What Pappu Yadav’s Vile Remarks Reveal About Women In Politics
The outrage over Yadav’s remarks should not fade as just another news cycle controversy. It should serve as a catalyst for a broader reckoning with how women are perceived and treated in politics
The recent comments by Pappu Yadav about women in Indian politics are not merely “controversial” or “objectionable”—they are a stark reminder of how deeply misogyny is embedded in public discourse. By claiming that women’s political careers “start in men’s rooms” and that “90% of women cannot enter politics without gaining access to a politician’s bedroom,” Yadav did more than insult women leaders; he reduced their agency, competence, and legitimacy to crude stereotypes rooted in patriarchy.
Such remarks are not offhand slips of the tongue. They reflect a worldview—one that sees women not as independent political actors but as beneficiaries of male patronage, often framed in the most degrading terms. This is precisely why the outrage must go beyond the individual and confront the broader culture that enables such thinking to persist, even thrive, in political spaces.
A Statement That Exposes a Toxic Mindset
Yadav, an independent MP from Purnea in Bihar, was speaking on the Women’s Reservation Bill – amendments to which failed to clear the Lok Sabha last week because the Opposition was against them being linked to delimitation. “Who is committing domestic violence? Who keeps an evil eye on women? From America to India, it is the politicians. Without a politician’s room, 90% of women cannot even be in politics. This is happening daily. CCTV footage of politicians comes to the fore every day. Exploiting women has now become a culture,” he said.
At its core, Yadav’s statement is an attempt to delegitimise women’s participation in politics by questioning the very basis of their entry. It suggests that merit, hard work, grassroots engagement, and leadership are secondary—or irrelevant—when it comes to women. Instead, it implies that proximity to male power is the primary currency. This is not just false; it is deeply harmful.
India has a long history of women leaders who have risen through political ranks through sustained public engagement, organisational work, and electoral success. From local self-government representatives to chief ministers and national leaders, women have consistently demonstrated political capability in environments that are often far more hostile to them than to their male counterparts. To dismiss all of that with a sweeping, vulgar generalisation is to erase decades of struggle and achievement.
More troubling, however, is the normalization of such language. When a public figure feels emboldened enough to make such statements openly, it raises an uncomfortable question: how many others think the same but choose to remain silent? The problem is not confined to one politician; it is systemic. Casual sexism, innuendo, and character assassination are routinely deployed against women in politics, often to undermine their credibility or distract from substantive issues.
Yadav’s remarks also perpetuate a dangerous double standard. Male politicians are rarely subjected to scrutiny about how they “enter” politics, even though dynastic privilege, financial backing, and patronage networks are well-known pathways. Yet, when it comes to women, their presence itself is treated as suspect, their success as something to be explained away through insinuation.
The Broader Culture of Misogyny in Politics
What makes this episode particularly disturbing is how easily it fits into a larger pattern. Indian politics, like many other spheres, continues to be shaped by patriarchal attitudes that view women as outsiders or exceptions. Even as there is increasing talk of representation—through measures like reservations—there remains resistance to accepting women as equal stakeholders in power.
Statements like these reinforce structural barriers. They discourage aspiring women leaders, signal hostility, and create an environment where women must constantly prove their legitimacy in ways men never have to. The psychological toll of navigating such a landscape is significant, and it often goes unacknowledged.
There is also a social dimension to this mindset. The idea that a “majority of men” might share, even implicitly, such views is not far-fetched. Everyday conversations, media portrayals, and political rhetoric often contain traces of the same bias—subtle or overt. Women in public life are judged not only on their work but also on their appearance, personal relationships, and perceived morality. This scrutiny is rarely applied equally to men.
Critically, such remarks shift attention away from real issues affecting women’s participation in politics: lack of financial resources, limited access to party structures, safety concerns, and societal expectations. Instead of addressing these barriers, misogynistic narratives trivialize the conversation, reducing it to scandalous insinuations.
Accountability, therefore, becomes essential. Political leaders, regardless of party affiliation, must be held to a higher standard of public discourse. Silence or mild criticism is not enough; there must be clear and unequivocal condemnation of such views. More importantly, there needs to be a sustained effort to change the culture that allows them to surface repeatedly.
This includes political parties taking responsibility for the conduct of their members, media platforms avoiding sensationalism that amplifies harmful rhetoric, and civil society continuing to push back against regressive narratives. Education and awareness also play a role in challenging deeply ingrained biases, but change at the top is crucial because political leaders shape public norms.
Ultimately, the outrage over Yadav’s remarks should not fade as just another news cycle controversy. It should serve as a catalyst for a broader reckoning with how women are perceived and treated in politics. If such statements are dismissed as mere “gaffes” or “personal opinions,” the underlying problem remains unaddressed.
Women in politics do not need validation through proximity to power—they are power in their own right. Any narrative that seeks to undermine that reality deserves not just criticism, but firm rejection.
