SPECIAL ARTICLE
Draupadi or Savitri: Lohia’s Feminist Reading
of Mythology
Kumkum Yadav
Rammanohar Lohia’s reflections on gender set him
apart from both his contemporaries and his
predecessors. His contribution lay in his capacity to raise
the concern for women to a political doctrine, often
disagreeing with not just thinkers from other political
ideologies but also those within his own party. How far
he was successful in translating his ideas into actual
practice is an important question, but there is little
doubt that he was honest in pursuing solutions to the
layers of difficulty that made social equality for women
so elusive. He did not visualise such solutions as probable
within a given period of time. For him, like Gandhi, the
process, the tools and the ethics of transformation were
as important as the change itself.
I am thankful to Yogendra Yadav for reading the initial draft of this
paper, sharing valuable suggestions and insights and for posting me
study material that I had missed, especially the excellent monograph
by Awadhendra Sharan and Ravikant Sharma. Discussions with
Prem Singh also helped immensely.
Kumkum Yadav (drkumkumyadav@gmail.com) teaches English
at Sri Guru Nanak Dev Khalsa College, University of Delhi.
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   november 27, 2010  vol xlv no 48
Woman is undoubtedly among the most exploited sections of huma­
nity, together with poorest and lowliest of men. She may try to forget
her condition with love or trinkets and her charitable generosity. But
ugly practices of society and certain dark recesses of the soul have
both combined to turn woman into a sphere where socialism is most
needed. If socialism and democracy are a battle for equality, they are
cut out specially as creeds of women.
– Rammanohar Lohia, Notes and Comments, Vol 1, 1972: 32.
R
ammanohar Lohia’s observations on caste and gender
i­ssues germinated from his unflagging crusade for equa­
lity and a socialist revolution. He saw no chance of much
success for a socialist revolution unless the two social categories
of caste and sex were demolished. According to him, the segrega­
tions of caste and sex had deprived Indian people of all positive
motivation. He wrote, “I am convinced that two segregations of
caste and women are primarily responsible for this decline of the
spirit. These segregations have enough power to kill all capacity
for adventure and joy.”1
Lohia’s understanding of discrimination as it existed in its nu­
merous and subtle manifestations – caste and gender inequality
in particular – offered a unique intervention in that it refused to
be simplistic about the causes of discrimination and its possible
eradication through metaphorical or regimental processes.
“Equality is a frame of mind”, wrote Lohia, that is not always
linked up with logic or with law.2 The impulse to exclude and
discriminate reflected “manifestations of the wish to exceed and
get the better of one’s fellow through illegal and immoral means”.3
Inequality was “so well integrated with life that it has become its
base. Most people are not even aware of its existence and when
prodded react with shock and denial”.4 Impulses for the enjoy­
ment of “monopolistic powers” threatened and affected all ranks
of the human race irrespective of their status within other struc­
tures and equations. Some areas of the mind, he wrote, remained
“unlit” despite all claims to the contrary. Caste and gender
i­nequality was thus, for him, an example of the various dimen­
sions of inequality that marked humanity and it needed to be
contested continuously. In outlining “seven revolutions” that
marked his time, Lohia mentioned five such dimensions of ine­
quality. It is important to note that he refused to accord primacy
to any of these or to reduce any of these dimensions into another.
Lohia repudiated the simplistic assumption that there could be a
final or lasting solution to the menace of inequality. He main­
tained that the fight against changing and veiled forms of ine­
quality at different levels, including gender, was a continuous
process. “The fight against inequality must be waged for a long
time to come, in a sense, for ever”.5 In saying this, Lohia implied
that the success or apparent failure of an ideology was not
107
SPECIAL ARTICLE
­ ecessarily reflected in immediate results. The war against
n ­ ifficulties in actively participating in politics, their faster ageing
­inequality required a c­onsistent awareness of the devices that
may be employed by the dominant sections to continue their
­oppressive and discriminatory practices.
Full Participation of Women
Lohia’s observations on gender and inequality were important for
the reason that he did not view them as sub-topics to be taken up
occasionally, if and when other “major” issues allowed time for it.
He wrote, “But this problem of woman must not be treated on the
level of temporary annoyances; it must be tackled as its root.
