Women's Reservation Bill

[broadway]

Below is a transcript of a heated debate between karan thapar and the then HRD minister arjun singh about reservations. It should be read in it's entity. Full here

Unreliable statistics.

Karan Thapar: In which case, lets ask a few basic questions. We are talking about the reservations for the OBCs in particular. Do you know what percentage of the Indian population is OBC? Mandal puts it at 52 per cent, the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) at 32 per cent, the National Family and Health Survey at 29.8 per cent, which is the correct figure?

Arjun Singh: I think that should be decided by people who are more knowledgeable. But the point is that the OBCs form a fairly sizeable percentage of our population.

Karan Thapar: No doubt, but the reason why it is important to know 'what percentage' they form is that if you are going to have reservations for them, then you must know what percentage of the population they are, otherwise you don't know whether they are already adequately catered to in higher educational institutions or not.

Arjun Singh: That is obvious - they are not.

Karan Thapar: Why is it obvious?

Arjun Singh: Obvious because it is something which we all see.

Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that the NSSO, which is a government appointed body, has actually in its research in 1999 - which is the most latest research shown - that 23.5 per cent of all university seats are already with the OBCs. And that is just 8.5 per cent less than what the NSSO believes is the OBC share of the population. So, for a difference of 8 per cent, would reservations be the right way of making up the difference?

Arjun Singh: I wouldn't like to go behind all this because, as I said, Parliament has taken a view and it has taken a decision, I am a servant of Parliament and I will only implement.

Karan Thapar: Absolutely, Parliament has taken a view, I grant it. But what people question is the simple fact - Is there a need for reservations? If you don't know what percentage of the country is OBC and if, furthermore, the NSSO is correct in pointing out that already 23.5 per cent of the college seats are with the OBC, then you don't have a case in terms of need.

Arjun Singh: College seats, I don't know.

Karan Thapar: According to the NSSO - which is a government appointed body - 23.5 per cent of the college seats are already with the OBCs.

Arjun Singh: What do you mean by college seats?

Karan Thapar: University seats, seats of higher education.

Arjun Singh: Well, I don't know I have not come across that so far.

Karan Thapar: So, when critics say to you that you don't have a case for reservation in terms of need, what do you say to them?

Arjun Singh: I have said what I had to say and the point is that that is not an issue for us to now debate.

Karan Thapar: You mean the chapter is now closed?

Arjun Singh: The decision has been taken.

Karan Thapar: Regardless of whether there is a need or not, the decision is taken and it is a closed chapter.

Arjun Singh: So far as I can see, it is a closed chapter and that is why I have to implement what all Parliament has said.

Do reservations work?

Karan Thapar: Minister, it is not just in terms of 'need' that your critics question the decision to have reservation for OBCs in higher education. More importantly, they question whether reservations themselves are efficacious and can work.

For example, a study done by the IITs themselves shows that 50 per cent of the IIT seats for the SCs and STs remain vacant, and for the remaining 50 per cent, 25 per cent are the candidates who even after six years fail to get their degrees. So, clearly, in their case, reservations are not working.

Arjun Singh: I would only say that on this issue, it would not be correct to go by all these figures that have been paraded.

Karan Thapar: You mean the IIT figures themselves could be dubious?

Arjun Singh: Not dubious, but I think that is not the last word.

Karan Thapar: All right, maybe the IIT may not be the last word, let me then quote to you the report of the Parliamentary Committee on the welfare for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - that is a Parliamentary body.

It says, that looking at the Delhi University, between 1995 and 2000, just half the seats for under-graduates at the Scheduled Castes level and just one-third of the seats for under-graduates at the Scheduled Tribes level were filled. All the others went empty, unfilled. So, again, even in Delhi University, reservations are not working.

Arjun Singh: If they are not working, it does not mean that for that reason we don't need them. There must be some other reason why they are not working and that can be certainly probed and examined. But to say that for this reason, 'no reservations need to be done' is not correct.

