First Among Equals No More: The Prime Minister and the Erosion of Cabinet Authority

-Ramphal Kataria

The Prime Minister and the Treaty: How a Quiet Rule Change May Be Reshaping India’s Cabinet Democracy

In February 2026, a bureaucratic memorandum issued quietly by the Cabinet Secretariat altered a long-standing convention of the Indian state. The change appeared technical, administrative, even mundane. But beneath its procedural language lies a constitutional shift that raises fundamental questions about executive power in India.

Under the revised guidelines issued pursuant to the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, certain international instruments—memoranda of understanding, protocols, declarations of intent and similar diplomatic arrangements—signed during the Prime Minister’s foreign visits or during visits by foreign heads of state to India no longer require prior approval from the Union Cabinet.

These instruments, provided they meet certain conditions, may now be concluded without the Cabinet’s concurrence. Instead, the Ministry of External Affairs will simply compile a consolidated list every six months and place it before the Cabinet “for information.”

In the dense language of bureaucratic governance, such phrases are familiar. But constitutionally, they mark a departure from one of the central principles of India’s parliamentary democracy: collective executive responsibility.

For decades, international agreements—whether treaties, protocols or MoUs—were understood to be matters that must pass through the Cabinet. The logic was simple. Agreements between sovereign states bind the nation politically, economically and strategically. They cannot be treated as routine departmental decisions.

The February 2026 directive subtly alters that logic.

Cabinet Government and the Indian Constitution

India’s constitutional design does not vest executive authority in a single individual—even the Prime Minister. Instead, it establishes a system in which power is exercised through a collective executive.

Article 74(1) of the Constitution of India provides:

“There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President.”

This provision establishes leadership, but not supremacy. The Prime Minister leads the Council of Ministers; he does not replace it.

The principle becomes clearer in Article 75(3):

“The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People.”

This sentence is the constitutional anchor of India’s cabinet system. Every executive decision—whether economic, military, or diplomatic—is meant to be a decision of the Cabinet as a body. Ministers share responsibility before Parliament.

The Prime Minister’s position is therefore not that of a presidential executive but that of “first among equals.”

The phrase, often invoked in Westminster democracies, captures the essence of cabinet governance: leadership without unilateral authority.

India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, repeatedly emphasized that cabinet government required open discussion, dissent and collective judgment among ministers.

The Rules That Structure Government Power

The day-to-day functioning of the executive is governed by rules framed under Article 77(3) of the Constitution. These are the Transaction of Business Rules, which determine how governmental decisions move through ministries and when the Cabinet must be consulted.

Rule 7 provides:

“All cases specified in the Second Schedule shall be brought before the Cabinet.”

The Second Schedule includes matters of major national importance: defence agreements, international treaties, significant financial commitments and policy decisions affecting relations between nations.

For decades, senior civil servants treated international agreements as Cabinet matters by default. Even when the agreements were routine—technical cooperation, cultural exchanges or scientific partnerships—they were normally processed through Cabinet approval.

The purpose was not merely procedural. It ensured institutional scrutiny.

Foreign policy decisions involve multiple ministries: finance, commerce, defence, energy and others. Cabinet consideration ensured that these perspectives were integrated before India committed itself internationally.

The Exception That Was Never Meant to Become the Rule

The Transaction of Business Rules also contain an exceptional provision: Rule 12.

This rule allows the Prime Minister to authorize a departure from the rules when necessary.

Historically, Rule 12 was used sparingly. It applied to urgent situations where waiting for Cabinet deliberation would cause delay—such as emergency constitutional actions or urgent security decisions.

Even then, such departures were usually followed by ex post facto approval by the Cabinet.

The February 2026 guidelines effectively convert this exceptional logic into standard practice for certain international agreements.

What was once a deviation has become procedure.

What the New Directive Allows

The revised framework allows certain international instruments to bypass prior Cabinet approval if they satisfy specific conditions.

These include:

Vetting by the Legal and Treaties Division of the Ministry of External Affairs

Absence of binding financial obligations for India

Completion of inter-ministerial consultations

Exclusion from matters requiring clearance by the Cabinet Committee on Security

Avoidance of terms such as “treaty,” “convention,” or “agreement” in the title

Once signed, these instruments will be placed before the Cabinet every six months merely for information.

