Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of

Management Studies
MFM-1st YEAR
LAW ASSIGNMENT – II
Current Affairs’ - Women’s Reservation Bill, 2010

Submitted by:

Sr. No. Name Roll No

1 Yogesh Bhargav 06
2 Ankit Doshi 19
3 Dhanashri Kadge 33
4 Sonal Mestry 50
5 Kapila Singodia 100
th
Dated : 12 May 2010
 Women Reservation Bill In India
It proposes to reserve 33.3 percent seats in Parliament and state legislatures for women,
meaning, if it’s passed, there will be reservation for women at each level of legislative
decision-making. Incidentally, 33.3 per cent seats in panchayat elections have been
reserved for women already and the experience has been very heartening. Every five
years, a considerable number of women are being elected to the panchayats in our country
and this is believed to be the largest mobilisation of women in public life in the world.

The women's reservation bill reserving one-third seats for women in Parliament and state
legislatures has got through the Rajya Sabha but it has polarised politics and civil society.

The controversial yet historic Women's Reservation Bill, ensuring 33% reservation to women
in Parliament and state legislative bodies, was passed in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday after
two days of high drama that saw suspension of seven members who violently disrupted
proceedings.

The government, which was taken aback by the unprecedented bedlam over the bill in the
Rajya Sabha, has promised to hold an all-party meeting before it takes the legislation to the
Lok Sabha. The main political opponents of the bill--Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad and
Janata Dal (United) leader Sharad Yadav--say the bill will help the rich and privileged and
not the poor disadvantaged. The bill is an onion that will "bring tears to MPs once they peel it
off," says Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad.
Supporters of the bill say the bill--formally called the 108th Constitution Amendment Bill--is
necessary to increase the representation of women in Parliament, which stands at just 10
per cent even after 15 elections.

Is the bill good for women or not? Is there a better way to increase the number of women
lawmakers? CNN-IBN's Sagarika Ghose asked this to Jayanthi Natarajan, Rajya Sabha MP
and Congress spokesperson, Mohini Giri, former chairperson of the National Commission
for Women, Manini Chatterjee, editor of The Telegraph in Delhi, Madhu Kishwar, editor of
Manushi, and Ragini Nayak, activist and former president of the Delhi University Students
Union.

The Bill, pushed by the government despite the threat of withdrawal of support by
Samajwadi Party and RJD, was passed by a two-third majority, a day after it was moved in
the House for consideration but could not be taken up because of unruly scenes.

Though the Rajya Sabha passed the historic women's reservation bill, the budget session of
Parliament ended on Friday without its introduction in the Lok Sabha, thanks to strong
opposition from the Rashtriya Janata Dal, the Samajwadi Party and the Janata Dal (United).
They were seeking a reservation within the reservation for 'other backward class' women.

The government now says the bill will have to wait for the monsoon session. It thus appears
clear that the legislation, endorsed by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi has been traded for
the government's survival.

"There couldn't be any talks on the women's reservation bill because Parliament was
focussing primarily on the budget," claimed parliamentary affairs minister, Pawan Kumar
Bansal on television.

Though the BJP, Left and the Congress passed the bill, the Yadavs comprising SP chief
Mulayam Singh Yadav, RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, and JD-U chief Sharad Yadav, went
on the warpath.

But on 27 April when the government faced a cut motion, the Yadavs supported the
government. Probably this is why the women's reservation bill never came up in the Lok
Sabha during the budget session. "Whatever happened over the cut motion in the
Parliament, the women's bill was sacrificed in the process," said leader of the opposition in
the Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj.
This set the stage for Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Lalu Prasad Yadav giving up their
opposition to the Nuclear Liability Bill on Friday, improving the prospects of its passage,
expected in the monsoon session.

And the government accepted their demand for a caste census, the first in Independent
India.Congress bonhomie with the Yadavs; on Friday,

"Things may not change in the monsoon session either. To get the Yadavs to say yes to
other bills, the UPA needs to keep saying no to the quota bill," television channell NDTV
reported.

"The Yadavs have controlled the fate of the bill since 1996. And they seem to be back in the
driver's seat once again. It seems that shelving the women's bill was the minimum support
price the government paid for survival," it reported.

