Women's Reservation Bill

[kippu]

blr P i am always confused when you start debating , are you for this bill or not , if you are not why are you against it ., other than quoting others or other articles , why dont you want this ?

 

[blr_p]

kippu,

The idea is to weigh up the pro's & cons of this Bill, atm the cons are outnumbering the pro's by a large margin. If you want to make the case for the bill then try to counter reason mentioned here in the wiki.

And it's not me you should be getting confused about but rather the spin used by the govt & the media to sell this thing. Its far from clear atm what benefits this bill will bring to women, however the gains for the parties pushing it is slowly becoming crystal clear.

Broadway's article makes the case quite well, look up the article author's background on wiki and you'll see this is a woman that's been involved in women's affairs for the last 30 years. I'd think she knows a thing or two about women's affairs and whether this bill will make any difference to it at all.

But the media is a powerful thing, you are being programmed into thinking this is FOR women and that anyone against it is AGAINST women, this trivialises the whole issue and make a total mockery of it i think.

 

[kippu]

you are still not telling if you are for this bill or not and not quoting the articles or other people's opinion on it ... what are your thoughts on it?

if people are saying that the woman will follow the man's orders on it , why not expand that school of thought saying the village head will command the villagers to vote for his choice so lets not give them that ???

women are always illtreated and kept in background in india , for it to change we will have to give them an oppurtunity for them to come and see whats available to them...and i think this will do that,maybe it wont work in the beginning but atleast they have a chance now

why the yadavs are revolting is because their parties do not have that kind of leaders , they have developed a all men party , now they have to rethink it plus they are hoping to revive their muslim and mandal agenda and have a comeback in their next election

all those possible drawbacks that are in that wiki can also be suited for men ...think about it

 

[TEUser2K1]

They are deciding on rulers /leaders of a country, not giving more choices for common people to get jobs or lively hoods.

My perceptions about leaders are that they have leadership quality learned, earned and competed out.

If One in a million leader of a country can be decided just through reservations per gender, race, caste, etc. what quality they have in guiding us ?

If weak were to be leaders, one may find a leader in every tom and jane (including me).

Haven´t millions of years of evolution and campaigning from era of Greeks and Romans proved no lessons on gender equality ? If checked, it can be found that once those societies embraced such trends, their civilisations conked off.

This promotion is only going to help shopping malls who sells idiotic goods to ladies who thoughtlessly spend their spouses' hard earned money. This entire even looks like a psychogic game plan by market movers.

There are very high moral expectations from women which they can´t hold to: greed /corruption /all emotional weakness, for both genders are same, only they manipulate in sillier or serious ways.

Chance given, women will provide their mettle, best examples:

Jayalalitha : most comical story in Indian politics, if you check items they collected after her collections were raided: >5000 sarees, 250 pair chappals; even golden one... so on...

Mayathi : own statues, elephant statues, taj corridor, what not...

The best enemy of a woman is another woman, so they will fight it out in public from now onwards bringing hilarious episodes of suckedness in future.

 

[blr_p]

you are still not telling if you are for this bill or not and not quoting the articles or other people's opinion on it ... what are your thoughts on it?

Undecided and presently leaning against this bill as i've not heard many robust arguments for it. I don't go into a debate with a fixed position when i'm unsure about it (hence the thread), so I try to counter arguments for & against and then see what i'm left with. I'm not able to counter that lady's arguments who admittedly had gone a lot further in her crtiques then I could ever have.

Now if you counter her arguments i'll be moved from against back into neutral so what's required then is robust points to move from neutral into FOR

Personally i find reservations unfair but given the inequalities present in the country there seems to be no other way of bridging the gaps. Yes, ppl with reservations are going to make max use of it and even abuse the system but in the long run the problems even out. I've personally witnessed the effects of positive discrimination for blacks in the US. Overall the experiment has been successful, it took about 30 years to achieve. When i say successful i mean in changing prevailing attitudes towards them more than actually empowering as there are two elements at play here, a person's ability and others attitude towards them. It's the latter that i think has created the bigger difference than the former. There are very good arguments against reservations but the results to date indicate its not been a failure.

Has discrimination ended, of course not but its no where as prevalent as it used to be so
arguments that the system is responsible for holding one down because of one's colour ring very hollow nowadays, they reek of a chip on one's shoulder and the only real limit is how far the person is willing to go to achieve what they want.

if people are saying that the woman will follow the man's orders on it , why not expand that school of thought saying the village head will command the villagers to vote for his choice so lets not give them that ???

