‘History in the making’ is how most have described the passage of the Women’s Quota Bill in the Rajya Sabha. The bill no doubt is a legislative landmark and will have definitive impact on the Constitution of the Lok Sabha and possibly influence some of its decisions too. But the chivalrous euphoria of the ‘aye’sters and the unprecedented rowdiyism resorted to by the ‘nay’-sayers have only joined hands to kill a great debate that needs to be held and heard beyond the circular confines of the rulers’ citadel.
A history of sorts was indeed created when the Left, Right and Centre of the Indian political theatre displayed a rare solidarity. But look beyond their liberal facades and the real faces emerge. The Congress, BJP and Communists between them share the bulk of votes and seats. Clearly, if there are less woman MPs in Parli it is solely because these champions have not been fielding enough women candidates, not at least from the winnable constituencies. If their concern for women’s representation is unreserved, should that not begin at home first? Will not such a ‘source-correction’ obviate the need for a statutory reservation?
Again, Mulayam, Lalu & Co have been flippantly dubbed as the anti-quota brigade. A strange description indeed for a band of brothers who made the most of Mandal. In the face of dwindling electoral prospects these men are just resorting to the familiar trick that put then in good stead in the past: Quotas within quota! In fact, nothing ignites these Mandalites than the possibility of extracting a slice from a slice unmindful of the damage caused to the whole. Disruption is a norm with them, be it of society or parliament. Many say the demand for sub-quotas is a ruse to scuttle the legislation. Possible. But then are there not many male-centric minds that still voted for the bill for fear of the whip, Parliamentary and public? Really, it is hypocrisy of all hues that won by a huge margin!
Many legitimate voices and issues have been buried under the dust and din kicked up by the aforesaid Quota Vs Sub-quota turf war. Opponents of the bill or those who have reservations against it are not necessarily opponents of women. Nor do all of them tow the ‘men-in-danger’ line. If one is not taken in by tokenism and looks beyond the compulsions of political correctness, it is obvious that this bill hoodwinks women at large and instead only pampers the familiar activist lobby. First, empowerment does not automatically lead to emancipation. Less so, the empowerment of a few chosen women who are most likely to be the only ones emancipated. Trust me, even as he puts up a stiff fight, the cowboy who milked Bihar dry would have already identified a few female kith and kin to be ‘emancipated’ with Parli tickets!
Again, does more women MPs mean better governance, as some have claimed? While women might not have matched men in numbers, many of them have indeed wielded power that few men have. In fact, the likes of Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Jaya, Maya etc have enjoyed absolute power and for long. What is their ‘women’s emancipation’ scorecard? Suffice to say that an MGR, dead or alive, remains the ultimate darling of the thaaikulam! Women have run some of the most autocratic regimes in India and its States with men … and women actually crawling on all fours! Ditto about corruption. Now, these are not said to make a case for male domination but only to show that things like emancipation, governance and corruption are gender-neutral. The only ‘valid’ argument is: So why not spread the ills and spoils across genders! Now, that’s fair though still transgender will see a raw deal!
Affirmative action in the form of quotas in education and jobs for the underprivileged is universal. Anti-quotaists have quarrels only over the criteria, quantum and modus operandi. But Parliament is a wholesome governing body based on majority vote because governance is deemed absolute. The only allowed divisions are on party lines and depending on issues. Any other partitioning of the Parliament, say based on gender, looks unsustainable. Does more women in Parliament mean more benefits for womenfolk to the detriment of their male kin? Will women MPs vote as a block on such issues, even if it be against the party diktats? Parli quotas also violate the fundamental rights of a citizen, as a voter and as a people’s rep. Reservations for women and SC/ST leave just 45% in the general category. A majority of India’s voters, including women, are forced to choose from a ‘chosen’ list of candidates. The quota, thus, vitiates a voter’s right to elect a rep of his/her liking. Also, ‘he’ loses the fundamental right to contest from anywhere in India only because he is not, er, she. Again, the rotation system might actually preclude a good woman legislator from a second stint. Many such anomalies are rife and a legal litmus test is surely in order. By the way, the quota is only for LS and State legislatures. The Rajya Sabha, (Mael Sabai) will remain a male bastion! Also the bill sets the quota period at 15 years, i.e., three terms. Of course, we know these things are immortal, still, are we to believe the many-millennia-vintage injustices could be set right within the political time-table of just a decade and a half? The symbolism stares at you!
As usual the cosmetics camouflage the core. World over, the sex-ratio is skewed against women, across religions, cultures and economic status, and India ranks second, next only to China in this demographic bias. The age-old, universal preference for a son continues to be the culprit. The State and science have only aggravated this trend against girls, born and unborn. Big families might be a bane from the population explosion point of view, but was a great leveller of sex ratios. But Family Planning- first State sponsored, but now voluntary – has upset the natural biological order. In a limited family, couples invariably favour sons. And with science offering a slew of fetal-imaging technology, a girl child stands the risk of never seeing the light of the day. A ban on sex-determination tests in 1994 has not fully curbed the practice. This week’s cover story of Economist asks: ‘What happened to 100 million baby girls?’ and paints a picture of India that would move even those five-star feminists. Female foetecide and infanticide is still rampant, and worse, is actively practised by women themselves. A survey shows most mothers still yearning for a son as against a daughter! Legitimate fear of stigma and scandal is still a deterrent for many women from non-political backgrounds. And despite the villainous femme fatales we see on TV serials, women are the worst affected in domestic violence. That this still remains a man’s world is not just a scriptural or societal truth, but a sordid statistical reality too.
In that wider context, the quota Bill is a downright deception of the ordinary women toiling in streets, homes and workplaces and an attempt to put them on psychological steroids. I fail to understand how this legislation will address these women and their woes. A small step, they say. But if any step is warranted, it is at the millions of homes that women inhabit, not at the House in Delhi that only an elite few can visit!
e-mail the writer at [email protected]