Karan Thapar: Fifty years after the reservations were made, statistics show, according to The Hindustan Times, that overall in India, only 16 per cent of the places in higher education are occupied by SCs and STs. The quota is 22.5 per cent, which means that only two-thirds of the quota is occupied. One-third is going waste, it is being denied to other people.

Arjun Singh: As I said, the kind of figures that have been brought out, in my perception, do not reflect the realities. Realities are something much more and, of course, there is an element of prejudice also.

Karan Thapar: But these are figures that come from a Parliamentary Committee. It can't be prejudiced; they are your own colleagues.

Arjun Singh: Parliamentary Committee has given the figures, but as to why this has not happened, that is a different matter.

Karan Thapar: I put it to you that you don't have a case for reservations in terms of need, you don't have a case for reservations in terms of their efficacy, why then, are you insisting on extending them to the OBCs?

Arjun Singh: I don't want to use that word, but I think that your argument is basically fallacious.

Karan Thapar: But it is based on all the facts available in the public domain.

Arjun Singh: Those are facts that need to be gone into with more care. What lies behind those facts, why this has not happened, that is also a fact.

Point 3 : Merit v/s A dalit

Karan Thapar: Let’s approach the issue of reservations differently in that case. Reservations mean that a lesser-qualified candidate gets preference over a more qualified candidate, solely because in this case, he or she happens to be an OBC. In other words, the upper castes are being penalised for being upper caste.

Arjun Singh: Nobody is being penalised and that is a factor that we are trying to address. I think that the Prime Minister will be talking to all the political parties and will be putting forward a formula, which will see that nobody is being penalised.

Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about that formula, but before we come to talk about how you are going to address concerns, let me point one other corollary: Reservations also gives preference and favour to caste over merit. Is that acceptable in a modern society?

Arjun Singh: I don't think the perceptions of modern society fit India entirely.

Karan Thapar: You mean India is not a modern society and therefore can't claim to be treated as one?

Arjun Singh: It is emerging as a modern society, but the parameters of a modern society do not apply to large sections of the people in this country.

Nehru's views

Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you Jawaharlal Nehru, a man whom you personally admire enormously. On the 27th of June 1961 wrote to the Chief Ministers of the day as follows: I dislike any kind of reservations. If we go in for any kind of reservations on communal and caste basis, we will swamp the bright and able people and remain second-rate or third-rate. The moment we encourage the second-rate, we are lost. And then he adds pointedly: This way lies not only folly, but also disaster. What do you say to Jawaharlal Nehru today?

Arjun Singh: Jawaharlal Nehru was a great man in his own right and not only me, but everyone in India accept his view.

Karan Thapar: But you are just about to ignore his advice.

Arjun Singh: No. Are you aware that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who introduced the first amendment regarding OBCs?

Karan Thapar: Yes, and I am talking about Jawaharlal Nehru in 1961, when clearly he had changed his position, he said, “I dislike any kind of reservationsâ€.

Arjun Singh: I don't think one could take Panditji's position at any point of time and then overlook what he had himself initiated.

Karan Thapar: Am I then to understand that regardless of the case that is made against reservations in terms of need, regardless of the case that has been made against reservations in terms of efficacy, regardless of the case that has been made against reservations in terms of Jawaharlal Nehru, you remain committed to extending reservations to the OBCs.

Arjun Singh: I said because that is the will of Parliament. And I think that common decisions that are taken by Parliament have to be honoured.

Back to numbers

Karan Thapar: Let me ask you a few basic questions. If reservations are going to happen for the OBCs in higher education, what percentage of reservations are we talking about?

Arjun Singh: No, that I can't say because that has yet to be decided.

Karan Thapar: Could it be less than 27 per cent?

Arjun Singh: I can't say anything on that, I have told you in the very beginning that at this point of time it is not possible for me to.

Karan Thapar: Quite right. If you can't say, then that also means that the figure has not been decided.

Arjun Singh: The figure will be decided, it has not been decided yet.

Karan Thapar: The figure has not been decided. So, therefore the figure could be 27, but it could be less than 27, too?

Arjun Singh: I don't want to speculate on that because as I said, that is a decision which will be taken by Parliament.

