Born on July 3, 1897, to the Dewan of Baroda Manubhai Nandshankar Mehta, Hansa Mehta studied journalism and sociology in England. Along with being a reformer, social activist, and educator, she was also the granddaughter of Nandshankar Mehta, the author of the first Gujarati novel Karan Ghelo.
She participated in various freedom movements aligned with Mahatma Gandhi and established Desh Sevika Dal in 1930. Elected to the Bombay Legislative Assembly, she wrote many books for children in Gujarati and translated numerous English stories, including Gulliver’s Travels. In 1926, she became a member of the Bombay Schools Committee and later served as the President of the All India Women’s Conference in 1945-46.
Hansa represented India on the Nuclear Sub-Committee on the status of women in 1946. She later became the vice-chairman of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in 1950 and a member of the Executive Board of UNESCO. A staunch advocate for women’s rights, she rejected quotas, reserved seats, and separate electorates for women.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Name | Hansa Jivraj Mehta |
| Date of Birth – Date of Passing | 03.07.1897 – 04.04.1995 |
| Political Affiliation | Indian National Congress |
| Constituency | Bombay |
| Mother Tongue | Gujarati |
| Education | Graduate |
| Committee Memberships | – Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas – Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights – Provincial Constitution Committee |
| Notable Achievements | – Elected to Bombay Legislative Assembly – President of the All India Women’s Conference in 1945-46 – Represented India on the Nuclear Sub-Committee on the status of women in 1946 – Vice-Chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission in 1950 – Member of the Executive Board of UNESCO |
| Roles and Contributions | – Freedom fighter and social activist – Established Desh Sevika Dal in 1930 – Writer, educator, and reformer – Active participation in various freedom movements – Drafted the Indian Women’s Charter of Rights and Duties during her presidency of the All India Women’s Conference in 1946 |
| Contribution to Constitution Making | – Elected to the Constituent Assembly from Bombay – Advocated strongly for women’s rights and intervened in debates on the uniform civil code and reservation |
| Later Contributions | – Indian delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission – Played a significant role in amending Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Appointed as the first Vice-Chancellor of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda – Received the Padma Bhushan in 1959 |
| Key Speeches | – Supported the Objectives Resolution for equality and justice for women – Expressed regret for the exclusion of the abolition of purdah in Fundamental Rights – Advocated for a uniform civil code to “build up one nation” – Rejected quotas, reserved seats, and separate electorates for women |
BIOGRAPHY
Early Life
Hansa Jivraj Mehta was born on July 3, 1897, in Surat, Gujarat. She studied philosophy at Baroda College and later pursued journalism and sociology in England. In 1920, while in London, Mehta met Sarojini Naidu, who introduced her to Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian women’s freedom movement.
Mehta’s political journey began with her win in the 1937 Bombay Legislative Council elections as a general category candidate. Refusing to contest from a reserved seat, she remained on the council until 1949. During her tenure, Mehta actively participated in the All India Women’s Conference, becoming its president in 1946. She drafted the Indian Women’s Charter of Rights and Duties, emphasizing gender equality and civil rights for women.
In 1946, Mehta served as a member of the United Nations sub-committee on the status of women and co-chaired the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Committee with Eleanor Roosevelt. In 1950, she became the first female Vice-Chancellor in India at SNDT University in Bombay.
Role in India’s Independence Movement
Mehta actively participated in the non-cooperation and swadeshi movements, leading to her arrest in 1932.
Contribution to Constitution Making
As one of the 15 women framers of the Indian Constitution, Mehta was elected to the Constituent Assembly from Bombay. She passionately advocated for women’s rights, intervening in debates on the uniform civil code and reservation.
Later Contributions
Mehta, as the Indian delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, played a pivotal role in amending Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Alongside Eleanor Roosevelt, she ensured marriage equality for women through Article 16. Appointed as the first Vice-Chancellor of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, she was honored with the Padma Bhushan in 1959. Mehta passed away on April 4, 1995.
KEY SPEECHES
Mehta supported the Objectives Resolution put forward by Jawaharlal Nehru, particularly its call for equality and justice for women. She expressed regret that the abolition of purdah could not be included in the Fundamental Rights. Believing in the necessity of a uniform civil code to “build up one nation,” she rejected quotas, reserved seats, and separate electorates for women.