In practice, this means the Cabinet will learn about such agreements after they have already been concluded.

The Constituent Assembly’s Vision

The framers of the Constitution anticipated precisely the danger of executive power concentrating in one office.

During the debates of the Constituent Assembly of India, the principle of collective responsibility was discussed repeatedly.

B. R. Ambedkar described the Prime Minister’s role in words that remain instructive:

“The Prime Minister is really the keystone of the arch of the Cabinet…
But the principle of collective responsibility cannot be enforced unless the Prime Minister works through the Cabinet.”

The metaphor is revealing. The Prime Minister holds the structure together—but the structure itself is the Cabinet.

Another distinguished member of the Assembly, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, warned that without collective responsibility, parliamentary government would lose its democratic foundation.

For the framers, the Cabinet was not merely an administrative convenience. It was the institutional mechanism that prevented executive autocracy.

The International Practice

The new Indian approach appears unusual when compared with other major democracies.

In the United States, the President negotiates treaties but cannot ratify them without the consent of the Senate under Article II of the United States Constitution.

In the United Kingdom, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires treaties to be laid before Parliament for twenty-one sitting days before ratification.

In Brazil, the President signs treaties but ratification requires approval from the National Congress.

In Australia, treaties are tabled in Parliament and examined by a parliamentary committee before they take effect.

These procedures differ in detail, but they share a common principle: democratic oversight over international commitments.

India’s Constitution does not require parliamentary ratification of treaties. However, the Cabinet’s role historically functioned as the internal democratic check.

The new rule weakens that check.

The Politics of Administrative Change

Why was this change introduced now?

The official explanation emphasizes efficiency. Diplomatic visits often involve the signing of multiple agreements, and obtaining Cabinet approval for each one may slow the process.

But critics argue that administrative convenience cannot override constitutional conventions.

Cabinet meetings can be convened quickly. Electronic circulation of Cabinet notes has long been available. The government could have streamlined procedures without eliminating Cabinet approval altogether.

Another question concerns parliamentary transparency.

The directive was issued while Parliament was in session, yet the legislature was not formally consulted or informed beforehand.

Such decisions, critics argue, should ideally be debated publicly rather than implemented through internal executive instructions.

A Shift Toward Prime-Ministerial Government

Over the past two decades, scholars have observed the gradual transformation of parliamentary systems into “prime-ministerial governments.”

In such systems, power increasingly concentrates in the office of the Prime Minister, while Cabinets play a more limited role.

The British constitutional theorist Walter Bagehot famously described the Cabinet as the “efficient secret” of parliamentary government—a small committee of ministers that collectively directs policy.

If decisions increasingly bypass this committee, the nature of executive government changes.

Historians of the Indian Constitution such as Granville Austin argued that India’s founders deliberately designed a system that dispersed executive power among ministers.

The new guidelines move subtly in the opposite direction.

The Democratic Risks

The consequences of this shift may not be immediate, but they are structural.

First, Cabinet ministers may gradually lose their role in shaping foreign policy decisions.

Second, Parliament’s ability to scrutinize international commitments may weaken further.

Third, the Prime Minister’s Office may emerge as the primary centre of diplomatic decision-making, bypassing the institutional deliberation that once characterized Cabinet governance.

Over time, this could transform the Cabinet into a body that merely ratifies decisions already taken elsewhere.

The Constitutional Question

The deeper question raised by the 2026 directive is not merely administrative.

It is constitutional.

India’s founders rejected both presidential concentration of power and colonial executive dominance. They adopted the Westminster model precisely to ensure that executive authority would remain collective, accountable and deliberative.

When administrative practices begin to bypass that collective process, constitutional principles may gradually erode—not through dramatic crises but through incremental adjustments.

Conclusion: The Future of Cabinet Government

India remains a parliamentary democracy governed by a written constitution. The Prime Minister remains accountable to Parliament and supported by a Council of Ministers.

But institutions evolve not only through constitutional amendments. They also change through administrative practice.