Karan Thapar: Whatever the figure, one thing is certain that when the reservations for OBCs happen, the total quantum of reservations will go up in percentage terms. Will you compensate by increasing the total number of seats in colleges, universities, IITs and IIMs so that the other students don't feel deprived.

Arjun Singh: That is one of the suggestions that has been made and is being seriously considered.

Thapar having fun...

Karan Thapar: One, then, last quick question. Do you think this is an issue, which is a sensitive issue, where everyone knew there would have been passions and emotions that would have been aroused has been handled as effectively as it should have been?

Arjun Singh: Well, I have not done anything on it. I have not, sort of what you call, jumped the gun. If this is an issue, which is sensitive, everyone has to treat it that way.

Karan Thapar: But your conscience as HRD Minister is clear?

Arjun Singh: Absolutely clear.

Karan Thapar: There is nothing that you could have done to make it easier for the young students?

Arjun Singh: Well, I am prepared to do anything that can be done. And it is being attempted.

Karan Thapar: For seven weeks, they have been protesting in the hot sun. No minister has gone there to appease them, to allay their concerns, to express sympathy for them. Have politicians let the young people of India down?

Arjun Singh: Well, I myself called them. They all came in this very room.

Karan Thapar: But you are the only one.

Arjun Singh: You are accusing me only. No one else is being accused.

Karan Thapar: What about the Government of India? Has the Government of India failed to respond adequately?

Arjun Singh: From the Government of India also, the Defence Minister met them.

Karan Thapar: Only recently.

Arjun Singh: That is something because everyone was busy with the elections.

Karan Thapar: For seven weeks no one met them.

Arjun Singh: No, but we are very concerned. Certainly, all of us resent the kind of force that was used. I condemned it the very first day it happened.

Karan Thapar: All right, Mr Arjun Singh. We have reached the end of this interview. Thank you very much for speaking on the subject.

Unprinted sunday times article dated 14th march, 2010
Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar
It says in the wiki page - Anklesaria, Mr Aiyar's second name is taken from his wife's maiden name and he claims to have taken on this name to exhibit some sort of equality where men will take on their wives names if wives take on their husbands. His wife, Shahnaz, is a Parsi.

Women’s Bill: the least radical of all reservations

I give only one cheer for the Women’s Reservation Bill, not two and certainly not three. Of all the reservations we have devised to transform society, this will transform the least. Still, it may do some marginal good, so let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Critics have highlighted many flaws of the Bill. Rotating constituencies mean women cannot nurse a constituency. Reservations do not extend to the Rajya Sabha, creating a Parliamentary anomaly. There is no female sub-quota within existing quotas. Reservations could mean more upper-caste women MPs at the expense of backward castes. Some analysts say that instead of trying to impose quotas—which are forms of proportional representation—on our first-past-the-post electoral system, we should move electorally to a proportional representation system as in Germany. But the biggest flaw lies elsewhere.

Women suffer a thousand forms of discrimination. Foeticide, infanticide and dowry deaths constitute a triple whammy of murder. Girls that survive are discriminated against (compared with sons) in food, health, education and choice of livelihood. Adult women suffer physical abuse and rape. Female workers are paid less than males. India has among the highest rates of female anaemia and maternal mortality in the world. Women fear physical attack if they travel beyond village limits to a clinic, and their husbands don’t want to lose a day’s wages by accompanying them.

Will this change with more women in the legislatures? Very little. The Constitution and a multitude of laws already provide for gender equality. Unfortunately, grassroots society spurns that concept. The problem lies in the attitude of society, not of legislators, who already constitute an enlightened upper crust. Without social acceptance, rules and laws on gender equality are difficult to implement. Having more females in legislatures will do little to change the grassroots reality.

Reservations for 60 years for dalits and tribals have failed to end discrimination. They have merely created a creamy layer of the formerly unprivileged, leaving others barely better off.

