(Samatha)

There is lot of expectations about Indian women setting the standards of our parliament once the “Women’s Reservation Bill” is passed. No doubt, this should usher in an era of gender equality at a political level. First of all, politics has become the exclusive domain of the rich and the powerful thanks to the culture of party tickets. So that is an already privileged class. This bill would confer political privileges to the women ( mostly from the existing political families). Would these women to speak on behalf of millions of other toiling, oppressed poor women ? Shouldn’t it be women who are more likely to be socially active with real experience of the problems. That seems more like dalit/OBC/Minority women. A sub-quota for them would bring their valuable experiences and problems to be voiced effectively. They are the ones with hands-on background. If not for the reservation in panchayath elections, many of the village women would not have go an opportunity. If you look at the success stories of women in panchayaths, almost all of those women are either dalits or backward castes. Not having sub-quota for them would keep this marginalized group voiceless. Our legislations would not benefit from the opinions and perspectives of these women who suffer the most. There is no question about women from dalit/OBC/minority backgrounds have been kept out of political power with very few exceptions.

Earlier, 20 out of 100 used to be reserved seats for SC/ST. After women’s bill, 67 seats would be available for men, Out of these only 13 are going to be reserved. Remaining 33 seats would be for women only. Theoretically, some of these women could be dalits. This scheme defeats the purpose of more inclusive representation. Effectively. dalits would lose their privileges by almost 33%. This is a huge cost.   This would violate constitutional mandate that 20% of seats should be reserved for dalits. Only way to keep this consistent is by reiterating clearly the sub-quota for dalit women in the 33% of seats reserved for women. Repeated claims of “no sub-quota within the quota” makes it clear that dalits are losing reserved seats by almost 33%. Having 20% sub-quota within 33% seats reserved for women would ensure that 0.2×33~6.6~7 seats reserved for dalit women for every 100 seats. This would make sure that a total of 20 dalits ( 13 dalit men+ 7 dalit women) for every 100 seats would be represented satisfying the constitutional mandate. But current proposal is reducing number of seats for dalits by 7 for every 100 MP seats.

Most candidates depend on the party to campaign & win the elections. Parties regularly issue WHIPs to get their members to follow the line in voting for a legislation. This does not allow any of the MPs to register their personal opinions and perspectives without risking ejection from the party.  This is not good for democracy. Whether the new legislation would enable Women to voice their demands is questionable. But, definitely, we will get to hear the women perspective on various bills. With the current process, one needs to defect or start a new party if they vote against the party’s dictates. One wonders why this WHIP system is needed ? Same way, one wonders why reservation for women is NOT helping the really oppressed, suffering women from dalit/OBC/minority groups. Instead, it is conferring privileges to an already powerul, elite section of upper caste women. Reservation is supposed to uplift the weaker sections of the society by enabling their voice to be heard in the parliament. Weaker section is not the women from the elite, upper class. It is the women from dalit/OBC/minority backgrounds. Without providing for them using sub-quota, this bill’s basis for reservation is questionable.

Principle of reservation is to help the WEAK, so that the representation is not monopolized by the STRONG alone. It is an insult to use the system to favor the STRONG. Government is talking of supporting the weaker sections and in the name of helping the weaker sections, it is brazenly strengthening the powerful classes of the society at the cost of the dalits/OBCs/minorities.

SP is already disowning the demand for sub-quota. They are probably under the illusion that less number of seats for dalits mean more seats for themselves. As they represent OBCs/Minorities, they can not really afford to be joining hands in making sure that marginalized women don’t get their due support in the bill. They have to understand that the bill is guranteeing 33% MP seats to ELITE women, which does NOT represent their constituency. It is completely against their party ideology of social justice. In fact, it is a BRAZEN Mockery of social justice as they are using a well known tool for empowerment of the marginalized people, reservation system, to actually strengthen the ruling class. It is not the women from ELITE classes who are in need of voice  in the parliament. It is the women from dalit/OBC/minority background suffer the most injustice and discrimination.  Having no sub-quota for these deserving women in the proposed bill actually defeats the very purpose of the bill. Concerns of ELITE women does NOT reflect the problems of the vast majority of indian women. They are not victims of rape, dowry, honor killing, female infanticide, gender discrimination at job, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, domestic violence or fetching drinking water for the family etc. ELITE women are not going to be any better than our existing MPs in adding new perspective to legislations. The value they bring to the parliament is limited, compared to mandating sub-quotas for the marginalized. One can not help feeling OPENLY ROBBED with utter disregard for the concerns of the poor and the downtrodden.

Without doubt, this legislation is revolutionary, but without the sub-quota it is a Big Time Injustice to dalits and all oppressed women. Under the grab of gender based reservation, an attempt is being made to change the colour of our parliament to be mainly Upper Caste, educated and the powerful.

Let’s junk the hypocrisy

Source: Indian Express

From a strictly constitutional position, one can argue that a radical change in the electoral system would constitute an assault on a “basic feature” and would thus go against the celebrated Keshavanand Bharati judgment. We already have completely discriminatory laws, for instance, women pay less income tax than men. This absurd proposition seems to forget that it is income that is taxed and income does not have any gender. If the Congress-BJP-Left combine to push through this measure, I believe that the opponents will have a strong case to get it struck down by the Supreme Court. The present franchise system — no separate electorates, reservation for SCs and STs, nominated seats for Anglo-Indians, etc — did not come out casually or by accident. The Constituent Assembly discussed and debated these matters at length, and guess what, consensus was obtained. The Muslim members of the assembly supported the abolition of separate electorates. For the Congress-BJP-Left upper caste leadership to ram down a major constitutional change that can have implications similar to the Minto-Morley reforms, pretending to be women-friendly while actually improving their own electoral prospects, is a dubious measure. On this one, believers in constitutional rectitude must support the SP, the RJD and the BSP — even if their parliamentary tactics are too noisy for comfort!

Source:  Frontline

The issue that has fired the imagination of women in India in recent times is their demand for reservation in Parliament and the State Assemblies.

V.V. KRISHNAN

Women Members of Parliament of various political parties unite to demand the tabling of the women’s reservation Bill, in November 2007 in New Delhi.

“WOMANPOWER stalls Musclepower”, announced a newspaper headline the day after the women’s reservation Bill was placed yet again in Parliament on May 7.

Surely, the headline highlighted a very basic challenge facing Indian democracy both inside and outside Parliament. While it would appear that a long struggle lies ahead for representative politics in India to become truly representative of popular will, aspirations and interests, it must also be recognised that if there is one issue that has fired the imagination of women across the country in an explicitly positive sense over the past decade and more, it is the demand for 33 per cent reservation in the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies.

What were the factors that propelled the demand for the Bill?

The demand was a logical continuation of what had been achieved relatively easily at the level of local representative bodies after the adoption of the 73rd-74th amendments to the Constitution in 1993. There have been many attempts to understand why women want greater representation – including the theory that they are driven by compulsions as crass as naked political ambition or that they desire important positions! Some may even believe that the demand comes from international platforms such as the Beijing Conference in 1995 where women’s role in decision making was seen as a mark of achievement. Others may see in it an expression of “feminist” politics coming of age.

Somehow, none of these recognises the basic fact that women contribute equally to this society with men, that they demand and deserve a share in decision making with regard to policies and planning, and that their struggle for equality is today an integral part of the struggle of the Indian people to ensure the strength and stability of Indian democracy.

Sustained campaign

Amidst this welter of views, it may be useful to put on record the extent to which the demand for 33 per cent reservation galvanised women in a sustained campaign spread over nearly 15 years now, notwithstanding the ‘drama’ enacted in Delhi before every Parliament session. First, as anyone who has been actively involved in the contemporary women’s movement would vouch for, the question “Didi, what is happening to 33 per cent?” has come up in virtually every corner of the country over the last decade.

The demand for women’s representation in elected bodies has perhaps featured in every other memorandum at the State and Central levels, in discussions, workshops, training programmes and interactive discussions across the regional divide. It has been raised by the so-called autonomous women’s groups, by the more political mass-based organisations, and by women’s wings of political parties, thereby cutting across the so-called divides within the movement. A mass protest before Parliament in the summer of 1998 drew an unprecedented response, with nearly 10,000 women landing up in New Delhi to press the demand.

There has perhaps not been a single Prime Minister or Lok Sabha Speaker in the past decade who has not been petitioned or has not had to field questions from women representatives on the subject. It is one issue on which leaders of political parties have been petitioned several times and quizzed on why this demand has not featured in their election manifestos.

The issue has drawn in scholars, activists, policymakers, media personnel and even members of the Election Commission, who are normally not drawn into such controversies.

With the notable exception of the Left parties, which have consistently backed the demand, verbal support for it has come in wavering undertones from some parties (such as the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress), while the opposition to it has been strident in others such as the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal. Women activists have made public their distaste for such “patriarchal” mindsets even as they have debated the question of patriarchy and searched for more nuanced definitions of it.

