By Jag Jivan
In a candid and wide-ranging conversation, three generations of feminist activists from Maharashtra have taken stock of the women's movement in India, tracing its evolution from the labour struggles of the 1970s to the complex, identity-driven challenges of the present day. Hosted by Gagan Sethi and Minar Pimple, the discussion, featured on the podcast Unmute, brought together veteran activists to reflect on 50 years of mobilization, legal battles, internal debates, and the daunting political landscape that lies ahead.
The conversation featured Sharada Sathe, a founder of the Stree Mukti Sanghatana (Women's Liberation Organisation); Nandita Shah, co-founder of the Akshara Centre for Gender Justice; and Haseena Khan, an initiator of the Bebak Collective. The three were part of a larger conference in Maharashtra that documented the state's rich history of feminist activism, and their discussion offered a profound look at the movement's journey.
From Class Struggle to Gendered Consciousness
The panellists traced their initial inspiration not to academic feminism but to the raw realities of social and economic injustice. Sharada Sathe began her work in the massive mill workers' movement in Mumbai, where thousands of women were active but unrecognized. She described how the 1970s famine in Maharashtra became a crucible, bringing together women from different castes and classes.
"For us, the questions of women were not separate from the questions of society," Sathe explained. A pivotal moment came with India’s first national report on the status of women, Towards Equality, in 1974. "It opened our eyes... we realized that those born at a higher level, their gains do not trickle down. We would have to struggle for that."
Nandita Shah, who came from a social work background, described the disillusionment with the Left movement of the time, which often sidelined women's specific issues. The turning point for her generation was the Mathura rape case in the late 1970s, where a young tribal girl was raped in a police station, and the Supreme Court initially blamed her.
"That's when we realized we need to challenge the very way of thinking," Shah said. The campaign against the judgment led to the formation of the Forum Against Rape and crystallized the feminist mantra: "The personal is political." She highlighted how this period saw the birth of both a mass movement and the academic field of Women's Studies, as activists sought to document their history and build a theoretical framework.
For Haseena Khan, the entry point was the violence of patriarchy within her own community. Coming from a Muslim family with strict ties to caste panchayats (community councils) that denied women access to police and courts, she saw how religious and caste structures controlled women's lives. "I saw that a panchayat of men was in place, and I felt that a women's panchayat was very necessary," Khan said. "The organization gave me my identity... my identity with my body, with my religion, with the politics imposed on me."
From Women's Movement to Feminist Movement
The activists discussed how the movement evolved from a singular focus on class and gender to embracing intersectionality. The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of autonomous women's groups from marginalized communities, including Dalit, Muslim, and sex worker collectives. This was not a smooth transition but a necessary one, driven by a demand for representation.
Khan explained that the political landscape of the 1990s—marked by economic liberalization, the Babri Masjid demolition, and subsequent communal riots—forced a deeper introspection. "We moved from calling it a women's movement to a feminist movement," she said. "The shift in language was to signify that we believe in an inclusive politics. We don't have a problem with men; we have a problem with the power structure that uses gender, religion, and caste to create an exclusive, authoritarian environment."
Nandita Shah added that this period also saw the emergence of an institutional structure. As women came forward with issues like domestic violence, the movement had to respond by setting up women's centres, counselling services, and legal aid cells. However, this institutionalization came with its own set of challenges.
The Institutional Paradox: Funding vs. Movement
A significant point of contention was the impact of non-governmental organization (NGO) culture and funding on the movement. Shah noted that while institutions were necessary for providing services and accountability, they also introduced a bureaucratic language and a dependency that often distanced activists from grassroots mobilization.
"The funding created a language that was not our language, not the language of the movement," Sharada Sathe said bluntly. "We became NGOs. We started working for the funders, giving them reports in English... The question becomes: who decides the agenda?"
This tension between service delivery and radical mobilization is a current dilemma. While laws like the Domestic Violence Act (2005) were crucial victories, their implementation remains weak. The activists pointed to the massive crowds that emerged after the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape case as a double-edged sword. While the protests led to legal reform, they argued the state and media co-opted the public outrage, shifting the focus to capital punishment and using women's safety as a tool for political mobilization, rather than addressing root causes.
Hindutva Politics and the Hijacking of Justice
The conversation turned to the current political climate, which the activists identified as the most formidable challenge yet. They accused the ruling political dispensation of using the state machinery and vigilante mobs to create a parallel, unconstitutional system that targets minorities, Dalits, and women.
Haseena Khan spoke at length about how the issue of Muslim Personal Law has been weaponized. She argued that the government’s narrative on Triple Talaq and the push for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) are designed to demonize Muslim men, while ignoring the patriarchal injustices within all personal laws.
"They said, 'Look how problematic Muslim men are, they don't give rights to their women.' The entire blame was pinned on one community," Khan said. "For years, Muslim women and our allies have been demanding gender-just laws that reform all personal laws to eliminate discrimination. But our discourse was hijacked by a political mob... a mob that was built by the government itself."
She contrasted this state-led mobilization with the legacy of the Shaheen Bagh protests, where Muslim women led a sustained, peaceful sit-in against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), reclaiming their struggle from a "derogatory political narrative." The activists emphasized that while legal battles remain essential, they cannot replace the need for a vibrant, independent mass mobilization.
The Way Forward: Listening, Democracy, and Male Accountability
As the conversation turned to the future, the three panellists offered distinct but complementary visions.
Nandita Shah emphasized the need for deep listening. "We have to create spaces to truly listen to younger generations and their articulation of movements," she said. "We need to reorganize ourselves and engage with technology. The movement needs to understand how to work with the reality of online mobilization. Most importantly, we must work with men—not just to help women, but to help them understand how patriarchy harms them and to challenge toxic masculinity."
Sharada Sathe rooted her vision in constitutional democracy, but not just its parliamentary form. "Democracy must be practiced in the home," she said. "Our Constitution gives us a concrete path. If we follow that path—of democratic institutions and rights—we can counter the ideology of Manuvad (the casteist ideology of Manu)."
Haseena Khan offered a more pointed critique, challenging the very premise of a movement-led effort to include men. She questioned why men who benefit from patriarchal structures—receiving unequal shares in inheritance, for instance—have not organized themselves to challenge these injustices.
"Why have no men ever gone to court to ask why their mothers, wives, and sisters get less?" Khan asked. "We have organizations for men, but they are for men who commit violence. This tokenism—'they make tea or wash clothes'—is not enough. We don't need to hold their hands. If men want to be part of the feminist movement, they must come on their own, introspect, and challenge the systems of power they benefit from."
Organized Political and Cultural Assault
The conversation concluded with a recognition that the feminist movement in India stands at a critical juncture. It has won significant legal victories and built a rich intellectual and activist tradition. Yet, it faces an organized political and cultural assault that seeks to fracture its coalition and dilute its radical potential.
As the three activists noted, the path forward requires navigating the tension between contestation and collaboration, institution-building and movement autonomy. The central task, they agreed, is to defend democratic spaces, listen across generations, and re-center the struggle around the core principles of justice, love, and care that lie at the heart of feminism.
Comments