India ranks 99 in world in women participation in politics

New Delhi: As the country debates the Women's Reservation Bill, data on Parliaments
across the world show that India, the largest democracy, lags much behind other countries,
including its neighbours Pakistan and Bangladesh, when it comes to participation of the fair
sex in politics.

With only 10.8 percent of women representation in the Lok Sabha and 9.0 percent in the
Rajya Sabha, India ranks 99 in the world, according to the comparative data by the Inter-
Parliamentary Union, an international organisation that works for promoting democracy,
peace and co-operation among people in the world.

At present India has only 59 women representatives out of 545 members in Lok Sabha,
while there are 21 female MPs in the 233-member Rajya Sabha

The figure, however, is better than that of last year as only nine percent of the members in
Lok Sabha and 9.5 percent in the Upper House were women in January 2009.

India ranks 50 places below Pakistan which is placed at 49 in the list with 22 percent women
representation in its Lower House and 17 percent in the Upper House.

Similarly, China and Bangladesh have also much higher representation of women in national
politics compared to India.
While the Communist country is placed at 55 in the list with 21.3 percent women
representation, Bangladesh is ranked 67th with 18.3 percent female participation in national
politics, the data revealed

Why reservation?

Natarajan believed women need reservation in Parliament and state legislatures because
society is “paternalistic” and it is difficult for them to contest and win elections against the
“established and entrenched male chauvinistic order in the society”.

“Unless this quota is given there will never be a chance of enough women in decision-
making places, such as Parliament and the state assemblies,” said Natarajan.

Kishwar, who has drafted an alternative to the bill, claimed the success rate of women
candidates is almost twice as high compared to men candidates in all elections. “Voters in
India don't discriminate against women, if anything they have a preference for female
candidates. It is party bosses and the entrenched culture of crime and corruption in all our
political parties that is marginalizing not just women but also honest men,” said Kishwar.

“It is parties that need to be democratized and made accountable--rid of crime, corruption
and violence. They must give women a level-playing field in the allocation of tickets,” said
Kishwar.

She believed that if parties gave a certain number of election tickets to women then perhaps
the Lok Sabha and state assemblies would have seventy-five percent women lawmakers
elected on merit. “The zanana dabba (women's compartment) of 33 per cent reservation
won’t be needed,” said Kishwar.

Reservation of seats is a better alternative because parties cannot be forced to allot tickets,
said Giri. The bill will enable women to have “easier access” to elections because they will
not have to fight criminals and muscle power, she said.

Aid to women or crutches?

That’s the problem, said Manini Chatterjee. The “easier” way to Parliament demeans
women. “In every other field women have fought on the basis of merit. It has not been an
easy fight but what you (women) need is a level-playing field at the entry level. You don’t
need a top landing at the apex level,” said Chatterjee.

Nayak disagreed. She believed quota is a facilitating process--“a bit of leg up”--that women
need.

Parties will not give women tickets even if they are threatened with deregistration, said
Natarajan. “In all political parties when the time comes for candidates to be chosen, the
people who decide say this (women) is not a winning candidate. For 62 years that is what
we have faced. If you force parties they will give women losing seats. This (bill) is by no
means patronizing or disrespectful (to women),” she said.

Giri argued that the 33 reservation is needed because every where in the country “wife
beating, female foeticide and everything that is against women” is going on.
Chatterjee refused to buy the man against woman argument. “That all women face the same
kind of oppression is a pernicious argument,” she said. “It is a very elitist argument through
which you can appear to be progressive, because you are for gender justice but it is a way
of suppressing other forms of injustice.

There was a “moral halo” around women’s rights before Independence, said Kishwar. “Why
have we have lost it in a manner that we have these ugly scenes and stalemate in
Parliament? It has something to do with the fact women who are entering politics are not
living up to the expectations that the freedom movement had of them.

Instead of bringing cleaner and better politics many of them are outdoing men in crime and
corruption. They are acting as proxies for their husbands,” she said.