Many critics denounce the creamy layer phenomenon, yet poor dalits, tribals and backward castes are all for it. Obviously a creamy layer is less satisfactory than cream throughout. Yet a creamy layer greatly improves the access of ordinary dalits and tribals to facilities and justice that in theory should be enjoyed by all, but in practice are enjoyed mainly by those within the most influential networks. Historically, the upper castes controlled these networks. Reservations have now given other groups entry points into the networks, and they love it.

There is a trickle-down effect from the creamy layer to ordinary dalits, tribals and backward castes. Common justice demands that this should be a flood, not a trickle. Yet a trickle is better than nothing. Hence we see ever more demands for reservations and quotas, since give a little power to the disempowered, and can gradually transform semi-feudal values.

However, of the many deprivations caused by semi-feudalism, discrimination against female politicians is the least important. Indeed, semi-feudalism sanctifies the dynastic principle, which can give women enormous advantages over males in politics.

Sonia Gandhi and Indira Gandhi did not battle male discrimination to get to the top. Rather, the death of their husband/father made them heads of a dynasty, giving them an unassailable advantage over rival males in the Congress Party.
For the same dynastic reason, Bangladeshi politics is dominated by the two begums, Khalida and Hasina, both widows of former Presidents. Benazir Bhutto got to the top in Pakistan because she was the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. In Sri Lanka, Srimavo Bandaranaike got to the top as widow of Solomon Bandaranaike, and her daughter Chandrika succeeded her in classical dynastic fashion. Even mistresses can rise to the top—witness Jayaliltha and Mayawati.

So, in a semi-feudal society, being a woman can be a passport to the top. Such women are not representative of the female masses, yet can dominate politics. Lalu Yadav says, rightly, that the wives, daughters and nieces of top politicians may grab most of the reserved female constituencies. But, having seven daughters, he himself is well placed.

Female seat reservations can transform society far more in panchayats than in Parliament. Gender animus is deeply entrenched in the villages, and female empowerment there can have an impact, notwithstanding the new phenomenon of sarpanch-patis. But in state capitals and New Delhi, political women are already substantially empowered, and hugely advantaged in dynasties.

To transforming society, we need social activists at the grassroots. We need administrators, police and judges who will implement existing laws on gender justice. Reserving legislative seats for women will help only marginally.

 

[blr_p]

Below is a transcript of a heated debate between karan thapar and the then HRD minister arjun singh about reservations. It should be read in it's entity.

Let's look at the solutions proposed here to break the deadlock

1. If a reservation of x% is selected then its negative effects are mitigated by increasing the pool by y%.
2. If that isn't possible then x% needs to be decreased so it can be accomodated into the system.
3. Finally, if it takes time to abosrb the increase that it be done in a phased manner.

In this manner you get reservations and at the same time there are no ppl being discriminated against nor losing out. All the arguments against on principle dissapear instantly.This solution was proposed in an earlier article i linked to, the thinking was the number of seats in the Lok Sabha presently is fixed according to the '71 census and needs to be brought upto date and therefore more seats in the houses need to be allocated.

Question is by how much should the total be increased by to recover that 33.3% loss of seats ?

First off, there are already 10% of women in parliament so the quota decreases to 23.3%

Let's for simplicity sake say present seats in the house are 100.

A reservation will remove 23 seats leaving 77.
Now to compensate for those 23 lost seats, the total has to be increased from 100 to 130.

23.3% of 130 gives 30 seats leaving 100.

So to recover losses of 23.3% quota, parliament has to be increased by 30% along with its associated salaries to be paid.

I think thats the key to this debate, if the increase is agreed to then its no longer a zero-sum game and the only sticking point is 'breaking connection with contituent'.

Unreliable statistics.

Not applicable for women

Do reservations work?
Point 3 : Merit v/s A dalit
Nehru's views

The idea here seems to be lets do it and see later, again no criteria to measure success is mentioned.

Back to numbers

Issue will not be sunk based on numbers.

 

[broadway]

Let's for simplicity sake say present seats in the house are 100.

LOL Ironically, i had done the same thing that you did and worked with 100. But anyway, the whole idea is women empowerment. Deprived MLA's will know that they are deprived after the lottery results so i guess they will honour the whips. Even if you increase the seats, would that stop our babu's from fielding there relatives or will it encourage them?