Don't follow what you mean ?

women are always illtreated and kept in background in india , for it to change we will have to give them an oppurtunity for them to come and see whats available to them...and i think this will do that,maybe it wont work in the beginning but atleast they have a chance now

As I said earlier at the panchayat level the reservation is already 33.3 %, i'm reading now that its no longer 33.3 but actually 50% (!)

Tiwari said the commitment of the Congress to the cause of women has been historic and consistent and referred to Acts like the Hindu Succession Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, Maternity Benefit Act, Equal Opportunities Act, reservation of 33 per cent for women in local bodies and then raising it to 50 per cent and now the Women’s Reservation Bill.

So tell how are women being held down in the village ?

Actually you or anyone is welcome to make a robust case for this bill where the beneficiaries are what we're told ie the women concerned and not other parties.

I wish it was possible to see the contents of this bill but i've not been able to locate it so far

why the yadavs are revolting is because their parties do not have that kind of leaders , they have developed a all men party , now they have to rethink it plus they are hoping to revive their muslim and mandal agenda and have a comeback in their next election

OK, so lets leave the Yadav's out as their problem is theirs alone.

Then what about the shuffling of ppl where a person is no longer attached to their contituency. This is a side-effect of this bill, it means there isn't an attachment to the contituencyand therefore the ppl won't be served as well as they are now.

all those possible drawbacks that are in that wiki can also be suited for men ...think about it

Really ? lets see, out of the 8 points mentioned in the list
The first one still stands, the Women’s Reservation Bill will take away the democratic right of 33 per cent of the electorate to elect their representatives.

I'll concede to the second one but the broadway's article goes into more depth with this.

The third point holds, as men aren't given preference to begin with. If they can't win votes they're out.

The fourth can be ignored.

The fifth & sixth hold, as presently only a person that can win votes is fielded whereas a reservation forces a party to field a woman regardless of her position or ability to win. What this tells me is parties will field women in positions that they know they cannot win with men.

The seventh can be ignored.

The eighth is actually a benefit for parties in general rather than for women as 6pack allued to earlier.

Here's an article that argues FOR and addresses the above points. The author's solution is to increase the number of seats in the Lok Sabha to counter the reduction in number brought about with this bill.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

A caste/religion/gender based reservation in any aspect is a way to show that a certain group is inferior to the rest and also ensures that they are kept that way for a long long time. Without fair competition there will never be any upheaval, rather just the opposite.

I knew a countless number of girls who didn't bother to work hard because they were confident that the 33% reservations in education will take care of them. I knew girls who got Engg seats with negative scores in the state Engg entrance exams just because of the 33% reservation. I knew guy's who didn't bother to work hard because they had caste reservations. They pass on this attitude to their children as well. Hard working people do not need reservations, they can earn their opportunities through hard work. They may be deprived financially to make the best use of those opportunities and thats where the govt need to help.

There is no no use in providing reservations for opportunities, let people earn their opportunities and let then help them to avail those opportunities.

I don't think a forceful creation of opportunities for women in leadership roles is going to change anything for the better. Strong willed women are required to make a difference (for good or bad) and such women have no need of reservations become leaders.

 

[TEUser2K1]

^^ ¨I knew guy's who didn't bother to work hard because they had caste reservations. They pass on this attitude to their children as well.¨

you raised very very valid point. They pass on that attitude to not only their children, but to other living around them.

Can´t understand how all people can suddenly turn and behave like college sissy boys saying ýes' to whatever the girl says. Heard so called pseudo ´altruistic' like behaviour have hidden intentions.

 

[broadway]

Who saw the bill being passed in the rajya sabha? When asked by the speaker, who was against the bill, a single voice in the house raised a "no" sound. Everyone laughed. He was undone by 186 member with "ayes". He continued voting in the negative on the first 2-3 amendments but later began voting as "abstained". Here is that brave man who didn't succumb to popularity pressure.

Sharad Joshi lone dissenter against women's quota bill

New Delhi, March 9 : Sharad Joshi, a prominent farmers' leader from Maharashtra, was the lone dissenter against the women's quota bill during voting in the Rajya Sabha Tuesday, saying he didn't oppose the measure but the manner in which it would be implemented.

"Women's reservations yes, yes, yes, yes. Rotation (of constitutions) and (their) selection by lottery no, no, no," Joshi maintained while participating in the more than three-hour debate on the bill.

Thus, when the bill was put to a voice vote, Joshi let the crescendo of "ayes" to subside before quietly saying "No".

In the division, there were 186 votes in favour and only Joshi's against the bill.