Woman is undoubtedly among the most exploited sections of hu­
manity…”6 Lohia’s political position, in comparison to the other
political giants and thinkers of the period, presented a consistent
and primary concern with gender inequality. All his speeches
and writings – be it a travelogue, a lecture to party workers, a
political manifesto, a programme of action, an editorial in Man-
kind or an abstract piece on the principles of socialism – were
marked by a constant and consistent awareness of the plight of
women. He was unable to visualise any positive social develop­
ment or revolution without the participation of women or their
partial involvement only from the margins. Later some of his
follo­wers encapsulated it in a powerful slogan Nari ke sahbhag
bina har badlav adhura hai (without women, all will be incom­
plete). His vision of a new and equal society did not become com­
plete unless almost half the total number of citizens and their
contribution was taken into serious consideration. In a letter to
active party members, Lohia wrote that it was important to revo­
lutionise politics by active participation of all its members, “It is
important that every individual makes up his/her mind regard­
ing the contribution and role that he/she would play in the coun­
try’s politics”.7 He demanded preferential treatment for “all shu­
dras” (the lowest category in the traditional Hindu caste system)
and for him this category included women. Lohia believed that
women were shudras in that they suffered systematic injustice.
He was one of the first political thinkers who insisted that 60% of
organisational positions be reserved for “backwards”, including
women, within his party.
Lohia mentioned that gender inequality also existed in devel­
oped countries. At a conference that he attended in the US, not
one of the 30-odd speakers was a woman, he noted. No demo­
cracy in the world could claim to be a true democracy while such
marginalisation existed and no development, progress and mate­
rial well-being was complete or justified if half the population
was excluded from active participation. It was with this convic­
tion that he insisted on looking for avenues that would emanci­
pate women and gain them recognition of their capabilities.
Lohia began by interrogating gender stereotypes. The bio­
logical “difference”, like the intellectual and the economic, was
a­cknowledged. But the essentialisation of the biological status
and health of women was as misplaced and damaging a
phenomenon as that which related to her intellectual and emo­
tional “limitations”. The 19th and early 20th century perspective
of viewing the biological difference between men and women as
an important starting point in the gender debate was reflected to
some extent in Lohia’s views too.8 He referred to women’s
108
d
process and emotional vulnerability. But, he carefully added,
such ideas were true “as of now”. Over the years, with an im­
provement in conditions related to women’s health, financial in­
dependence and awareness about their rights, researchers have
pointed out their stronger resilience, resistance to diseases and
longevity.
Social Reform Movements
The reform movements of the 19th century led by Bal Gangadhar
Tilak, Madanmohan Malviya, Romesh Chunder Dutt and Bankim
Chandra Chattopadhyay marked a giant leap forward for wom­
en’s emancipation. They mobilised public opinion against dis­
crimination and injustice, created significant grounds for wom­
en’s education and raised issues related to their subordination in
the family. Efforts that advocated widow remarriage and argu­
ments against the practice of sati created a new social atmos­
phere for women in relation to the institutions of marriage and
patriarchy. The efforts of 19th century women reformers like
Mary Carpenter, Annette Beveridge and Annie Beasant were
backed by the new spirit to counteract oppression at various
l­evels. However, the 19th century movements continued to abide
by the conventional emphases on family, marriage, motherhood
and domesticity as the focal point in a woman’s life. The ideals of
p­urity, caring and serving persisted to form the base of the largely
domestic role within which women’s education and emancipa­
tion was embedded.
It was only later, in the 20th century, that women’s journals,
schools, organisations and associations helped women to find
their own voice. The public sphere that was denied to most
women appeared closer. Writings by Rashsundari Devi, Rokeya
Hossain, Tarabai Shinde, Ramabai and others saw women’s
voices being heard in the public sphere and gradually in politics.
Groups such as the Women’s India Association (1917), the N­ational
Council of Women in India (1925) and the All-India Women’s
Conference (1927) were established with the definite purpose of
finding a footing for women in politics. But that was not an easy
goal in a culture that was accustomed to the idea of placing
women within the confines of domesticity.
Brute strength, aggression and volume, generally associated
with good, capable and perhaps “male” leadership, were not in­
gredients for a better world. The myth of female reticence, frailty,
meekness and so on also held no water.9 The body would experi­
ence the seasons, joys and agonies but Lohia reminded us there
was a world beyond the body, one that simply remains detached
and observes impartially.10 In other words, he refused to confine
or base the gender debate within categorical considerations
r­elated to sexuality or asexuality, domesticity or public space,
emotional or material matters, individuality or social roles and so
on, although most of these matters were taken up and discussed.
