If she is competent, why reservation?

Historically, man has specialised in bread winning and politics and woman in homemaking. On the average this division of labour has worked. But there are exceptions. In, say five. percent, families the woman is more adept at bread winning than the man and vice versa. There is nothing wrong in it. In such exceptionalfamilies the woman may happily work and man may do parenting.

The problem is what is to be the social norm. Let us say the woman is like the dim light of the car and man the head light. In certain cases the dim light gives better vision farther away and the head light nearer. Nothing wrong once the driver understands this peculiarity. The problem is what training do we impart to the driver? If we train him to expect the dim light on the right side of the car then for 95 percent cars it is okay, but it fails for 5 percent. If we train him to expect the dim light on the left then the 5 percent fail. And here lies the problem. The training system is not so versatile to adapt to this interchange between the focus of the right and left lights or the roles of man and woman.

The society, in order to secure the good of the largest numbers, laid down the norm that the woman do the homemaking despite, in certain cases, she being better than the man in bread winning. Naturally, such a woman rebels and her rebellionis fully justified. But it is important to note that this problem arises due to the exceptional ability balance in such a family. It is not the average circumstance.

It is these handful of women, fully justified as they are in their own lives to claim equality8217; and even more, who are demanding equality8217; for all the women. The average woman does not want equality. She is quite happy in giving the head light8217; to her man, not because she is backward8217;, but because she recognises that her specialisation is more suited to that of the dim light8217;. This is what explains the defeat of Bansi Lal. The women acknowledged the leadership of their ordinary8217; men rather than their exceptional8217; women leaders.

When the exceptional woman argues that she should be given the opportunity of leadership, she is quite right. But when she argues that she is speaking for all women, she is patently wrong. Interested in seeking leadership8217;, and capable of doing so, she claims for herself the role of woman8217;s messiah. She becomesthe self-appointed representative of the oppressed8217; women, who in reality are not oppressed at all and are happily enjoying their security of marriage and home.

When we talk of reservation for women, the basic hype is that women are capable of leadership and they have been denied opportunities. Yes and no. Yes in so far as a handful of exceptional women are concerned. No, for the average woman in India, or anywhere else.

And, if the exceptional women do indeed have a better capacity of breadwinning and politics, then they should lead the whole society rather than women alone. In that case they do not need any reservations. If they are competent, why reservation? And, if not, then why demand power? Perhaps we must hold a referendum. Let only the women voters decide whether they accept women as their leaders. If they demand reservations, then we must indeed go ahead with it. It would be undemocratic to give reservations for women without asking 95 percent women of this country. It is unfair to let theseself-appointed messiahs to hijack the rights of 95 percent women.