Meanwhile, women continue with their dharnas, memoranda and petitions, and leadership training camps even as they engage with the dilemmas and challenges that representative politics poses for the women’s movement within the context of globalisation and a state that is committed to a neoliberal economic agenda.

Furthermore, the issue has brought women in the South Asian region closer through all the turbulence of the past two decades – military rule, the struggle against monarchy, and the divisive conflicts thrown up by fundamentalism and ethnic strife. There were ironies that emerged.

R.V. MOORTHY

Women from Bihar on a visit to Parliament House. A file picture. The social base of women entering panchayat bodies has broadened and now includes a cross-section of women from underprivileged groups.

The same women from Pakistan who despaired of any kind of representation given the virulent opposition to it from fundamentalists in their country managed to inch their way to 22 per cent representation in their parliament.

However, in India, where the campaign has been stronger and more widespread, the record is poor. The highest representation of women was a dismal 9 per cent in the Lok Sabha in 1999 and 15.4 per cent in the Rajya Sabha in 1991. Indeed, in 2005 the percentage actually came down to 8.2 and 11.4 respectively.

Push from below

The women’s movement’s decision to foreground the demand for reservation in the 1990s marked a shift in stance as until that point it had upheld the historical legacy of the freedom struggle in respect of the rejection of reservation by the pre-Independence women’s movement. In fact, a majority in the Constituent Assembly rejected a proposal for reservation for women.

In independent India, the Committee on the Status of Women in India (1975) discussed the issue of the low participation of women in elected bodies. It, however, rejected the demand for reservation, with Vina Mazumdar and Lotika Sarkar registering their dissent.

Undoubtedly, the real push for reservation came from below, after the enactment of the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments in 1993. The entry of women into rural and urban local bodies forced activists to sit up and take stock of the ground reality in ways they never had to consider before. Those contesting the local body elections were willy-nilly drawn into “party politics”, as it was referred to. Many of these women who were elected found themselves ill-equipped for the job. They were forced to draw on whatever support was available, family or otherwise, and even before they were given a chance to perform they were derided for being “proxies” and “rubber stamps”.

Nevertheless, they plodded on, taking vested interests head-on. After all, if India lives in its villages, so does a significant section of its ruling elite, along with power brokers, criminals, extortionists, conservatives, reactionaries and militants. It was these deadly forces that these uninitiated women representatives of elective politics had to take on all at once.

As if that was not enough, before they could even contest they had to pass the test by fulfilling a long list of eligibility conditions. Consider, for instance, clauses that sought details on criminal proceedings pending against them, details of outstanding or unpaid loans, indeed clauses that would make many a parliamentarian or legislator wince in guilt.

To add to this, they became subject to a clause imposing a two-child norm for elected representatives. This formed a part of the population policies adopted by many of the States and endorsed by the Supreme Court in its misplaced wisdom.

Further, even as the demand for accountability and the right to recall State legislators and parliamentarians simply floundered, women elected to panchayat bodies faced an extraordinary backlash. In several panchayats women faced no-confidence motions that were brought in, and adopted to dislodge them, by those whose interests they threatened. These powerful groups comprised contractor lobbies or land mafia-backed criminals who wished to corner funds allotted for development activity at the local level. Some of them allied themselves with upper-caste sections who had hitherto enjoyed the benefits of these allocations.

Women representatives’ refusal to comply with “instructions” given to them or to buckle under these pressures was met with no-confidence motions, physical threats, criminal/sexual assaults on them or family members and, in some cases, even murder. This, even as they juggled their “traditional” roles and new responsibilities.

Despite the backlash, representatives of the women’s movement have assessed this experience positively and chosen to push for 33 per cent reservation in elected bodies at the higher levels too.

Positive outcome

In fact, the positive outcome of representation is evident at several levels, starting with enhanced participation and the emergence of women’s leadership at the level of local self-government. The social base of women entering these bodies has broadened and now includes a cross-section of women from under-privileged groups – those that suffer economic deprivation and social and caste discrimination. New developmental priorities emerged with women entering panchayat bodies.

Thus the women’s movement’s subsequent demand for 33 per cent reservation in State legislatures and Parliament arose out of a recognition of positive interventions and of the experience of women members and chairpersons of panchayats in different States, specifically Karnataka, Maharashtra, West Bengal and Kerala.

Sometimes the intensity of the conflict was greater in the supposedly backward States. Although this experience has been varied, uneven, and State- and locality-specific, it has enriched people-friendly governance, and its measurable success has strengthened the demand for reservation at higher levels.

Why is it important to place these facts on record?

The pressure from below to engage with politics in a meaningful and positive way comes at a time when the elite classes of India are united in hijacking politics to serve their own vested interests, thus spreading a certain cynicism towards politics, particularly amongst the Indian middle class, which conducts a continuous tirade against the “political class”.

Further, the wave of depoliticisation sweeping across the world since the 1990s has left the women’s movement in other parts of the world facing fragmentation – even disintegration – and certainly seeking fresh moorings. Given the context of this phase of politics, marked by the ‘end of ideology’, can the women’s movement in India afford to ignore the push coming from below for a more direct engagement in politics?

Significant issues have been raised in the course of the debate around the Bill over the past decade. Broadly these relate to the mode of ensuring increased representation of women; the quantum of reservation and the manner of its implementation; and lastly, the issue of quotas within the women’s quota.

First, let us look at the number of proposals as alternatives to a reserved quota for women. There have been suggestions for double-member constituencies; for an increase in the overall number of seats in the course of delimitation, whichwill automatically improve women’s chances; and even reservation within the list of candidates put up by parties.

These proposals raise more issues than they settle. For instance, on the issue of double-member constituencies, can only women represent women? Or, can women not be represented by men? Such tokenism or biological essentialism can never be the terrain on which women can argue their case.

The delimitation exercise has already reached an advanced stage and it is simply not feasible to incorporate women’s reservation within its terms of reference.

Whereas there is no disagreement with regard to parties putting up more women candidates, in the current situation of fractured mandates and coalition governments, the importance attached to a candidate’s winnability by the party makes it unrealistic to expect that they will pay heed to such a proposal.

Two objections

Opposition to the Bill has come up on two major grounds. First, given the wavering support for the Bill even among those who do not oppose it, some have argued for a diluted demand. Why not settle for 15 per cent or even 20 per cent? some well-wishers ask.

Pro-reservation activists have stood their ground on two main counts. First, they point out that while successive governments took the plea that they were waiting for a “consensus” to introduce the Bill, the fact that the Bill had been referred to a Joint Select Committee, which submitted its report in 1997 under the chairpersonship of the late Gita Mukherjee, was conveniently buried. Women activists have rightly said that the Bill, drafted along the lines of its recommendations, be placed in Parliament and debated forthwith without any bargaining.

Secondly, they have stood their ground on the principle of 33 per cent as it will provide the necessary critical mass for women to make an impact. Further, if there is a compromise here, it could spur efforts to scale down one-third reservation in local bodies as well.

The second major objection to the Bill is more complex as it apparently uses a weapon from the arsenal of the women’s movement against itself. If greater inclusiveness is a goal of reservation, then what of the marginalised groups from amongst women? Can the goal of inclusiveness be achieved without inbuilt sub-quotas for Dalits, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and minorities?

The debate has privileged the issues of ‘non-homogeneity’ within women as a category and the politics of ‘presence’ in the context of the marginalised sections more sharply, and has built pressure on the women’s movement to be ever more sensitive to the histories of discrimination and exclusion on the basis of caste and religion.

OBC representation

There are several issues involved here. First, a quota for Dalit women will form part of the reservation for women as per constitutional norms.

Secondly, why have those parties and forces that have used this as a plea to reject the Bill not placed before Parliament concrete proposals on reservation for OBC categories at a more general level? Also, if OBC representation in representative bodies is going up, then who is responsible for blocking the entry of women from these sections coming into the same bodies?

Finally, while it is true that majority fundamentalism has targeted and further alienated women belonging to religious minorities, it is unclear whether this issue can be addressed within the purview of this Bill. Reservation for minorities is a matter that requires constitutional amendments of a more complex nature.

The demand for religion-based rights and reservation was debated at length when the Constitution was being drafted, and was rejected on the basis of a clear understanding of secularism and democracy. The majority of women’s organisations today would, therefore, reject a demand for re-negotiating this issue. As the Sachar Committee report highlights, the problems of minority rights and reservation have to be addressed at multiple levels.

In other words, the reservation Bill cannot be a piece of catch-all legislation that should address all historical inequalities and challenges women face before it can settle the issue of women’s reservation. In fact, it is in recognition of this reality that many women’s organisations have made concerted efforts to reach out to women from the minorities and other marginalised sections in an attempt to address the specific discriminations faced by women of these sections and to take forward the discussion on democratic rights. This has often brought them into conflict with fundamentalist forces from both within and outside minority communities.