Women, in Lohia’s perspective, were neither dispensable, to be
used or sidelined according to political needs, nor were they to be
seen as unholy temptations that might mar higher and nobler
p­olitical aspirations.
Nevertheless, the quest for revolution in gender did not mean
that the existing reality was simply wished away by Lohia. On the
november 27, 2010  vol xlv no 48  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly

contrary, he paid considerable attention to women’s “responsibil­
ities” such as cooking, cleaning, fetching water and rearing chil­
dren. He strived to relate the abstract principles of equality to the
everyday life of the average and ordinary woman. Lohia was crit­
ical of the socially accepted practice of women eating last in the
family and being expected to be satisfied with leftovers. The self-
denial and self-effacing practices of women, no matter how
s­ocially rooted such expectations were, were unacceptable to
L­ohia. He was deeply concerned about the trivial, apparently
everyday, difficulties that women faced. Whether it was smoke
from the kitchen fire or the strain of carrying water over long
distances, or the difficulties associated with the absence of a
t­oilet in most rural households, the burden of such hardships on
women was recognised. “The women’s problem is undoubtedly
difficult. Her slavery to the kitchen is an abomination, and the
stove that smokes horribly. She must be given a reasonable time-
table for food and also a chimney that spirals the smoke away.
She must indeed take part against under-feeding and unemploy­
ment. But her problem also reaches beyond that.”11
In India, the subject of women’s active participation in spheres
other than the domestic presents major difficulties like dual
standards, a false sense of morality and “decorum” and an obses­
sive tendency to associate female identity with her sexuality.
“Present-day India holds the world’s record in hypocrisy and dou­
ble talk”, Lohia wrote in an essay in 1959. Discussing the discour­
agement meted out to women in sports, Lohia wrote, “Indians are
delighted when they see these women of health and therefore of
beauty at play. Only they would not have women of their families
do it, at least not publicly.”12 Similarly, the sexuality of a woman
was used as an excuse to segregate and imprison her. Lohia, per­
haps, was one of the few Indian politicians who dared to speak
for sexual liberation among the youth, without discarding sensi­
tivity and care. “It is time that young men and women revolted
against such puerilities. They should ever remember that there
are only two unpardonable crimes in the code of sexual conduct
– rape and the telling of lies or breach of promise. There is also a
third offence of causing pain or hurt to another, which they
should avoid as far as possible.”13
In saying this, Lohia was decades ahead of his times. The Pro­
tection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), which
came into force in December 2006, does not distinguish between
a woman who is married and one who is in a long-term relation­
ship. It considers the latter to be as legally binding as marriage. It
provides protection to women who suffer abuse at the hands of
their husbands as well as partners and their relatives. A recent
observation by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stated
that there is no law that makes a voluntary relationship an
o­ffence. True to his character, Lohia practised what he preached.
He was publicly transparent about his relationships with women
– astonishing for a political leader in those days.
In December 1952, when he founded the Socialist Party after
leaving the Praja Socialist Party, one of Lohia’s primary political
aims was to confront the women’s question. His political agenda
was (1) to draw attention to the poor, the rural people, and ver­
nacular languages; (2) to take up the issue of people discrimi­
nated against on the basis of caste; and (3) to make a definite
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   november 27, 2010  vol xlv no 48
SPECIAL ARTICLE
a­ttempt to include women in active politics. Lohia’s concern for
women needs special mention because the early socialist move­
ment in India did not similarly emphasise it. It was not a part of
its political agenda. No discussion of gender equality took place
even though economic inequality was an important issue with
socialist giants like Jayaprakash Narayan, Ganga Sharan Sinha,
Ashok Mehta, M R Masani, Achyut Patwardhan and even A­charya
Narendra Deva.
In a study titled “Indian Socialism and the Gender Question:
An Inquiry into the Thoughts of Dr Rammanohar Lohia”, Awad­
hendra B Sharan and Ravikant Sharma write that among the
prominent strands of political thought during the period a chasm
often existed between the ideals of women’s emancipation and
the actual mobilisation and participation of women in group poli­
tics. The Nehruvian policy on women’s rights was elitist, focused
on the upper castes, and was therefore not truly in keeping with
the spirit of social justice. The mass movements led by Mahatma
Gandhi included women who were poor, low caste and unedu­
cated and their participation in the national struggle, along with
the educated middle class, presented a positive contrast. Gandhi
did not ignore the existing, traditional social reality and avoided
a confrontational position vis-à-vis conventional practice and
new thought. The communist political groups in India were suc­
cessful in mobilising women and encouraging their participation
in peasant struggles, trade unions and working class campaigns.
