March 9, 2010 was probably a historic day for the Indian Parliament as there was co-operation witnessed as never before. The women’s reservation bill was passed by the upper house unanimously; almost unanimously to be precise, as there was one sensible parliamentarian perhaps who used her/his grey cells and voted against the bill. A lot of hoopla has been surrounding this supposedly landmark bill which aims to empower women in
To begin with, the mere fact that a mandatory number of seats in the lower house of the parliament have to be allocated to women belies the definition of equality. Equal opportunity advocates that all deserving candidates be judged on merit; worthiness based on qualification, experience and suitability for the job at hand. Gender has no contribution to the worth of a contender. In the current day and age in fact gender based selection is actually considered discrimination – just as advised by Indian laws pertaining to gender determination of a foetus, right to education of children etc.
There is an argument put forward by the proponents that the reservation stipulation will encourage participation of women in the law making process of the country. Consider a situation wherein the number of women contesting elections is equal (or alternatively lower than) to the number of reserved seats. All female candidates will either automatically get elected irrespective of their abilities or dummy candidates will be installed to gain “supporters” in the corridors of lawmaking. Lack of competition is never good for a democracy and more harm will be done than good with an unaware / puppet woman candidate being allowed to grace the halls of the parliament as opposed to a well meaning and able man. If we really want to encourage participation of women in politics, we need to have equal opportunity recruitment/representation at the party level. No discrimination during enlistment of party members and a minimum number of women must be given the right to contest election. With equal opportunity being granted at the bottom of the pyramid there is right encouragement. Creating an avenue at the top only increases the probability of misuse.
| Country | % of elected women | Quota in Parliament | Quota at Party level |
| | 47 (2006) | No | Yes |
| | 40 (2007) | Yes | Yes |
| | 36 (2005) | No | Yes |
| | 24 (2006) | No | Yes |
| | 21 (2008) | Yes | No |
| | 20 (2005) | No | Yes |
| France | 18 (2007) | No | Yes |
| USA | 17 (2006) | No | No |
| Sri Lanka | 6 (2004) | No | No |
Table 1: Political Representation of Women across the Globe
Source: PRS Legislative
An average of the statistics from the above data indicates that in cases where there is reservation at the party level only women have an average representation of almost 30%, whereas in countries where there is parliament level reservation only the representation is only about 20%. Currently Indian parliament has c. 11% women representation
The new law provides this enabling handicap to women for a period of 15 years, after which there will be a considered renewal of lapsing of the law. If instead, the 15 years were to be focused on creating equal employment opportunities for women, incentivising experienced women such as IPS and IAS officers to move into the parliament (for example only) and providing safe and dignified environment for women to operate in, the results will be sustainable and generate a meritorious playing field. In fact, in my view, if we really want to empower and encourage women then the Indian laws need to demonstrate that any infringement on the respect and safety of women will be met with severe consequences. No individual can sustain efficiency and productivity in an atmosphere devoid of dignity and security.
There are other provisions of the bill which are quite confusing. Firstly the reservation is only for Lok Sabha (the lower house) and not the Rajya Sabha (the upper house). How is their equal representation with one house having the mandatory representation and the other being left out? Secondly, the bill proposes that the constituencies that will be reserved for women candidates will be rotated within the states / union territories. What if the deserving candidate belongs to a non-reserved constituency? She now has other women candidates having an unfair advantage over her candidature! What is the incentive for a candidate to work for the welfare of the constituency if in the next election the playing field will not be markedly different? Thirdly, in case there is a state/union territory with a single representation in the lower house then that seat is to be reserved for a woman in the first election in a three year election cycle. What happens in the other two elections to deserving candidates who are overshadowed by male competitors by unfair means? Or what happens in case the government is dissolved prior to the next scheduled elections and women lose their opportunity to make a difference in a longer staying and more stable government? In my view, to be more effective, 15 years should be devoted to decriminalization of politics, reduce the apparent monarchy in Indian politics, counter influence of black money and introduce electoral reforms that the country is in dire need of.
There are a number of flaws in this new “landmark” law. Once again, we are attempting to do patchwork and cover the inefficiency of the system rather than adopting a more sustainable and painstaking bottom-up approach. Unfortunately this quick fix reform provides another divisive tool to a society which inherently has many to deal with already! The reservation in many ways is reversal of attempts to create a non-discriminating society.
No comments:
Post a Comment