Women's Reservation Bill:
EVEN BEFORE the Monsoon Session of the Parliament could begin, the BJP as well as the Lok Sabha Speaker Manohar Joshi began harping on the ‘consensus’ tune regarding the Women’s Bill. We still don’t know what the arithmetic was, but between 16 June and 16 July some formula seems to have been conjured up. Though Manohar Joshi, the Shiv Sainik, didn’t think it wise to open the Pandora’s box at this stage, he did hint at a ‘near consensus’ on the proposal of ‘double-member’ constituencies. What one can understand is that the number of seats in the Parliament would be increased by 1/3 the present members and these seats would have two Members of Parliament each representing the constituencies. This formula seems to have emanated from an out and out feudal and patriarchal mindset that is bent upon relegating women to the position of mere ‘extras’ or ‘appendages’ at the most. This provision will reduce the percentage of women MPs (or MLAs) to 1/5 of the total strength of the house, i.e., to 20% instead of 33%. Strangely, this number matches that proposed by Mulayam Singh Yadav! No wonder Manohar Joshi is so enamored by this magic number. But to top it all, one of the women leaders of JD went to the extent of saying that it would be worthwhile to ask Mulayamji to propose 20% reservation for women.
While it is still not clear how exactly two parliamentarians from the same constituency would go about their jobs, which of them would actually represent the people, how efficiently they would be able to discharge their duties if they happened to belong to rival parties, how would the Govt. would meet the extra load on its exchequer, etc… one thing is definitely clear – that this would go against basic democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. For while a voter of this constituency would be entitled to two votes, one belonging to a normal constituency would have a single vote. One may argue that such double member seats would be rotated, but in a particular election year this anomaly would still exist. So much for consensus politics, but let us closely examine the game of the BJP. One thing that seems amply clear is that the BJP is in a terrible mess this time. And, no matter how much it tries to rake up the mandir issue or the other prime issues of its ‘real agenda’, people won’t be taken for a ride. It is quite likely that the added 1/3 seats with dual members will prove to be a boon in disguise for the BJP. The number of prospective candidates for the union cabinet may increase in proportion, which will certainly give a boost (much needed at this juncture) to BJP’s coalition politics, since, anyway most of its alliance partners are more worried about cabinet berths and portfolios than people’s issues. It would also be interesting to see how the dual member seats would be distributed all over the country. In any case, the reserved seats would have to be rotated every 5 years (of course without dislodging their male counterparts this time!). What happens to the oft-peddled arguments about the lack of accountability of MPs towards constituencies that they know will be rotated? Mulayam Singh Yadav spoke feelingly to the press about the real reason for his opposition to the Bill – not deep concern for OBC women, but concern for how the Bill would disrupt the relationship of the MP for his constituency, which he compared to a man’s relation to his lover! Presumably women are not supposed to have such attachment for their constituencies! Or is it that constituencies reserved for women are less important than general ones? Double standards and patriarchal highhandedness at its best!
There are many who ask – what is the sanctity of this magic number 33? Going back to history, an American feminist studied gender based differences in women’s participation in business in the 70s. She came to concentrate on minority behavior in task oriented groups and tried to gauge the level of participation necessary for minority members to be able to function effectively. At the percentage of 30-33 the groups were able to influence decision making by pressing for their own interests as a group. At levels below 30% effectiveness requires the minority members to act and behave like the majority (forgetting their own interests). In the 80s Drude Dahlerup, a Danish feminist and political scientist, through her researches, came to the conclusion that this could apply to politics as well. This was widely accepted and also figured in the UN international conferences and also in the Beijing Conference of 1995. The UN Division for Advancement for Women (DAW) has, since then been talking of women’s participation in terms of ‘critical mass’ (critical mass is the quantity of plutonium required to cause a nuclear explosion) in all discussions regarding effective participation of women at all levels of decision making.
Anyway, whether the Bill is finally passed or not is a totally different question. But the drama that has gone on within the highest institution of democracy in our country leaves a lot to be desired. Far from guaranteeing the democratic rights of women, the government has, time and again, only humiliated them through a farce being enacted in the Parliament by all except the Left. And mind you, this is the one and only issue that has made the ruling party so very sensitive to every squirm and snigger of the Opposition. (We cannot forget that a joint session of the two houses had to be called to pass POTA). On the whole the debate on the Women’s Bill has certainly made Indian women more conscious of their political rights and the need to fight patriarchy. Definitely, women do not want to have a few more seats in Parliament as a favour granted by the male MPs, which seems to the emerging spirit today. Women would much rather have to keep fighting on, than accept the distorted and diluted version of the Women’s Reservation bill as a panacea for all their problems (which, in any case, it is not). Women will keep up their struggle for an equal and just share in political power.
-- Kumudini Pati