and faith and saw it as a tool to continue the oppression of the Indian woman, a stance which was radically different from the WIA.
The Self-Respect Marriage was an instance which shattered casteist hold on the institution and uplifted a woman’s right to choose, desire the man she wanted to marry. Self-Respect marriages were founded on principles of friendship, equality, and mutual respect. A Self-Respect marriage's essential criterion is the complete exclusion of Hindu priests and associated rituals, signifying a deliberate departure from traditional conventions.
It is documented in Kudi Arasu that when Sami Sitambaram decided to wed Sivagami, a widow, the couple undertook the following vow:
“Today our conjugal life that is based on love begins. From today I accept you, my dear and beloved comrade, as my spouse, so that I may consecrate my love and cooperation to the cause of social progress in such a manner as would not contradict your desires”.
The Self-Respect marriage vow forged a bond between man and woman characterized not only by equality but also by a sense of equivalence, ensuring that neither partner could aspire to enjoy or exercise rights that were withheld from the other. This form of marriage conferred upon the wife equal rights concerning property, and, notably, such rights were frequently articulated within the marriage vows themselves, including the rights to separation and divorce.
The Self-Respect Marriage was officially legalized in Tamil Nadu in 1967.
While the WIA predominantly drew upon an upper-class membership and lacked sustained alliances across class-caste boundaries, the Self-Respect movement firmly rejected any claims to authority predicated on the consolidation of class-caste interests under the guise of Indian nationalism. In the following sections, we further explore the divergence and convergence between the two feminist movements by looking at their engagement with the Devadasi Abolishment Act, and their conception of the ‘Ideal’ Indian woman.
The devadasi practice refers to a tradition where generally young girls belonging to certain lower castes, Isai Vellalar and Arundathiyar in particular, were dedicated to temples. The term "devadasi," derived from Sanskrit, literally means “female slave of God.” It was also referred to as the “Pottu Kattudal” ritual in Madras, “Jogin” in the Andhra Pradesh region, “Basavis” in Karnataka, “Kudikar” in Western India. The origin of the devadasi practice can be traced back to when a large number of temples were built as a result of the Bhakti Movement during the rule of Cholas. This devotional upsurge was the main plank of the devadasi system. Devadasis were widely known to be sexually exploited. At the same time some of them were able to access wealth, literacy, an education in the arts - all of which were not available to other women.
During the pre-independence era, women from the Madras Presidency emerged as ardent critics of the devadasi system. Feminist activists, both from the WIA and Dravidian feminists voiced their opposition to this oppressive practice. In 1927 the first legislative attempt to ‘discourage’ the devadasi system was introduced by Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy. This did not ask for a direct prohibition of the system, but sought to ‘enable the existing devadasis to refrain from temple service and yet retain their economic assets. It also disallowed future devadasis from being remunerated in land for temple service.’ The Madras government initiated a campaign to gather public opinions on the abolition of the devadasi system; this was done to get public participation regarding the draft bill. It was met with backlash from Periyar and other Self-Respect activists since they felt that the Government need not seek public opinion in such matters, where the dignity of women is evidently affected. Members of the self-respect movement undertook the task of raising awareness among the public in favor of dismantling the devadasi system. Neelavathi Ammaiyar authored an essay titled “Is it Fair to Continue the Subjugation of Women?” in a Kudi Arasu editorial, in an effort to enlighten the public during a period when many were swayed by the fundamentalist viewpoints that supported the devadasi tradition.
Ramamirthammal, known widely as “Moovalurar”, was one of the Dravidian feminists who supported and campaigned for the Bill actively. She was born into a life of poverty in a devadasi community. Her mother sold her for 10 Rupees and a sari before she even turned 10. She married her music teacher, Suyambu Pillai, at a time when it was taboo for devadasis to marry. This bold decision heralded the onset of her rising against the devadasi system. She spent the rest of her public life fighting against the devadasi system and even penned a novel in 1936 on this issue, “Dasigal Mosavalai allatu Mati Perra Mainar” (The Devadasis' Web of Deceit, or The Minor Grown Wise). Ramamritham was originally a member of the Congress, and then switched to the Self-Respect movement. While there are no written records on why she made this switch, it is believed that the Congress’ conservative attitude to the abolition of the devadasi system was a key contributor.
