The controversial women’s reservation bill now awaiting passage in the Lower House of the Indian parliament has predictably raised some fundamental questions. The main being should any particular gender be more privileged than others in a state that calls itself a democratic country giving each and every citizen equal rights? There are arguments that the 33 percent reservation for women in the Indian national and state assemblies is an infringement of the equal rights guaranteed by the constitution by making a particular gender more equal than others. (The remaining 66.6 percent is open to both men and women.)

There are prominent Indian thinkers and public figures who are for and against the bill, not so much against giving women more opportunities, but on the very principle of reservation. A prominent Bengali actor who also attained international fame was quoted by an Indian TV channel as saying that she was "very happy" at the passage of the bill in the Upper House of the Indian parliament. But she said she was against the concept of reservation per se; and if reservation is done, it should be for a specified period of time by which time the group for whom reservation has been done can reasonably attain parity with others. There are also arguments that reservation also takes away the right of the voters to vote for the candidate of their choice who may happen not to belong to the reservation bracket.

The women’s reservation bill, though touted as having been steered through the Upper House of the Indian Parliament by the present Manmohan Singh government, was first moved by the Deve Gowda government in 1996, and then by the Atal Behari Vajpayee government in 1998. Both governments fell before the bill could pass through the parliament processes. The Manmohan Singh government had the tact to introduce the bill in the Upper House in 2008 so that the bill would not lapse as it would have been when the Lower House was dissolved in the latter half of 2008 for the 2009 parliamentary elections.

Many in India who oppose the bill do so not because they are against empowering women, but because they say it is against the basic concept of reservation. There is reservation in various categories in India ranging from educational institutions to the Indian parliament. For whatever reasons reservation has been resorted to, such reservation constricts the field of choice from educational institutions to local governments to the Indian parliament. Despite these objections, there seems to be huge support for the women’s reservation bill in India as evidenced by the throngs of women taking to the streets in celebration of the event, an event that has just passed one of two important processes. With opinions divided among different political parties, passage in the Lower House of parliament may not be easy, but it is likely to muster enough votes to get through.

The Indian Women’s Reservation Bill may be seen as an important step in the empowerment of Indian women. According to reports, each of the Indian parliamentary constituencies will be able to send (or will have to, whether the voters like it or not) a woman representative after every three parliamentary elections. This is in addition to the other open seats where men and women can contest on equal terms. This would mean that the Indian parliament after the passage of the women’s reservation bill will have more than one-third women members in the Lower House.

The question of reservation also has some significance to this country. As we prepare to write a constitution (albeit an abridged one which the parties, depending on their strength in the house, can fill in the blanks according to their ideology), there is bound to be a clamour for reservation. Like most under-developed and developing countries, the plight of women in our country is none too happy. But the question is not merely that of gender-based reservation. There are a large number groups and/or communities who are considered or consider themselves to be backward. Reservation for transsexuals, gays, lesbians, the physically handicapped and minority ethnic groups, not to speak of religious minorities, is likely to be demanded by the concerned groups backed by national and international pressure groups. (Such kind of backing is almost like a command for our government.)

It is easy to blow with the wind, but due and deep analysis by non-partisan constitutional experts, sociologists and political thinkers should go in before political parties take firm decisions on the matter. It is open to discussion as to how much the Indian parliament, should the women’s reservation bill become a constitutional amendment, reflects the interests of the women and to what extent women parliamentarians will follow the party line and whip even when the issues are against the interests of women. It is more than almost all the women representatives in parliament being elected on a party ticket and not on the basis of their gender, which is likely to be used merely as a ploy to get one’s party elected on a reserved seat. It will be worthwhile to see how women elected on the basis of gender perform when their party’s line is different from those that relate to women.

Whatever arrangements are made for women in the present Interim Constitution, the more permanent constitution that hopefully will come out in time should take all the factors into consideration and not flow with the current when it comes to the question of reservation, if any. This is important as such provisions of reservation will not only be for the national assembly but also for the assemblies of the federating units. The suggestions for the federating units being named after ethnic groups seem more than likely to carry the day (no political party including the Maoists seem to have the necessary guts now at this late stage to truly oppose ethnic-based units). Some of the proposed federating units that have been named after one ethnic group or the other do not seem to have a majority of the population (or voters) of that particular group. What happens in a unit named after an ethnic group that finds it difficult to send a reasonably strong representation to the assembly? Should reservation be provided for the ethnic group after which the unit is named? If so, are some people more equal in a democracy than others just based on their ethnic origin?

These are some foods for thought provided by the Indian Women’s Reservation Bill and the very principle of reservation for one group or the other in a democratic country. Is reservation a progressive or a regressive step? Or is it merely a step for political expediency? Also relevant is the question of political parties, rather than the state itself, taking steps to provide equal opportunities to all including men and women to compete freely without constrictions in a democracy. Which political party in any of the South Asian countries including Nepal has given women equal representation in their party’s decision making mechanism or given equal number of election tickets to men and women?

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.