“Women are deeply divided but in every caste, community and class they are the most
suppressed and the least able to fight elections and join the electoral process,” said
Natarajan.
But Chatterjee saw “no justification” for gender-based quota in Parliament. “I think this will
open up a Pandora's box, because all kinds of interest groups will ask for quota in
Parliament. If Sonia Gandhi and others believe women vote as women as a constituency
then there is going to be demand for quota in every field of endeavour. I shudder to think
then what India is going to be 10 years from now,” she said.
Giri believed doubts and fears about the bill were groundless. It's a historical moment--we
should not let it lose. Give a chance to women,"

The Women's Reservation Bill

A policy-decision, detached from reality.

A thorn in the foot

The 'Women's Reservation Bill' proposes to set aside 33% of the seats in Parliament to
women.

The issue of reservations has a been a thorn in the side of every government since
Independence. Why? Because, reservation is a fundamentally wrong principle. And in order
to implement a fundamentally wrong principle, one has to devise numerous irrational laws
and devices to cloak the ugly core of the principle. A lie has to be covered with other lies.
That's why reservation is a thorn.

What does one do when a thorn is stuck in one's foot? He plucks it out. And when are we
plucking out the thorn of reservations? At present, it only looks like the policy-makers of the
nation are only bent upon driving the thorn further into the foot.

The idea of reservations originated first in attempts to correct historical wrongs. That it
doesn't accomplish that in any way, only aggravates differences between different 'groups'
of people is a totally different issue. The concept of reservations is now being expanded to
include current perceptions of injustice to certain sections of society, more precisely that
section which is made of people of a particular sex, women.

A victory for feminism

Why should seats be reserved in Parliament for women? So that women can be
represented? Whoever thinks that only women can represent the needs of women the best?
Parliament is not intended as a demographic mirror of society, that all sections of society get
a fair share of representation there. Parliament is the place where the laws of the land are
made and the future direction of the nation decided. The half-witted idea that only a 'woman
can truly stand for her compatriots' stands at the root of this corruption of an already
corrupted idea-reservations. Note that the BJP is supporting this Bill in accordance with its
policy on Women. And predictably, its policy stems from one Sanskrit word-'Narishakti',
without any consideration as to why women really stand oppressed today. The BJP's
introductory remark in the 'Empowerment of Women' section of Chapter 9 of the Manifesto...

"It is not enough to talk about removing discrimination against women and establishing
gender equality. We need to create new mechanisms for the social, political and economic
advancement of women as also to generate social awareness on gender issues. One such
mechanism is empowerment, including empowerment through enactment of laws."

It makes things very clear. If women have been suppressed for ages and their rights forcibly
denied and privileges taken away from them, the solution doesn't lie in sending some
women to Parliament by precondition.

What really matters is a candidate's merit, not sex.

The women supporting the bill, have made a complete bromide of the issue. All of them
stand for 'the liberated woman of the 90s', 'women's rights', and other such overused terms
and cliches. Not one of them seems to gauge the harm such a bill would do to the actual
Womens' Movement. That women have been suppressed for long, through the course of
history is true. That they continue to be victims of harassment, torture and long hours of
labour is true.

But is this how we fight injustice? Is this our retort to deeds of evil?

The fact is that a section of society has been unduly subjected to atrocities.Atrocities are
atrocities. And they are not going to be stopped by sending a proportion of them to
Parliament. What we need is individualism. A culture of respect for an individual irrespective
of gender, based on the merit of what he or she has to say.

A candidate in an election is to be judged by the content of his ideas, his record of

implementing them, and by his character. It doesn't matter whether the candidate is a 'he' or
a 'she'.

What should actually be done?

Education and removal of old 'anti-women' concepts and strict law enforcement can make a
woman walk confidently on the streets. And achieve what she wants without help or
interference from any external sources. If such conditions ensue, why will women ask for
reservations?

Why should considerations of gender enter democratic processes? Michael S. Berliner says
about racism...

"Racism is the notion that one’s race determines one’s identity. It is the belief that one’s
convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one’s mind but by
one’s anatomy or “blood.” This view causes people to be condemned (or praised) based on
their racial membership. In turn, it leads them to condemn or praise others on the same
basis. In fact, one can gain an authentic sense of pride only from one’s own achievements,
not from inherited characteristics.". A similar outlook is the basis for discrimination of women
in Indian society. Sexual discrimination against women stems from the notion that one’s sex
determines one’s identity. The outlook is that a man is superior to a woman, not because of
considerations of merit of thought, but by anatomical considerations. And the enforcement of
such belief-systems upon women is carried out by persuasion, blackmail, threat of physical
violence and sometimes direct bodily or psychological injury. So fighting such stupid beliefs
should form the core of those want to uplift conditions of women.