This bill will obviously bring women in the house but what sort of women should we be expecting? That CSDS women was very sure that it will act as a tunnel for proxies in the form of biwi aur beti's. And rotating constituencies would mean zero accountability. Maybe they should ban babu's from fielding family and relatives.

Leave the war torn states and we see that 6 out of 7 countries have NO quotes in parliament. Again 6 out of 7 countries have quotes *only in parties*

Srilanka has no quota and still she gets 6% women in parliament.
Pakistan has 21% reservation in parliament but no quota in parties. India will be imitating this neighbour with 33% seats.

 

[chiron]

I don't get how they make it work in multi-party systems. Especially if there is only one person in a party

 

[blr_p]

Finally located the bill that was passed in the RS

Prior to its passing a standing commitee was setup to study the problem and issued a report. That report formed the basis to pass the bill, officially known as...

The Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008

..which seeks to modify the Constitution of India, to reserve seats for women in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly of every State. Already constitution has been 'amended' 100+ times (!). The US constitution has been in force for 230+ years but has only been amended 30 times.

This current bill does not apply to the RS but only to LS & below and states that the quota will endure for 15 years or 2 general elections only.

From the report..
On biwi-beti brigade

10.3.30. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj, in its written reply furnished to the Committee, has stated that “.......the study on elected women representatives (EWRs) in Panchayati Raj Institutions provides several insights into the performance of EWRs over three round of elections. The study showed that elected representatives are deeply involved in development efforts as well as social issues in the village community. The study of EWRs in PRIs shows that women participate freely in Gram Sabha meetings and are able to raise issues relating to the development of the community. The level of acceptance of EWRs and their voice in the Gram Panchayats has also been assessed in the study. A sizeable proportion (94%) stated that they could freely raise issues during Gram Sabha meeting and only 20% felt that their views were not considered by Panchayat/Gram Sabha.........”

10.3.31. The data further shows that through 1/3rd reservation of seats for women in Panchayats and Nagarpalikas, they have been able to make meaningful contributions and that the actual representation of women in Panchayati Raj institutions has gone upto 42.3% i.e., beyond the reservation percentage.

10.3.31.1. The Committee, therefore, notes that the concerns raised earlier that women will be only proxy to men, after reservation was given to women in Panchayats and Nagarpalikas, often leading to misuse of their position, have in time turned out to be baseless and that the track record of most of the elected women representatives has been proved commendable. This has led the Government to make 50 percent reservation for women in local bodies. This further augments the imminent need to give reservation for women in State Assemblies and Parliament.

10.3.32 Earlier notions of women being mere proxies for male relatives have gradually ceded space to the recognition that given the opportunity to participate in the political system, women are as capable as their male counterparts.

On why 33%

11.3. The representative of the Indian National Congress, while tendering oral evidence before the Committee, stated that “........Thirty-three percent reservation for women has been our demand. This has been considered by the U.N. agencies and others as the critical mass to influence the decision-making process in any Body. It is not that it is a sacrosanct thing which has been calculated on computers or whatever it is.

On the question of rotation

13.3. One argument raised against rotation of seats is that it will lead to lack of accountability and that rotation of seats will prevent the incumbent from nurturing her constituency.

13.4. The representative of CPI (M), while tendering oral evidence before the Committee on the Bill, opined that “...........We also agree with the proposal of rotation of seats. Rotation of seats also helps horizontal spread of women’s involvement in the political affairs of the country. We do not subscribe to the argument that this may cause a change over of experienced MPs and MLAs and, therefore, may adversely affect the political discourse. The experienced members can seek acceptance from any other constituency. It is also a fact that women elected from these constituencies are as efficient, or, more efficient than the present incumbents........... In a vibrant democratic system, it is the State and national interest and policies that should have precedence over constituency interest........”

