In mythology, the Trojan horse was instrumental to triumph in an epic conflict. In modern politics, however, the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 — a proverbial Trojan horse — which pledged higher representation for women in legislatures by unleashing a contentious delimitation exercise that, it was feared, would adversely affect the southern and the northeastern states, has tasted defeat. On Friday, the bill failed to secure the mandatory support of two-thirds of the members who were present and voting, thereby handing the Narendra Modi government its second serious setback in Parliament: the first blot was the Centre being forced to repeal the three contentious legislations on farm reform.

The bone of contention that prevented consensus on the issue was the Centre’s repeated refusal to delink women’s reservation from delimitation. This led to growing suspicion that Mr Modi’s dispensation was merely using the progressive cause of women’s representation to push through a less visible, but disruptive, delimitation endeavour that would alter parliamentary representation of states. The government’s denial of this charge did not stick. That the Centre declined to move the two other bills after the debacle — the Delimitation Bill, 2026 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026 — insisting that the bouquet of bills were “interlinked”, only deepens the suspicion regarding its real intent. Revealingly, even though the Union home minister accepted the Opposition’s condition of increasing each state’s share by 50% as a means of securing bipartisan support, he was adamant in his refusal to cut the cord that bound the demand of expansive women’s representation in legislatures with delimitation. This obduracy — strategic or otherwise — rang the death knell for the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill.

The reactions from the two opposing political formations provide glimpses of the future trajectory of this debate. Mr Modi’s government intends to paint the Opposition as resistant to the just cause of raising political representation among women who are a key electoral bloc in the nation. It would not be surprising if the Bharatiya Janata Party focuses on raising temperatures on this subject in the days ahead. The Opposition, on the other hand, would like to project its rare triumph as yet another instance of its commitment to protect India’s constitutional and federal framework. In fact, Rahul Gandhi’s allegation that an additional motive of the Centre in this instance was to prevent a caste census hints at the possible line the Opposition would take when it comes to mobilising public opinion on the matter. It would be interesting to see which way the public mood sways in the days to come. Whether this victory spurs
the Opposition to improve its coordination among allies and challenge the government unitedly remains to be seen as well.

One lesson must not go unheeded: meaningful women’s representation remains unrealised despite the passage of decades. This is a shared failure of successive Parliaments. On this occasion, however, not only its insistence on subterfuge and opacity but also its reliance on a questionable modus operandi — linking women’s representation to delimitation, the convening of Parliament during electoral season, an unwillingness to adhere to cross-party consultation and so on — that, in turn, stiffened the Opposition’s resolve, led to Mr Modi and his government losing a historic opportunity to bring change.