From torn Bills, ‘parkati mahila’ jibe to 454 ayes: The long, turbulent road to women’s reservation
Early resistance and quota-within-quota demands gave way to eventual cross-party backing, with the Bill’s passage reflecting how the political landscape has transformed.
With women emerging as a decisive electoral constituency, parties across the spectrum recalibrated their positions. (Express Photo) The government is set to introduce three Bills dealing with delimitation in Parliament on Thursday, paving the way for early implementation of the women’s reservation law. The legislation, officially titled the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, was passed in 2023 with near-unanimous support across parties. Its political and legislative journey, however, has been marked by decades of contestation, ideological shifts, and sharp parliamentary confrontations.
Beginning with the Constituent Assembly debates, where several women members themselves opposed quotas by arguing that women in a free India would secure representation on merit, the idea of reserving one-third of seats in Parliament and state legislatures faced early scepticism. Over time, that optimism gave way to recognition that structural barriers persisted and that the “level playing field” promised by the Constitution was actually a steep climb in practice.
It took over four decades for this shift in political thinking to crystallise. By the mid-1990s, sustained socio-political mobilisation led the H D Deve Gowda government to introduce the Constitution (81st Amendment) Bill in 1996, seeking to reserve 33% seats for women. While the proposal drew support from the Congress, Left parties, and several regional formations in the South, it encountered resistance from social justice parties and sections within the BJP who raised concerns about the representation of backward classes within the proposed quota.
Uma Bharti, then a BJP MP, articulated one such concern in Parliament: “My demand is that there should be reservation for backward-caste women also, as in the Panchayati Raj system… women from the backward castes suffer the most.” This demand for a “quota within quota” would go on to define the political contestation around the Bill.
The tumultuous 1990s
The late 1990s saw the debate sharpen, often spilling into disruption inside Parliament.
During a 1997 Lok Sabha debate, Janata Dal MP Sharad Yadav’s controversial remark — “Kaun mahila hai, kaun nahin hai, keval parkati mahila bhar nahin rahne denge (Who is a woman, who is not, only short-haired women won’t be allowed)” — was widely criticised as sexist, but it also reflected the anxiety within these parties about the social profile of women who would benefit from reservation.
RJD chief Lalu Prasad sharpened the critique, arguing in the House that “social justice and the minorities are being throttled” through the Bill. Nitish Kumar, then part of the Samata Party, pointed to the skew in representation: “Today, out of the 39 women members, only four belong to OBCs … The population of women is 50% and OBCs are 60%, but is anyone speaking for the OBC women?”
The legislative process itself became a flashpoint. When the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government reintroduced the Bill in 1998, it led to unprecedented scenes, with members snatching and tearing copies of the legislation inside the House. The intensity of opposition was matched by sharp political messaging outside. AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa remarked that men were “only paying lip service to the bill but in the depth of their hearts wanted to stall the bill”.
At the same time, Congress extended unequivocal support. Sonia Gandhi described the legislation as Rajiv Gandhi’s “dream” and said the party would back it “without any change”, a position echoed by leaders such as Trinamool Congress (TMC) chairperson Mamata Banerjee, who had broken away from the party.
Despite repeated attempts, the Bill lapsed with the fall of the Vajpayee government in 1999 and failed to advance in subsequent efforts that year.
The 2008–2010 phase
A fresh push came under the UPA government, which introduced the Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill in 2008. The core faultlines remained intact, with social justice parties reiterating the demand for internal reservation.
Sharad Yadav, speaking in 2009, framed the opposition in ideological terms: “We may not have the numbers, but I want to say like Socrates who died consuming poison fighting for principles, I am also willing to die fighting for principles.”
Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Mulayam Singh Yadav struck a cautionary note on political consequences, saying in Parliament. “The Bill is dangerous for the leadership of Lok Sabha… It is a conspiracy… It would finish the leadership,” he said, arguing that established leaders had reached their positions through “hard struggles”.
At the same time, alternative approaches were suggested. Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) chief Ram Vilas Paswan argued that expanding the number of seats could be a way forward. “The best way is to increase one third of seats for women… the process of delimitation can take place as it happens in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,” he said.
Lalu Prasad continued to press the inclusion argument, saying: “I am not against the Bill. But Muslim women, poor women, backward women… must be brought to Parliament.” He even warned that he would have to be physically removed for the Bill to pass without such provisions.
The debate was also marked by remarks that were criticised for their tone. In March 2010 in Lucknow, Mulayam Singh Yadav said: “What can I say about the kind of women who will enter Parliament… The wives and daughters of officers and businessmen, who invite whistles from boys.” He later argued that rural women would be left out because “only girls and women from the affluent class can go forward …as rural women are not that attractive”.
Notably, by 2010, Nitish Kumar, then the Bihar CM, had come around and announced support for the Bill that was passed by the Upper House. Not without incident, though. On March 9, 2010, seven MPs (from RJD, SP, LJP and others) were physically marshalled out of the House after they tried to attack the Chairman’s podium and tore the Bill again.
However, it never reached the Lok Sabha and lapsed once again.
The 2023 shift
By 2023, the political landscape had shifted significantly. With women emerging as a decisive electoral constituency, parties across the spectrum recalibrated their positions. While the demand for a “quota within quota” persisted, outright opposition to the Bill largely disappeared.
In Parliament, the Congress backed the legislation but underscored pending concerns. Sonia Gandhi said, “It is our Bill. Rajiv Gandhi’s dream is only half-fulfilled… I support the bill but demand it be implemented immediately with an OBC sub-quota.” Rahul Gandhi echoed this, arguing: “Of the 90 secretaries of the Government of India, only three are from the OBC community. This bill is incomplete without an OBC quota.”
Leaders of social justice parties maintained their long-standing position. RJD MP Manoj Jha said, “Without a ‘quota within quota’ provision, no such initiative will be meaningful,” while JD(U)’s Lalan Singh called the timing into question: “This is the biggest jumla of 2023. If your intention was clear, you would have done it in 2021.”
Regional parties combined support with a critique. DMK MP Kanimozhi said, “Stop saluting us… We want to be respected as equals and walk as equals.” She framed the issue as one of substantive equality rather than symbolic recognition. The BJD’s Pinaki Misra termed it a “progressive bill” but questioned “the intention behind the delay” due to its linkage with the Census and delimitation.
Others chose to support the legislation despite reservations. BSP chief Mayawati said her party would back the Bill “even if our demands are not met”, while LJP (Ram Vilas) leader Chirag Paswan described it as “a historic step” but reiterated the need for OBC reservation within the quota. TDP MP Jayadev Galla called it “a historic and momentous day for Indian democracy”.
The Bill ultimately passed with 454 votes in favour and only two against (AIMIM) in the Lok Sabha, marking a rare moment of political convergence.
Share