Interestingly, the issue of caste and its links with patriarchy has been central in much of the academic writing in women’s studies with some interesting critiques of Brahmanical patriarchy from a non-Brahmin perspective. These have focussed on issues of consciousness and perception from both gendered and caste-based perspectives. While that has added to the complexity of the debate within the movement, it should not be assumed that the political forces opposing women’s reservation in the name of caste necessarily share the same concerns.

In fact, the disconnect between historical movements or individuals who foregrounded issues of caste before 1947 and the present-day champions of caste-based reservation could not be sharper. Despite their ideological differences, leaders such as E.V. Ramasamy ‘Periyar’, B.R. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Ram Manohar Lohia and E.M.S Namboodiripad located the institution of caste within the framework of pre-capitalist relations and ideology. Some of them successfully mounted a challenge to it because they firmly placed the struggle against caste within the context of anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggles. Also, from their varied perspectives they shared a commitment to equality for women.

In contrast to this, some of the modern champions of caste and reservation neither understand the material basis of the phenomenon nor challenge the context of globalisation and liberalisation within which caste operates. They merely press for representation based on identity and are at best silent on the subject of women’s equality.

To conclude, the debate around the women’s reservation Bill has thrown up interesting questions. It has generated a significant political momentum. In the event of its passage, it will create the conditions for meaningful interventions by women in particular, and progressive forces in general, in the struggle for a more egalitarian and humane path of development to take India forward.

This is necessary if social justice, inclusiveness and the right to dignity are to acquire real meaning, going beyond the rhetoric of their use as mere slogans by those who often choose to stall parliamentary proceedings rather than focus on real issues. For those united in sharing a concern for India’s advance to a secular, socialist future, the principle of 33 per cent reservation for women will in time, hopefully, transform the context and terms of representative politics itself.•

Indu Agnihotri is a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Women’s Development Studies, New Delhi.

Why men have to pay the bill

Source: Times Of India

Akshaya Mukul on all you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask, about the Women’s Bill.

What is the background to the Women’s Reservation Bill?

During the framing of the Constitution , some women members argued against reservation for women. 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 panchayats and municipal bodies. Two dissenting 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 parties. Representation for women in panchayats and Municipalities was done through the 73rd and 74th Amendments passed in 1993.

The first serious move for a women’s quota in Lok Sabha and state assemblies was made only in 1996, during the United Front government. It, however, ran into resistance from the OBC chieftains, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad, two important partners in that regime.

The confrontation saw the bill being sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, headed by CPI’s Geeta Mukherjee. Subsequent attempts to introduce the Constitution Amendment bill in 1998 and 1999 failed, again because of OBC-led resistance. Finally, in 2008, UPA- I introduced the bill in the Rajya Sabha despite strong protests from Lalu Prasad, then an important ally of the Congress Party.

What are the highlights of the bill?

It seeks to reserve one-third of all seats for women in the Lok Sabha and in the state legislative assemblies. The allocation of reserved seats is to be determined by an authority to be designated by Parliament.

One-third of the total number of seats reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) in the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies will also be reserved for SC/ST women. Reservation for women will cease 15 years after the commencement of the Act. Reserved seats will be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in the state or union territory.

If a state or union territory has only one seat in the Lok Sabha, that seat will be reserved for women in the first general election of every cycle of three elections . If there are two seats, each will be reserved once in a cycle of three elections. Similar rules apply for seats reserved for SC/STs. Of the two seats in the Lok Sabha reserved for Anglo-Indians , one will be reserved for women in each of the two elections in a cycle of three elections. A total of 181 seats will be reserved for women. On the face of it, that means only 1/3rd of the parliamentary seats will be impacted. But, potentially 2/3rd seats can be affected. How? Nothing stops women from contesting even from “open” seats that will be de-reserved after every election. Clearly, the going will get tougher for men.

What’s the logic behind the bill?

To bring about gender equality in Parliament and state legislatures. After 63 years of Independence, the percentage of women in the Lok Sabha has hovered between 7% and 11%. In assemblies, too, representation of women is abysmally low. Therefore, extraordinary measures are needed to bring women (nearly 50% of the population) at par with men in the Lok Sabha and assemblies.

What real difference can this make?

In general, women are supposed to bring greater seriousness to their job. While 33% reservation will displace a well-entrenched class of male politicians, it will create an army of a new breed of women political activists. Laws, be it personal, social or economic, often miss out on the voice of women. With their political empowerment, a big change can be expected. It will have social consequences also. In the early years of 33% reservation for women in panchayats, men tried to run them through proxies, putting up their wives or other family members, but now even in states like UP and Bihar, it is a common sight to see husbands having to introduce themselves as secretaries to their MP or panchayat- head spouses.

What is the situation in other countries?

Often better than India. In Pakistan, for instance, the percentage of women in the National Assembly has reached 22% because of the quota policy that reserves 17.5% of seats for women. In Nepal, the percentage of women members is 33%: again a feature made possible through the quota policy that reserves at least 33% of the candidates and 50% of any party’s nominations for women. In Bangladesh, 45 seats out of the total of 345 are reserved for women. China has 21% women in the National People’s Congress without any quota policy. Globally, Rwanda is the only country in the world with more women (56%) than men in their national legislative body through the quota system. Sweden follows with 47%, South Africa (45%), Iceland (43%), Argentina (42%), the Netherlands (41%) and Norway and Senegal with 40%. Sweden, South Africa, Iceland, the Netherlands and Norway have voluntary political party quotas for women.

Why do SP, RJD and other parties oppose the bill?

Privately, male MPs from the Congress and BJP also have a problem with 33% reservation as they fear their political future. But only leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad, who run their parties as fiefdoms, can afford to articulate it openly. But even they couch it with the demand for a sub-quota for OBC and Muslim women. Or else, they risk alienating 50% of the voters!

Why can OBC and Muslim women not be given reservation?

The Indian Constitution allows electoral reservation only for SC/ST. OBCs have reservation in education and jobs, but no quota in legislatures. The Constitution also does not allow reservation on communal lines. Historically, the experience with communal electorates has not been healthy. Lalu and Mulayam, both from the socialist stock, forget that their role model, Ram Manohar Lohia, talked of women as part of a larger coalition of dalits. He saw women as backwards who deserved special treatment.

Will this mean lower representation of backward castes in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies?

That is what OBC champions claim. Actually, it is an alibi to prevent the implementation of the women’s quota. The advances made by the OBCs cannot be rolled back, because of their sheer numerical strength. Moreover, the OBC parties that ensure the victory of their male MPs from OBC strongholds, can do the same for their women candidates. In fact, many of them have successfully ensured the election of their women-kin from their caste strongholds.

What about political parties giving ticket to women candidates rather than reserving seats for them?
This has not happened. What has prevented them from giving them tickets so far? All political parties — Left, Right or Centre — only talk, but are tardy when it comes to giving tickets to women candidates. The oft-repeated reason is that women cannot defeat established male opponents. Also, giving tickets is no guarantee that a significant number of women would get elected. Political parties may assign women candidates to constituencies where they are weak.

Why not increase the strength of Parliament and assemblies?

Where will they sit? Be it Parliament or assemblies, there will be a huge space problem. More seriously, there is a Constitutional cap on increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha till 2020. Also, this argument is repeatedly advanced to put women’s reservation off track. If such a proposal ever gets accepted, a new delimitation would have to be undertaken.

Leave it to the parties? Their record is terrible

Source: Times Of India

Some parties and individual MPs may question the need for reserving seats in Parliament for women, but here are some bare truths that should drive home the point. Political parties across the board have a terrible record of giving women a share in political representation. Take the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, for instance. Less than 10% of the total tickets were distributed to women. Of the 8,070 candidates who contested in those polls, only 556 or a mere 7% were women. And among the 543 who were finally elected to the 15th Lok Sabha, only 59 or 11% were women. Ironically, this is the highest proportion ever of women in the Lok Sabha.

Data analysed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and National Election Watch reveals that even within women, power remains the privilege of a few. Of the 59 women MPs, more than two-thirds, 40 to be precise, were crorepatis and 41 are graduates or have higher educational qualifications.

The analysis effectively puts paid to the anti-quota argument that political parties can be trusted with the responsibility of giving greater representation to women. It’s clear that the political leadership in most, if not all, parties has not found it necessary to provide women with a platform to dictate policy or make a significant contribution to the process of governance.

Despite swearing that they are all for women’s empowerment, major parties, like the Congress and BJP, allotted just about 10% of their tickets to women, while in the lists of the Samajwadi Party and CPM women candidates constituted 8% and 7% respectively. The Mayawati-led BSP and JD(U) did even worse with only 6% and 5% respectively of their candidates being women.

