After much fireworks, the Bill to provide 33 per cent reservation for women in Parliament and state legislatures has been passed by the Rajya Sabha. The pro-reservation lobby is determined get the Bill passed in the Lok Sabha. However, it would be disastrous if that foolishly conceived scheme of reservations actually becomes part of our electoral law.
For a long time any legislation which claimed to be pro-women, no matter how stupid and harmful in substance, sailed through Parliament because any legislative intitiative claiming to help women enjoyed a moral aura. This moral vantage ground has unfortunately been severely eroded thanks to the short-sighted, thoughtless politics of many of our leaders both women and men.
My focus here will be on the women politicians. Since the early 1980s a small coterie of politically prominent women, acting in concert with some high profile NGOs, have taken it upon themselves to push for ever new laws, as well as far reaching amendments to existing laws, all in the name of strengthening women's rights. Most of these laws are absurdly drafted with little thought given to their actual implementation, without any thought as to whether they are enforceable, or even if they will actually help women.
The amended anti-dowry laws, the legislation to ban sex determination tests, the anti-sati law, the new provisions to deal with cases of domestic violence, are some examples of their shoddy legislation producing many harmful results. Yet, they have made no attempt to review why these laws failed to accomplish their objectives but rather added to women's problems by igniting new problems. When the women leaders who pushed for these laws are confronted with their abuse and the lack of results from their passage, they just demand yet more stringent and more thoughtless provisions.
The Women's Reservation Bill is the latest, the most serious and the most ambitious of their legislative interventions. If enacted, this measure will send our already tottering political system into an even more devastating tailspin.
The Women's Reservation Bill, in its present form, has serious, indeed fatal, defects. The one-third of the total parliamentary seats to be reserved for women are to be selected through a lottery system. This implies that at random at least 180 male legislators will be uprooted from their constituencies at every election. In their place, 180 women will be assigned those constituencies before every election. Then, at the time of the next election, when the new list of 180 reserved constituencies is declared in the same manner, these 180 women will not be able to contest from the seats they are holding at that point of time because the same constituency cannot be reserved twice in succession under the Bill's rotation system.
Thus two-thirds of our legislators will be uprooted at every election while the remaining one-third will be left hanging until the last moment, not knowing if their constituency will form part of the one-third randomly chosen women's reservation lottery and thus require them to scramble at short notice to find another seat to contest.
Moreover, it takes away any incentive or motivation that women representatives might have to nurture and be accountable to their constituencies since after each election they will be expected to move to a different constituency as no' constituency can be reserved in succession.
The Bill, as presently drafted, jeopardises the possibility of sensible planning to contest a political constituency for both men and women. It is amazing that our women leaders do not seem to have fully grasped the implications of such a vast change proposed for our electoral process as it will create special difficulties for women. Since very few women politicians have a strong electoral base, this uncertainty about where they will be fielded from will make them even more dependent on male bosses of their party to win elections. In such a situation, it becomes necessary that the influential male leaders be convinced of the advantages to the party leaders of these changes or else they will either sabotage women contenders as a revenge against their getting pushed out or they will spend all their political capital helping their women relatives to comer the reserved seats. A likely strategy for them to adopt would be to bring in their wives and daughters as proxies to keep the seat “safe” for them until the next election when they would be likely to be able to reclaim their seats.
Futhering Male Agendas
Being a politician's wife or daughter ought not to be a disqualification in itself. Nor would one object to their having a natural advantage, just as the children of lawyers and doctors often inherit their father's practice. However, we know that most female relatives are brought in as proxies whose only task is to safeguard the political interests of the men of their families. Like Lalu Yadav's wife Rabri Devi they will be brought in as rubber stamps and sent home after their use is over.
But we cannot afford to pack our Parliament and state legislatures with a larger contingent of Rabri Devis. Apart from other disabilities, they act as very negative role models for women because they enlarge the compass of the ideology of female slavery, which is most prominent in the domestic realm, into the public and political domain as well. The one and only agenda these women have is to do all that they can to save their husbands' seat or protect them from being put on trial for looting the public exchequer. They don't even bother to pretend otherwise. How does such a woman serve the cause of women or empower other women?
The biwi-beti brigade, in fact, acts as a definite block against the emergence of independent-minded women who wish to make a space for themselves on their own strength in the public domain. For example, it is a common phenomenon in India that the women's fronts of various political parties are headed by wives, other female relatives, or mistresses of prominent male party leaders. These posts are given to these women like a jagir for as long as their men retain their clout in the party. Such women do not easily make space for other women with merit. Any woman who enters the party, no matter how talented, has to playa subservient role to these dependent women. The political initiative of most women thus gets curbed rather than encouraged in the party mahila (women) fronts.
Because of the familial connection between the main party and the women's fronts, the politics of the women's front remains subservient to the party. They are left to tackle the colourful variety of women's issues as a sideshow rather than being involved in defining over-all party policies or even strategies and tactical alliances of the party.
Intolerance of Dissent
The pro-reservation feminine mullahs have, however, consistently refused to address themselves to this shortcoming, among others and, refused to allow a genuine debate on the merits and demerits of their reservation scheme. Instead, anyone who points out these and related flaws and suggests improvements has only met with hostility and is accused of furthering patriarchal agendas.
Even those who have had a long history of working on women's issues have been denied a hearing. When the Parliament appointed a Select Committee headed by Geeta Mukherjee to review the Bill, the proreservationists ensured that most of those who wanted to see improvements in the Bill were not even invited to present their opinion and to engage in dialogue. A few dissenters were invited, who failed to make any dent. The Bill was represented to Parliament without any modifications whatsoever. Mostly, those who were willing to rubberstamp the Bill were given a hearing.
When some of the newspapers and magazines gave space to those few who dared to criticise the Bill's shortcomings, a slander campaign was let loose. Just to give one personal example among several: one of the key persons in the pro-reservationist lobby, Brinda Karat of CPM, went as far as telephoning journalists and editors concerned asking them not to carry my critique of the Bill because, according to her, I had joined the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)! This accusation, in fact, has been a major theme of a concerted campaign against me ever since I took an open stand insisting on improvements in the existing reservation scheme. This typically Stalinist way of handling disagreements is nothing new among feminists in India.
The point in mentioning this absurd allegation is because such tactics raise more fundamental questions regarding the legitimacy of democratic dissent: do RSS women not have a right to be heard on these issues? Even if I were an RSS member, can my arguments against the Bill be dismissed with contempt simply because I do not profess the current politically fashionable version of Marxism common to many Indian feminists? In India, the left party women in particular and socialist feminists in general, behave as though they alone have a monopoly over defining the agenda of social and political reforms. Because they use typically male weapons like slander to put down all dissent, feminism in India often becomes bhed chaal akin to herd mentality. Very few women activists dare dissent openly or refuse to toe their line.
The same kind of intolerance was witnessed in Parliament. The pro-reservationists would not have invited such anger and wrath against themselves had they not insisted that this important Bill involving a constitutional amendment be passed without a debate. This is indeed unacceptable, undemocratic behaviour. What is the purpose of having a Parliament if a proposed legislation cannot be debated and discussed? Their ostensible justification for denying a discussion was that three of the major parties—the Congress, the BJP and the communist—had committed themselves to enacting this law in their respective party manifestos. However, none of the regional parties, who are important constituents of the present Parliament, had made any such commitment. Should they all be denied their democratic right to deliberate upon the Bill? If so, why not just wind up the whole tamasha called Parliament?
Women Reservation
THE WAY OUT
The Women's Reservation Bill includes the following key provisions:
One-third of all seats in the Lok Sabha and the Vidhan Sabhas shall be reserved for women.
Such reservation shall also apply in case of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
There shall be rotation of seats so reserved for women
Such rotation shall be determined by draw of lots, in such a manner that a seat shall be reserved only once in a block of three general elections.
This Bill is seriously flawed, insofar as it mechanically provides for entry of women members to fill one-third of vacancies in Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabhas. Such mechanical reservation and rotation suffers from serious defects:
Given these serious infirmities, it is necessary to design better models for
enhancing women's representation in legislatures. Therefore, we present an alternative, which will address many of the flaws listed above.
The Proposed Alternative Women's Reservation Bill
The important provisions of the proposed Alternative Bills are as follows:
Advantages of this Model
Sabha elections, as many as 99.7 per cent of Independents are in fact losing their caution deposits.
However, given the present state of affairs, it is likely that, to begin with, women may not win 33 per cent of the seats. But this per centage is bound to grow over time as women gain more confidence and strength. It also ensures that their presence in legislatures more nearly reflects their actual electoral strength so that they are not seen as mere recipients of charitable measures.
Plugging Possible Loopholes
It is noteworthy that women's participation has increased dramatically, to near equal or even higher than equal participation, only in countries like Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands that have implemented party-based quotas of the kind we are proposing.
Courtesy : Manushi
By Madhu Kishwar, Dr Jayaprakash Narayan, Dhirubhai Sheth, Yogendra Yadav
Confrontation sans Strength
The pro-reservation lobby has invited the first serious male backlash on a women's rights issue in the history of Independent India largely because of their ham-handed approach and undemocratic behaviour in dealing with even wellmeaning dissent. So far we have had a strong tradition—thanks in part due to the legacy of the 19th century reform movements and the Gandhi-led freedom struggle—of significant numbers of men not only joining but even leading women's rights struggles in India. We were fortunate enough rarely to witness polarisation on gender lines on women's rights issues. Despite this history, the feminist reservationists have needlessly created an atmosphere of gender warfare, alienating even those among our male politicians who could be valuable allies in the struggle for getting women their due share of political power.
The confrontationist attitude of the pro-reservation lobby is especially absurd since they do not have much of a mass-based support among women for this measure. When the Bill was unceremoniously shredded in the past in Parliament, there were no spontaneous protests by women even in Delhi, let alone in other parts of the country. The most successful of the pro-reservation demonstrations have never witnessed participation by more than a few hundred women. Most of their protests and dharnas (protest sit-in) are attended by no more than a few dozen women. Most important of all, they have not yet made the smallest dent in organising women as a cohesive vote-bank.
Most of those leading the pro-reservation lobby could not win a municipal election on their own strength, leave alone a parliamentary one. The enthusiasm of many of our feminist NGOs for reservations is particularly puzzling since most of them have virtually no roots' in their own neighbourhoods or community two essential prerequisites in the electoral arena. Their dependence on international aid money has seriously estranged them from social sentiment and much of their work consists of attending national and international confere-nces of likeminded NGOs, unlikely venues for garnering votes.
It is noteworthy that the few among women politicians who have an independent political base are not very enthusiastic about reservations for women.
FEMINIST MYTHS
The whole debate on reservations centres on the following myths:
That a greater presence of women will be a step towards empowerment of Indian women.
That women's larger presence as a result of this Bill will change the very nature of politics, make it less corrupt, more sensitive to women's needs and generally more democratic and compassionate.
Reserving one-third of the seats in our legislatures would undoubtedly bestow special powers and privileges on the approximately 180 women who would make it to Parliament and many more to state legislatures on the strength of the quota system. It would also create new aspirations among women at large. But one fails to understand how it will “empower” ordinary women citizens.
Has the presence of 500 plus male legislators in Parliament empowered the men of India? Do most men in India not have to grovel, cringe and bribe for every little thing from a water connection to buying a railway ticket? Have these MPs facilitated the growth of men's freedom from abuse and harassment, freedom from hunger and malnutrition? Do men feel secure and safe in today's India? Far from it. Even the mighty male business magnates have to act like hapless supplicants in our country in order to carry out routine aspects of their business. Most citizens, male or female, feel powerless and vulnerable when dealing with the government machinery.
If most men in this country have not benefitted from the preponderant presence of male parliamentarians, why should we naively believe that 180 women in Parliament will change the fate of women in India? Given the current political structures, it seems far more likely that those who reach the legislatures will join the loot-brigade like Mayawati, Sheila Kaul and Jayalalitha, or emulate an authoritarianist like Indira Gandhi.
Politics of the Ghetto
Political corruption and the crying need for electoral reforms have been the key issues on the national agenda for nearly a decade now. The countrywide lionisation of T.N.Seshan, who as the chief election commissioner tried to curb electoral malpractices, demonstrates how much urgency even the ordinary citizens attach to this subject. It is one of the most hotly debated issues in our public life. It speaks of the serious marginalisation of women lobbyists for the women's reservation bill that none of them is actively involved with struggle over this issue. No meaningful suggestions for changes have come from them in the ongoing public debate on electoral reforms.
Their campaign for nothing more than cornering a quota for women at a time when our polity is facing grave threats from criminalisation of politics and misgovernance is proof of tragic short-sightedness. It is like a daughter clamouring for her name to be included as an equal inheritor with her brothers in the parental home and property, at a time when the whole house is on fire or seized by dacoits. A daughter who can lead the firefighting operation or successfully combat dacoits is more likely to be a more serious candidate for her share. Even if she is short-changed, she will have more legitimacy and strength to fight it out with her brothers out to disinherit her. Can one ever imagine an Aung San Suu Kyi needing to fight from a reserved seat for women? The subcontinent needs many Aung San Suu Kyi variety of women who would dare to be leaders of men as well, rather than stay confined to the women's ghetto.
The zenana dabba mentality cannot take women too far. The ghettoising of women's concerns to narrowly defined issues will keep them forever marginalised and fighting among each other in the typical saas-bahu style. Most important of all, why should the task of thinking through meaningful, overall electoral reforms be left to men while women confine their attention only to securing a share of the pie without examining whether the pie is worth eating at all? Are we then not accepting that the rules of the game will inevitably be set by men? Women would only appear as bit players that too in the “reserved” category.
Those who argue that a large presence of women will cleanse politics need to be made aware that women, unfortunately, have not been bestowed with any divine powers or magic wands whereby their very presence would improve things. In our subcontinent, at least, we have seen women outdoing men in corruption, crime and authoritarian politics as the career graphs of Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi and the many Jayalalitha clones show. Even in the police, bureaucracy and professions, women ha ve taken to corruption with ease and gusto.
Before women made a substantial entry into public life, many people naively believed that women's entry into public life would help cleanse it because it was believed women were intrinsically more honest and compassionate than men Unfortunately, we have been disabused of such naive and romantic notions by looking at their actual conduct in positions of power. Women appear more moral only when they are under special familial and social constraints which deny them wider opportunity for corruption. But when they are acting in unison and are partners in corruption with men of their family, they are not affected by social op'probrium of the kind that women indulging in immoral practices on their own initiative get to experience.
Most important of all, if winning an election to Parliament or state legislatures involves spending a few crore rupees, it is inevitable that such persons will try to get returns on their investment through dubious means since as legislators they are denied legitimate ways of making money. Women have succeeded in playing a creative role in politics only in those societies where political parties already function more or less according to established norms and traditions, where there is a substantial measure of accountability in public life. But where the overall politics is criminalised, women tend to join the men in corruption and crime with ease rather than attempt to establish new norms, as the examples of Benazir Bhutto, Imelda Marcos and our own breed of women politicians like Jayalalitha.
The writer is Editor, Manushi, and Senior Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies
By Madhu Kishwar
Leave Your Comment