Yet women as prominent leaders were not largely visible and
there was no articulation of their difficulties and demands. Their
contribution during the armed struggle was often confined once
again to cooking and other forms of domesticity.14 Sharan and
Sharma state that Lohia and the other socialists assessed cul­
ture as a “negative dead weight against which socialists must
fight if they had to help women liberate themselves”. Women, in
this reading, appeared to be only “objects and victims” and not
“the makers of culture”. Sharan and Sharma maintain that
“L­ohia’s reading of culture as an iron cage that had imprisoned
women and robbed them of all agency was not only to turn a
blind eye to the rich history of women’s participation in the
anti-­colonial, peasant or working class struggles. It was also to
discount, as the left had done in the 1930s and 1940s, any appeal
to emotion, f­eeling or subjectivity. It would seem, then, that
u­nlike Gandhi’s creative use of tradition that provided spaces for
women to p­articipate in a range of practical and ideological
a­ctivities, L­ohia’s reading of tradition was ideologically a
c­onstricting stance.”15
Need for Deep-Rooted Change
Lohia contextualised his discourse on the situation of women
mainly within the Indian situation and reality. Prem Singh, in his
article “Lohia Ka Istri Vimarsh”, writes that Lohia’s socialist con­
cerns led him to further focus on the socially and economically
deprived sections of Indian women.16 In doing so, he explored the
complex phenomena and shades of discrimination that worked in
devious patterns within dominated groups. To address the issue
of class and gender discrimination, Lohia, besides theorising the
idea of “socialist feminism”, attempted to offer alternatives that
involved both immediate and long-term action.
109
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Lohia argued for adequate representation in politics for
d­eprived sections like dalits, adivasis, backward groups, women
and the minorities. However, like the caste system, the dogmas
and prejudices against women had been inherited over centuries
of unbridled and rarely questioned practices. Therefore constitu­
tional protection and economic independence were necessary
but these alone were not adequate or effective enough as reme­
dies. The deep-rooted beliefs in the minds of men, and perhaps
also women, living within a patriarchal society, were not easily
dislodged by economic and legislative changes.
In trying to change society, the Marxist belief that such social
prejudice and bias might find solutions through primarily mate­
rial levelling did not convince Lohia. Money could, and did, go a
long way towards effectively combating the forces of domination.
There was no doubt that poverty damaged the best in human
hope, endeavour and promise and caused inequality in a multi­
tude of ways. But history had ample evidence to show that there
was a factor more formidable than the economic, and that was
the social mindset, which has been conditioned over ages. Educa­
tion and economic independence had liberated many. The
number of those who found escape from gender and caste domi­
nation through the miraculous escape route of money was con­
stantly on the rise. But the story, very often, did not end here on a
happy note. One did not have to try very hard to locate the s­everal
instances of new forms of discrimination and domination that
persisted despite the newfound material freedom. “All war on
poverty is a sham, unless it is, at the same time, a conscious and
sustained war on these two segregations”.17
Myths as a Socialist Vehicle
Lohia’s speeches and writings established a direct communica­
tion with his audience and readers from all classes and sections
in society. Their tone is conversational and non-formal. For him,
the common people were always in focus and the use of
m­y thology was one way to establish a contact with them. He pre­
sented an insight into how the contemporary reader could relate
to the constructs and implications of mythological texts to change
cultural and mental blocks. Lohia was not unduly concerned
about the historical authenticity of mythical tales. Writing about
Draupadi and Savitri in his famous essay “Draupadi or Savitri”,
he said, “It is very much possible that these two women are imag­
ined. There is also the possibility that they did exist in reality.”18
The areas that required weeding and overhauling were the
s­ocial and the cultural. Lohia, in his attempt to find a more per­
manent way out of the age-old bias against women in Indian soci­
ety, took the debate to the mythological terrain, within which
countless behavioural and moral touchstones had been created
and nurtured. Various women characters such as Sita, Savitri,
Draupadi, Parvati, Tara, Maitreyi, Gargi, Mandodari, Lilavati,
Anasuya, Urmila, Goddess Durga-Bhagwati-Kali and others go be­
yond their mythological roles in Lohia’s discussion, to represent
categories and symbols of certain social roles and social values.