Yet the proponents of the Womens' Reservation Bill propose to fight injustice with injustice.
They are feeding the prejudices of the patriarchal sections of society by supporting such a
bill. They want to plant puppets like Rabri Devi in 182 seats in Parliament and gloat over
their victory in their struggle for 'equal opportunities' with men.

For and against

Those who favour the bill, say that it is a prerequisite for active political participation of
women, which will ultimately lead to their empowerment. “It was long overdue. And for a
country with a woman lok sabha speaker, a woman president and a woman remote control
PM, what is this fuss of not allowing this bill?”, argues Ankush Agarwal, CEO - Mint RPO.
“This will allow the vote bank politics in India to significantly reduce,” he continues, “and
hopefully, women in parliament will balance the nepotism, corruption, and greed that is
associated with the current crop of MPs and some real development will take place.”
“This will help in the fight against all issues of discrimination, deprivation, abuse, etc., that
women face currently,” agrees Mita Pal, a banker in Pune. While it seems true, considering
the unequal status of women in our country, many opine that it’s simply a political stunt and
that the government is addressing a serious issue from a wrong direction.

A large chunk of young citizens feel that reservation should be based on merit and not
gender. “I do not see how women who need upliftment would benefit from the bill,” says Roli
Srivatsava, a Hyderabad-based senior journalist. “Yes, there is a need for better
representation of women in the parliament but are we just seeking a gender representation
here? Imagine settling for a lesser experienced candidate just because that particular seat is
reserved for a woman. Reservation may not ensure that equality.”

The Political angle

Politicians are debating over it for reasons other than what is apparent. “A debate is
needed,” explains Roli, “ but the tenor of the debate is certainly not worth it. From the
political angle, the opposition to the bill is because of the `rotation system' that the bill will
lend itself to in its execution, wherein over the next 15 years (which means three general
elections) every constituency in the country would have been represented by one woman
candidate at least once. Now this would mean that a strong candidate may lose that foothold
which he has enjoyed over the last many years in that one general election (because the
seat would be reserved for a woman) and thus the resistance.”

Constitution 108th Amendment Bill 2008 commonly known as women’s reservation

bill was passed by Rajya Sabha by 186 in favour 1 against 39 abstained (Current
strength of Rajya Sabha is 233). The bill seeks to reserve a third of the seats on the
Lok Sabha and state assemblies for 15 years on a rotational basis. It was first
introduced in 1996. Sharad Joshi, an independent MP is the only MP which cast vote
against the bill. In the present Lok Sabha, there are 59 women MPs out of 543 MPs.
Total MLAs in 29 state assemblies in India are 4093.

Voting of Women's Reservation Bill

 Out of the votes polled, 186 were in favour of the bill and only one was against.

 The Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill could get through with "unequivocal"
support from the BJP and the Left in the Upper House where the ruling UPA
coalition is in minority. The 245-member House has an effective strength of 233.

 UPA ally Trinamool Congress, with two members in the Upper House, did not
participate in the voting.

 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley described
the measure as "momentous and historic".

 BSP, having 12 members, walked out of the House saying the bill did not contain
amendments suggested by it.

 Lok Sabha also witnessed unruly scenes created by SP, RJD and JD(U) who forced
four adjournments.
 14 years after the first attempt was made in the Lok Sabha and repeated failures
subsequently, the Constitution amendment bill was adopted in the mandatory
division with 186 members voting for it and one voting against.

 In the 245-member House with an effective strength of 233, the bill required the
backing of at least 155 members and the UPA had the clear support of 165 in the
run up to the event.

 The bill seeks to reserve for women 181 of the 543 seats in the Lok Sabha and
1,370 out of a total of 4,109 seats in the 28 State Assemblies.