The nationalist and feminist dimensions of devadasi reform within the Madras Presidency were shaped by Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy. Throughout the 1920s, she mobilized public support for the cause of devadasi reform, bringing the issue to the forefront of discussions within the Madras Legislative Council. Moreover, Reddy, while deeply engaged with the ideals of Indian nationalism, also maintained affiliations with the Dravidian movement, reflecting the multifaceted nature of her political activism. She asserted that the practice of dedicating innocent young women and children to temples represents not only a disgrace to Indian women but also a blemish on the principles of social justice. Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy’s allies in the WIA similarly viewed the devadasi system as a form of socially sanctioned prostitution; in a 1927 resolution, the WIA condemned the "dedication of girls to temples and commercialized vice." Her advocacy led to the enactment of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act of 1929, a legislation that abolished the practice of granting inam to devadasis in return for their services in temples. She observed:
At an age when they cannot very well see the future before them they are actually shown the way by their superstitious and orthodox elders in the name of our religion and in the name of the holy, both by word and deed to take to an unclean and unhealthy life - in short to a life of shame, children, who would, if no such training is given, grow to be loyal wives, affectionate mothers and useful citizens. Those children after being turned into sinners and criminals are then stigmatized and treated as out-castes. A few amongst us may justify its actions by saying "what does it matter, it is confined only to one caste or community; moreover we cannot by any means eradicate vice." I can only remind them of these lines from the immortal poet:
Whatever wrong is done
To the humblest and most weakest
‘Neath the all-holding sun
The wrong is also done to us
Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy penned a letter seeking support from Gandhi at a time when certain Congress leaders erected obstacles against the abolition of the devadasi practice. In response, Gandhi admired her initiative and conceded that her proposals were not only coherent but would also contribute positively to the integrity of religion and the cause of social justice. While he expressed his admiration for Reddy’s endeavors and commended her actions within the legislative council, he nonetheless cautioned her against embracing “western customs."
Within the Congress, there existed a faction of men who regarded the devadasi practice as sacred and believed it ought to persist within society. Among the advocates of this perspective was S. Sathyamurthy. Satyamurthy felt that the practice was part of ‘indigenous/Indian’ culture and likened it to the life of Christian nuns. Preserving the tradition of devadasis was part of preserving ‘Indian’ tradition from colonisers. The conflation of sexual exploitation with ‘culture’ was used to prevent its abolition. In a particularly heated debate on this issue, Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy said if the custom was so necessary for Indian culture then brahmin women could now take over the practice.
Additionally, certain legislative members affiliated with the Justice Party voiced their opposition to the Bill, with Somayarajulu, for instance, arguing that it had been rushed through the legislative process. This position taken by a subset of Justice Party members not only highlighted internal dissent but also caused embarrassment to the proponents of the Self-Respect Movement. There was also a debate around having marriage as a reform to mitigate devadasi practice. The WIA believed that marriage reform was important in their fight against the devadasi system. In the 1939 debates in the Madras Legislative Council, the following description highlights the ways in which marriage and being a ‘good wife’ was viewed as a salvation for the devadasis.
It is a well-known fact that the girls of these communities, when married, become good and loyal wives, affectionate mothers and useful citizens, and therefore the Devadasis are only victims of a custom that is supposed to have been sanctioned by religion.
There were others who sought more comprehensive reform, beyond marriage alone. In this respect, a devadasi B. Varalakshamma said:
If the Government and the Congress leaders really want to introduce reform in the Devadasi system and wean them from the path of wretched- ness they should establish Rescue Homes. [They should] educate their children (male and female) by classifying them as belonging to the Suppressed and Depressed classes and by providing them with liberal scholarships to encourage marriage amongst them, give some appointments such as nurses in hospitals and singing mistresses at schools.
The devadasis who opposed the reform campaign were equally reluctant to endorse marriage as the singular solution for dedicated women. In response to the growing movement for reform, the Madras Presidency Devadasis’ Association convened public meetings, passed formal resolutions, and submitted petitions to the government advocating their stance on devadasi reform, which called for retaining the system. In 1927, the association circulated a petition to the Madras government to contest the resolution proposed by Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy in the Madras Legislative Council, which aimed to abolish the system of temple dedications. This petition was supported by the signatures of prominent devadasis, including T. Doraikannammal, the secretary of the association, and B. Nagaratnammal. It is interesting to note that Dr. Muthulakshmi Reddy saw devadasis merely as the object of reform and did not engage with their point of view. She dismissed their opinion by saying they were ‘a set of prostitutes set up by their keepers’.