Of the women candidates who ultimately proved successful, 19% or about one in five came from the BSP, 12% from the Congress, 11% from the BJP and 13% from the SP.

Being highly educated and flush with funds certainly seems to help women candidates in getting elected, just as it does with men. Amongst the 59 female MPs, one is a doctorate, 16 are postgraduates, 12 are graduate professionals and 13 are graduates.

If these facts and trends are not particularly surprising, check this out. Of these 59 MPs, 10 have criminal cases pending against them. That’s one in every six (17%). If you are cynically inclined, you might say this just proves that women have what it takes to be a successful politician just as much as men. Of these, 5 are from the Congress, 4 from the BJP and 1 from the Shiv Sena.

Source: Counter Currents

By Ashok Yadav

06 June, 2009
Countercurrents.org

Contrary to the popular perception, the women reservation in legislature will seriously damage the women liberation movements that are current today in India. The various women groups committed to struggle for equality, honour and liberation of women from patriarchal system, family & society must oppose the concept of women reservation in legislature. To understand this the experience of SC/ST reservation in legislature is very useful.

Dr Ambedkar fought for separate electorate but the Poona Pact forced joint electorate system on dalits. Under the joint electorate system the protagonist of dalit rights Dr Ambedkar himself lost the election from a reserved constituency. Poona Pact or the system of joint electorate in which fifteen percent seats were reserved for SCs in legislative bodies and where the common population consisting of brahmins, the upper caste and the OBC elect a dalit candidate from their constituency, effectively checked the growth of independent and talented leaders in dalit community. Original, independent and talented dalit leaders lost their brilliance once they entered electoral politics because they had to curb their rebellious character so as not to displease his or her electorates which consisted mostly non-dalit castes. That is why Kanshi Ram termed these SC MPs and MLAs as nothing but the stooges of brahminical system and famously called the age that started from the date of signing of Poona Pact as “the age of stooges” i.e. “chamcha yug”.

Dalit MLAs and MPs have done little to advance the cause of dalits because they cannot afford to antagonize the caste hindus as they have to get elected. By winning good number of SC reserved constituencies in assembly and parliament elections the parties paying lip service, or we may even say working contrary to the dalit welfare, claim that they stand for dalit interests.

It is a hard fact that it is not the dalit MLAs and MPs who have taken forward the dalit cause. Rather they have harmed the dalit cause because instead of serving their community they have served their political masters. If dalit movement has come of an age in India it is not due to SC reservation in legislature but due to SC reservation in education and job. The dalit intelligentsia consisting of government employees, bureaucrats, teachers, professors, writers etc organized themselves into BAMCEF and then asserted dalit rights with a form and content that was never seen before. From BAMCEF emerged DS 4 and from the latter emerged Bahujan Samaj Party.

The experience of SC reservation in legislature is crucial in assessing the proposed women reservation in legislature. The women will not have separate electorate system and they will be elected by votes of both men and women. Any woman candidate giving a challenge to the predominantly patriarchal, casteist and feudal set up would alienate not only the men but the conservative women also, who vastly outnumber the progressive thinking women, who would constitute her electorate. So all women politicians, aspiring to enter assembly and parliament through reserved seats, will have to compromise and curb her core ideology. The women activists having entered electoral politics will cease to be activists for women cause and, instead, will serve their political masters. They will not have an independent politics of their own which is so crucial for emancipation of women from patriarchal bondage. No political party in the country has any radical agenda for social change. All political parties are content with maintaining status quo in the society and system. Women liberation is closely linked with breaking status quo of our society which is so much anti-women besides being anti-dalit bahujan. The social justice parties have reduced themselves to permutations and combinations of castes to win elections and form government. The left parties believe in economism. Their belief is that once economic system changes everything will change including family, society and state. In short, the women have nothing to gain by becoming a part of the political system that stands for status quo.

The women activists agitating for women reservation in legislature should learn lessons from the experiences of women politician of this country. For many years Indira Gandhi remained prime minister of this country and wielded almost unrestrained power. She nationalized the banks, ended the privy purse of the erstwhile kings, liberated Bangladesh, imposed emergency, declared India a secular & socialist country by inserting these two words in the preamble of the constitution of India and tested atom bombs in Pokhran. There are many credits in her name including waging struggle against old guards of the congress party and dividing the congress party to her benefits. But she never seemed a representative of the exploited and oppressed Indian women. She never took any concrete practical step to ameliorate the conditions of Indian women. She never was a voice of the dumb Indian women. When she was prime minister, in Delhi itself, lots of dowry deaths occurred, but she was unable to do anything. The same thing can be claimed against the stock of the present day women politicians. Just as dalit movements, led by independent dalit activists & intellectuals, throw a challenge to the dalit MLAs & MPs, so the independent women movements led by independent women activists will indeed be a challenge to the women MPs & MLAs. Dalit/OBC/tribal/minority movements constantly expose their community people who are active in the parliamentary politics with the result that the latter turn against the movements of their own community people. How can one claim that the same thing will not happen in the case of women movements? In short, the proposed 33% reservation to women in legislature will go against the women liberation movements.

The important question in this regard is that why ideologically different BJP, Congress and the left are united in their support to the women reservation bill. The reason of their united stand on the issue lies in their common upper caste mentality which is wary of the caste question. The politics of hindutva and class struggle converge on one point of their opposition to the caste question. The caste question poses challenges to left, right and centre alike. The policy, programme, strategy, tactics, ideology of these forces have all been severely disturbed by the caste question. The success of their projects lies in how much they are successful in putting the caste question under the carpet.

The principal contradiction operating in Indian society is caste contradiction in which on one side are men and women of the dalit, the OBC and the adivasis and on the other side are men and women of the brahmin and other upper castes. The primary cause of oppression and exploitation of Indian women is the caste system itself. The proponents of women reservation bill seldom acknowledge this. Their upper caste prejudices prevent them to appreciate that patriarchy in India is deeply rooted in caste system. Patriarchy and endogamy which are two main characteristic of caste system are deeply interlinked. The struggle of the lower castes against caste exploitation and system also consists within it struggle against endogamy and patriarchy. It is, therefore, the greatest champions of women liberation have been the leaders of anti-caste struggle. Jotiba Phule, Periyar, Dr Ambedkar and Dr Ram Manohar Lohia have been the tallest champions of women liberation in modern India. No other leaders from the upper caste background have equaled these social justice icons in their achievements for liberation of women. Of course names of great social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chand Vidyasagar from upper caste background are there but since they could not challenge brahminism in the same way as the social justice icons did they could not revolutionize the agenda of women liberation.

So the sharpening of caste contradiction and its eventual solution alone will remove the primary cause of women subjugation. The lower caste women go through far greater hardships and crisis in their life than their upper caste counterparts. They don’t have the same economic and social security which the upper caste women enjoy. This is indicated by the overwhelming presence of lower caste women among the rape victims. How can lower caste women remain immune from the general backwardness, illiteracy, poverty, economic hardships etc. of their caste and community? Similarly how can upper caste women remain aloof from the general prosperity, power and privileges of their caste and community? There are more disparities than similarities in the conditions of lower caste and upper caste women. The gender unity within the lower caste is indispensable in their fight against caste oppression and exploitation. The women reservation in legislature seeks to dilute and weaken the caste contradiction by bringing gender contradiction parallel to caste contradiction chiefly by refusing to give reservation to lower caste women in the overall women reservation. The women reservation in legislature will only intensify gender rivalry within the lower castes and ultimately harm the caste movements.

The women reservation in legislature will harm the caste movements in another way also. A large number of lower caste MPs and MLAs will be replaced by women candidates who will be raw in understanding politics. They will be most certainly be weak replacements of our male MPs and MLAs. What is happening today in the case of women panchayat representatives will also happen tomorrow in the case of women MLAs and MPs, most particularly those belonging to the lower castes. The overall performance of OBC, dalit and tribal MLAs & MPs will go down. The upper caste female legislatures being more educated, more articulate and smarter than their lower caste counterparts will certainly score points over them. The women reservation bill in the present form i.e. without reservation for lower caste women seems a ploy on the part of upper caste vested interests to prevent the falling number of the upper caste MLAs and MPs. So in all likelihood the women reservation bill is going to bring crisis in the lower caste movements. That is why the forces, wary of ever sharpening caste contradictions, despite their sharp mutual ideological differences on other issues, have united themselves to push women reservation bill without caring a whit for reservation for the lower caste women.

