Has the Haryana Women’s Commission Abandoned Its Mandate for Political Optics?

To answer this, one must revisit the origins and ethos of India’s women’s commissions. In the late 1990s, prominent figures like Padma Seth, Mohini Giri, and Syeda Hameed helped shape a fearless and independent National Commission for Women (NCW). These women weren’t afraid to challenge those in power, and the commissions they represented were hailed for their advocacy on behalf of women, regardless of caste, class, or religion.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Monday Musings: Women take over Prayas and no one minds

Fast forward to today: a professor—Ali Khan Mahmoodabad—highlighted the symbolic use of a Muslim woman in the government’s portrayal of “Operation Sindoor.” His point? A Muslim woman is publicly praised as a face of valor and patriotism, yet millions of Muslim women across the country suffer systemic abuse, marginalization, and violence. His critique was not an attack on women’s rights—it was a call to acknowledge the gap between symbolism and substantive justice.

And yet, the Haryana SCW chose to pounce on his words.

One must ask whether the SCW even grasped the intent or substance of his commentary. Under Chapter III of the NCW Act, the Commission is mandated to protect all women from violence, injustice, and discrimination. But instead of addressing widespread violence against women in the state—Haryana ranked second in India for crimes against women in 2022 with a rate of 118.7 per 100,000—the Commission chose to summon a professor for expressing dissent.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: International Women’s Day and the Shehzori Dream

The article in question, written by Mahmoodabad, praised individuals from diverse faiths who participated in a rescue mission. He admired Muslim and Hindu women serving in uniform but questioned why such state-sponsored respect doesn’t trickle down to everyday Muslim women facing persecution.

The SCW’s swift action, echoed by BJP Yuva Morcha member Yogesh Jatheri, reflects not just an alarming eagerness to police dissent but an institutional bias that undermines the very purpose of these commissions. What should have been a forum for redress has, in this case, acted as an extension of political power.

This episode is a stark departure from the courage once displayed by NCW leaders. In 1996, for instance, then-chairperson Mohini Giri submitted her resignation to Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda after government interference. He refused to accept it and sent a cabinet minister to assure the NCW of its autonomy. That same NCW had no qualms about summoning the director general of Doordarshan for ageist firings of women anchors or calling out Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh for sexist remarks during the Women’s Reservation Bill debate.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: A Steep Rise in Child Marriages in India: Will the Pandemic Strengthen more Societal Pressures for Women?

Those were times when women’s commissions stood up to the state—not as instruments of it.

Now, one must ask: Has the Haryana SCW become a tool of political convenience? Is dissent being reframed as disrespect? Has academic freedom been sacrificed at the altar of institutional overreach?

The Supreme Court has since granted interim bail to Professor Mahmoodabad. Interestingly, the apex court remarked that the post was made for “cheap publicity”—a sentiment that appears disproportionate when compared to its treatment of far more inflammatory remarks by members of the ruling party.

Also Read, Tweet & Share: Fearless Women Of Blazing Paradise

As the poet Amir Minai wrote:

Qareeb hai yaar roz-e-mahshar, chhupe ga kushton ka khoon kyunkar
Jo chup rahe gi zubaan-e-khanjar, lahu pukare ga aasteen ka.

The Day of Judgment nears—how can the blood of the slain remain hidden?
If the dagger’s voice is silenced, the blood on the sleeve will speak.

Today, it is the sleeve that speaks.