Selected Speeches from Constitutional Assembly Debates
Social, Economic and Political Justice for Women of India[1]
Shrimati Hansa Mehta (Bombay: General): Sir, I consider it a proud privilege to speak in support of this historic Resolution so ably moved by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru. I do not wish to refer to the issue raised by Dr. Jayakar or speak on the speeches made six thousand miles away by people who either mean mischief or are totally ignorant of the real situation. I wish to offer a few remarks on that of this Resolution, the fundamental rights which affect a section of the people, namely, women.
It will warm the heart of many a woman to know that free India will mean not only equality of status but equality of opportunity. It is true that a few women in the past and even today enjoy high status and have received the highest honour that any man can receive, like our friend, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu. But these women are few and far between. One swallow does not make a summer. These women do not give us a real picture of the position of Indian women in this country.
The average woman in this country has suffered now for centuries from inequalities heaped upon her by laws, customs and practices of people who have fallen from the heights of that civilisation of which we are all so proud, and in praise of which Dr. Sir S. Radhakrishnan has always spoken. There are thousands of women today who are denied the ordinary human rights. They are put behind the purdah, secluded within the four walls of their homes, unable to move freely. The Indian woman has been reduced to such a state of helplessness that she has become an easy prey of those who wish to exploit the situation. In degrading women, man has degraded himself. In raising her, man will not only raise himself but raise the whole nation. Mahatma Gandhi’s name has been invoked on the floor of this House. It would be ingratitude on my part if I do not acknowledge the great debt of gratitude that Indian women owe to Mahatma Gandhi for all that he has done for them. In spite of all these, we have never asked for privileges. The women’s organisation to which I have the honour to belong has never asked for reserved seats, for quotas, or for separate electorates.
What we have asked for is social justice, economic justice, and political justice. We have asked for that equality which can alone be the basis of mutual respect and understanding and without which real co-operation is not possible between man and woman. Women form one half of the population of this country and, therefore, men cannot go very far without the co-operation of women. This ancient land cannot attain its rightful place, its honoured place in this world without the co-operation of women. I therefore welcome this Resolution for the great promise which it holds, and I hope that the objectives embodied in the Resolution will not remain on paper but will be translated into reality. (cheers).
Presentation of the National Flag[2]
Mr. President: Shrimati Hansa Mehta will now present the National Flag on behalf of the women of India. (cheers)
Shrimati Hansa Mehta (Bombay: General): Mr. President, Sir, in the absence of Shrimati Sarojini Naidu, it is my proud privilege, on behalf of the women of India, to present this flag to the Nation through you.
I have a list41 here of nearly a hundred prominent women of all communities who have expressed a desire to associate themselves with this ceremonial. There are hundreds and hundreds of other women who would equally like to participate in this function. It is in the fitness of things that this first flag that will fly over this august House should be a gift from the women of India. (cheers) We have donned the saffron colour, we have fought, suffered and sacrificed in the cause of our country’s freedom. We have today attained our goal. In presenting this symbol of our freedom, we once more offer our services to the nation. We pledge ourselves to work for a great India, for building up a nation that will be a nation among nations. We pledge ourselves for working for a greater cause, to maintain the freedom that we have attained. We have great traditions to maintain, traditions that made India so great in the past. It is the duty of every man and woman to preserve these traditions so that India may hold her spiritual supremacy over the world. May this flag be the symbol of that great India and may it ever fly high and serve as a light in the bloom that threatens the world today. May it bring happiness to those who live under its protecting care. (cheers)
Responsibility Lies with People to Make the Constitution Work[3]
Shrimati Hansa Mehta (Bombay: General): Mr. President, Sir, it is with a sigh of relief that we have come to our journey’s end. I wish we had taken less time to cover this journey. Time is of the essence of things and once the psychological moment is past, the thing however good loses interest and so it has become with the Constitution. On the floor of this House and even outside questions have been asked whether the Constitution is good and how long it is going to last. It is very difficult to reply to this question. The goodness or badness of a Constitution depends on how it is going to work. If it works in the interests of the people, it will be a good Constitution; if it works otherwise, it will be a bad Constitution. It is for the future electors to elect the right kind of persons, who will work the Constitution in the interests of the people. The responsibility, therefore, lies with the people. One thing, however, I would like to observe and that is in the circumstances in which we were placed, we could not have produced anything better. With such divergent views in the Assembly, it is indeed a miracle that we have achieved this measure of agreement. At one extreme we had Seth Govind Das, the champion of the underdog, and in between we had many variations; the last speaker would supply a good example.
