Anybody who is seen opposing the Women's Reservation Bill today is seen as a male chauvinist and anti-woman. The bill quite simply seeks to reserve 33.33 percent of all seats in Lok Sabha and State Legislative for women.
Would we really be ensuring gender equality of women in India by enforcing this bill? The papers and the news channels in my opinion, have forgotten their duty of being fair and impartial. They are simply not presenting both sides of the picture.
The constitution of the country gave equal rights to all adults for contesting in elections. In a utopian society, around 50% of the elected representatives both at the state and the centre are expected to be women. But that's not happening in India. In the 2004 elections, less than 50 out of about 540 total Lok sabha seats were won by women candidates. This no doubt indicates that Indian women are discriminated.
But simply reserving a third of the total seats, takes away the democratic rights of about 22 crore India men from contesting in the reserved seats. This in my opinion amounts to sacrificng merit to make way for forced gender equality.
The forced reservation might do the following
1.A woman candidate does not necessarily mean better governance. It might discourage a common voter from exercising the right to franchise because of the quality of contestants presented to him/her.
2.A politician's job is to oversee the development of all sections of his/her electorate irrespective of gender, cast, creed or religion. The Bill might create an environment where elected members from those reserved constituencies are obligated to work for the development of the feminine gender only.
3.Discounts and ignores the merit of existing candidates. There are estimates that more than 50% of incumbents will have to give quit their constituencies to make way for women who may or may not be qualified enough to govern those constituencies. It also takes away the rights of about 22 crore Indian males to contest in elections forever.
4.The existing male politicians will exploit the immaturity of the Indian electorate by fielding their own wives, daughters or sisters – which does not make any difference in the quality of governance – which is the ultimate goal.
5.It has been proven beyond doubt that an increase in the number of women politicians does not necessarily mean an increase in the quality of the lives of Indian women. Indira Gandhi's tenure as Prime Minister is an example in this context.
If we want equality of women, it is important that we attack the fundamental problem. Girl child literacy and education, maternal health, effective enforcement of anti girl-child abortion practices, and a change in the mindset of most Indians about the competency of Women. If all this happens, we might start seeing good results in the future. The idea is to recognise the problem and work towards solving it. If the problem is solved, the symptoms will vanish. Inadequate representation of women in Parliament is symptom to a problem and not the problem itself.
Another weird provision in the Bill that comes to my mind, is the rotation policy for selecting the seats which to be reserved. The seats to be reserved for women will be picked from a fair lottery. This is a kind of an insult to existing women politicians who have made their way up by working hard and proving their mettle time and again.
But then, I also feel that we have to think and analyse the possible long term effects of this Bill. 60 years back, the drafters of Indian Constituency gave voting rights to every adult Indian inspite of the fact that literacy levels were a dismal 10-15 percent at the time. This universal right to vote has been shamelessly exploited by the politicians. Immature and illiterate voters have often neglected merit and have voted for caste, creed, ideology and religion. This the very reason Mayawati is UP Chief Minister :) And CPM is in power in Bengal for the last three decades. And the Gandhis have been in power since India got independence (How else could've Rajiv Gandhi become the Indian Prime Minister without any experience?) And actors and actresses have managed to get elected by beating able politicians solely on the basis of their stardom – Govinda vs Ram Naik. Let's face it. Indian electorate is immature. If you're still not convinced, How else do you explain Dr Manmohan Singh (quite unambiguously the best politician India has ever produced) failing to get elected into Lok Sabha – and that too from Delhi? But certainly, the immaturity has decreased a lot in the last one decade.
And so, despite the many visible problems, this idea of universal franchise is probably the only reason why India is still a vibrant democracy And for this, we have to appreciate the far-sightedness of the drafters of our constitution who had faith in the people of India. What I am trying to say is, the women's reservation bill maybe a bit ahead of its time and might not give results in the immediate future. But it might well the most positive development in the Indian Governance System when looked back 40-50 years hence.
Comments Invited :D
3 comments:
I agree with you.It's just that our education system should be capable enough to motivate the students irrespective of their SEX towards politics.Then only we'll see equality flourishing in the country.And once it's so,we won't be needing these messy bills which are just a toy for the present politicians!
I agree with most of what you have to say. The basic problem with reservation as a phenomena is that it takes the right of somebody deserving in order to present it to somebody who needs it (but doesnt necessary deserve it). So reservation is aimed at helping a specific community at the cost of everybody else(though even THAT often doesnt happen, but the problem there is implementation). Going for a reservation means the country is deciding its priority based on how great they feel the need to promote a specific community over the rest is.
Anyway, coming to your fourth point. You are right in saying that initially, 90% of the contestants for the reserved women's seats will be the family members of the existing politicians. So the power will effectively remain in the hands of the politician and the woman will just be the titular head (case in point Rabri Yadav). This is what happened when reservation for women was first implemented at the Gram and District Panchayat level. However, with time, as women realise its THEY who have the power, they start to take control and finally grasp it completely. Women's reservation has been a huge success at the Gram and District Panchayat level specially in the furthest off areas since after a few years of its implementation. Women chosen under reservation for the Loksabha seats will initially be nothing more than stooges, but in the long run, they will definitely retain control.
Though this does give rise to another point, how long should reservation be implemented for, because its obvious that reservation forever is neither useful nor required?
@Tinkerbell
You make an extremely valid point there. Reservation has been implemented successfully at the Panchayat Level. Infact, some states like Bihar have even reserved 50% Panchayat seats for women.
One idea that Arun Jaitley suggested was, instead of reserving constituencies for women, we should force the Political Parties to ensure that 33% of the tickets are given to women. This may not ensure that 33% of the total seats will be ultimately occupied by women, but it will do the following :-
1. Allow voters more choice.
2. Obliterate the need for a random lottery.
3. Good incumbents won't have to give up their seats.
Another important question you ask is - How long should we continue this reservation? Surprisingly, there was no discussion on this. Once a policy has been taken (esp when it comes to reservations), we have seen that it's almost impossible to revert it.
The drafters of our constitution gave reservations to SC/STs thinking that in about a decade, all the backward classes will enter the mainstream and the reservation could be abolished. But that hasn't happened yet.
Post a Comment