 

[chiron]

^^ ¨I knew guy's who didn't bother to work hard because they had caste reservations. They pass on this attitude to their children as well.

Do you honestly think that the people from the unreserved categories would not saturate all the jobs/seats in college etc if all the reservations were taken off? The main problem with the reservation is that people who should actually fall into the creamy layer also end up getting reservations and hence the purpose of providing the reservation is not met.

Couple of the richest students from my b.tech batch not only got reservation but also got the fee discount for people below poverty line because they are children of businessmen. Talk about unfairness.

Think about it this way, if you are smart and have reservation then wouldn't you still want to study hard so that you can get into an even better college/job then wouldn't you go for it?

There are many problems in the implementation of the system that has given a lot of undeserving people an easy ride but the core idea is still very relevant imo.

 

[blr_p]

The best enemy of a woman is another woman, so they will fight it out in public from now onwards bringing hilarious episodes of suckedness in future.

Ha!, true that

Looking forward to the catfights, much more vicious than between men.

you raised very very valid point. They pass on that attitude to not only their children, but to other living around them.

There will always be ppl that will hack the system but aren't they in the minority ?

To argue against reservations on this point is to favour the exception, because in any grp there are bad apples. So what are we left with then, the remainder that presumably isn't out to exploit the system but perhaps better themselves and the move is judged by how well these ppl do, ie the majority.

"Women's reservations yes, yes, yes, yes. Rotation (of constitutions) and (their) selection by lottery no, no, no," Joshi maintained while participating in the more than three-hour debate on the bill.

So it seems only a tweak of implementation is required ?

Question is why was this lottery system & rotation suggested in the first place

No way to implement reservations otherwise is there, you can't unseat an incumbent and replace him with a woman just because there is a law to do it so they came up with this rotating lotto system.

 

[broadway]

@blr_p
You can tell the difference between an african, a native american and a caucasian but can you tell the difference between a dalit and a general individual? The fundamental reason why it does not work is because there hasn't been a survey. We do not know who's who. Caste certificates have become a business to counterfeiters. There are well to do dalits in mumbai who have never been discriminated against but still make use of there status. SC/ST reservations as an experiment has failed already.

I know a SC/ST shiv sena women candidate in a nearby region who won. In her 5 years in office, she had the money to build 2 six floor building for herself. She fought as a reserved candidate but she never did anything for her community.

Im anti-reservation with the exception for the economically backward. I think "dalit" is a state of mind. No one can tell you that you are a dalit unless you proclaim yourself that you are "a dalit".

 

[blr_p]

Im anti-reservation with the exception for the economically backward. I think "dalit" is a state of mind. No one can tell you that you are a dalit unless you proclaim yourself that you are "a dalit".

Thats an interesting characterisation. I'm refraining from answering the rest of what you said as I'd prefer it stay on topic.

In principle reservations are unfair because they put one group over the other without any recourse. They openly discriminate rather than empower. They cannot empower because the person is capable of what they can, they do not become more capable, they just get their foot in the door more often as a rule.

So why do we do this then ? Ends justify the means.

You could get away with a lot of nonsense with just that one line. It ought to be the other way around

This is the classic left-right divide.

Left says society bears the burden because society is the cause for this inequality and consequently redistributes rights amongst the ppl.

The right doesn't want to let go of rights it deems inalienable to each & every individual.

 

[broadway]

So why do we do this then ? Ends justify the means.

What are the ends here? What are you fighting for?

 

[blr_p]

The ends here is 'social equality' whatever that means

..and it gets resolved with brute force, party with the most votes wins.

Case closed.

We move on with out lives.

 

[broadway]

The ends here is 'social equality'

And does "reservations" IYO achieve those ends? Do you think they have been reaching the right people. Yes? No? and why?

Which do you think has been more successful in reaching the downtrodden? Reservations? or NREGA?

 

[blr_p]

And does "reservations" IYO achieve those ends? Do you think they have been reaching the right people. Yes? No? and why?

Only case of reservations that I know of was mentioned earlier wrt to blacks in the US, that's an ongoing 40+yr experiment. Have we had reservations in this country for that long as yet ?

Whether it achieved the ends depends on how one defines its success. What are the defined benchmarks to measure this success ?

They did not define these in the US nor do they have any here, so the question of when does one rollback reservations cannot arise as the case to do so can never be made. All that can be said is things are better in comparison to before but more progress is required so therefore reservations are to be kept in perpetuity so long as there is popular support.

It has be made conditional that reservations can only be granted when methods to evaluate their success (or lack thereof) are provided by those that lobby for them otherwise a short term panacea becomes a long term addiction.