The February 2026 directive may appear minor in isolation. Yet it raises an enduring question about the future of executive power in India.

Will the Cabinet remain the central forum where national decisions are debated and resolved?

Or will it slowly become a body that receives information about decisions already taken?

In a democracy built upon collective responsibility, the answer to that question matters profoundly.

Footnotes

1. Constitution of India, Articles 74 and 75.

2. Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, Rule 7 and Second Schedule.

3. Transaction of Business Rules, Rule 12 – exceptional departure from procedural requirements.

4. Cabinet Secretariat Office Memorandum, February 2026, guidelines regarding international instruments signed during high-level diplomatic visits.

5. Constituent Assembly Debates, remarks of B. R. Ambedkar on the functioning of the Cabinet system.

6. Constituent Assembly Debates, remarks of Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar on collective responsibility.

7. Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution (Treaty Clause).

8. Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (United Kingdom).

9. Brazilian Constitution, Article 49 – approval of treaties by National Congress.

10. Australian treaty tabling practice and Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

 

Moral Panic in Haryana: The Politics Behind the Outrage Over Tateeree

-Ramphal Kataria

The Politics of Obscenity in Haryana: Ragni, Moral Policing, and the Controversy Around ‘Tateeree’

In early 2026, a Haryanvi pop song unexpectedly turned into a law-and-order matter.

The song Tateeree, released by the rapper Badshah, triggered a wave of outrage in Haryana. Complaints were filed alleging that the lyrics and visuals were vulgar and degrading to women. What might have remained a cultural debate quickly escalated into state action.

The Haryana State Commission for Women issued notices to the singer. The tone of the notice, critics argued, appeared less like an inquiry and more like a warning—almost as if the matter had already been judged before hearing the artist’s explanation.

Soon after, the Panchkula Police registered a case and reportedly initiated a lookout notice against the singer.

Lookout notices are normally associated with suspects who might flee the country—financial offenders, gang leaders, or fugitives from serious criminal investigations.

Yet here the mechanism was invoked against a musician.

“A lookout notice is meant for fugitives. Using it against a musician risks turning cultural disagreement into criminal investigation.”

The escalation raised a troubling question: when did a controversial song become grounds for treating an artist like a criminal suspect?

The Artist at the Centre

The irony of the situation lies partly in the identity of the person involved.

Badshah is not merely a pop star. Over the past decade he has become one of the most visible ambassadors of north Indian and Haryanvi cultural expression in mainstream Indian music.

From club tracks to regional collaborations, he has repeatedly incorporated Haryanvi language and cultural references into popular music. For many young listeners across India, his work has helped introduce Haryanvi linguistic rhythms into contemporary pop.

That does not mean every lyric he writes must be immune from criticism.

Artists must remain accountable for what they create.

But the reaction to Tateeree went far beyond criticism.

Badshah issued a public apology, saying he respected women and never intended to hurt public sentiment. He even indicated willingness to remove or modify the song if it caused offence.

Despite that apology, the controversy continued to expand.

Which leads to a deeper question: why does outrage in such cases escalate so dramatically?

 

Moral Panic and Cultural Politics

Every society periodically experiences what sociologists call moral panic.

A song, film, book or artwork suddenly becomes the focus of intense outrage. Politicians, activists and cultural guardians step forward to condemn it. Television debates amplify the anger.

The work of art becomes a symbol of moral decline.

But moral panic often reveals more about society’s anxieties than about the artwork itself.

The playwright Vijay Tendulkar once observed that societies often rediscover their morality at politically convenient moments.

The Tateeree controversy seems to follow a similar pattern.

Because Haryana’s cultural landscape contains far more explicit forms of entertainment that rarely provoke similar reactions.

“A society that tolerates sexist humour on stage cannot claim moral purity over a single rap track.”

The Ragni Stage

To understand the contradiction, one must look at ragni, the most visible folk music tradition of Haryana.

Historically, ragni poetry was deeply literary. The works of Pandit Lakhmi Chand, Baje Bhagat, Mange Ram, and Mehar Chand formed the backbone of the tradition.