13.5. In its written memorandum, CPI (M) has stated that “........We cannot base our democracy on a no-change approach which may lead to political monopolies and entrenched interests which are an anathema to democratic processes. Rotation of women reserved seats also helps horizontal spread of women’s involvement...........Since all seats will be rotated at some point or the other this will “affect” all in equal measure. The reservation of seats may be done in such a way so that the road map for reservation is known in advance for the next three terms so as to eliminate uncertainty and allow for planning.............”

13.6. The representatives of the Communist Party of India, while deposing before the Committee on the Bill, stated that “............It has to be on rotation basis. How should it be decided by you so that there is no arbitrariness about it. At the same time, there should be some principle or basis according to which it will be done, so that we could know which seats will become reserved and when.........As far as the question of rotation is concerned, we are of the view that there should be two terms. I am saying two terms advisedly. There is something which is known as MPLAD. Once she is elected, she should have the opportunity to do some good work also. And, once she has done it, she should be able to take advantage of the good work she has done in her constituency and to be able to stand again. So, if the two-term principle is followed, then, it will be possible to see all the seats, by turn, becoming reserved in the course of a few years..........”

13.10. The Committee is of the opinion that rotation is in the interest of democracy and that it is the duty of the incumbent to work towards the welfare of the constituency, irrespective of whether she would be elected next time or not.

Other points

16.1. One of the points which came up for discussion before the Committee was the Gill Formula, which was a proposal of the Election Commission of India to make it mandatory for the recognised Political Parties to ensure putting of minimum agreed percentage for women in State Assembly and Parliamentary election so as to allow them to retain the recognition with the Election Commission as Political Parties.

16.2. Majority of the memoranda received by the Committee rejected the Gill’s formula on the ground that it might lead to political parties giving seats to women, which they perceive are not winning seats, thereby negating actual representation of women in elected bodies.

16.11. The Committee is of the firm opinion that reserving seats for women in Assemblies and Lok Sabha should not be left to the discretion of Political Parties, rather it should be guaranteed in the Constitution itself and enforced by all means.

On increasing seats in parliament

8.2 (x) Dual member constituencies may be established, amending Articles 81 and 170 of the Constitution.

20.1.1. During the discussions of the Committee on the Bill, one Member observed that “..........we are having 543 Members in Lok Sabha at present. This figure was fixed some sixty years back. At that time, our population was only thirty crores. Now, it is more than one hundred crores. Why have we not raised the number of seats? If we can raise another two hundred fifty seats, we can easily give reservation to women. We can also make double-Member constituencies........”

20.1.2. The delegate of Streebal, while speaking on the issue of double-Member constituencies, stated that “...........The double-Member constituency also has a constitutional, historical legacy in our country. If you look back at the elections of 1952 and 1957, one-third of the MPs were coming from multi-member constituencies because 20 percent of the constituencies were double member or treble member ones, until 1962.........”

20.1.3. She further opined that "………We have found, with experience of the rotation principle in the Panchayat level and local tier things, that it is unsatisfactory. In fact, the appeal is being made not to use rotation there. You also find, perhaps, stated or unstated, the hidden insecurity with which this Bill has been jeopardized all these years. And you have also the point that you have reached a stage in your population where, really, you are being undemocratic to keep your sizes as small as you are doing so that it becomes such an extensive club that the constituents are denied their democratic rights to be represented with the kind of a personal contact that should occur between those that represent them and those that vote for them, and that you will get more and more into this issue as the years go by because you have now extended the freeze for 25 years. So, we are offering you an alternative that looks at all issues and sorts them out, does not delay because it can be done very fast as was done when the two-member constituencies were destroyed. At that time, it was done very fast…….''

So 181 + 362 + 181, two members for a constituency. The dual-membership would rotate after each election to the next lot of 181 constituencies.

But there are problems with increasing number of seats..

20.1.4. The representatives of CPI (M), while deposing before the Committee, stated that “.........There is another suggestion – to increase 1/3rd seats in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies so that women get the representation. Here is a case where the delimitation process has already been over. Delimitation will take a lot of time......... It is only to delay the process.........”