Instead the pro-lobby dodges that question and says..
Do you beleive in equal access ?
Do you believe in equality?
Do you believe in everyone having an equal shot ?

There are costs invovled with these questions because everytime a reservation is made a more deserving candidate that does not qualify for reservation is dumped and the loss of that person effects the overall service provided.

Whether those costs were worth it in the end depends on who you ask. Some agree others think there is much more yet to be done and still others disagree entirely. Simply because its never defined when this point is reached (if ever).

Whether the same or close enough could have been acheived as fast without reservations is a moot point, of course there will be increased intake because the law stipulates it. Now if at some point in the future reservations are removed and the gains reverse then the cry for reservations comes back again.

See the problem

Which do you think has been more successful in reaching the downtrodden? Reservations? or NREGA?

Don't know :S

 

[TEUser2K1]

to blr_p :

"There will always be ppl that will hack the system but aren't they in the minority ?

To argue against reservations on this point is to favour the exception, because in any grp there are bad apples. So what are we left with then, the remainder that presumably isn't out to exploit the system but perhaps better themselves and the move is judged by how well these ppl do, ie the majority."

In case of politics, power corrupts. And power corrupts weak more.

One of the ways to monitor such human behaviour is in Mumbai local BEST buses where women are given seating reservation.

- No women will stand up for another women. even if the standing one is older, weak, carrying a kid in her hands. Rather, a man will call and let them sit. Considering this, BEST needed to reserve a seat for 'woman carrying kids less than 5 years old'. See the irony - they allocated that reserved seat from seats reserved for women only.

- Women joining and forming group to exploit seat reservation system itself: More aware smartass women, after getting to an empty bus from starting pint - will occupy men's seat purposely as a group. Their idea: let other women sit in seats reserved for them. So, heard that BEST created a new rule (don't know abt it since its not mentioned in bus) - 'Women must occupy seats reserved for them when boarding bus from starting point'.

---
Now, from US of A, the part of world where gender bias is supposed to be lowest
They are trying to promote fairer gender to work in IT enviornment. So much facilities and promotional offers are given. Still, not many of ladies are ready to join IT. Their reasoning: they have many other ways to make easy money than men than to use brains.

 

[MAGNeT]

Yesterdays article in DNA newspaper In editor Section by R Jagannathan

March 11 page 12 DNA MUMbai :: Source

The 'Hurt' Locker

How the Women's Reservation Bill up-ends the business model of male politicians

If you are wondering what the ruckus was about in the women's quota bill passed by the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday, here's the answer: men have their vulnerable spots, and the quota bill gives them a kick in the you-know-where. And you-know-where is not a word beginning with 'b', but 'w'. It's 'w' as in wallet and wealth (ill-begotten), money that's stashed away in private vaults and bank safety lockers — the "hurt" locker, so to speak.

Sure, male politicians have the usual fears about female empowerment, but their underlying worry is not about lost opportunities if the bill becomes law — which is some time away. The real, and stronger, reason for their opposition to the bill is that it disrupts their business. For most of our MPs and MLAs, politics is a business, a private business in which you invest money in buying votes and then recover your costs (and more) by ripping off the public and taxpayers in every possible way.

The bill, by reserving 33 per cent of parliamentary and assembly seats for women, reduces the number of "businesses" open to men dramatically — and even these businesses are at constant risk since the bill says the women-only seats will rotate. By making all seats uncertain for male politicians, effective power shifts to party bosses since they get to decide who they want in a particular constituency every five years. All the efforts you put in by buttering up the voters will go waste when the seat changes gender.

Consider your predicament if you, as a businessman MP (or minister), have managed to get yourself elected from, say, Gulbarga in Karnataka. You make tonnes of money in the five years you get — assuming there is no mid-term poll. You may even do some good for your voters, but at the end of your term, if the election commission decides that your seat will go to women, your investment is at risk. You can try to get your wife or daughter a party ticket, but this puts power in the hands of your party bosses. Your licence to print money is effectively cancelled every five years and you have to bid again, possibly under benami names. Not quite an efficient way to run any business.

So, the first step to understanding the sharp opposition to the women's bill is that it ruins an existing business model for politicians. If you don't believe Indian politics is about business from the ground up, ask yourself: what was the money-for-questions scandal all about? Parliament worked up a lather over that Cobrapost expose, which showed that MPs, largely from the opposition benches, were collecting money for raising questions in Parliament. That's a job they are supposed to do free, but when you are in the Opposition, it's lean season in the slush business. So you take what you get. The poor chaps lost their seats just for trying to eke out a living on spartan opposition benches. Another MP went to jail for using his passport to traffic in women and migrants. A third option for backbench MPs is to illegally lease out a portion of their official residences in Delhi to earn rent. Anything to earn a living.