Despite the efforts of various feminist organizations to outlaw the devadasi practice, this bill was passed only in 1947.
The nationalist and feminist movements advocating for devadasi reform within the Madras Presidency were significantly shaped by the contributions of both the WIA and Dravidian Movement. While these two strands of feminist thought differed in their approach to caste and gender relations, they converged in their collective aim to eradicate the devadasi system from Madras. Despite opposition from their male political counterparts, men in the Indian National Congress and the Justice Party, they were united by their common goal of eradicating a sexually exploitative system.
The truest test to a nation’s civilization lies in the position occupied by her womanhood and the esteem in which she is held. Where she is honored and free, the nation is progressive and enlightened but where she is looked down upon and consigned to oblivion, the country fails to satisfy the demands of civilization. And in this test. India has failed; for the position of her womanhood is that of a chattel or at the most, an unintellectual ornament. And India’s regeneration largely lies in the position and prestige she is willing to accord to her womanhood.
From the late nineteenth century, Indian nationalists promoted the notion of the domestic sphere, particularly the relationship between husband and wife, as an uncolonized space from which colonial rule could be resisted. This narrative centred on heterosexual and monogamous marriages, positioning the family as a bastion of ‘Indian’ tradition and culture.
As the early twentieth century unfolded, there was a rise in women’s participation in politics and the public sphere. Imagery around women and motherhood dominated nationalist politics and found its way even in regionalist movements in Tamil Nadu. At the same time, mass mobilization of women in politics became an important part of the Gandhian nationalist movement, allowing public political participation of women. Indian womanhood (more specifically motherhood) now became the ideal and the instrument of the nationalist movement.
The WIA took up education and employment as important conduits for political liberation of society and the nation. Some of the courses offered to them centred on ‘female’ pursuits in Home Science Training. This drew the ire of the Dravidian movement for its adherence to English and colonial frameworks, and for its inability to break out of gender roles. To give credit to the WIA, they doggedly pursued women’s education as an important part of their plank and lobbied legislators. They had many successes in this field including compulsory primary education for girls (1929). They were successful in political lobbying to gain crucial gains for girls’ education within Madras.
Education within the WIA’s plank was also deeply tied to nationalist sentiments. While education would allow women freedom, it would also bring about a sense of ‘nationalist pride’. These arguments claimed that women’s education and empowerment was necessary not for women themselves but also for the progress of India itself. The ideal Indian woman was one who strove to improve herself but did it to improve the family and the nation. The idea of a woman who sought for self-sufficiency for herself and rejected its association with case norms and nationalist sentiments was less prevalent within the WIA.
The ignorance of women is the giant cause of our national degradation, poverty, mutual distrust and downfall … the ignorance of women is the demon which stands in the path of our moral, material, and national progress.
An illiterate woman cannot train her children to be useful and patriotic citizens.
Nationalist and patriarchal sentiments were tied together within the WIA’s plank. This is illustrated by its objects outlined in Stri Dharma.
To help women realise that the future of India lies in their hands: for as wives and mothers they have the task of training, guiding, and forming the character of future rulers of India.
Thus, while the WIA was relentless and progressive in its pursuit of women’s education and emancipation, the value of this was deeply tied to maintaining the patriarchal order and elevating the progress of an independent India.
In contrast, Dravidian women criticized these nationalist sentiments, asserting that the focus should not solely rest on marriage but also on class consciousness, addressing the evil of caste-class, etc. Dravidian editorials critiqued Brahminism and Brahmin women’s idea of gender equality for their adherence to conventional role models, such as Sita and Nalayini, deeming the worship of husbands unworthy of emulation.
Importantly, figures like Meenakshi and Neelavathi Ammal highlighted the need for caste consciousness among nationalist women, arguing that issues faced by marginalized groups, including adi dravida women were equally crucial to the national struggle. Dravidian women actively campaigned against caste hierarchies by advocating for the rights of adi dravidar communities, including temple entry, separate electorates, and educational access. They positioned their struggle as a critique of the prevalent nationalist ideology, and the views of WIA and figures like Gandhi. Although fighting caste discrimination was within the WIA’s aims, it predominantly consisted of upper-caste women who aligned with Gandhian nationalism, intertwining their perceptions of womanhood, domestic roles, nationalism and did not have caste struggle as its centre. This vision contrasted with that of Dravidian women, who perceived these concepts through a radical lens.