 Ruling UPA constituent Trinamool Congress, which has two members, kept away
from voting, while 15-member BSP, which has opposed the bill in its present form,
walked out before voting.

 JD(U), whose present Sharad Yadav is a staunch opponent of the Bill, appears to
have backed the Bill fully with most of its 7 members voting for it in response to the
call by one of its senior leaders and Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.

 After frenzied opposition and repeated disruptions, the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday
evening finally debated the historic women's reservation bill in the run up to a vote
on the legislation.

 Amongst those who spoke were Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) Arun Jaitley,
Communist Party of India-Marxist's (CPI-M) Brinda Karat, Bahujan Samaj Party's
(BSP) Satish Mishra and Jayanthi Natarajan of Congress.

 Opening the debate was Jaitley, who said his party "unequivocally" supported the
women's bill but added that the privilege of supporting it had been diluted by "some
of the most shameful incidents in India's parliamentary history".

 The leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, who spoke after the constitution
amendment bill was put to vote by Chairman Hamid Ansari, said he had a feeling of
being a party to history in the making when he came to the house.

 Karat, a vocal supporter of the bill, said women's reservation in parliament and state
legislatures would change the "culture of the country because women today are still
caught in a culture prison. In the name of tradition, stereotypes are imposed and we
have to fight these every day".

 These stereotypes will also be broken by the bill, said Karat, who believes the entry
of a larger number of women in legislatures would make for "more sensitive politics".

 "The women's reservation bill will ensure that women of Scheduled Caste,
Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Classes, poor women and Muslim women would
benefit from it," Karat said, addressing concerns that the bill would benefit only
some sections.

 Congress leader and spokesperson Jayanti Natarajan also refuted critics

demanding a special quota for Dalit women, saying Dalits and tribals would continue
to get reservation under the bill.
  A triumphant Natarajan said no other party "had the courage to deliver the promise
(of reservation for women) to the people of India". She said Congress president
Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had not lagged behind in
supporting measures for women's empowerment.

 However, Bahujan Samaj Party's Satish Mishra said his party would not be able to
support the proposed legislation in the current form. He wanted the prime minister to
reserve 50 percent of all seats in legislatures for women in line with their population
ratio.

 The AIADMK's V. Maitreyan pointed out that the bill was a great tribute to the Indian
housewife who he said had proved to be better financial managers of the household
"than all the finance ministers of India".

The Historical study of women in India

The Historical study of women in India reveals that there have been distinct stages of rise
and fall in their status. The decline in their status is reflected through various forms of
customs and laws relating to marriage, widowhood, property rights and social image of
women. As far as relevancy of March 8, 2010 is concerned, it is a long episode to discuss.

At first, the feminist movement concentrated on gaining legal equality--especially the right to
vote, called suffrage. In 1893, women in New Zealand were the first to win this right. They
were followed by women in Australia, many European countries, and the United States
during the early 1900's.

The feminist movement nearly disappeared after women had received the right to vote.
During the mid-1900's, however, increasing numbers of women entered the labour force.
They found that many high-paying jobs were closed to them. Feminist groups fought to end
educational and job discrimination against women. Large numbers of women entered law,
medicine, politics, business, and other traditionally male fields. Feminists worked for wider
availability of birth control information and legalized abortion in some countries. They also
called for men and women to share child care and other family responsibilities.

Nevertheless other parties, as always happens, shall try to oppose the bill, as the chances
of their male counterparts entering the Parliament would be decreased. Therefore they are
giving useless arguments, so the heart of this bill could be easily hampered. It is very
surprising that parties that believe in the ideology of Ram Manohar Lohia, Karpuri Thakur
and Mahatma Gandhi, are opposing this bill.

In the steel city (Jamshedpur) of Jharkhand, from where voices are raised against this bill,
today a tribal woman has been compelled to commit suicide against the male charges of
witchcraft. Many innocent women and girls are exploited in acts and activities of human
trafficking conducted by their male counterparts. These weaknesses are due to their
marginal role in policy making programmes.

Throughout history, many societies have held women in an inferior status as compared to
that of men. Women's lower status was often justified as being the natural result of biological
differences between the sexes. In many societies, for example, people believed women to
be naturally more emotional and less decisive than men. Women were also held to be less
intelligent and less creative by nature. But research shows that women and men have the
same range of emotional, intellectual, and creative characteristics.

