Let me start with a strong assertion that I am neither an anti-feminist writer, nor a campaigner of male chauvinism. I am among those ordinary people who admire achievement of our women folk and pitch for their empowerment.
So, the much-hyped Women’s quota Bill was passed in the Upper House of the Indian Parliament despite voracious protests by a section of our leaders. The Bill reserves 33 percent of the seats in the Lok Sabha and Assemblies for the women. In other words, women will now be constitutionally lured to contest in 181 of the 543 Lok Sabha seats and 1,370 out of a total of 4,109 seats in the 28 State Assemblies. The massive numbers have led the mainstream media to join the bandwagon with so-called women activists and conclusively declare – a historic day in Indian politics, victory for Indian women and other buzzwords.
It is always fascinating to see our divas at the dais! After all, women symbolize beauty, compassion and tolerance. What about the men in the post-reservation era?
Indian Constitution provides its citizen a right to content an election and represent the people in the Parliament and Assemblies. The draconian Bill slaps this basic right from men and turns the sizable number of constituencies into no entry zones for them. Some millions of men will be denied to enter into these zones. Isn’t it a gross violation of Constitutional rights of men?
Democracy in India is already mired by the dirty reservation politics. Some 120 seats (41 for STs and 79 for SCs) are reserved in the Lok Sabha, while 25 percent seats are reserved for the backward classes in the state Assemblies. And also 33 percent of seats are reserved for women in the Panchayat levels. The government is now considering a proposal to raise it to 50 percent. Ironically, a general candidate cannot contest in these constituencies. However, the law of the land does not prohibit them (SC or ST) from contesting in any constituency marked general. Same case is with the Women’s quota Bill. Women can contest anywhere they like while men are not eligible to contest in as many as 181 seats.
The women activists claim that the reservation Bill will go a long way in uplifting the underprivileged women. The proposition seems to be a myth considering the performance of women leaders at the Panchayat levels. Are the men privileged enough to deprive them from active politics?
Undeniably, only 54 percent of women are literate, although they constitute half of India’s population. The male literacy rate is 76 percent. Around 4.5 million girls are not completing primary education. Also the maternal mortality rate is about 450 per 100,000 live births. Participation of women in the both government and private jobs are not encouraging in comparison to other developed countries. To say the least about the crime against the women! Considering these indicators, the Bill has got emphatic support from women activists. But, if you consider these indicators ten years back, one thing is apparent that the socio-economic status of women is improving over the years. Hence, it is not the reservation, but the better governance and progressive policies that changed the scenario.
History records achievement of our women leaders, whose credibility is unquestionable. Sarojini Naidu, Durgabai Desmukh and Sucheta Kripalani did not bank on reservation to move the masses with their political ideologies. Also the modern ruthless leaders Maya, Jaya, Uma or Mamta did not require reservation power to rise to the power. Hence, ensuring reservation to women indirectly questions their capabilities.
Democracy is ideally a form of government, where everybody has a share, constitutionally equally share . It essentially does not mean distribution or delegation of powers through reservation.
India is a role model for the rest of the Asian countries because of her vibrant democracy. The vibrant democracy is in the process of decay due to the dirty reservation politics. Indian democracy has produced a good number of great leaders, who played a pioneering role during the formative years of our country. It has also encouraged dynasty politics to encourage monarchical style of selection. Today, we have many political dynasties; dynasties within a party. If the Bill becomes law, it is not surprising to see a neo-dynasty politics, where wives, sisters and mothers will be crowded in the parliament on behalf of their husbands, brothers and sons.
13 comments:
Hi, ur blog is really nice & informative, while reading it I truly like it. I just wanna suggest that u should submit your blog in this website which is offering very unique features at cheap prices there are expert advertising team who will not only provide the adspace but also promote ur blog & affiliate ads through all over the networks which will definitely boost ur traffic & readers. Finally I have bookmarked ur blog & also shared to my friends. hope u have a wonderful day & !!happy blogging!!.
The Women's Reservation Bill in current form is undemocratic.
This bill attempts to deny 110 million Indian men the right to contest in elections.
People who tabled the bill should be arrested for attacking democracy.
Army should takeover and arrest PM, Sonia and save democracy.
The German Model of Women's Reservation by political parties is democratic and gives women more than 30% representation.
In Germany, political parties field 30% women candidates in elections.
If Germany can do it, why can not India?
Women's Organisation calls the bill Undemocratic and wants changes
Please sign the petion and forward :-
http://www.petitiononline.com/womenres/petition.html
This is it!
Every word made me feel as if this was me thinking. All this din and chaos has sidelined the NECESSITY to see what lies beneath the figures and the consequences it could have on an Indian.
Only if our politicians and sisters panned out from the skewed vision of their's and saw things from a broader perspective and thought in a similar tangent.
We need more journalists like you.
This is one of the most hideous bill against democracy in particular and the concept of gender equality in general.
However, that is not what I am too concerned about. I am concerned about the fact that little or no woman would come forward independently to fight elections. Even if they do, they would be pitted against women from strong political backgrounds or backings, and there is no way they can win the elections.
Then, this rotational thing. What would be the incentive for a woman to work well for her constituency if the reservation thingy is withdrawn during the next general elections. Besides, given the short nature of Indian public memory, there would be no motivation for her to work for her constituency in the first few years. Even if she does in the last year (say 5th if it goes the full distance), people have to remember it after 5 yrs when the next to next elections take place.
That's a tall order.
Then, if such a law is enacted, there would be extremely high difficulty in getting anti-men draconian laws as anti-dowry laws, domestic violence laws, etc etc diluted which, I think is extremely important.