Their compositions were performed within the Saang theatre tradition and drew from mythology, social commentary and romantic storytelling.

The language was rustic but rarely crude.

Over the last four decades, however, ragni performance culture has undergone a dramatic transformation.

Two developments reshaped the genre:

1. Competitive stage performances

2. Commercialisation through cassettes, regional TV and YouTube

As ragni moved from village courtyards to large public stages, performers began improvising lines designed to excite the audience.

Humour became sharper.

Metaphors became bolder.

Suggestive lines began drawing applause.

Gradually, performance overtook poetry.

The result today is a stage culture where some ragni performances include exaggerated gestures, teasing banter and sexual innuendo designed to provoke laughter from predominantly male audiences.

“Ragni poetry was once literature. Its modern stage spectacle tells a very different story.”

The Audience Nobody Talks About

One of the least discussed aspects of ragni stage shows is their gendered audience.

Many performances take place late at night in rural fairs or community gatherings where the crowd is overwhelmingly male.

Women rarely attend.

The atmosphere—full of loud commentary, teasing humour and suggestive lines—can feel uncomfortable or even hostile to female spectators.

Yet these events are not hidden.

They are organised publicly.

Sometimes they are sponsored by local political leaders.

And despite the openly suggestive nature of some performances, they rarely attract police complaints or official investigations.

The Silence of the Khap System

Another silence in the Tateeree controversy comes from Haryana’s influential Khap Panchayat structures.

These community councils frequently present themselves as protectors of tradition and cultural values.

Yet their historical record regarding women’s rights is deeply controversial.

For decades, khap councils have issued diktats against:

 inter-caste marriages

same-gotra marriages

women exercising personal autonomy

In several notorious cases, such diktats have been linked to **honour killings** or violent social ostracism.

Young couples who choose their own partners have sometimes been forced to flee their villages.

In this context, the sudden concern about morality in a pop song appears selective.

The same institutions that claim cultural guardianship have often remained silent about systemic restrictions on women’s freedom.

The Bollywood Precedent

The debate over obscenity in popular music is not new.

Hindi cinema has produced numerous songs whose lyrics rely on double meaning, flirtation or provocative imagery.

Consider the long list of Bollywood songs frequently criticised for suggestive content:

Choli Ke Peeche Kya Hai from Khal Nayak

Sarkai Lo Khatiya from Babu

Main Aayi Hoon UP Bihar Lootne from Shool

Beedi Jalaile from Omkara

Sheila Ki Jawani from Tees Maar Khan

Munni Badnaam Hui from Dabangg

Fevicol Se from Dabangg 2

These songs have been played at weddings, festivals and political celebrations across India.

Some faced protests when they were released. But none resulted in sustained police action against the singers.

They became part of mainstream entertainment.

The lyricist Gulzar once remarked that the power of a song lies partly in suggestion rather than direct statement.

Meaning, in other words, is created jointly by the artist and the listener.

Suggestion in Folk Poetry

The same principle operates in folk traditions.

Many ragni verses rely on metaphors drawn from everyday rural life:

fields, rain, spinning wheels, wells, and harvest seasons.

A line describing a rainy evening in a mango orchard may carry romantic or suggestive undertones depending on how it is performed.

The ethnomusicologist Anna Morcom notes that such metaphors are common across South Asian folk traditions.

They are not necessarily intended as obscenity.

They are reflections of everyday language.

The Global Debate on Art and Censorship

The tension between artistic freedom and public morality is not unique to India.

Writers and filmmakers across the world have faced similar controversies.

The philosopher Michel Foucault argued that societies regulate sexuality not simply by banning it but by controlling who is allowed to talk about it.

The American novelist James Baldwin wrote that the role of artists is often to confront society with uncomfortable truths.

Similarly, the filmmaker Satyajit Ray believed that art must sometimes disturb audiences in order to provoke reflection.

None of these thinkers suggested that art should be free from criticism.

But they warned against state power becoming the arbiter of cultural taste.

Criminalising Culture

This is the central concern raised by the Tateeree controversy.

Criticism of a song is legitimate.

Public debate about misogyny in entertainment is necessary.