Conclusion

Social justice leaders are demanding in one voice for reservation within reservation i.e. reservation for lower castes in 33% women reservation. Previously they were against women reservation in legislature because they felt that the women of their castes and communities were not educationally ready to take the huge responsibility of an MP and MLA. Now when they see that women reservation in legislature has become fait accompli, they are demanding reservation within reservation. Instead of going for reservation within reservation they should out rightly reject women reservation in legislature. But their fear of being branded anti-women by the mainstream brahminical media prevents them from taking a clear and bold line. Instead of going for reservation within reservation in legislature they should demand reservation to women in education and job in all categories viz. SC, ST, OBC and General. In other words, 33% or 50%, whatever it may be, as per the outcome of debate and general consensus that may emerge among different women groups and political parties, seats should be reserved in education and jobs, within all categories for the female candidates. Reservation in legislature will produce women leaders of servile mentality whereas reservation in education and job will produce independent and free thinking women. Let them acquire independent and free thinking status and then enter legislature without the help of reservation. The women of India do not need reservation in legislature but reservation in education and job. The women of India must reject out rightly reservation in legislature and aggressively pursue reservation in education and job. It is a matter of great surprise that the protagonists of women reservation in legislature are maintaining complete silence on women reservation in education and job. The only explanation for their silence on this important issue seems to be that politics and status quo rather than real progress and radical changes in the condition of women of India are their concern.

However if women reservation in legislature has become fait accompli then the only option that remain for the social justice forces is to not budge from their stand of having reservation for women of SC, ST, OBC and minorities in the 33% reservation for women in assemblies and parliaments otherwise it will divert caste contradiction

ashok yadav is associated with
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF OBC EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION
email contact: ashokyadav2007@gmail.com

Womes’s Quota: A Primer

Source: Tehelka

A HISTORIC MOMENT, OR ANOTHER STORY OF SHIFTING GOALPOSTS? TEHELKA ANSWERS ALL THE PRESSING QUERIES Against the tide? By opposing the Bill, Mulayam Singh and Lalu Yadav have angered those sections of Indian society that want reservation for women to come through (right) Photo: REUTERS Mother superior For supporters of the Bill, this could be a historic turning point for women’s equality in India (left) Photo: AP Who is opposing the Bill? Why? Several political parties, academics and even feminists are opposing the Bill. The opposition is ideological — that reservation itself cannot empower women; and technical — that there has not been enough debate on several core features within the Bill. Politically, the strongest opposition has come from allies of the Congress: SP, RJD, and JDU —parties that claim to represent backward castes. They are demanding a sub-quota within the proposed one-thirds reservation, for women from backward castes and minorities, to ensure that the elected women do not have upper caste and urban bias. Though opposition may seem regressive, there are feminists who agree with this viewpoint, arguing that women are not homogenous; that a blanket reservation will only serve the interests of dominant groups. Another bone of contention is that it only allows reservation in the Lok Sabha, not the Rajya Sabha. The Bill also assumes that gender identity will influence decision-making in Parliament, but there is no evidence to back this claim. The different viewpoint emerges not from biological difference, but from an alternative socio-economic experience, naysayers feel. This is why it becomes more urgent to ensure the reservation benefits women from all backgrounds. What are the arguments in favour of the Bill? Politics in India has traditionally been male-dominated. A survey by the Inter-Parliamentary Union on the number of women in Parliaments ranked India 99 among 140 countries. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iraq and Rwanda were placed higher. At present, women make up 10 percent of the Lok Sabha. There is a dire need for more women in Indian politics. Proponents of the Bill argue that the quota will bring an unprecedented shift in the face of Parliament, allowing women a larger political platform. It is also a legal mandate that ensures parties to accord political space to women. So far, the record has been abysmal. In Maharashtra, for example, out of 412 candidates who stood for 48 Lok Sabha seats in 2004, only 29 were women. With more women in the apex legislative seat, there is a hope that policy-making will more adequately address their concerns. Displaying rare unity, the Congress, the BJP and the Left have joined to push this Bill, which has been pending for 15 years. ‘Men — within the house and the political party — have only treated us as housewives. So where was the space for women to discuss political participation?’ KUSUM RAI Rajya Sabha MP, BJP Can’t political parties have internal seat reservation? A possible alternative to empowering women through reserved seats in Parliament is to mandate that all political parties give a certain percentage of tickets to women. But there is a danger that parties will then give those tickets to women that hold little prospect for the party. Their strongholds will continue to be male-dominated. Also, this may not ensure a certain minimum number of women in Parliament, because women allotted to weaker constituencies may lose. ‘The Bill is not perfect; but at least there is a recognition that political power-sharing in India is a complexity that cannot be ignored anymore’ K AJITHA President, Anweshi, Women’s Rights Organisation, Kerala Why not reservations within the women’s quota? The Congress maintains that this Bill is a first step, and not a final step. They say, if it is found that reservation is only bringing a particular group of women into Parliament, then there is the option of a constitutional amendment later. The lack of political will and transparency on why a sub-quota cannot be included in the Bill right now continues to be a major concern. The government’s response to the opposition is that political parties can always issue tickets to backward caste women within this quota. The problem with this argument is that lower caste women who have traditionally not been in the political fray will then be competing with more experienced women candidates and the playing field will not be level. Why does the Bill need further debate? ‘Gender equality must begin where laws are made — in Parliament. Why should this bring in only elite women? This is a first step, not the final one’ SALMAN KHURSHID Lok Sabha MP, Congress Some inherent features are seen as a challenge to the core values of democracy. For instance, declaring a particular constituency as a ‘women constituency’ infringes on voters’ right of choice. It forces the voter to choose from a particular group. Further, the Bill allows reserved seats to rotate every 15 years. “This brings democracy without democratic accountability,” says academic Pratap Bhanu Mehta. There is also the view that pitting woman against woman will deradicalise feminist politics in the same way that pitting Dalit against Dalit has de-radicalised caste politics. When a non-Dalit has to choose between two reserved candidates, the perception is that the vote will go to the less radical Dalit. That defeats the purpose of having a Dalit candidate who will stand for hard issues concerning their caste. Feminists fear a similar diluting of political debate if this Bill is passed. An alternative — of two-member constituencies, where one man and one woman are fielded — is being proposed as a better option. Has 50 percent reservation in panchayats worked? The current Bill is being seen as a successor to reservation of 50 percent seats for women in panchayats. Supporters, like former Panchayati Raj Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, cite the election of 12 lakh women to panchayats across India as proof that reservation for women in political bodies empower women as a whole. He adds that these women are from the most oppressed sections of society. “It has given women rights, politically and socially, and conveyed an important message,” says activist Medha Patkar. Opponents say that an administrative role in panchayats cannot be equated with a legislative position. This requires informed decision-making and, hence, a more nuanced debate. With bureau inputs from TUSHA MITTAL, SANJANA and SHOBHITA NAITHANI

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 11, Dated March 20, 2010

A Belated but Welcome Beginning

Source: Economic & Political Weekly

A milestone in gender power-sharing has been passed, but the “quota-in-quota” has to be addressed.

The passing of the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Rajya Sabha on 9 March marks a historic turning point in the story of Indian democracy. The proposed legislation
reserving one-third of all seats in the Lok Sabha and the State
Assemblies will finally enable Indian women to keep their “tryst with destiny”. Despite active involvement in the freedom struggle, women had a minuscule presence in Parliament in the era dominated by the Indian National Congress – a trend that continues to this day, with only 59 women members in the 15th Lok Sabha.

Encouraged by Mohandas Gandhi, women’s organisations rejected reservations during most of the 20th century. As this journal noted a decade ago (Women’s Studies Special, EPW, October 2000), only after long experience of entrenched resistance to women across the political spectrum has reservation been recognised as essential for inclusion. The euphoria at this hard-won success needs to be tempered by the realisation that there is still a long road ahead. The next milestone is for the Bill to be approved by the Lok Sabha as well.

It is important to note that right from when it was first tabled in 1996, the main opposition to reservation for women in the legislature has always centred on the question of sub-quotas for Muslims and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), or additional quotas for dalit women. In other words, despite misleading media images, there has never been a simple opposition between feminist support and patriarchal resistance. Vocal dissent has always invoked the interests of the already disadvantaged castes and communities – it has never opposed women’s rights as such. Indeed, the media’s eagerness to demonise backward caste and Muslim politicians opposing the Bill serves to obscure the unspoken patriarchy that is at work behind the scenes in every political party. How else do we explain the low presence of women candidates among political parties in favour of women’s reservations in all the national and state elections after 1996? It is the silent subversion of the ayes – and not the noisy disruption of the nays – that is most responsible for the 14 years of exile endured by this Bill.

At first glance, the resistance to sub-quotas seems to provide a welcome instance of feminist assertion. Why should women be forced to take on the burden of caste and community when the reverse is not true? Not only has a “gender sub-quota” been absent in every instance of caste-based reservations since Independence, its very absence has gone unnoticed. The most recent example is the 93rd Amendment of 2007 instituting OBC quotas in elite higher education institutions, when neither proponents nor opponents thought to ask for a women’s sub-quota.

