In Indian cinema, a woman’s breakthrough moment is often not when she defies the world, but when her father quietly backs her. From Dangal to Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl, from small-town dramas to big-budget biopics, the turning point is strikingly similar: A man inside the household using his social authority to make a woman’s ambition socially acceptable.
These scenes resonate because they mirror real life. Across India, policy may open doors for women, but it is the household that decides whether they are allowed to walk through them. Policies do not operate in isolation; they are mediated through households, which make key decisions on mobility, time use, and participation.
Over the past decade, India has made significant policy investments to advance gender equality across various sectors. India’s gender budget now accounts for over 9% of the Union Budget. Yet outcomes remain uneven, reflecting a missing link between what policy enables and what households allow.
In many households, women’s aspirations are shaped not only by ability but by social permission. Women within households often counsel caution, not out of conservatism, but out of lived experience of safety risks, reputation, and social sanction. Their restraint is rational.
Men, by contrast, are more often socially authorised to challenge norms. Their support carries legitimacy, authority, and moral support that women’s voices still have to negotiate routinely. In practice, male voices continue to be more readily accepted in redefining what is considered acceptable. This does not imply that men create women’s agency, but it does reveal how authority operates within existing structures. It also, in ways, makes it slightly easier for women who have support back home.
These dynamics surface strongly when women enter roles traditionally perceived as ‘male’, whether as entrepreneurs, transport workers, or banking agents. Societal resistance to women entering such traditionally male-dominated sectors is rarely linked to their capability, but rather to whether women’s participation aligns with prevailing social expectations. Even where jobs exist, women’s participation depends on household support for travel, time allocation, and continuity of work. Research on women’s work shows that their workforce participation is constrained less by the actual lack of jobs and more by how women’s time and their movement are regulated. and the Time Use Survey both point to the same reasons: Mobility constraints and disproportionate caregiving load. Both the Periodic Labour Force Survey (October 2025) and the Time Use Survey point to the same reasons: mobility constraints and disproportionate caregiving loads.
Our research on female banking agents shows how operating hours, geographic reach, and customer engagement are often limited by what families and communities consider appropriate for women. But when households actively support mobility and redistribute care, women’s participation becomes more stable and scalable. Similarly, our research on women’s entrepreneurship shows that the first and most influential source of business mentorship is often from the men within the family. Mentorship and endorsement from a male family member often determine how women move from interest to participation to scaling in family businesses, which generate over 75% of India’s GDP.
Together, these patterns point to a critical conclusion: While policy creates opportunity for women, households decide whether it can be used. From a policy perspective, male allyship emerges as one of the practical implementation levers to bridge this critical policy gap, influencing policy provisions’ translation into sustained participation. When men support women’s mobility, participate more actively in care responsibilities, and support women’s health and work-related decisions, policy provisions shift from abstract entitlements to actionable choices. However, male allyship must move from tokenism and symbolism to action.
The household must be treated not as a backdrop to policy, but as the actual implementation site, and within it, male allyship as an enabling lever. Norms do not shift because laws exist; they shift when daily micro-and-macro decisions within homes change in favour of women. When similar shifts are reinforced through workplaces, community institutions, and public systems, they contribute to larger systemic change around women’s economic participation. Take the example of some male sarpanchs whose efforts ranged from promoting the value of daughters to challenging everyday sexist language, demonstrating how male authority, when exercised deliberately, can shift community norms that shape women’s lives.
In such contexts, women’s engagement in work, care decisions, and health shifts from ongoing negotiations to routine practice not because policy has changed, but because the household has.
For policymakers and programme designers, this has direct and clear implications for how a policy can promote or even nudge equality or how gender-intentional interventions are designed and delivered. For example, policy investments aimed at transforming women’s work and well-being in India should meaningfully involve men at key life-cycle moments such as marriage, childbirth, return to work, and caregiving shocks when women’s sustained participation is most at risk. Policy and programme metrics that track women’s progress should move beyond access to track behaviours that enable continuity, including mobility, time use, and sustained engagement with services.
The question, therefore, is not whether policies exist, but whether they are designed to work within the household contexts to reinforce enabling behaviours while influencing more men to become allies to support women’s economic participation. If policies are to deliver transformative progress for women’s economic inclusion, we must target households as the real implementation platforms and male allyship as a critical infrastructure within them. Otherwise, we will continue to mistake legal equality for lived equality.
This was first published on 29th May 2026 by Economic Times.