But criminal investigation should be a last resort, not the first reaction.

Issuing a lookout notice against a musician risks sending a chilling message to artists: that creative expression can easily slide into legal jeopardy.

Such actions blur the boundary between cultural criticism and state coercion.

The Hypocrisy Problem

The larger problem revealed by the controversy is cultural hypocrisy.

A society that tolerates:

sexist humour in stage shows

 objectification of women in film songs

moral policing by unelected community councils

cannot suddenly claim moral purity over a single rap track.

Consistency matters.

If obscenity is the concern, then the debate must include **all cultural forms**, not just those that become convenient political targets.

Beyond One Song

The fate of Tateeree will likely follow the pattern of many controversies in popular culture.

The outrage will fade.

Another song or film will eventually trigger a similar debate.

But the deeper issues will remain unresolved.

Those issues include:

the unequal policing of cultural expression

the political use of morality

the tension between tradition and modern entertainment

A More Rational Approach

A healthier response to controversial art would involve three steps.

First, encourage debate rather than punishment.

Second, apply standards consistently across all forms of entertainment.

Third, recognise that artists sometimes misjudge public sentiment—but that mistake alone does not justify criminalisation.

Badshah has apologised.

He has acknowledged the concerns raised by critics.

He has also spent years promoting Haryanvi language and culture in mainstream music.

Reducing his entire career to one controversial track would be unfair.

The Culture Question

Haryana’s cultural traditions are rich and complex.

Ragni poetry, Saang theatre and regional music have shaped the identity of the state for generations.

Protecting that heritage requires more than selective outrage.

It requires honesty about the contradictions within the culture itself.

As the novelist George Orwell once warned, societies often destroy understanding by rewriting their own cultural history.

The debate over Tateeree is not just about a song.

It is about how a society chooses to confront—or ignore—its own contradictions.

And until those contradictions are acknowledged, the cycle of outrage will continue.

Not because culture is declining.

But because hypocrisy remains unresolved.

Footnotes

1.     FIR and police investigation reports relating to Tateeree and singer Badshah, registered by Panchkula Police, March 2026.

2.     Public notice and summons issued by Haryana State Commission for Women regarding the song’s lyrics and visuals.

3.     Historical scholarship on ragni poetry and Saang theatre, particularly the works of Pandit Lakhmi Chand, Baje Bhagat, Mange Ram, and Mehar Chand.

4.     Studies on folk performance improvisation by ethnomusicologist Anna Morcom.

5.     Cultural commentary by lyricist Gulzar on suggestion and metaphor in song lyrics.

6.     Discussions on censorship and art by Vijay Tendulkar, Michel Foucault, and James Baldwin.

7.     Case studies and media reports concerning khap diktats and honour-killing controversies associated with Khap Panchayat structures in Haryana.

The Caste of Violence: Why Gender Cannot Be Understood Without Caste

-Ramphal Kataria

Brahmanical Patriarchy: The Hidden Architecture of Gender Violence in India

For decades, discussions on violence against women in India have been framed in a universalist language—“women’s safety,” “patriarchy,” and “gender justice.” These terms, while important, often conceal the brutal fact that not all women experience patriarchy in the same way. In India, caste determines whose suffering is visible, whose dignity is defended, and whose body becomes expendable.

The violence experienced by Dalit women lies at the intersection of caste hierarchy and patriarchal domination. It is a violence that is structural, historical, and deeply political.

Dalit feminist scholars have long argued that mainstream feminist discourse in India often ignored caste as a fundamental axis of oppression. It was only in the late twentieth century that the scholarship of thinkers such as Sharmila Rege and Uma Chakravarti systematically exposed how caste structures gender relations.

Their work forces a difficult question upon the Indian republic: can gender justice exist without caste annihilation?

Ambedkar’s Feminist Vision

Long before contemporary feminist scholarship emerged in India, B. R. Ambedkar had already recognized that the subjugation of women was central to the survival of caste.

In his seminal 1916 paper Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, Ambedkar argued that caste reproduces itself through strict control over women’s sexuality—particularly through endogamy, the rule that individuals must marry within their caste group.