Lohia’s essay “Draupadi or Savitri” was based on a lecture he
delivered at a study camp of the Samajwadi Yuvjan Sabha (SYS)
in 1962, where he spoke about the two significant women charac­
ters in Indian mythology. Savitri and Sita had been readily
110
a­ccepted as ideal mythological figures who represented the
e­ssence of all that was noble and “virtuous” in womanhood.
L­ohia was not alone in his attempt to reinterpret myths to use
them as a base to explain his arguments. But the socialist in L­ohia
led him to recognise myth as a part of a “sanctifying strategy”
constructed and employed by patriarchal society to influence the
b­ehavioural pattern of the marginalised. The idea was to sanctify
only such codes of behaviour that benefited the interests of those
who created such myths. However, Lohia used mythology only as
a vehicle to carry his argument. He did not romanticise any
i­ncident or character and there was no undisputed model of
b­ehaviour or icon.
Though Lohia often began his discussion about the status of
woman with reference to mythological characters, he, as a socia­
list visionary, did not get carried away by it. At no juncture did he
describe or delineate Draupadi as a goddess. Lohia humanised
the mythical character; no argument in his discussion was aimed
at thrusting divinity upon her. Lohia also insisted that no person­
ality, howsoever enigmatic, was to be accepted and venerated as
a perfect and unquestionable ideal. Draupadi’s character was to
be considered only as the starting point of a wider discussion. At
times, much well-meaning criticism against gender bias, even
when it attacked the conventional role models for women,
c­ontinued to be sexist and patriarchal. The foremost point of
comparison and contrast between Savitri and Draupadi was em­
bedded in their social roles as wives, in conformity with the s­ocial
institution of marriage. Lohia criticised the tendency to sensa­
tionalise the debate by those who perceived Draupadi primarily
as the wife of five husbands.
Lohia discussed how social and cultural yardsticks had been
devised by the powerful and the dominant to oppress the weak.
Culture was used by them for self benefit. The definition of good­
ness, particularly that of a “good woman”, was constructed so
that the social was mistaken for the ethical. Matrimonial and ma­
ternal “duties”, if not “burdens”, were presented in a disguised
form as virtue. The question to be asked was what this “virtue”
did for the women themselves. The values attached to chastity
and faithfulness, and the resultant power to challenge the uni­
verse, was viewed as an illustration of all that was most required
and most acceptable in the life of a woman. Lohia, contrary to the
apprehensions of his critics, had praise and honour for Savitri
and Sita. However, the important intervention that he made was
that loyalty and chastity were important but only as a single
a­spect of a woman’s personality. There were “20” other desirable
virtues to be developed and appreciated.
Lohia rejected the patriarchal trap of pitting women against
women and then attributing negative emotions like envy and
jealousy to them. On the other side, positive attributes like caring
and sensitivity were highlighted only as female attributes to
d­elimit and confine women to the domestic arena. For Lohia,
Savitri and Draupadi were not binary opposites. His intention
was not to present the two as contrasting role models. But he did
point out that if chastity and fidelity were highlighted and upheld
as f­emale virtues at the cost of other accomplishments that are
sacrificed, denied or destroyed, it was difficult to view that as an
ideal. He said, “I have great regard for Savitri but only in one
november 27, 2010  vol xlv no 48  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly

r­espect. But a woman is not confined to just one virtue. There are
20 others.”19 Lohia’s argument was that the ideal of womanhood
could not be built on the single virtue of pativrat dharm (fidelity)
and chastity.
Women as Property
Creativity and aesthetics, like ethics, have been used to issue
veiled threats, warnings and possible punishments for those who
dare to deviate. Lohia explained how tales had been modelled on
a clear principle of inequality. “Don’t mistake me as valorising a
woman who has more than one lover, at once or one after an­
other. But I am condemned to search for equality.”20 The ideals of
faithfulness and undying loyalty had been created with only
women in mind. Lohia did not accept this position. To illustrate
his point, he cited the episode in which the Pandavas and
D­raupadi pass through the Himalayas on their way to heaven.