The difference between the notions of ‘womanhood’ in both the movements can be understood by discussing Self-Respect marriages. The central aim of Self-Respect marriages was to free the institution of marriage from Hindu rituals, which emphasized monogamous familial norms and chastity for women and thus legitimized patriarchy. The Self-Respect movement believed that marriage was between two equals born out of choice and desire, and rejected its intertwining with patriarchy and caste. Though the WIA also challenged gender norms within these institutions, it was less radical in its challenge of marriage, caste and patriarchy.
The Self-Respect marriage between Sivagami, a young widow from an orthodox family in Thanjavur, and Tamil scholar Sami Chidambaranar exemplifies the radical nature of Dravidian marriage. Presided over by E.V.R. Nagammal, this ceremony rejected traditional Hindu rituals, including the tying of the tali, favoring instead an oath of friendship and equality, with the couple addressing each other as comrades. This politically significant event occurred during the second Self-Respect Conference, followed by a procession in Erode to promote widow remarriage, drawing large crowds. Similarly, Kamalambal and Nallasivan's union in Nagarkoil that year, conducted by Periyar and Nagai Kaliyappan in a cinema hall, also emphasized progressive ideals; the groom transferred Rs. 5,000 in property to the bride, supporting equal property rights for women, and attracted around 2,500 witnesses. Another instance of such a union is documented in a Puratchi editorial titled “An Inter-caste Self-Respect Marriage at Erode” dated January 19, 1930: celebration of inter-caste Self-Respect marriage between S. Guruswami, sub-editor of Puratchi and T.S. Kunjitham at Periyar’s mansion at Erode. This was considered to be the first instance of a member from the Mudaliar community (which in South India is next to the Brahmins in orthodoxy and “privilege of birth”) entering into an inter-caste marriage. Prominent figures like Dewan of Mysore, Members and Ministers of Parliament, editors of newspapers, businessmen, wealthy landlords and others had sent messages of congratulations to the married couple. This not only indicated strong support to such reforms, but also a remarkable change in the social atmosphere itself.
While the WIA pushed for greater rights within marriage and the nation, the Dravidian women and the participants of self-respect marriages challenged the caste and patriarchal norms which formed the basis of traditional marriages. While addressing the Erode conference, Sarala Devi proposed the abolition of the joint family system with specific recommendations on family and property law changes that would enable this.
The ideal Indian woman emerged as a figure representing familial devotion and national aspirations. It was a complex identity and reflected the diverse and contested landscape of womanhood in British India. In the WIA imagination an ‘ideal’ woman was one who was educated, politically active, but whose liberation was tied to service of the nation. In the Dravidian model, the woman was a rational individual who questioned structures of caste, family and nation, and how they were built on the subservience of women. While both feminists fought against patriarchal oppression, the WIA still located itself within a nationalist framework while the Dravidian model saw nationalism as part of the problem. As Meenakshi noted in her Kudi Arasu article:
Sisters, reflect for a moment on the horrors you endure in your day-to-day life. You borrow money-because you wish to observe a custom, practice a ritual, you borrow for a funeral, a pilgrimage... Consequently, poverty, humiliation, debt, police warrant, and mortgage, the misery that visits your children, unbearable sadness and the rebuke of others: one follows the other. Why must you do this? To preserve a convention, an orthodox custom? To appear virtuous in the eyes of others? Do you not realize your [minds] are diseased...stricken with barbarity and afflicted with degenerate rituals...
The women in the self-respect movement focused on their rights and desires as individuals, irrespective of its implications for family and nation. Here is an extract from Neelavathi Ramasubramaniam’s essay ‘Inba Suthanthiram Yengallakku llatyaa’ (Is the bliss of freedom not for us?).
Like you, we desire to travel freely. We take pleasure in different sights. We want to lead happy lives. It is not right on your part to snatch our freedom away from us.
In another essay, Janaki bemoaned the blame that women carried for anything that went wrong and condemned Brahmanism for preventing women from enjoying basic comforts.
Let women and other folk live comfortably. Let nothing stand in the way of their freedom. Then we will all be equals. Like the whites, let us freely enjoy the use of umbrellas during the rains. Let us wear slippers and protect our feet from the heat. Let us eat on time and lead a happy life.
