If the Narendra Modi government was aware, as Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi claimed, that the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill would fail in the Lok Sabha due to insufficient numbers on the Treasury benches to meet the special division requirement, why did it then introduce it?
The fact is that even a “doomed” bill can serve multiple purposes beyond becoming law—agenda-setting, shifting discourse, drawing attention to key issues, and normalising policy ideas over time. Observers say there are several practical and political reasons for introducing such a bill despite a likely defeat.
First is the intent. By tabling the bill, the government demonstrated to its supporters—in this case, women who are seen as a strong support base of Prime Minister Narendra Modi—that the BJP is committed to reform. Even without sufficient numbers, this can prove useful in shaping public opinion in election campaigns.
Second is the pressure on the opposition. A formal debate forced parties to take a public stand, allowing the ruling party to frame a narrative that it attempted reform but the rivals blocked it. This was evident in how, after the bill’s defeat, BJP leaders doubled down on opposition parties, accusing them of being “anti-women.”
Following the failure of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, which was required to implement women’s reservation by the 2029 elections on the basis of the 2011 Census, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju also withdrew two related bills—the union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, and the Delimitation Bill, 2026—accusing the opposition of missing an opportunity to support women’s rights. NDA leaders staged protests within Parliament premises after the bill failed to pass and gave statements against the opposition.
The BJP itself framed the defeat not as a numbers issue but as a moral one, positioning itself as a champion of women’s empowerment under PM Modi, portraying Congress, Gandhi in particular, and rivals like Samajwadi Party and the DMK as resistant to gender equality reforms. During the debate, both the Prime Minister and Home Minister Amit Shah said that the women of the country would not forgive those who opposed the bill— ‘desh ki mahilayen maaf nahi karengi’—a message likely to be used politically henceforth.
There is another possibility—of the process opening space for future negotiations and amendments. It may have allowed the government to test parliamentary arithmetic and assess where parties and individual MPs stood, helping refine future legislative strategy, but that seems an unlikely possibility given the strategic prowess of top BJP leaders.
The NDA secured 298 votes in favour of the bill, while the INDIA bloc polled 230. The government needed 352 votes for the legislation to pass. Di the government not know that, it seems unlikely, as also pointed by Gandhi, arguing that the bill was less about women’s empowerment and more about political strategy—primarily delimitation and diluting the rights of southern and smaller states and benefitting the Hindi belt—a key vote catchment area of the saffron party. Gandhi, who said it was intended to reshape the electoral map of India, also claimed its intention was to project PM Modi as pro-women. The move was driven by two objectives: “first, to alter the electoral map of India, and second, to project the Prime Minister as pro-women,” he said.
By Vibha Sharma