The reason why Draupadi “melts” first, the conventionalists
maintain, is that she did not love all her husbands equally, Arjuna
being her favourite. Lohia argued that if this criterion of fidelity
were a­pplied to her husbands, then they, particularly Bhima and
Y­udhishthira, even Arjuna, would have “melted” much before
Draupadi. In addition to making this unequal comparison
b­etween the fate of men and women, the orthodox school failed
to address the oft-repeated query why there were no male role
models in mythology who personify faithfulness and immor­
talise undying love for their wives. Lohia expressed his great
regard for Rama, who loved Sita all his life, but mentioned how
working-class women all over the country see him as a “sinner”
in their folk songs. As a ruler, Rama had to be just to all the peo­
ple in his kingdom, including his wife, who was banished for no
fault of hers.
Lohia found the conventional image and identity of women
was basically perceived as physical. Her “purity” was perceived
as the embodiment of the dignity and respectability of the social
unit to which she belonged. In other words, she was not human,
she was property. Draupadi, a most powerful symbol of woman­
hood, possessed a sharp intelligence and had the courage to
speak her mind. Lohia wrote that with the exception of Krishna,
“Draupadi is perhaps the one woman of myth or history in the
wide world, who was wiser and wittier than all the men of her
time.”21 Episodes that reveal Draupadi’s wisdom on subjects such
as politics, justice and religion abound. All through her life with
the Pandavas, from vanvas (exile in the forest) to swargarohan
(ascent to heaven), Draupadi stood out as a woman who knew her
mind and was capable of taking decisions. Her oft-mentioned
speech in the court of Dhritrashtra, after Yudhishthira lost her to
the Kauravas in a game of dice, was outstanding. Her fury was
d­irected not just against the victorious Kauravas, who considered
women as booty to be usurped from the vanquished, but also
against her husbands, who took her to be a valuable piece of prop­
erty that could be bartered at will. Central to the vision of a
s­ocialist civilisation is the principle of equality in marriage,
m­orals and the mind.
Reacting to a misplaced notion of reverence, Draupadi laughed
at Bhishma when he preached politics to the Pandavas and the
Kauravas at the Shanti Parva. Krishna’s intervention, when an
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   november 27, 2010  vol xlv no 48
SPECIAL ARTICLE
e­nraged Arjuna tried to “discipline” her, revealed that she had
been amused with the irony of the situation, of a preacher who
did not practise what he preached. The courage to speak and
the courage to register dissent mirrored the face of an emanci­
pated woman, one who could claim to be the new and modern
ideal of womanhood.
Draupadi refused to be defined only by her social relationship
to men. There was also a refusal to name all her relationships. In
doing so, Draupadi represented social emancipation and equal­
ity, so close to Lohia’s vision of socialism. The first related to her
unique relationship with Krishna. It is a relationship that does
not fall within social definitions: brother-sister, father-daughter,
mother-son, or lover-beloved. Lohia had written with feeling
about the situation of single women, not just widows but also
women who remained single by choice. He did not perceive them
as odd members outside “acceptable society”. There was no need
for a social relationship to make a woman complete. Single
women he wrote, were “probably no more unhappy than very
married women and, if there are some exceedingly happy ones in
their ranks, they can be matched by the ranks of the married”.22
The relationship between Krishna and Draupadi was based on
the values of companionship, one that defied socially defined
r­elationships between a woman and a man. “… Krishna and
Krishna (Draupadi) are the two heroes of Mahabharat, of equal
merit, companions without a shadow of conflict”.23
Draupadi is dark skinned, the opposite of the conventional
“fair” beauty. Lohia used this to build another significant argu­
ment. In his article “Beauty and Skin Colour”, he suggested that
such skin-deep considerations – in life, values, priorities, know­
ledge, relationships and so on – do not lay any lasting foundation
in society, least of all that of a socialist civilisation. Through the
character of Draupadi, Lohia referred to the damaging “political
influences” that distort aesthetic judgments and lead to “world­
wide domination”. Lohia wrote, “…The accepted tyranny of col­
our can be seen in its most accentuated forms. All the world suf­
fers this tyranny of skin’s colour…” The debate shifted from the
aesthetic to the social when he wrote, “The distance between
dark and fair and between rich and poor is covered by innumer­
able intermediate points so that the restoration of a valid
­aesthetic judgment has become as difficult as that of a proper
economic or moral standard”.24
The canonisation of any mythical, social or historical personal­
ity was absolutely contrary to Lohia’s vision of a socialist society.