These quotes highlight the centring of the woman and her freedom amongst women writers in the self-respect movement. In their writings, they denounce caste, ritualism and the burdens these places on women. Instead the focus on the yearning for freedom as an individual and their right to experience everyday pleasures.
This section will explore the model of gender equality adopted in the Indian Constitution and its alignment with the ideals of the WIA and/or the Dravidian movement.
In 1946, as the Constituent Assembly convened in Delhi to formulate a Constitution for an India liberated from British dominion, enshrining equality and fostering equity were key concerns. The Indian Constitution emerged not merely from the discussions held within the Constituent Assembly, but was also shaped by the constitutional consciousness that had been cultivated prior to 1946. Notably, women played an instrumental role in articulating the constitutional vision for India.
The WIA had long been advocating for a Constitutional vision in which women were equal political, economic, and social citizens. In the very year that the WIA was founded, the Montague-Chelmsford Commission embarked on a tour of India to gather insights for drafting constitutional reforms. During this period, WIA participated as part of a fourteen-member delegation composed entirely of women, who met with the Commission to advocate for the franchise for women. Despite the Commission's rejection of this demand, the WIA continued its efforts, subsequently making the pursuit of equal voting rights a primary focus of its political endeavours in the months that followed. Simultaneously, the women’s movement in India broadened its aspirations, evolving from a focus on specific rights, such as the right to vote, to encompass a more holistic constitutional vision.
The WIA began to articulate demands that were directly linked to the constitutional future of India, frequently conveyed through its in-house publication, Stri-Dharma. In a Stri-Dharma article titled “Women’s Place in the Future Constitution of India”, a series of goals proposed by the WIA for a prospective constitutional framework was outlined:
Further it proposed to lay down in the Constitution general principles intended to safeguard those sections of the community judged least able to protect themselves, such as the following:
These goals highlight the cause of affirmative action for women in politics. The topic of affirmative action policies grounded in considerations of caste, class, and gender was extensively deliberated within the Constituent Assembly. Such policies are designed to enhance opportunities for marginalized segments of society. This discourse serves as the best example of the applicability of Rawls' theory, which posits that for any administration striving to uphold the principle of equality among individuals, they must focus particularly on those who find themselves in disadvantaged circumstances. Despite women activists pointing out the pervasive marginalization faced by women and calling for affirmative action in this regard, the women in the Constituent Assembly of India took a different view when political representation of women and reservations were tabled for consideration. They advocated for the principle of merit instead of affirmative action.
In this context, the voice of Hansa Mehta resonated powerfully; while she acknowledged that Indian women would appreciate the notion that a free India signifies not merely equality in status but also equality in opportunities, she firmly emphasized that the women of the nation were not seeking reserved seats or separate electorates. Rather, they were in pursuit of justice within the social, economic, and political realms.
The Constitution of India granted political equality to women - affording them the right to vote, stand for elections, and participate as equal citizens in public life. However, less focus was granted to gender equity and justice in other spheres. Perhaps, most telling in this regard is the failure of the Assembly to enshrine a Uniform Civil Code. The code would have enshrined equal rights regarding marriage, inheritance, etc. for Indian women across religions. While the UCC was discussed within the Assembly, strong opposition to it was seen on the basis of religious freedom, protection of personal laws. Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Hansa Mehta, the two female members of the Fundamental Rights sub-committee, placed on record their dissent noting that discriminatory practices such as purdah, child marriage, etc. could be justified in the name of freedom of religion. Consequently, those advocating for the measure reluctantly acquiesced to a compromise, resulting in the incorporation of the UCC into a list of "directive principles." Although these principles would lack legal enforceability, they were intended to serve as guiding frameworks for legislators in the state.
In her study, “Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World”, Kumari Jayawardena notes that the lack of expansive gender justice represents a postcolonial phenomenon in which, once independence was attained, male politicians—who had previously mobilized women effectively during the struggle—subsequently relegated them back to their "accustomed place."
Christine Keating posits that the framing of the Indian Constitution can be understood as a narrative of contractual engagement wherein members of the Constituent Assembly faced the challenge of reconciling their dedication to establishing an egalitarian polity with their need to secure consent for the political authority of the newly formed Indian state. She contends that the Assembly ultimately arrived at a compromise, which she characterizes as a postcolonial sexual contract, in order to navigate this complex dilemma. While they enshrined equality in the public sphere as a fundamental right for women, they simultaneously sanctioned discriminatory personal laws that perpetuated women's subordination within the family, all in the interest of ensuring male acquiescence to a centralized regime.
