Caught in a quota

On paper, with the support of the BJP, Congress and the Left, the Bill should have had an easy passage. But there is a wide chasm between many a party8217;s publicly stated position and its unstated actual intent.

A visit to Parliament on the day the Bill was to be taken up showed how male MPs bonded on the issue. MPs supposedly in opposing camps were huddled together amiably discussing strategy. A BJP minister8217;s remark that 8220;only three people are in favour of the Bill, Vajpayee, Sonia and Somnath Chatterjee8221; was greeted by loud guffaws from Congress MPs.

Opposition MPs were heard exhorting members of the government, 8220;You please save us.8221; An RJD MP reposed confidence in Speaker Manohar Joshi whose party is opposed to the Bill.

In contrast, the handful of women MPs one saw seemed listless and divided. There was little evidence of any bonding. A Congress MP felt there was no point discussing strategy with her female counterparts in the BJP since she was suspicious of their motive which was simply to grab the credit for good intentions and blame other parties for not cooperating.

Shabana Azmi had obviously come to the conclusion that there was more sense in expounding her views on TV rather than wasting her breath trying to convince her male colleagues. An AIADMK MP was more concerned about the alleged insult to Jayalalithaa by Environment Minister T.R. Baalu. The only thing women MPs seemed agreed on was they had been let down badly by male MPs.

This laidback attitude of relying entirely on the good sense of the men to get their due is itself flawed. Most movements for women8217;s empowerment have come about thanks to years of struggle by the women themselves. The suffragettes in Europe and America in the early 20th century underwent all sorts of tribulations.

In India, however, men, not women, have been the pioneers in the fight for women8217;s rights. Prior to Independence, it was men like Ishwar Chand Vidyasagar, Mahatma Phule or Mahadeo Govind Ranade, who fought for social reforms for women. The predominantly male Constituent Assembly did not hesitate to give women equal rights in the new Republic. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi ushered in the law to grant 33 per cent reservation for women in local bodies. The Women8217;s Bill, which promises 33 per cent reservation for women in Parliament and state legislatures, was first promised by Prime Minster H.D. Deve Gowda in 1996.

His successor I.K. Gujral, conscious of his image among the liberal elite, gave the Bill shape. But Gujral, seeing a revolt brewing in his own Janata Dal led by Sharad Yadav, who lashed out against armchair politicians with impractical schemes and 8220;parkatis8221; women with cropped hair, retreated. Prime Minister Vajpayee with his benevolent father figure image was the obvious choice for steering the Bill through.

Some might view the bill as not so much about affirmative action as a device for out-of-turn, undeserved benefits to women with powerful connections. Years back, when I first came to Delhi from a more emancipated western India, I was dumbfounded by the concept of 8220;ladies8217; queues8221; at railway stations or cinema halls and 8220;ladies8221; seat on buses. The rationale behind the 8220;ladies only8221; formula is that women need special protection.

It is a spin-off from the zananna mardanna social divide of north India which is still observed in many social gatherings in Delhi. It is a moot point whether this 8220;separate but equal8221; concept is a progressive step.

Whoever framed the Bill 8212; clearly advised by enthusiastic feminists who saw a window of opportunity for themselves and did not believe in half measures 8212;should have realised the impracticality of advocating a system whereby 180 male MPs automatically stand to lose their seats. And since the draft Bill calls for the constituencies reserved for women to be rotated, it would mean that a male MP cannot represent the same constituency for more than two consecutive terms. This strikes at the heart of parliamentary democracy where voters can reward or punish their representatives on the basis of the work done for the constituents. Once legislators become rootless they will no longer be so deeply involved in serving their constituencies.

Non-dalit male MPs would be entitled to contest from less than 50 per cent of seats in Parliament and the assemblies, the rest being grabbed by women, SCs and STs. Many male MPs justifiably question why they should make a sacrifice for the benefit of women who could well be more advantaged than them socially, educationally and financially.

Even in the current Parliament, which has under 10 per cent representation of women, probably the majority 8212; which includes Sonia Gandhi, Vasundhara Raje Scindia, Shabana Azmi, Shyama Sinha, Ambica Soni, Ratna Singh, Renuka Chowdhary et al 8212;have gained a smooth and easy entry into politics thanks to their connections. Only a few are in the Mayawati, Jayalalithaa, Mamata Banerjee and Uma Bharati mould who have had to fight their way up every step of the political ladder.

When Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Prasad Yadav argue that the Bill is elitist unless there is a sub-quota giving adequate representation to minorities, OBCs and other deprived sections, they have a point.

Perhaps the lesson to be learnt from the latest charade enacted in the Lok Sabha is that the Bill in its present form is never going to be passed. Even the formerly enthusiastic Swaraj seems to

have thrown up her hands. Any new Bill for women8217;s reservation will surely have to adopt a more realistic and pragmatic approach. Instead of pitting men against women, the aim should be to ensure gender equality in its true sense and not in unrealistic tokenism.