Many sociologists, psychologists and anthropologists view that various cultures have taught
girls to behave according to negative stereotypes (images) of femininity, thus keeping alive
the idea that women are naturally inferior. The socialization of men and women are done
according to their sex. The entry of women in every field, establishing their identity and
making a mark in every sphere can help to provide a better place in society for them.

What happen if This Act was passes.

When this passes, two-thirds of all the candidates in any election will become ineligible for
the next one. As a result, every election will see two-third of the contestants being knocked
over by design: one-third will be knocked over because their seat will become reserved for
women and another one-third, all women, from seats which will cease to be reserved.

The debate will soon shift to the procedure adopted to identify the one-third seats, to be
reserved. The method of identification and the sequencing of seats up for reservation are
likely to be critical concerns for all political parties since each party has its own strongholds.
The Parliament could either lay down the method itself or leave it for some other agency like
the Election Commission to finalise the details.

Forbes India tried to find out likely ways in which seats could be reserved. Since only 33
percent of the constituencies can be covered in one election, any method will necessarily
involve rotation of seats in order to cover all the seats in the country in the course of three
elections.
The bill will pave the way for many fresh candidates into electoral politics. The current bill
was introduced by UPA government in May 2008. However, since the mid 1990s, similar
bills have been introduced thrice but could not be passed, due to a lack of consensus
among the political parties.

OPTION 1: LOTTERY

What Is to Be Done
Many agree that drawing a lottery could be one way to ensure fairness.

 Make a random selection of 33 percent from the total parliamentary seats in a state
to come under reservation in the first elections.
 Then, keeping these aside, one could do another round of lottery to identify the
second lot of 33 percent seats that will come under reservation in the succeeding
election.
 The leftover 33 percent of the seats will automatically come under reservation in the
election after that.
 This will ensure a one-third reservation for women not just across the country but
also across each state.

How Will It Be Done

While this method may work for smaller states like Delhi, it could yield a politically
unacceptable distribution for bigger states like Uttar Pradesh. “What if, for the sake of
argument, bulk of the reserved seats, according to a random selection, fall in western UP,”
asks Madhavan. To ensure greater geographical spread, Madhavan suggests “zoning” for
the bigger states.
This means breaking up a state into smaller parts and drawing a similar lottery within each
part. For example the 80 constituencies of Uttar Pradesh could be divided into eight parts
comprising of 10 constituencies each.

What Is Left Unaddressed

The hitch is the absence of any logic in choosing constituency. One way to choose the 33
percent constituencies that go for reservation first up, could be by identifying those
constituencies which have the highest proportion of women voters. Or constituencies which
have historically seen the lowest female representation could be chosen. A simple lottery
does not account for any such logic.

OPTION 2: NUMBERING BY ELECTION COMMISSION

However, opposition to women reservations is likely to continue especially at the local

levels. So it is not difficult to imagine politicians who get a raw deal in the lottery system
protesting even more.

What Is to Be Done
A simpler option may lie in using the innocuous looking numbering that Election Commission
uses for identifying constituencies in a Parliamentary election. For example, Bijnore is
numbered 1 among the 80 constituencies in Uttar Pradesh while Lucknow is 16 and
Saharanpur, almost contiguous to Bijnore is 80th.
How Is It to Be Done
Start from one point in the North of the state, move North East, turn clockwise to reach back
the North. So there is a sequence of numbering in each state which, if followed, will also
take care of geographical distribution of the 33 percent.

What Is Left Unaddressed

This solution suffers from a lack of political logic. Politicians could be suspicious as this
method will not involve a political debate on a matter that will potentially affect their electoral
fate.

Opinions

Will the Women`s Reservation Bill help women?

From asking for quotas within quotas to arguing that dealing with issues like female foeticide
would benefit women more, the arguments remain unchanged.