Now, let's move up the scale, and look at ministers. This is where politicians scale up a cottage industry into a national enterprise. You make money on every deal cleared by the ministry, every policy flip-flop. You use public sector companies as private property — stuff them with your relatives, use their guest houses for personal purposes. And it need not all be done only for private profit. The UPA used taxpayers' money to get itself re-elected. P Chidambaram used oil bonds to protect his reputation as a responsible spender.

The big question: if politicians are protesting the women's bill more for economic reasons than gender ones, why is it that only the Yadavs — the Mulayams and Lalus — are raising a shindig about it? The answer: these are one-man parties, and thus least vulnerable in terms of image among women. It is easier for them to pretend that opposing the bill is about empowering OBCs. The Mayas and Mamatas are miffed purely because it's the Congress that will walk away with the glory.

The lineup in favour of the women's bill largely comprised national parties. The Congress, BJP and the Left like it precisely because the bill will shift power from the party's base to the top. It is no longer possible for a strong MP to tell the party leadership to go take a walk if he doesn't get a ticket because there is a strong possibility that his seat may go to a woman.

Thus, though the underlying reason is loss of business opportunity for all male MPs, it's the Yadavs who find it easy to raise the banner of revolt. The bill "hurts" every MP's cash "locker" and Swiss bank balance, but the Yadavs are carrying the can.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

There will always be ppl that will hack the system but aren't they in the minority ?

To argue against reservations on this point is to favour the exception, because in any grp there are bad apples. So what are we left with then, the remainder that presumably isn't out to exploit the system but perhaps better themselves and the move is judged by how well these ppl do, ie the majority.

Unfortunately its not a minority and its not just about the wrong people getting the reservation, but also about the right people developing a wrong attitude because of the reservations. Of the countless people who availed the women reservations and the caste reservations in education during my 6 years of college, only a handful worked hard continuously with the right attitude and these people never needed the reservations in the first place. Even I had reservation (A puny 1% though) and I never needed it. Some were financially challenged that that where they need help.

The rest were either the wrong people taking advantage of the reservations or people who developed a bad attitude because of the reservations. I clearly remember a guy who said something during a discussion the rough translation of which goes "We are the kings in the country. We don't need to work hard since we have reservations to take care of us" I have seen many a guy/girl with potential just not bothering to work hard because they were convinced that the reservations will take care of them. I don't know how many people actually get benefited by reservations, but I have yet to see one person whose life improved because of a reservation while on the other hand, I have seen quite a few who didn't achieve the best they can because they were content with what the reservations offered.

 

[blr_p]

@Magnet
Looking at past debates on RS's site for reservation bill and found this from Aug 2007

Women Reservation Bill
806. SHRI PRAVEEN RASHTRAPAL: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:
(a) the efforts made by Government to introduce the Women Reservation Bill in Parliament;
(b) why such a vital issue is delayed inspite of declared policy of UPA Government for empowerment of women; and
(c) the action proposed by Government in this matter?

THE MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI H.R. BHARDWAJ): (a) to (c) With the objective of evolving a consensus on Women Reservation Bill, a meeting was called by the Chairperson of United Progressive Alliance (UPA) on 22.8.2005 in which the constituents of UPA and Left Parties participated and subsequently the Hon'ble Prime Minister held a meeting with the Leaders of National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and other Leaders on 24th August, 2005.

However, there was no consensus on the provisions of the Bill in both the above meetings.

The main objection to the concept of reservation for women in Lok Sabha appears to arise from the rotational phenomenon which would break the link between the Member of Parliament and his/ her constituency. These apprehensions are required to be removed before the Government could bring a new Bill in the Parliament.

So it appears this has been the main problem for a while now. Nothing to do with principle of any sort just 'breaking link with constituency'

This implies that at random, at least 180 male legislators will be uprooted from their constituencies every election. In their place, 180 women will be assigned those constituencies before every election. Then, at the time of the next election, when the new list of 180 reserved constituencies is declared in the same manner, these 180 women will not be able to contest from the seats they are holding at that point of time because the same constituency cannot be reserved twice in succession under the bill’s rotation system.

I feel that it could actually be a good thing over having incumbents.

Why is breaking the link a good thing ?

The mechanism to unseat an incumbent is via elections