But two wrongs do not make a right. If the “male-stream” of
Indian politics has ignored women, the women’s movement cannot afford to retaliate in kind. For doing so would mean ignoring the inequalities of caste and community that continue to divide all social groups, including women themselves. However, it is precisely this kind of larger political understanding that is missing in the current debate. Women leaders – including an otherwise reticent Sonia Gandhi – were quite articulate when describing the various “excuses” used by all political parties to marginalise women and clearly outlined the structural features of the electoral process that conspire to consign most women to the “unwinnable” category.

Why, then, are the same astute women unable to see that caste and community will play a central role in shaping the profile of the “winnable” woman candidate of the future? While the new law will only create a women’s sub-quota for dalits and adivasis, OBC and Muslim women will be at a disadvantage relative to upper caste women. The same calculations that have kept out women in general will now tend to label OBC and Muslim women as “unwinnable”. A consensus on reservations emerged only after it became clear that electoral compulsions would prevent political parties from voluntarily fielding more women candidates. Similar pragmatic reasons are likely to prevent parties from fielding OBC and Muslim women unless compelled by law. Although it was expressed in a boorish manner, and sensationalised by the media, the demand for a sub-quota is essentially a just one. The point here is only to underline its validity, fully recognising that the constitutional impediments to its implementation require separate and careful consideration.

The perverse refusal to see beyond stereotypes was most vividly illustrated by the blind eloquence of a television personality who juxtaposed the heights to which Indian women had risen – represented by the all-female crew of the Air India flight to New York on the centenary of International Women’s Day – with the moral depths that some OBC and Muslim politicians were sinking into in the Rajya Sabha on the same day. To see a different kind of link between these events, one only had to ask how many OBC and Muslim pilots were part of that all-female crew representing “Indian women”.

Another feature of the debate on women in Parliament that is worth noticing is the relative lack of “national level” resistance to reservations for women in local government (panchayats and municipalities). Despite local frictions, the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution were passed without much dissent. In fact, last year’s amendment to raise women’s reservations in local government to 50% was hardly noticed. The bitter acrimony over the extension of exactly the same principle to national and state politics is a clear indication that, for all our talk of decentralisation real power still resides in the centre. This also means that political parties are not recognising the huge significance of women in local politics – now well over a million – as a potential resource at the state and national levels.

Finally, we must ask ourselves what precisely would be historic about bringing a critical mass of women into electoral politics. Popular expectations about women bringing in a “cleaner” government untouched by male power and pelf – or about women’s interests being better represented by women – may well remain unfulfilled. But in the final analysis, if we go back to the original vision of leaders like Ambedkar, what is at stake is nothing less than power-sharing and participation at all levels of the electoral process. History will truly be made when diverse women, shaped by multiple experiences of discrimination and exclusion, will become equal partners in the task of building India’s political future.

Reactions

It Is A Congress Conspiracy Against The Minorities

Source: The Hindu

Aarti Dhar — Photo: V.V.Krishnan

Panchayat council representatives demanding quota within quota in the Women’s Reservation Bill at a day-long conclave organised by ActionAid India in New Delhi on Friday.

NEW DELHI: Impressing upon political parties to take note of discrimination against women from the Dalit and backward communities, scores of women panchayat council representatives on Friday demanded quota within quota in the Women’s Reservation Bill.

They were participating in a day-long conclave organised by ActionAid India here. Over 50 of them were from Bihar, West Bengal, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.

“Yes, in theory women are equal to men. But even stepping out of home can lead to reactions and barbs. I got elected on a reserved seat and that revealed the power this gives one to work for the community,” said Raunaq Khatoon from Bihar.

The conclave focused on sharing testimonies about challenges of patriarchy and caste discrimination each woman faced when she decided to become a member of the village council. Most ranked the struggle to exercise power independently as the most difficult in their journey in grassroots democracy.

“Being a woman from the Dalit community proved a great challenge in finding support within the panchayat. But I did not give up,” said Sarvati Devi, panchayat pradhan of Jamlapur village in Uttar Pradesh.

“Our engagement with community women informs us that this achievement would just be the first step towards effective participation,” said Professor Babu Mathew, country director, ActionAid India.

“Looking at how women’s participation in Panchayati Raj institutions has unfolded over the years, there is a need for the blanket 33 per cent to be broken down.”

A member of the Gramin Vikas Samiti, an ActionAid partner in Bihar, said “the struggle against patriarchy and poverty will be a much harder and longer one.”

It Is A Congress Conspiracy Against The Minorities

Source: Tehelka

Akhilesh Yadav, chief of the SP’s Uttar Pradesh unit, tells NEHA DIXIT how the UPA is misleading the nation on the Women’s Reservation Bill Photo: DHARMENDER RUHIL Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and RJD chief Lalu Prasad have called the Women’s Reservation Bill a political conspiracy. The Samajwadi Party is not against the Bill. Of course, the Bill in its present form is a conspiracy to keep out the minorities. The BJP and the Congress are scared of the mettle of backward class leaders like Lalu Yadav, Mulayam Singh and Ram Vilas Paswan. Hence, they are hesitating to include reservation of backward classes in the women’s Bill. SP also wants the upliftment of women. We are only asking for the inclusion of Dalits, Muslims and minorities. But by opposing the Bill, you are dismissing reservation for women altogether. Reservation for women has to be party-based. Women should get 50 percent reservation in government jobs. Parties should take the initiative to reserve tickets for women from all strata of society. All parties issue tickets to those with money and muscle power. We are demanding this should change. We don’t want to see wives of bureaucrats occupying seats in Parliament. The whole purpose will be defeated then. Hence, women’s empowerment is only possible if 33 percent of tickets in each party are reserved for women. All major parties including the BJP, Congress and the Left are criticising the SP’s stand. The Left’s opposition is totally political. The BJP and Congress support the Bill but they need to answer a question: till date, why has Parliament not seen a single Muslim MP elected from Orissa, Punjab, Uttaranchal or Madhya Pradesh? With this sort of non-representation of minorities, who will guarantee representation of women from the backward classes? Clearly, it is not possible. The BJP was supporting the Bill but is now demanding a debate. I know several Congress MPs who have, off the record, told me that they too disagree with the Bill. They too demand reservation for Muslims and Dalits. ‘Several Congress MPs have, off the record, told me that they too disagree with the Bill’ Who are these Congress MPs? I can’t name them as Congress is dictatorial. It has a system of firing dissenters. But the first woman Lok Sabha Speaker, Meira Kumar, is also a Dalit. Both Meira Kumar and President Pratibha Patil have been elected to their respective offices on merit. Meira Kumar has risen to that position through her efforts, not through reservation. Congress has a history of not giving tickets to women. They are merely misleading the nation. Will SP’s withdrawal of support to UPA make any difference to the Bill? If nothing else, it will at least expose them. All those in the Congress who are pompously sleeping and eating at Dalit homes must understand that this will not make any difference to their lives. The Dalits and minorities must be given adequate representation for their progress. We were supporting the Congress because we wanted the BJP to stay out of power. We were supporting it for secular values. However, there is no option but to withdraw if it chooses to ignore those values.

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 11, Dated March 20, 2010

BSP to stage demo against Women Reservation Bill on April 14

Source: DNA India

Accusing the Congress of being anti-Dalit, BSP supremo Mayawati today said her party would stage demonstrations against the Women Reservation Bill across the country on April 14.

The Uttar Pradesh chief minister said her party boycotted the passage of the bill in Parliament to register its protest.

“The BSP would stage demonstration at district headquarters across the country on the birth anniversary of Ambedkar on April 14 to protest the bill,” she announced.

Mayawati claimed that even the BSP’s suggestion of a separate quota for backward and poor women from upper caste was not incorporated in the bill.

“Congress people claim themselves to be the biggest sympathisers of women and are praising Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. In reality, whatever rights women have got in the field of education, employment and politics, it is due to Ambedkar,” she said.

The BSP’s silver jubilee celebration also marks the birth anniversary of party founder Kanshiram.

Mayawati’s party, like the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal, opposes Women Reservation Bill in its present form and seeks quota within quota for SC/ST women in it. Mayawati said it was Ambedkar who for the first time provided equal opportunities to women in the Constitution.

“Another evidence of Congress being anti-Dalit came to the fore when the Centre did not announce even a single day national mourning on the death of Kanshiram, who devoted his entire life for the upliftment of SC/ST and downtrodden,” she alleged.

Taking a potshot at the Congress leaders’ visit to Dalit houses, she said it was a “drama”.

“Congress and other party leaders, who had been staging this drama of visiting houses of Dalits and sharing food with them have been exposed,” she alleged.

Mayawati said that casteism prevented SC/STs and backwards to lead a dignified and equitable life in the country. They did not had rights of education, to contest election and lead a dignified life like people of other castes, she said.

“It was due to Ambedkar that SC/STs and backwards got legal rights to lead an equitable life, which was strongly opposed by the Congress and other parties, and which continued till date,” the BSP leader added.