Ambedkar wrote:

“The superposition of endogamy on exogamy means the creation of caste.”

Endogamy required elaborate social mechanisms to maintain caste purity. These mechanisms historically included:

• child marriage
• enforced widowhood
• prohibition of inter-caste marriage
• strict control over women’s mobility

Women’s bodies thus became the frontline of caste preservation.

In Ambedkar’s analysis, caste hierarchy could not survive if women were allowed freedom in marriage and sexuality. Patriarchal control over women was therefore not incidental—it was a structural necessity of caste society.

Ambedkar’s politics reflected this insight. As chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution of India, he pushed for constitutional guarantees that would dismantle caste discrimination and expand women’s rights.

Among these were:

• Article 14
• Article 15
• Article 17

Ambedkar’s feminist commitments became even clearer during his attempt to pass the Hindu Code Bill, which sought to grant women rights in inheritance, property, and divorce.

The bill faced ferocious opposition from conservative Hindu legislators, who saw it as an attack on traditional social structures. When the bill was stalled in parliament, Ambedkar resigned from the cabinet in protest.

His resignation speech remains one of the most powerful statements on women’s rights in Indian political history.

Ambedkar declared that the progress of a community is measured by the degree of progress which women have achieved.

Dalit Feminism: Rewriting the Narrative

While Ambedkar laid the intellectual foundation, it was the work of late twentieth-century scholars who gave shape to what is now called Dalit feminism.

Dalit feminism challenged both upper-caste feminism and male-dominated Dalit politics.

Mainstream Indian feminism—especially in its early decades—was largely shaped by urban, upper-caste women. Issues such as dowry deaths, domestic violence, and workplace discrimination dominated feminist campaigns.

These issues were undoubtedly important.

But Dalit feminists argued that they did not fully capture the realities of women who lived at the intersection of caste, poverty, and gender violence.

Dalit women faced not only patriarchal domination within their communities but also caste violence from dominant castes.

Their oppression was therefore dual and layered.

Sharmila Rege and the Politics of Testimony

The sociologist Sharmila Rege played a transformative role in bringing Dalit women’s voices into feminist scholarship.

In her influential work Writing Caste, Writing Gender, Rege argued that Dalit women’s autobiographies must be treated as critical theory, not merely as personal narratives.

These testimonies exposed the everyday violence that mainstream feminism often overlooked.

Dalit women wrote about:

• sexual violence by dominant caste men
• humiliation in public spaces
• caste-based labour exploitation
• exclusion from education
• policing of mobility

Rege insisted that feminist theory must be reconstructed from the standpoint of those most oppressed.

She called this approach “Dalit feminist standpoint epistemology.”

This framework insisted that knowledge about Indian society cannot be complete unless it includes the experiences of Dalit women.

Without those voices, feminist discourse remains structurally incomplete.

Uma Chakravarti and the Concept of Brahmanical Patriarchy

If Rege brought Dalit testimonies into academic discourse, the historian Uma Chakravarti provided one of the most powerful theoretical tools to understand caste and gender.

Chakravarti introduced the concept of “Brahmanical patriarchy.”

The term describes a system in which caste hierarchy and patriarchal control reinforce each other.

Under Brahmanical patriarchy:

• upper-caste women are controlled to maintain caste purity
• lower-caste women are sexually exploited to maintain caste dominance

This dual system produces different forms of oppression for different women.

Upper-caste women face severe restrictions on sexuality and mobility because they carry the burden of preserving caste purity.

Dalit women, on the other hand, are often subjected to sexual violence because dominant castes view them as socially disposable.

This framework explains why sexual violence in India is frequently caste-targeted.

Violence as a Tool of Caste Power

Sexual violence against Dalit women is not merely a crime of individual pathology. It often functions as collective punishment and social intimidation.

In rural India, dominant caste groups frequently deploy violence to discipline communities that challenge traditional hierarchies.

When Dalit families assert land rights, political representation, or educational mobility, violence against women becomes a weapon of retaliation.

Several high-profile cases have exposed this pattern.

One of the most disturbing examples occurred in 2020 in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.