Although Draupadi fulfilled many of the expectations he had of
women as equal members in society, he did not accept her uncon­
ditionally. Lohia expressed his reservations about her deciding to
call Karna a sarathi putra (charioteer’s son). Although her young
age when she did so and the social conditions of her time have
been cited as reasons, Lohia used this flaw in her character to
r­eiterate his belief that no halo should be assigned to anybody.
D­espite his deep respect for Gandhi, Lohia reminded us that he
did not accept Gandhi unconditionally.
Lohia’s reflections on the question of gender set him apart from
both his contemporaries and his predecessors. It was true that
the women’s question was not new to the national movement and
Lohia was not the first one to raise it. But his contribution lay in
111
SPECIAL ARTICLE

his capacity to raise the concern for women into a political
d­octrine. There is always room for democratic disagreement in a
s­ocialist society. Lohia disagreed with not just thinkers from
other political ideologies but also those within his own party.
I­mplementing an ideology has never been easy. But it is impor­
tant to explore the ideology threadbare. How far Lohia was
s­uccessful in translating his ideas into actual practice is an
i­mportant question but there is little doubt that he was honest in
pursuing solutions to the layers of difficulty that made social
equality for women so elusive. He did not visualise such solutions
as probable within a given period of time. For him, like Gandhi,
the process, the tools and the ethics of transformation were as
important as the change itself. Legal and material transforma­
tion and the data to support its success can be recorded but the
slow cultural process of change takes time, is less visible and has
to contend with changing conditions and circumstances. Lohia
hoped that the strength and participation of women in active
politics, which so far had been only partial at best, would find a
more complete manifestation if a substantial, long-lasting change
was made in the minds of people.

Notes
1 The use of “women” for what we would today call
“gender” may be confusing. The title of the essay is
“Segregation of Caste and Sex”, which is also in keep­
ing with Lohia’s Hindi expression “Jati Aur Yoni ke
Katghare”. Therefore, the appropriate word would
have been “sex” though Lohia does not use it. Lohia,
Rammanohar (1964): The Caste System, Rammano­
har Lohia Samata Vidyalaya Nyas, H­yderabad, p 1.
2 Lohia, Rammanohar (1972): “Discrimination and
Equality”, Notes and Comments, Vol II, Rammanohar
Lohia Samata Vidyalaya Nyas, Hyderabad, p  73.
3 Lohia, Rammanohar (1972): “Discrimination and
Equality”, Notes and Comments, Vol II, Rammanohar
Lohia Samata Vidyalaya Nyas, Hyderabad, p  63.
4 Lohia, Rammanohar (1972): “Discrimination and
Equality”, Notes and Comments, Vol II, Rammanohar
Lohia Samata Vidyalaya Nyas, Hyderabad, p  71.
5 Lohia, Rammanohar (1963): Marx, Gandhi and
Socialism, Rammanohar Lohia Samata Vidyalaya
Nyas, Hyderabad, p XXXVII.
6 Lohia, Rammanohar (1972): “Preferential Rights for
Women”, Notes and Comments, Vol 1, R­ammanohar
Lohia Samata Vidyalaya Nyas, H­yderabad, p 32.
7 Author’s translation from the Hindi original.
K­apur, Mastram (ed) (2008): “Three Letters to
Party Members”, Rammanohar Lohia Rachnavali,
Vol 3 (­Delhi: Anamika Publishers), p 168.
8 Author’s translation from the Hindi original,
K­apur, Mastram (ed) (2008): “Draupadi or Savit­
ri”, Rammanohar Lohia Rachnavali, Vol 2 (Delhi:
A­namika Publishers), p 258.
9 Author’s translation from the Hindi original,
K­apur, Mastram (ed) (2008): “Samanata Ka
Arth”, Rammanohar Lohia Rachnavali, Vol 1 (Del­
hi: A­namika Publishers), p 336.
10 Author’s translation from the Hindi original,
K­apur, Mastram (ed) (2008): “Samanata Ka
Arth”, Rammanohar Lohia Rachnavali, Vol 1 (Del­
hi: A­namika Publishers), p 341.
11 Lohia, Rammanohar (1964): The Caste System,
Rammanohar Lohia Samata V­idyalaya Nyas,
H­yderabad, p 5.