Ravi Shankar Prasad, Spokesperson, BJP

‘This will empower women but asking for quotas within quotas, as some are doing, will kill
the bill since it may amount to rewriting the Constitution'
Since time immemorial, Indian society has accorded respect to women. Now as a
democracy, we have to give women a proper space in a significant way in the democratic
setup. The tokenism of reservation for women must be converted into a meaningful and
substantive role for them. We in the BJP were the first to demand reservation for women at
our Baroda convention in the late 1980s. This process is a tool of empowerment which
comes from participation which, in turn, comes from opportunity. This progression from
opportunity to participation to empowerment is the basic logic behind asking for reservations
for women.

Traditionally, males are reluctant to concede space, particularly when the question of
empowerment comes up. Exceptions apart, this has been the general experience, hence
reservations through a legislative instrument make the social change mandatory and
unarguable.

A large number of reservations for women in panchayats have been in place all over the
country. We have seen for the last few years the phenomenon of veiled mukhias and
sarpanches conducting the affairs of their panchayats where earlier they could not even
dream of intervening. For example, when I travelled to a small village in Bihar to inaugurate
a new road built through my Member of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) fund,
I met a budding woman panchayat leader. She addressed a crowd of her own people with a
trembling voice. I was informed that this was the first time in her life that she had done so. I
am convinced that this was just a beginning for her. The second or third time that she will be
called upon to intervene through her role in the panchayat, the trembling would have ceased
and a new confidence would have taken its place. There I see a new India emerging.

It is important that there be a constructive consensus behind women's reservation because it

would usher in a new revolution in India. Those who talk of sub-categories of reservations
for OBCs, or Dalit Muslims and Christians in this larger question of reservation need to know
that in the last 60 years, as per our Constitution, we have given reservations only to the
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Religion-based reservation is prohibited under the
Constitution. Therefore, insistence over a sub-categorisation of reservation would have long-
term disastrous consequences because this reservation then cannot be confined only to
women and would have a spill-over effect for all, apart from its problematic legal position.

This may amount to the rewriting of the Constitution in many respects. It is important,
therefore, not to cloud this good initiative under the pretext of constitutionally impermissible
premises.

Sanjay Raut, Spokesperson, Shiv Sena

‘Those demanding reservation should first take up issues like female foeticide and female
literacy if they want to bring about real change'

It is our conviction that reservation based on caste, creed, region and even on gender ends
up in dividing society further, resulting in the benefit of a very select few. Not only this,
reservations create further divides between the haves and the have-nots. This is the why we
see demands for increasing the scope of reservations.

The Shiv Sena has always been a progressive and liberal party on women issues. Our
ideological position on women issues is defined by the thoughts of Prabodhankar Thakre
who was a great social reformer of Maharashtra and Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray's
father. Balasaheb also believes in his father's philosophy of women's empowerment.

Since the inception of the party, its women's wing has always been active and at the
forefront of all party agitations. The Sena has given women their due share in power, both in
the organisation and in elected posts, and that is not because they were women but
because they were able political workers.

We are of the firm opinion that the introduction of the women's reservation bill is nothing but
a populist move on the eve of elections and it will contribute nothing towards women's
empowerment. It will end up making a few hundred women MPs and MLAs, and that too,
mostly from influential political families.

If the government is serious about women's empowerment issues, then it should make
serious efforts to ensure that schemes implemented by the woman and child development
ministries at the central and state levels are effectively implemented.

We have a simple question to ask all those who advocate women's reservation vociferously:
did Indira Gandhi, Nandini Satpathy, Mayawati, Vasundhara Raje Scindia, Jaylalithaa and
many others like them need any reservation to come to Parliament or to the state
assemblies? They rose in public life it simply on their own merit, so why the talk of
reservation for women's empowerment?

Despite being given no reservation, we see many women occupying top posts in sectors like
administrative services, banking, media, IT and so on. Eventually they will leave a mark in
politics also. Social change is a slow process and one should not impose it on people.

Political parties that are advocating reservation for women should first take up issues like
female foeticide, women's literacy, malnourishment of the girl child, and so on, if they want
to bring real change in our society and change the outlook of society towards women

The most unfortunate part of the whole debate is that people like Lalu Prasad and Mulayam
Singh Yadav are demanding reservation within reservations. If Lalu Prasad is so concerned
about the welfare of OBC or Dalit women, why didn't he make a Dalit woman the chief
minister of Bihar, in place of Rabri Devi?