20.1.5. The representative of the Indian National Congress, while tendering evidence before the Committee, stated that “.......About increasing seats, this has been debated repeatedly. Delimitation has just been finished, and going in again for adding seats, new seats, is going to take you another 15 years and it is going to push the entire process backwards. It cannot be done in one day by redrawing map. It will take another 10 years. This delimitation process itself was going through so many roadblocks and so many problems. Therefore, I think now, again taking it back to new increased seats is unfair........”

and with dual member constituencies.

20.1.6. The delegates of All India Democratic Women’s Association, while expressing its views on this issue before the Committee, stated that “........This will also mean that women, who are independents and who do not belong to any political party, also will have the trouble of getting elected.........”

20.1.7. In this regard, the Committee takes note of the view submitted by the representatives of CPI (M) that “...........this will make unnecessary tension and conflict in a particular constituency, because MP and MLAs belong to different political parties. This also may not serve the purpose. It is not only that, this will also create two types of MLAs and MPs – one with sole responsibility and another with double responsibility............”

20.1.8. Concern was also voiced before the Committee that elected women representatives will be forced to be granted a second class status. The representative of the Indian National Congress, while tendering oral evidence before the Committee, stated that “........For instance, if I had to be one, as a woman, representing a double-Member constituency with a man, I would consider it very humiliating and demeaning because we can’t represent a constituency when we need a man along either to guide, support or help us. After all, we are capable of representing our constituencies. I think it is not fair to club women into double-Member constituencies. It would make us second class MPs in Parliament........”

20.1.11. The Committee, after taking into account the abovementioned views and the reply of the Ministry, does not endorse the concept of double-Member constituencies. It feels that elected women representatives should be granted the same opportunities/status as their male counterparts. Providing for double-Member constituencies might result in women being reduced to a subservient status, which will defeat the very purpose of the Bill. Therefore, the Committee feels that this concept is discriminatory to women. The Committee strongly feels that further delay in enactment of this Bill would further hamper the concept of Political Empowerment of women.

20.2. The Committee feels that already more than twelve years have elapsed after the Geeta Mukherjee Committee Report and still the much required reservation has not reached 50 per cent of the population of the nation, namely women. It strongly feels that further time should not be wasted; rather the Women's Reservation Bill should be passed in Parliament and put in action without further delay.

And there you have it, there will be NO incease in lok sabha seats nor creation of dual member consitituencies.

This bill as it stands in its current form IS discriminatory !

 

[chiron]

^^ so, how do the countries with quota in parties get around 16.2? If not for that point, it seems to be a more democratic system than lottery rotation.

 

[blr_p]

More on the rotations bit from a 2001 Manushi article...

I'm still undecided on whether rotations are a good idea or not :S

1. One-third seats are reserved, and such reserved seats are rotated in every general election. This rotation will automatically result in two-thirds of incumbent members being forcibly unseated in every general election; the remaining one-third will be left in limbo until the last moment, not knowing whether or not their constituency will form part of the one-third randomly reserved seats and thus require them to scramble at short notice to find another seat to contest.

4. Such compulsory unseating violates the very basic principles of democratic representation. It jeopardizes the possibility of sensible planning to contest and nurture a political constituency for both male and female candidates.

5. As legislators do not have the incentive to seek re-election from the same constituency, plunder will increase, and politics will be even more predatory and unaccountable. This will contribute to a more unstable political process, and make it difficult for women to build their long term credibility as effective representatives, since they will not be able to contest twice from the same constituency.

6. If seats are reserved exclusively for women in every election through territorial constituencies, voters in such reserved constituencies would have no choice but to elect women only, violating the basic principles of democratic representation.

8. Women elected in reserved constituencies will be contesting against other women only, and will lack the legitimacy and opportunity needed to prove their ability and acceptability. Leadership acquired in such a manner will be seen as unnatural, artificial and foisted.

9. Women legislators, when elected, will not be able to nurse their constituencies on a long-term basis, and thus will be deprived of a strong political base and will forever be regarded as lightweight politicians. This in effect will make their presence in legislatures ornamental, and will not lead to a more effective participation in politics.

Instead the authors propose an alternate solution..