A 19-year-old Dalit woman was brutally assaulted and later died from her injuries. The case triggered national outrage when authorities hurriedly cremated her body in the middle of the night without the family’s consent.

The episode exposed deep institutional failures.

Police initially denied that rape had occurred.

Political leaders attempted to downplay the crime.

And the victim’s family faced intimidation during the investigation.

The case revealed how state institutions themselves can reproduce caste power structures.

Crime Data and Structural Inequality

Official statistics confirm that caste-targeted violence remains widespread.

According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau, crimes against Scheduled Castes have steadily increased over the past decade.

In 2022 alone:

• over 57,000 crimes against Scheduled Castes were recorded
• nearly 4,000 cases involved rape of Dalit women

These numbers likely underestimate the real scale of violence because many cases go unreported due to fear of retaliation.

Conviction rates remain distressingly low.

In many rural areas, dominant caste networks influence police investigations, leading to weak prosecutions or outright dismissal of cases.

The Demographic Context: Sex Ratio and Structural Discrimination

Gender inequality in India is also visible in demographic indicators.

The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India reported that the sex ratio at birth remains skewed in many states.

Despite legal prohibitions on sex-selective abortion under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, cultural preference for sons continues to distort demographic patterns.

The National Family Health Survey shows that the sex ratio at birth has improved slightly but remains uneven across regions.

Economic inequality further deepens gender disparities.

According to data from the International Labour Organization, India’s female labour force participation rate remains among the lowest in the world.

In 2023 it hovered around 25 percent.

Dalit and Adivasi women often participate in labour markets at higher rates than upper-caste women—but largely in low-paid and informal work.

Their economic participation does not translate into empowerment because it occurs within exploitative labour systems.

Law Without Transformation

India possesses an impressive architecture of legal protections against caste and gender discrimination.

Among them:

• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act

These laws were strengthened after the nationwide protests following the 2012 Delhi gang rape.

Yet the persistence of violence suggests that legal reform alone cannot dismantle deeply embedded social hierarchies.

Law operates within society, and when social institutions remain caste-bound, justice becomes fragile.

The Politics of Silence

Dalit feminists argue that Indian public discourse often erases caste when discussing gender violence.

Media coverage tends to frame crimes as isolated acts of brutality rather than as expressions of systemic inequality.

The result is a politics of silence.

Without acknowledging caste, society cannot confront the structures that enable violence.

This silence is not accidental.

It reflects the discomfort of confronting a social order that continues to privilege dominant castes even within democratic institutions.

Toward an Ambedkarite Feminism

For Dalit feminist thinkers, the path forward lies in reclaiming Ambedkar’s radical vision.

Ambedkar did not treat caste and gender as separate struggles.

For him, annihilation of caste was inseparable from women’s emancipation.

An Ambedkarite feminism therefore demands:

• land rights and economic independence for Dalit women
• stronger enforcement of atrocity laws
• representation in political institutions
• recognition of caste-based sexual violence
• transformation of social attitudes through education

Without these changes, legal equality will remain a fragile promise.

Conclusion: Democracy and the Measure of Justice

India often celebrates itself as the world’s largest democracy.

But democracy cannot be measured only by elections.

It must also be measured by the dignity afforded to its most vulnerable citizens.

Dalit women stand at the intersection of India’s deepest inequalities—caste, gender, and poverty.

Their experiences reveal the unfinished project of the republic.

The question confronting India today is not merely whether violence against women will decrease.

The deeper question is whether the nation is willing to confront the caste structures that sustain that violence.

Until that confrontation occurs, the promise of equality embedded in the Constitution will remain incomplete.

References

1. Ambedkar, B. R. Castes in India: Their Mechanism, Genesis and Development. 1916.

2. Ambedkar, B. R. Annihilation of Caste. 1936.

3. Rege, Sharmila. Writing Caste, Writing Gender. Zubaan, 2006.

4. Chakravarti, Uma. Gendering Caste: Through a Feminist Lens. Stree, 2003.

5. National Crime Records Bureau. Crime in India 2022.

6. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), Government of India.

7. International Labour Organization. Women and Men in the Informal Economy.

8. Government of India. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.