On the other hand, the Dravidian movement refused to engage with the Constitution framing process as it was a non-representative process, and one they felt did not adequately respect the aspirations of the Tamil people and their language. The following quote from Periyar illustrates his criticism of the constitution making process.
“Was this constitution made with the participation of the poor of this country; the majority of the population? In 1946 you declared that the constitution will be made by the representatives elected after all people above the age of 21 can vote in this country. Did you do that?
You’ve established a constitution that will permanently oppress us and make it easy for you to exploit us. You then go ahead and impose this constitution on all of us?”
The Dravidian movement saw the Constitution as not sufficiently against the caste system, accusing the Constitution and its makers of preserving caste orders. In fact, Periyar even encouraged the burning of the Constitution to protest the lack of ‘true’ social justice within it.
Thus, there is limited interaction between the Dravidian feminists and the Constitution making process. However, it would not be difficult to conclude that these feminists would have deeply opposed the incomplete realization of gender justice in the Indian Constitution. Their hopes of the abolishment of the caste system, of abolishment of traditional systems of marriage and patriarchal society which subjugated women were not met within the provisions of the Constitution. Dravidian feminists envisioned a vision of citizenship which was not merely legal, but also social.
Women’s associations and reformist networks existed in Madras even before the WIA and emergence of the Dravidian movement. Madras had seen the emergence and growth of the Bharat Stree Mahamandal, the Theosophical Society and Young Women’s Christian Association. They created a nascent public sphere where women could articulate grievances and aspirations. However, the WIA and Self-Respect Movement shall be rightly credited with institutionalizing feminist politics in colonial Madras, even though the feminist consciousness in Madras predates both.
While both these movements approached the role of women in modern India separately, they were united in their call for reform of Indian society to allow equal political and economic participation of women. The WIA embedded itself within the nationalist movement, embedding its idea of a modern Indian woman within service to the nation and family. The Self-Respect movement encouraged women to not only question the limited political freedom of women, but to connect it with other systems of oppression in the caste system and patriarchal structures. Self-Respect feminist thought grounded in the individual, rationality and freedom.
Ultimately, both strands found themselves disappointed by the imagination of gender justice in the Indian Constitution. Their historical work provides a model for expanding feminist imagination in Madras, and India, today; and a model for the legal and social citizenship that is needed for gender equity.
Anandhi, S. “Women’s Question in the Dravidian Movement c. 1925-1948”, Social Scientist, Vol. 19, No. 6 (1991) :24-41.
Anandhi, S. “Representing Devadasis: ‘Dasigalin Mosavali’ as a Radical Text”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 26 No. 11/12 (March 1991) :739-746,
Broome, Sarah K. “Stri- Dharma: Voice of Indian Women’s Rights Movement 1928-1936”. Thesis, Georgia State University (2012) https://doi.org/10.57709/3075581.
Constituent Assembly Debates.Vol.1.New Delhi: Government of India,1946.
Constituent Assembly Debates. Vol.7. New Delhi: Government of India,1948.
Ganesan, Uma. Gender and Caste: Self-Respect Movement in the Madras Presidency, 1925–1950. University of Cincinnati, 2011
Geetha, V. “Periyar, Women and an Ethic of Citizenship.” Economic and Political Weekly 33, no. 17 (1998): WS9–15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4406695
Hancock, Mary. “Home Science and the Nationalism of Domesticity in Colonial India”, Modern Asian Studies Vol. 35 No. 4, (2001): 871-903, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0026749X01004048.
Harishankar, V. Bharathi and Priyamvadha, M. “Exploitation of Women and its Associated Evils”, submitted to National Commission for Women, New Delhi.
Jayawardena, Kumari. Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World. Zed Books Publication, 1986.
Kahina, Ashik. “Reading Periyar Today” THE CARAVAN. (April 1, 2021). https://caravanmagazine.in/books/reading-periyar.