1. A law should be enacted amending The Representation of the People Act, 1951, to make it mandatory for every recognised political party to nominate women candidates for election in one-third of the constituencies.

2. Each party can choose where it wishes to nominate women candidates, duly taking local political and social factors into account.

3. Among seats reserved for SCs and STs also, one-third of the candidates nominated by recognised parties shall be women.

4. To prevent a party from nominating women candidates only in states or constituencies where the party's chances of winning election are weak, and to ensure an even spread of women candidates, the unit for consideration (the unit in which at least one out of three party candidates shall be a woman) for the Lok Sabha shall be a state or union territory; for the State Legislative Assembly, the unit shall be a cluster of three contiguous Lok Sabha constituencies.

5. In the event of any recognised party failing to nominate one-third women candidates, for the shortfall of every single woman candidate, two male candidates of the party shall lose the party symbol and affiliation and all the recognition-related advantages.

6. A law amending Articles 80 and 171 of the Constitution should be enacted providing for women's reservation of one-third of the seats, elected or nominated, to Rajya Sabha or Legislative Councils. Corresponding amendments need to be made in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution and, the Representation of the People Act, 1950.

This is arguing for a political party based reservation rather than a seats reservation as currently.

 

[TEUser2K1]

These all seems to formed from a single misconception of the quote:
'Empowering the weak'

It must have been perceived: 'Supporting the weak'.

Also, can see some media persons comparing to reservation % in Rawanda, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc with that of India. They say India needs to learn from them. Can't understand what they want to attain...

It seems politicians are so swooned with power and corruption that they lost ability of rational thoughts.

Now, there is Nuclear Liability Bill. Went and signed in greenpeace dot org since they are organising a campaign against it. Can do only that much.

 

[broadway]

Prior to its passing a standing commitee was setup to study the problem and issued a report.

Vague use of words in that report but i'll agree that women are competent enough to take on the men and conduct there duties with dedication. Though i don't think a women can win in some regions of india where caste and creed matters. A good example is the social activist nafisa ali who lost in lucknow even though she contested on a SP ticket.

However, if your uprooting the existing male MLA's with force then they have no choice but to field there female relatives in there place and we know a name carries a lot of weight. In a way, *rotating constituency* not only guarantees that women would be sent to parliament in large numbers (maybe even more than 50%) but it also encourages proxies. The only winner here would be the party bosses since a women will be less likely to question authority. Cannot say the same for parties like SP which fight from places that are not to welcoming of women.

13.3. One argument raised against rotation of seats is that it will lead to lack of accountability and that rotation of seats will prevent the incumbent from nurturing her constituency

This point does not require to be contested. The 33% of the women who will be entering are not required to contest from the same constituency since the same constituency cannot be reserved twice. That means another 33% of the existing 66% will enjoy zero accountability. Thus, 2/3rd of the parliamentarians will not be required to nurture there constituency simply because we believe that women need(by force) to represent themselves in the parliament PLUS we *assume* that this 33% women will be *honest* knowing very well that most of them will eventually be relatives of the existing politicians. Maybe we need to ban family and relatives from contesting.

the Committee rejected the Gill’s formula on the ground that it might lead to political parties giving seats to women, which they perceive are not winning seats, thereby negating actual representation of women in elected bodies

I like this idea. Reservation in parties rather than the parliament. Ironically, karan thapar on india tonight was discussing alternatives to reservations and that CSDS chick madhu was the guest. Her idea or *the madhu kishwar* suggestion as they were calling it was to have conditions within this *party reservation* which would force a party to distribute it's *women* tickets *evenly* on a state basis rather than fielding women in those constituencies where there winning chances are less or nil. I like the example on the show : Kind of like SP fielding men in UP while fielding women from tamil nadu just to fulfill the conditions.

So finally, my IMO is that *party reservations* is the lesser evil. Since the administration is obsessed with putting women in parliament, they might as well choose a less degrading way. This way, the basic principles of democratic representation will not be jeopardized. This *other* way can also ensure that more women will be brought in the parliament. It's is the only *noble* way at this stage.