Mayawati said the Women Reservation Bill was an example of anti-Dalit mentality of the Congress and other political parties.

Source: Hindu

It was clear that the Congress, BJP and Left were committed to the Bill

NEW DELHI: After dithering and developing cold feet on Monday, the ruling Congress’ strategy became clear on Tuesday: a vote on the Women’s Reservation Bill at all costs, debate if possible and use marshals to handle the wilful disrupters as a last resort, if necessary.

And this is exactly what yielded the desired result in the Rajya Sabha where the Bill was adopted by a more than two/thirds majority of those present and voting comfortably meeting the requirement of a constitutional amendment.

It was also clear that the three major political groups – the Congress, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Left – were committed to the Bill and certainly did not want to be seen backing out. Among other considerations was the most important factor that any wavering could cost them politically.

A number of meetings and behind-the-scenes confabulations throughout Tuesday ended with a final strategy meeting of the Congress floor managers. Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee earlier conferred with leaders of parties supporting the Bill. The strategy was firmed up after a vote-at-all-costs signal from party president Sonia Gandhi and a go-ahead from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Monday’s insistence on a debate by the BJP and the Left were seen to be part of the plan to ensure that their contribution to the passing of legislation is duly acknowledged. Neither group wanted the Congress to run away with all the credit for this.

The day began with the three Yadav leaders – Mulayam Singh, Lalu Prasad and Sharad – meeting Dr. Singh at his residence. They came out reiterating their known stance. They were not against women’s reservation but wanted the Bill to be amended to include a sub-quota within the overall reservation to ensure representation of backward caste women.

After the House convened, Mr. Mukherjee called a meeting of leaders of the parties supporting the Bill. After this, the Congress floor managers met with Mr. Mukherjee. It seems it was at this meeting and after getting the political green signal from Prime Minister and Ms. Gandhi that the strategy was firmed up, which was later seen in action in the Rajya Sabha.

As Ms. Gandhi later told reporters – for her it was a question of fulfilling Rajiv Gandhi’s dream and with the Left parties and the BJP supporting the move, it could be taken up. She also gave credit to “Indian women” who were able to achieve this “with the help of men.”

Sushma on ‘Sonia’s firmness’

The comments from the main Opposition party were equally gracious. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj said this historic occasion was made possible by “Sonia’s firmness, our commitment and the unswerving support of the Left parties.” She added legislation was a “debt the political system owed to the women of this country” and “there should not be race or competition for political credit” as no party alone could have done it.

Brinda Karat of the CPI(M) was of the view that this would usher in “sensitive” politics and change and break the centuries-old “stereotyping of women.” She was also of the view that representation of backward caste women, Dalit and scheduled tribe women and Muslim women would improve through this legislation.

Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley made it clear that not only was his party in favour of the Bill, it also supported wholeheartedly the idea of rotation of seats for a period of 15 years over three Lok Sabha elections. This with a similar pattern in State Assemblies would mean that in a decade-and-half, every Assembly and parliamentary constituency would have been represented by a woman, creating a whole new army of women political workers and leaders.

Women’s bill will impact caste struggle in India: Experts

Source: Sify

Women’s participation in politics, the historic bill to reserve 33 percent
of seats for them in parliament and the legislatures will impact the
country’s political scenario, the patriarchal system and the caste
struggle in rural India, experts say.

Bibhu Mahapatra, consultant of the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) project on Legal Empowerment, said: ‘The 73rd
constitutional amendment, passed in 1992, gave constitutional
recognition to local self governance and reserved 33 percent seats in
panchayats for women. This encouraged lakhs of women to enter public
life by giving more opportunities to them.’

‘The Women’s Reservation Bill will have a similar impact. It will also
impact the caste struggle. Today, there are questions asked about who
is more marginalised within the Dalit community and that is because
more women are in the forefront in politics,’ Mahapatra told IANS.

The bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha after a lot of furore Tuesday.
The Lok Sabha, which has seen protests on the issue for the last three
days, is expected to pass the bill before it takes a three-week break
beginning March 16.

Said Kamal Mitra Shenoy, a sociologist at the Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU): ‘In the beginning, there may not be much impact on
the caste struggle because the more dominant will field their
candidates into the political arena.’

‘But with time, women will definitely be empowered because of the bill
as it will have its effect on patriarchy and change the gender
dynamics. You won’t just have the wives and daughters of political
leaders being fielded,’ he maintained.

Shenoy said the idea of a quota within quota – that is, reservation
for women from backward classes within the women’s reservation – will
not do any good.

‘There is no reservation for other backward classes (OBCs) in
parliament, yet there is a lot of OBC representation there. So,
reservation within reservation is not really needed,’ he explained.

Mahapatra said the bill will also encourage political parties to
re-invent themselves.

‘It will have a stimulating effect on the political parties. Parties
like the Janata Dal-United (JD-U) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)
have very little women’s representation, but now they will have to
rope in more women,’ he said.

Ranjan Sharma, a Delhi-based sociologist, said: ‘More women would also
mean that there will be a sobering effect on parliament. You will most
probably not have so much hooliganism. Similarly, it will have a
civilising effect on the political parties.’

While Shenoy said the actual effect of the bill will be seen after 15
years, Mahapatra opined: ‘In the next elections, the predictions and
calculations will be different because we will not just take into
account the SC/ST vote banks, but may be also the inclinations of the
women segment.’

Countering the critics

Source:  Indian Express

Subhashini Ali

Posted online: Thursday , Mar 11, 2010 at 0129 hrs
The Women’s Reservation Bill, in its tumultuous life so far of nearly
14 years, has sparked off debates and reactions far beyond its limited
scope to reserve one-third of all seats in the Lok Sabha and state
assemblies for women.
The political parties opposing the Bill have concentrated their fire
on the issue of “reservation within reservation” insisting that only
separate quotas for Dalit, OBC and minority women can ensure the entry
of poor and downtrodden women into Parliament. This argument has been
echoed in Jaithirth Rao’s article (‘Let’s junk the hypocrisy’, IE,
March 9), and finds resonance among many sections of society.

The truth, however, is that while in the present Lok Sabha there are
17 SC/ST women members, the enactment of the bill will ensure that
their number goes up to at least 42. Electoral results of recent years
have seen the numbers of elected OBC members climbing to over 30 per
cent of the total in most state assemblies and the Lok Sabha. The size
of the OBC population and its tremendous political mobilisation
ensures that OBC women candidates are also very successful. For
example, in the UP Vidhan Sabha, of a total of 28 women MLAs, between
eight to ten are OBCs. Once the bill is enacted, OBC women will
probably constitute the largest social bloc among the women MPs.

It is, however, a matter of concern that the numbers of Mulim elected
representatives has dwindled both in state assemblies and in
Parliament. This needs urgent attention and addressal but it is not a
problem that can be addressed or resolved within the parameters of the
Women’s Reservation Bill.

The March 9 issue of The Indian Express also carries an article by
Madhu Purnima Kishwar who objects to the bill on three main counts: 1)
that the provision of rotation of seats in the bill will lead to
uprooting of legislators after every election and will make women
candidates even more dependent on the whims of their male, political
leaders and increase the numbers of the

“biwi-beti” brigade, exemplified by Rabri Devi; 2) biwi-beti brigade
members are bad role-models for Indian women; 3) they actually “block”
the way for other women to develop as leaders as has been done by the
likes of Pramila Dandavate, Ahilya Rangnekar and Brinda Karat who were
all promoted to heading the women’s fronts of their parties by their
husbands who were party leaders.

The principle of rotation of seats has been included in the bill so
that in 15 years, the lifespan of the bill, the reservation enjoys a
horizontal spread across the country and is implemented in every
constituency. Uprooting of elected members is bound to result but
under the existing dispensation, it is certainly not a fact that all
elected representatives devote themselves to development work in their
constituencies or that those who do not are punished by their voters.
Electoral reality is far more complex. Uprooting may, in fact, force
political parties to become more responsive and responsible and
discourage personal fiefdoms

The domination of most political parties (and the Left has universally
been given grudging credit for being an honourable exception) one or
more by political families is certainly a development which is
undemocratic. It is astonishing, however, that Kishwar singles out the
dangers of the “biwi-beti” brigade, symbolised by Rabri Devi, and
bemoans the danger of assemblies and Parliament being invaded by this
brigade, but completely ignores the anointing of a long and unending
list of “sons” that includes Farooq Abdullah, Rajiv Gandhi, Ajit Singh
et al. Kishwar alleges that the foisting of the biwi-beti brigade is
done to safeguard family interests but the promotion of the sons has
been done for precisely the same reason. Clearly, the serious malaise
of political nepotism cannot be remedied by the scrapping of the
women’s bill.