Inspite of all that and inspite of all the many complicated problems that we had to tackle, I feel that we have not done badly. The most difficult problem that we had to tackle was the problem of minorities. Nowhere in the Constitution have we defined ‘minorities’. We accepted the definition that was given to us by the last rulers. They created religious minorities, communal minorities in order to help their policy of divide and rule and that policy has culminated in the partition of this country. We do not want any more partitions. What do the minorities want? What can be their claims? The Constitution guarantees equal protection of law, equality of status, equality of opportunity, the Constitution guarantees religious rights. What more can the minorities ask for? If they want privileges, that is not in the spirit of democracy. They cannot ask for privileges. The only exception, however, I would like to make is in the case of the Scheduled Castes. They have suffered and suffered long at the hands of the Hindu society and any exception in their case would be making amends to what they have suffered. In this connection, the abolition of untouchability is the greatest thing that we have done and posterity will be very proud of this.
While discussing this question in the Fundamental Rights Committee, we also raised another point. We were anxious to consider the abolition of purdah. It is an inhuman custom which still exists in parts of India. Unfortunately, we were told that raising this question will hurt the religious susceptibilities of some people. As far as the Hindu religion is concerned, it does not enjoin purdah. Islam does. But, I feel that Islam will be better rid of this evil. Any evil practiced in the name of religion cannot be guaranteed by the Constitution and I hope that our Muslim friends will remember that if not now, later on, this question is bound to come up before the legislatures. While the chapter on Fundamental Rights is a most important chapter, the chapter that follows, the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy is, also to my mind a very important chapter. In this chapter, I would like to draw the attention of this House to two items. The first is prohibition. A reference was made the other day by the Premier of Bombay that what they are doing is according to the Constitution. I would like to draw a distinction here. Gandhiji’s name has been associated with the policy of prohibition. But, what Gandhiji desired was that the State should not manufacture liquor, nor should the State sell it and that public bars should also be closed so that there may be no temptation for those who are susceptible to drinking. But, I do not think that Gandhiji ever desired that we should raise an army of police. Gandhiji never desired that we should spend good money on police. We are prepared to forego the tainted income; but is there any reason why lakhs and lakhs of good money should be spent on excise police? It will only add one more source of corruption, and we have enough of corruption in this country. Another thing, it will perpetuate the sales tax and people who are already burdened with taxes are groaning under the sales tax. I therefore wish to make this distinction that while endorsing the prohibition policy in this Constitution, it does not mean that we agree with the method of introducing prohibition in the various provinces today.
The other item to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the Common Civil Code. To my mind this is much more important than even the national language. We have too many personal laws in this country and these personal laws are dividing the nation today. It is therefore very essential if we want to build up one nation to have one Civil Code. It must, however, be remembered that the Civil Code that we wish to have must be on a par with, or in advance of, the most progressive of the personal laws in the country. Otherwise, it will be a retrograde step and it will not be acceptable to all.
The world would have thought very little of the men if they had asked for protection against women in this Constitution; I am very happy to see that the Constitution does not include that provision. Otherwise men would have had to hide their faces before the world.
Sir, I have felt it a very great privilege to have been associated with the making of the Constitution of free India. I hope and pray that the Constitution fulfills the expectations raised by the Resolution moved in this House by our Prime Minister three years ago and passed, and which forms now the body of the preamble. It is only in the fulfilment of that promise that this country will rise to its pristine glory.
[1] Debate over Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s Resolution regarding Aims and Objectives, C.A.D., Vol. I, L.S.S., 19 December 1946, p. 138
[2] Presentation of the National Flag, C.A.D., Vol. V, L.S.S., 14 August 1947, pp. 10-11
[3] Discussion on the Motion by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to pass the Draft Constitution, C.A.D., L.S.S., Vol. XI, 22 November 1949, pp. 795-797.
