Sometimes we come across issues and political debates where there are no rights and wrongs. There are only belief systems that people propound amidst the loud cacophony of conflicting interests, conventional thinking and their own moral values. One such debate is about the Woman Reservation Bill (WRB) that was passed by the Rajya Sabha recently and is stated to be tabled in the Lok Sabha in the months to come. Like audience to a tennis match, I had been sitting across the court, my head swinging left-right-left-right to the various shots (and potshots) the pro and anti WRB lobby hit each other with and while doing so I realized that while all root for participation of women and their better engagement in Indian politics but different people (men and women alike) have different degrees to which they support this particular Bill.
While a few dismiss the bill at the very face of it, many are in support with it as long as certain changes are brought about to it. There is a lobby that seeks to have a sub-quota within the quota and there are many who support it just because they want to be seen as pro-women while some oppose it because they simply do not believe in the philosophy of reservation whether for women, for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes or other backward classes.
Pacifists like me are mostly optimist as far as reservation is concerned. We see what we would like to see. They tell us reservation is a solution and we look at it hopefully, with susurrations of parity, equality, social equity and political voice to all ringing in our ears. We haven't really felt the change so far, whatever change that has been has clearly not trickled down to the underprivileged masses. Not yet. But because we want the change so bad, we presume that there has been. It is akin to saying that because we want protection we take for granted the existence of God. It sounds acceptable in the context of the Almighty but does it work in this society? I would like to see some report on reservation. An analysis with some statistics pertaining how, when and where exactly reservation worked, which community benefited, how long would they be needing it and when should it be lifted for that particular class/caste/group. An assessment to see how far reservation has helped and in which areas, whether that of education, employment, legislature, judiciary, whether it worked well and where it is proving to bring more disparity than equity, is long overdue. It will not only be an eye-opening exercise but will also lead to a better planning for such endeavors in future.
Reservation, from the time it was inserted into the Constitution, was not meant as a gift neither was it a charity for any community. It was a method by which the caste-ridden society like ours was to crawl out from beneath the legacy of the oppressive caste system. Whereby under-represented and marginalized groups were to be given opportunities on a quota basis keeping in mind that the same were denied to these groups for all these years in many spheres like employment, education, legislature etc. Those were the basics. How far have we reached? My research on the topic lead me to a report on Impact of Reservation Policy in Higher Education in India by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). Why don't we have more of these? And if we do why don't we have them circulated massively?
Coming back to the Woman Reservation Bill, one finds that though the idea of larger representation of woman is much coveted by all (including men) but the higher up you move in the echelons of academicia and experts on Indian politics and society, the less celebratory the tone becomes. This is because though the end is desirable, there are many aspersions clouding the means.
The system of rotation, it is feared, would do more harm than good to any constituency. It will give less incentive and motivation for an MP to bring about better facilities to his constituency. He will serve not those for whom he has worked. Seems like a lose-lose situation. The question as to whether there should be a sub-quota within a quota is also an interesting one and makes sense to me. Besides, if the underlying purpose of WRB is to increase the number of women lawmakers in the country, which is at present close to a dismal 10 per cent even after 63 years of Independence, then why not make a law thereby making it compulsory for political parties to have an intra-party quota for fielding women candidates? There is hardly any democracy within any of the major national political parties. Corruption, greed and self-interest are the deciding factors as to who will lead the party, it is even more blatant when these parties distribute tickets at the time of elections. The answer to this is that our society is such that it becomes nearly impossible for women candidates to win elections against dominant male candidates. Is there any study supporting this particular argument? I would like to read. And even though I am a woman, this counter argument sounds like the cry of a bad loser to me. But keeping in mind the holistics of the whole debate would I decide to do without the Bill all together? I would say no. A helpless but incontrovertible no. That's the dilemma shrouding this Bill, it makes it tough to take a firm stand, wheresoever one may be sitting.
The WRB is not being lauded in its essence it is being seen as a precursor to what is sought after and in that we say our cheers. The Bill shows us a metaphorical tunnel at the other end of which lies a (wishful?) end to discrimination, infanticide, female foeticide, dowry deaths, oppression of women and their ultimate empowerment. And thus, we cheer for it. However, difficult questions are a plenty, and many an eyebrows have been raised and rightly so. The Women Reservation Bill comes with an asterisk -- the real deal we are yet to know. Till then, don't touch that remote!
.jpg)
