Who among the following demanded justice for women, not reserved seats or separate electorates in the Constitu

Question

Q. Who among the following demanded justice for women, not reserved seats or separate electorates in the Constituent Assembly ? (A) Malti Chaudhary (B) Hansa Mehta (C) Begum Aizaz Rasul (D) Rajkumari Amrit Kaur

CBSECBSE Class XII Board 2023MCQ· 1mImportance★★★★★

🔒 Locked · start free trial →

You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Concept understanding — Language Policy Resolution

Imagine you walk into a school in a city like Chennai, and the morning assembly is conducted in Tamil. Now imagine a school in Lucknow — the same assembly would be in Hindi. But what happens when a student from Lucknow moves to Chennai? Should the new school teach her in Hindi, or should she be forced to learn everything in Tamil? This is the real, everyday problem that the Language Policy Resolution tries to solve.

At its core, the Language Policy Resolution is a set of guidelines adopted by the Indian government to decide which languages will be used for what purpose — in schools, in courts, in government offices, and in Parliament. It is not a single law, but a series of decisions and constitutional provisions that aim to balance three competing demands: the need for a common link language (Hindi), the rights of regional language speakers, and the practical role of English.

The most famous part of this policy is the Three-Language Formula, which was first recommended by the Kothari Commission (1964-66) and later adopted in the National Policy on Education (1968). Here is what it says, in plain terms:

First language: The mother tongue or the regional language of the state. This is the language a child grows up speaking at home and in the local community.
Second language: Hindi (in non-Hindi speaking states) or another modern Indian language (in Hindi-speaking states). The idea is that every Indian should be able to communicate with people from other parts of the country.
Third language: English. This is the language of higher education, international business, and the higher judiciary.

Note

The Three-Language Formula is not a rigid law that every state must follow. It is a recommended policy. States like Tamil Nadu have refused to implement it fully, choosing to teach only Tamil and English in schools. This is allowed because education is a state subject under the Indian Constitution.

Why does this matter? Because language is not just about words — it is about identity, opportunity, and power. A student who cannot learn in her mother tongue may struggle to grasp basic concepts. A student who never learns English may find herself locked out of top colleges and well-paying jobs. And a student who never learns Hindi may feel like a foreigner in her own country's capital.

The Language Policy Resolution tries to walk a tightrope. It respects the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, which lists 22 official languages (including Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Malayalam, Manipuri, Marathi, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, and others). It also acknowledges that Hindi is the official language of the Union (Article 343), but it does not force Hindi on non-Hindi states. Instead, it promotes multilingualism — the idea that being fluent in more than one language is a strength, not a weakness. …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur consistently argued in the Constituent Assembly that women needed substantive justice and equal rights, not the crutch of reserved seats or separate electorates, which she saw as perpetuating inequality.

The question asks us to identify which woman member of the Constituent Assembly took a principled stand against reservations and separate electorates for women, advocating instead for genuine equality and justice.

This is about understanding the different positions women leaders took during the framing of the Indian Constitution. While many debated whether women needed special protection through reserved seats (similar to what was being discussed for minorities and scheduled castes), one voice stood out for rejecting this approach entirely.

Let me walk through what each of these leaders represented:

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi and served as India's first Health Minister. In the Constituent Assembly debates, she took a clear and consistent position: women did not need reserved seats or separate electorates. She believed these measures would actually undermine women's status by treating them as a separate, dependent category rather than as equal citizens. Her argument was that women needed substantive rights—education, economic opportunity, legal equality—not symbolic representation through quotas. She famously stated that reservations would be an "insult" to women and that they should compete on merit in a truly equal society.

Hansa Mehta, on the other hand, was instrumental in changing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from "all men" to "all human beings," and she did support some protective measures for women during the transition period, though she was progressive in her outlook. …

Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →

Same / Similar Concept — real previous-year questions on the same or a closely similar concept, not this exact question.

CBSE 2023Set 61/2/11 markMCQ
$Q. Who among the following demanded justice for women, not reserved seats or separate electorates in the Constituent Assembly ? (A) Malti Chaudhary (B) Hansa Mehta (C) Begum Aizaz Rasul (D) Rajkumari Amrit Kaur$
›Reveal solutionSolution

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur consistently argued in the Constituent Assembly that women needed substantive justice and equal rights, not the crutch of reserved seats or separate electorates, which she saw as perpetuating inequality.

The question asks us to identify which woman member of the Constituent Assembly took a principled stand against reservations and separate electorates for women, advocating instead for genuine equality and justice.

This is about understanding the different positions women leaders took during the framing of the Indian Constitution. While many debated whether women needed special protection through reserved seats (similar to what was being discussed for minorities and scheduled castes), one voice stood out for rejecting this approach entirely.

Let me walk through what each of these leaders represented:

Rajkumari Amrit Kaur was a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi and served as India's first Health Minister. In the Constituent Assembly debates, she took a clear and consistent position: women did not need reserved seats or separate electorates. She believed these measures would actually undermine women's status by treating them as a separate, dependent category rather than as equal citizens. Her argument was that women needed substantive rights—education, economic opportunity, legal equality—not symbolic representation through quotas. She famously stated that reservations would be an "insult" to women and that they should compete on merit in a truly equal society.

Hansa Mehta, on the other hand, was instrumental in changing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from "all men" to "all human beings," and she did support some protective measures for women during the transition period, though she was progressive in her outlook. …
Start your 14-day free trial to see the full solution →

Q.Who among the following demanded justice for women, not reserved seats or separate electorates in the Constituent Assembly ? (A) Malti Chaudhary (B) Hansa Mehta (C) Begum Aizaz Rasul (D) Rajkumari Amrit Kaur

🎓Unlock everything free for 14 days

Unlock everything free for 14 days