Kapur, Ratna and Cossman, Brenda. “On Women, Equality, and the Constitution: Through the Looking Glass of Feminism” in Gender and Politics in India, edited by Nivedita Menon. Delhi: Oxford University Press,1999. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822384830-001
Keating, Christine. “Framing the Postcolonial Sexual Contract: Democracy, Fraternalism and State Authority in India”. Hypatia Journal of Feminist Philosophy, Vol. 22 No. 4 Fall Issue (2007) :130-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01324.x.
Krishna, Vineeth. “The Women’s India Association and Indian Constitutional Thought”, March 12, 2024, constitutionofindia.net.
Madras (India: State). Legislature. Legislative Council. Madras Legislative Council Debates, [Volume Number XIII] (Madras: Legislative Council Department, [1939]) as accessed from https://www.tamildigitallibrary.in/admin/assets/periodicals/TVA_PRL_0034052/TVA_PRL_0034052_Madras_legislative_assembly_debates_index_Vol_13_1_5_1939
Meenakshi, “Mariyal Seyyum Idam Edhu?”, translates to “Where Can the Picketing be Done?”, KUDI ARASU, Vol. 7, No. 45 (March 6, 1932) :15.
Muralidharan, Kavitha. “The Life and Work of Moovalur Ramamritham Ammaiyar: A Biography of a Brave Anti-caste Devadasi”, SCROLL.IN, September 28, 2024. https://scroll.in/article/1073149/the-life-and-work-of-moovalur-ramamirtham-ammaiyar-a-biography-of-a-brave-anti-caste-devadasi.
Muzheruddin, Mir. “Compulsory Education of Muslim Girls,” Stri-Dharma, Vol. 13, No. unknown (1930): 145-146.
Pandit, Sameer. “Marginalisation and Reservation in India: An Analysis in the Light of Rawlsian Theories of Justice and Equality”. NLSIU Socio-Legal Review, Vol. 1, Issue 1, (2005): 40-50.
Periyar. Triplicane, August 3, 1952. VIDUTHALAI (August 7, 1952), English translation from https://kafila.online/2011/01/08/periyar-on-the-constitution/.
Periyar, E.V.R. “Suyamariyadhai Thirumanam Endral Enna?” translates to “What does Self-Respect Marriage Mean?”, PURATCHI, Vol. 1, No. 30 (June 17, 1934) 7.
Rao, B Shiva. The framing of India's constitution: select documents (Vol. 2). Indian Institute of Public Administration, 1968.
Rajeswari, K. “Contribution of Eminent Women for the Welfare of Women”. Shanlax International Journal of Arts, Science, & Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2015), https://www.shanlaxjournals.in/journals/index.php/sijash/article/view/1272.
Ramakrishnan, T. “Abolition of Tamil Nadu’s Devadasi System: An Inspiring Saga” THE HINDU, September 15, 2023, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/abolition-of-tamil-nadus-devadasi-system-an-inspiring-saga/article67308852.ece.
Reddi, Muthulakshmi. “A Presidential Address,” Stri-Dharma Vol. 13, Nos. 1 and 2 (December 1929) 32-40.
Sen, Hannah. “The Only College for Home Science”, Stri-Dharma, Vol. 19 (1936) :87.
Singhal, Ankur. “The Devadasi System: Temple Prostitution in India”, UCLA Women’s Law Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1 (2015), DOI: 10.5070/L3221026367.
Singh, Tiya. “Women’s Reservation Act of 2023: A Symbolic Gesture or a Significant Stride Towards Empowerment”, http://epw.in/engage/article/womens-reservation-act-2023-symbolic-gesture-or-0
Sreenivas, Mytheli. “Creating Conjugal Subjects: Devadasis and the Politics of Marriage in Colonial Madras Presidency.” Feminist Studies 37, no. 1 (2011): 63–92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23069884
Srilata, K. (2003). The other half of the coconut: women writing self-respect history: an anthology of self-respect literature (1928-1936), 2003, Kali for Women.
Venkatraman, V. and Kalaivani, R. “Liberation of Women: Activities of Women’s Indian Association in Colonial Tamilnadu, 1917–1945”, SSRN Electronic Journal (2020)
WIA Objects, Stri Dharma, October 1934. https://tamildigitallibrary.in/admin/assets/periodicals/TVA_PRL_0003251_Stri-Dharma%20October%201934.pdf
© Shruthi Viswanathan and Rasha Hameed, 2025. Published here with permission. All rights reserved.
This essay is part of the Chennai History Project - Iteration 1
View All Submissions