Kishwar goes on to blame “biwi-betification” for the problems that
women have in gaining admission to and promotion within party
structures by saying that wives of political leaders, who have been
made leaders of women’s fronts of these parties are responsible for
the road blocks faced by other women and cites Pramila Dandavate,
Ahilya Rangnekar and Brinda Karat as examples. Pramila and Ahilya came
to politics through their militant participation in the freedom
struggle as young students. They later married political colleagues
but continued to be leaders of struggles for gender equality, for
Samyukta Maharashtra and for a host of other causes. To suggest that
either of them owed their positions as leaders of struggles and
movements, their elections to Parliament or their positions in
organisations and parties to their husbands is the most unforgivable
and unwarranted slur on their amazing achievements and to their
commitment to travel down a very hard and stony path. Neither of them
is with us today but that does not mean that such unnecessary and
uncalled-for slander will go unchallenged. Brinda Karat has been an
activist from her student days long before her marriage. She started
working in the All India Democratic Womens Association from its
inception, first as a district-level functionary and then, after five
years of hard work, became its general secretary. It was while she
occupied that post that she initiated a constitutional amendment that
has made it mandatory for the key office-bearers at district, state
and national levels to vacate their offices at the end of three terms.
This has ensured that women activists can develop as leaders and
occupy important posts without impediment.

The difficulties that women face in entering and advancing in the
decision-making bodies of political parties are tremendous and they
are being fought at all levels by indomitable women. Making false
accusations against those who are in no way responsible for this state
of affairs does nothing to help them in their struggle. Kishwar began
her article saying that any legislation that claims to favour women
sails easily through Parliament. This statement trivialises the
difficult, bitter and long drawn-out struggles that have had to be
waged for even the piecemeal passage of the Hindu Code Bill and the
partial passage of the Women’s Reservation Bill. The path to gender
justice is an arduous one, marked by these and other significant
victories achieved through movements and collective action outside and
within Parliament.
The writer is president, All India Democratic Women’s Association and
member of the CPM central committee

Lalu firm on opposing Women’s Reservation Bill

Source:  PTI News

STAFF WRITER 16:49 HRS IST
Patna, Mar 7 (PTI) Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) will oppose the Women’s
Reservation Bill “tooth and nail and are even prepared to be
marshalled out,” its president Lalu Prasad said today.

Dubbing the bill as a “political blunder”, Prasad alleged that it was
a conspiracy hatched by both BJP and Congress parties to suppress
representation of women belonging to the OBC, ST/SC and Muslim
communities.

The Centre does not have guts to implement the Ranganath Mishra
Commission and Sachar panel reports, and hence passing of the Women’s
Reservation Bill was merely a “diversionary tactic”, he told reporters
here before leaving for New Delhi to garner support against the bill
in its present form.

“I am for 50 per cent reservation for women belonging to all
communities.

.. But you cannot ignore the the interests of women from
deprived sections of the society.

BSP won’t support in present form, seeks quotas

Source: Indian Express

Express News Service Posted online: Monday , Mar 08, 2010 at 0231 hrs
Lucknow : THE BSP on Sunday said it would not support the Women’s
Reservation Bill if it was tabled in the House in its present format.
“The floor management of the BSP would be definitely there in the
House. We will take a decision after tabling of the Bill,” said BSP’s
national general secretary and Rajya Sabha member Satish Chandra
Mishra, clarifying that his party wanted “separate quota without
disturbing the original quota for the SC/ST”.

This came even as UP Chief Minister Mayawati sent a letter to Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh, demanding separate quotas for Dalit,
religious minorities, backwards and the poor from the upper castes in
the Bill. In addition, the existing reservation for Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes in Parliament and Assemblies must not be
disturbed, she added.

In her letter, the BSP supremo said she was in favour of giving
reservation for women for their full participation in politics, but

the proposed 33 per cent quota within the existing reservation for the
SC/ST was wrong.

“Besides protecting the existing quota, my party demands separate
reservation for women of the SC/ST communities within the proposed 33
per cent reservation for the women,” wrote Maya, who was earlier
believed to be averse to be siding with the SP which is opposing the
Bill.

Maintaining it was necessary to reserve seats for women of backward
communities, religious minorities and the poor from the upper castes,
she requested the PM to ensure the presentation of an amended Bill in
Parliament.

Brinda reels off statistics to show OBC women not disadvantaged

Source: Economic Times

10 Mar 2010, 0325 hrs IST, ET Bureau

Topics:BJP Brinda Karat Left parties Women Reservation Bill
NEW DELHI: If the UPA government managed to pass the Women’s
Reservation Bill in the Rajya Sabha, it was thanks to the BJP and Left
parties. EUPHORIC: Brinda Karat & Sushma Swaraj celebrate. (PTI)
Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley, while
initiating the discussion on the legislation, extended his party’s
full backing to the move. “The myth is that reservations create a
privileged society. The truth is that nature created all of us as
equals, the Constitution also provided equality. However, aberrations
in the society translated some equals into unequals,” he said.

“Reservation, therefore, is an affirmative action which is intended to
wash away the reality of inequality and translate it into a vision of
equality. Those who have been made unequal will today become equal
participants in decision-making. Reservation quotas for women,
therefore, become an essential instrument to jump-start the process of
equality,” Mr Jaitley said while making out a strong case for
empowering women.

He trashed anti-rotation murmurs and the ‘quota-within-quota’ demand
put forward by social justice parties. “Rotation is the most suitable
principle for sex-based reservation. It will ensure that in the 15
years, the life of this amendment, each constituency in the country
sends, at least once, a woman representative to Parliament. This will
increase the horizontal spread of activism,” he argued.

Citing the Constitution, Mr Jaitley said it provides for caste-based
reservations only for SCs and STs, and not for OBCs and minorities as
demanded by the critics of the bill. “When there is no reservation for
other communities, there is no reason why there must be quotas for
women belonging to these communities.”

Additionally, most candidates selected by political parties will
mirror the social character of the constituencies.”

Jayanthi Natarajan, while participating in the discussion on behalf of
the Congress, thanked Congress president Sonia Gandhi, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh and the UPA for getting the bill passed in the Rajya
Sabha. “No other party or government had the guts to take it forward
and ensure that it became a reality,” she said.

Ms Natarajan’s claim was contested later by CPM member Brinda Karat,
who frowned on attempts by the Congress to appropriate sole credit for
the bill. “Please don’t forget the contributions made by women’s
organisations and groups over the years. They were also responsible
for getting the move on track,” she said, and hoped that the prime
minister would give due credit to them in his reply to the debate.

The CPM leader also rejected the demand for setting aside seats for
OBCs and minorities within the 33% quota. “It’s not just for one
class,” Ms Karat asserted, and cited statistics on female
representation from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh assemblies. “They show
that it’s not a disadvantage to be an OBC woman. In Bihar, out of the
243 seats, 24 were represented in the Assembly by women. And within
this category, 70.8% of the seats were bagged by OBCs, SCs and
minorities. In UP, the figure was an impressive 65%,” she argued.

BSP leader Satish Chandra Mishra opposed the bill in its present form,
and said that the reservation quota for women should be fixed in
direct proportion to their population (50%). He also advocated
amending the bill to set aside separate seats for SC/ST women, and not
slicing it from the main quota.

Quota within a quota is fallacious logic

Source: Economic Times

12 Mar 2010, 0734 hrs IST,

When a critical mass of 182 women enter Parliament and occupy one
third seats in state assemblies, it will include women from all
castes, Syeda Hameed
Member, Planning Commission
communities and classes. It will no longer be possible to sideline
Muslim women or, for that matter OBC women. The reasons are clear. The
reserved seats will be selected in some manner, such as drawing of
lots or hammering out a consensus . These seats will be rotated every
five years so that at the end of 15 years (or three elections) a woman
would have represented every single constituency in the country. The
men will have to give up their constituencies in favour of women, just
as they did with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendment.

It is quite likely (judging from the panchayat experience) that men
will field women from their families in order to ‘retain their seat.’
This ‘advancement of family women’ at the expense of the cause is
repugnant to all right-thinking people because the objective of
women’s reservation is different. It is to get capable, strong,
articulate and right thinking women into Parliament, so that the
selection of issues, standard of functioning and calibre of debate can
improve. But the reality is that today, men, even those seven men who
created the ugly scenes in Rajya Sabha on March 8 and shamed the
nation, will be thinking about women in their circle in case their
constituency becomes reserved in the next election. They will include
Muslims, OBCs and Dalits.

Reservation within reservation is a fallacious argument. Groups
supporting this have deliberately closed their eyes to reality. No one
is asking the question that if empowerment of Muslim women was such a
burning issue for those who today are shouting from the rooftops about
‘Muslim sisters’ why didn’t their political parties field them in the
first place? And if they did field a few, why give them constituencies
where they were sure to lose? Our responsibility is to begin preparing
lists of women across the country, Muslims, OBCs and others to ensure
that the dignity of Parliament is safe in the hands of women and men
of substance and dignity.