12 Lohia, Rammanohar (1972): Notes and Comments,
Vol 1, Rammanohar Lohia Samata Vidyalaya
Nyas, Hyderabad, p 4.
13 Lohia, Rammanohar (1964): The Caste System,
Rammanohar Lohia Samata V­idyalaya Nyas,
H­yderabad, p 8.
14 Sharan, Awdhendra B, Ravikant Sharma (2002): In-
dian Socialism and the Gender Question: An I­nquiry
into the Thoughts of Dr Rammanohar L­ohia, Centre
for Women’s Development Studies, Delhi, p 23.
15 Sharan, Awdhendra B, Ravikant Sharma (2002):
­Indian Socialism and the Gender Question: An
­Inquiry into the Thoughts of Dr Rammanohar
L­ ohia, Centre for Women’s Development Studies,
Delhi, p 44.
16 Singh, Prem (2003): “Lohia Ka Istri Vimarsh”,
S­amayik Varta, Lohia Visheshank, March, Delhi.
17 Lohia, Rammanohar (1964): The Caste System,
Rammanohar Lohia Samata V­idyalaya Nyas,
H­yderabad, p 2.
18 Author’s translation from the Hindi original, K­apur,
Mastram (ed) (2008): Ram Manohar Lohia Rachna-
vali, Vol 2 (Delhi: Anamika Publishers), p  251.
19 Author’s translation from the Hindi original, K­apur,
Mastram (ed) (2008): Rammanohar Lohia Rachna-
vali, Vol 2 (Delhi: Anamika Publishers), p  261.
20 Author’s translation from the Hindi original, K­apur,
Mastram (ed) (2008): Rammanohar Lohia Rachna-
vali, Vol 2 (Delhi: Anamika Publishers), p  254.
21 Lohia, Rammanohar (1965): Interval during Poli-
tics, Rammanohar Lohia S­amata Vidyalaya Nyas,
Hyderabad, p 134.
22 Lohia, Rammanohar (1972): Notes and Comments,
Vol 1, Rammanohar Lohia Samata Vidyalaya
Nyas, Hyderabad, p 34.
23 Lohia, Rammanohar (1965): Interval during Poli-
tics, Rammanohar Lohia Samata Vidyalaya Nyas,
Hyderabad, p 134.
24 Lohia, Rammanohar (1965): Interval during Poli-
tics, Rammanohar Lohia S­amata Vidyalaya Nyas,
Hyderabad, p 139.

SAMEEKSHA TRUST BOOKS

China after 1978: Craters on the Moon
The breathtakingly rapid economic growth in China since 1978 has attracted world-wide attention. But the condition of more than 350 million workers is abysmal,
especially that of the migrants among them. Why do the migrants put up with so much hardship in the urban factories? Has post-reform China forsaken the
earlier goal of “socialist equality”? What has been the contribution of rural industries to regional development, alleviation of poverty and spatial inequality, and
in relieving the grim employment situation? How has the meltdown in the global economy in the second half of 2008 affected the domestic economy? What
of the current leadership’s call for a “harmonious society”? Does it signal an important “course correction”?
A collection of essays from the Economic & Political Weekly seeks to find tentative answers to these questions, and more.

Pp viii + 318         ISBN 978-81-250-3953-2         2010         Rs 350

Windows of Opportunity
By K S KRISHNASWAMY
A ruminative memoir by one who saw much happen, and not happen, at a time when everything seemed possible and promising in India.
K S Krishnaswamy was a leading light in the Reserve Bank of India and the Planning Commission between the 1950s and 1970s. He offers a ringside view of
the pulls and pressures within the administration and outside it, the hopes that sustained a majority in the bureaucracy and the lasting ties he formed with
the many he came in contact with. Even more relevant is what he has to say about political agendas eroding the Reserve Bank’s autonomy and degrading the
numerous democratic institutions since the late 1960s.
Pp xii + 190         ISBN 978-81-250-3964-8         2010         Rs 440
Available from
Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd
www.orientblackswan.com
Mumbai  Chennai  New Delhi  Kolkata  Bangalore  Bhubaneshwar  Ernakulam  Guwahati  Jaipur  Lucknow  Patna  Chandigarh  Hyderabad
Contact: info@orientblackswan.com

112 november 27, 2010  vol xlv no 48  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly