It was a scene rarely seen in Indian politics. The Congress supported the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), BJP MPs held up the Communist Party of India Marxist (CPI M)'s members hand aloft in a V salute and MPs from the Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) hugged MPs from the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK). These parties detest each other.
So was it the dawning of a new age in India when the tigers will lie down with the deer? No, it was the passing of the Women's Reservation Bill that will make it mandatory for 33 percent of all directly-elected legislatures to be women. The bill was passed in the upper house last week amid uproarious scenes.
First, what is the background of the bill? The 73rd and 74th Amendments passed in 1993, reserve one-third of seats for women in local bodies.
The Constitution also provides for reservation of seats in Lok Sabha and state legislative assemblies for some castes and tribes in proportion to their number in the population. The Constitution makes no provision for reserving seats for women in Parliament and the state legislatures. Currently, women constitute 9% of the lower house of Parliament (Lok Sabha), 10% of the Upper House (Rajya Sabha) and 7% of the state legislative assemblies. During the framing of the Constitution, some women members argued against reservation for women.
 |
| Women supporters of India's ruling Congress Party exchange 'Aabir' (colour dust) as they celebrate The Women's Reservation Bill in Kolkata on March 10. AFP |
In 1974, the Report of the Committee on Status of Women highlighted the low number of women in political bodies and recommended that seats be reserved for women in local bodies.
Two members of the Committee supported reservation of seats in all legislative bodies. The National Perspective Plan for Women (1988) recommended a quota of 30% in panchayats, municipalities and political parties. The National Policy for Empowerment of Women (2001) stated that reservation should be considered in higher legislative bodies.
The United Progressive Alliance's National Common Minimum Programme included reservation of one-third of seats in Parliament for women. In 1996, 1998 and 1999, Constitution Amendment Bills were introduced to reserve seats for women in Parliament and state legislative assemblies, but they all lapsed as no consensus could be reached. The Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. It sought to reserve one-third of total number of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and in each state legislative assembly.
Why did it take 14 years for the bill to be finally voted in one House? Because there was no agreement on how this would impact politics. Only a few far-sighted politicians, mostly women, saw that if they pressed the passage of the bill, it would immediately mean a new constituency being unlocked, that would initially vote solely on the basis of sex.
The arguments in favour reserved representation for women are manifold, and by now familiar:
1) Women represent half the population of a country and have the rights to half the seats and parliamentary decisions that affect their lives.
2) Women have different social and biological experiences that ought to be represented
3) women and men have partly conflicting interests, and
4) Women in positions of power can inspire more women to take up these paths.
The bill evoked stiff resistance -- and even feelings of insecurities -- among MPs, mostly men, who are unwilling to see any dilution of their powers. Some faces in the resistance camp have raised 'caste' flags against gender-based reservation. The Samajwadi Party of Uttar Pradesh and Rashtriya Janata Dal of Bihar, for example, demand caste quotas within any women's quota. Ironically, these parties have held power in states that are among the very worst in gender indicators -- maternal mortality, women's literacy, etc.
But interestingly, much of the fear the men opposed to the move entertain pertains to the question: will I lose my seat to a woman? For, the bill envisages a third of all Indian constituencies in the lower house (543) be reserved for women every five years, so that at the end of 15 years all seats would have been held by a woman at least once. The question is which seats will fall to the 'quota' and if they do, what will happen to the males who are holding the seats now?
There is also the eternal question: Who will these women selected by their parties to represent them in 'reserved seats' be? Will they just be relatives of the men who have already held the seat? Will the seats considered by the party to be 'losing seats' be given to women so that the token gesture of setting up a woman to fight the election is completed? Or will these women be real leaders?
Some have argued that parties should simply be required to ensure that 33% of their candidates for elections are women, but this would probably just mean that parties would nominate women candidates to those races that they never expect to win
Those openly opposing the bill have argued that reservations of 33% will only bring urban elite women to power. This is unlikely; no quota has ever seen a homogenous representation.
Both men and women are equal citizens in the eyes of the law. But this is far from the reality. India ranks 115th of 162 countries in terms of gender development. The patriarchal society not only harbours a culture of violence against women in the form of dowry, domestic violence and female infanticide, it also manifests in government policies towards women.
Events in Parliament witnessed when the bill was passed in the upper House - and the reaction of male MPs even in parties that are supporting the bill, like the Congress - suggests the first step has been taken but the ones that have to follow to complete the process of constitutional amendment (the bill has to be passed by two thirds majority in the lower house and by all the state legislatures) might not be easy.
But still, the major parties have supported what they call a socially progressive piece of legislation. Similar scenes were witnessed in India in the 1950s when women got property rights. Similar mindsets persist, but we've come a long way since then, baby! |
E-mail