Feminism will be encouraged further decaying the Indian way of life.
These are some interesting points that you raise. However, in my opinion, they are dangerously close to what one would term as "xenophobic chauvinism".
You cited the name of a few female politicians, having made it without reservation. Barring the few that you mentioned, I can barely think of any who have "made it". The patriarchal leanings of our society are inherent in daily political discourse. The dismal numbers of women in the legislative bodies is symptomatic of this phenomenon. Moreover, you argue that providing reservation would be to question their potential. Extrapolating from that argument, would it not be equally logical to argue that your fearful and rather "conservative" arguments are an insult the capabilities of a male?
I do not wish to challenge your claim that most acts of ensuring reservation are populist in nature and politically motivated. But, to use that as a template to reject any development would be naive.
In the course of your article you also cited some statistics about the status of women in terms of literacy, mortality rate, etc. For one, the very apparatus used by the state to arrive at this figure has been a subject of heated debate. Secondly, the figures, by any analysts such as P. Sainath and Nagarajan are considered as optimistic. Thirdly, to congratulate ourselves on the “improving” status of women would be perverse and obscene. The HDI indices released annually show the grim realities, wherein on some indices we fare worse than Sub-Saharan African countries. It would be amateurish to trace the “growth” of women over the last couple of decades and conclude that the “socio-economic status of women is improving”. It is implausible to sustain arguments for India as a superpower, with such blemishes.
I am personally of the opinion that the reservation is a progressive step. However, even this initiative is cosmetic, at best, and will not address societal constraints strangling women.
Finally, even after the passing of this bill, 282 seats in the parliament will be open to males from the general category. In a house of 543 (+2), this figure is still greater than 50%. Whereas, the basic logic of proportionality would reveal that males of the general category still enjoy opportunities disproportionate to their demographic quantum.
To conclude, why express fears about the "millions" who won’t be able to contest elections? Is this bill expected to inspire a sudden awakening of the slumbering millions who will not be able to contest the polls? And how many of the "millions" actually visualise a future for themselves in politics? For all the fears that you express, you certainly chose to steer clear of the political arena and pursue other career options.
I do respect you arguments, primarily for your persuasiveness, but not for the rather archaic nature of thoughts. I sincerely hope that this comment compels you to rethink your position.
These are some interesting points that you raise. However, in my opinion, they are dangerously close to what one would term as "xenophobic chauvinism".
You cited the name of a few female politicians, having made it without reservation. Barring the few that you mentioned, I can barely think of any who have "made it". The patriarchal leanings of our society are inherent in daily political discourse. The dismal numbers of women in the legislative bodies is symptomatic of this phenomenon. Moreover, you argue that providing reservation would be to question their potential. Extrapolating from that argument, would it not be equally logical to argue that your fearful and rather "conservative" arguments are an insult the capabilities of a male?
I do not wish to challenge your claim that most acts of ensuring reservation are populist in nature and politically motivated. But, to use that as a template to reject any development would be naive.
In the course of your article you also cited some statistics about the status of women in terms of literacy, mortality rate, etc. For one, the very apparatus used by the state to arrive at this figure has been a subject of heated debate. Secondly, the figures, by any analysts such as P. Sainath and Nagarajan are considered as optimistic. Thirdly, to congratulate ourselves on the “improving” status of women would be perverse and obscene. The HDI indices released annually show the grim realities, wherein on some indices we fare worse than Sub-Saharan African countries. It would be amateurish to trace the “growth” of women over the last couple of decades and conclude that the “socio-economic status of women is improving”. It is implausible to sustain arguments for India as a superpower, with such blemishes.
I am personally of the opinion that the reservation is a progressive step. However, even this initiative is cosmetic, at best, and will not address societal constraints strangling women.
Finally, even after the passing of this bill, 282 seats in the parliament will be open to males from the general category. In a house of 543 (+2), this figure is still greater than 50%. Whereas, the basic logic of proportionality would reveal that males of the general category still enjoy opportunities disproportionate to their demographic quantum.
To conclude, why express fears about the "millions" who won’t be able to contest elections? Is this bill expected to inspire a sudden awakening of the slumbering millions who will not be able to contest the polls? And how many of the "millions" actually visualise a future for themselves in politics? For all the fears that you express, you certainly chose to steer clear of the political arena and pursue other career options.
I do respect you arguments, primarily for your persuasiveness, but not for the rather archaic nature of thoughts. I sincerely hope that this comment compels you to rethink your position.
These are some interesting points that you raise. However, in my opinion, they are dangerously close to what one would term as "xenophobic chauvinism".
You cited the name of a few female politicians, having made it without reservation. Barring the few that you mentioned, I can barely think of any who have "made it". The patriarchal leanings of our society are inherent in daily political discourse. The dismal numbers of women in the legislative bodies is symptomatic of this phenomenon. Moreover, you argue that providing reservation would be to question their potential. Extrapolating from that argument, would it not be equally logical to argue that your fearful and rather "conservative" arguments are an insult the capabilities of a male?
I do not wish to challenge your claim that most acts of ensuring reservation are populist in nature and politically motivated. But, to use that as a template to reject any development would be naive.
In the course of your article you also cited some statistics about the status of women in terms of literacy, mortality rate, etc. For one, the very apparatus used by the state to arrive at this figure has been a subject of heated debate. Secondly, the figures, by any analysts such as P. Sainath and Nagarajan are considered as optimistic. Thirdly, to congratulate ourselves on the “improving” status of women would be perverse and obscene. The HDI indices released annually show the grim realities, wherein on some indices we fare worse than Sub-Saharan African countries. It would be amateurish to trace the “growth” of women over the last couple of decades and conclude that the “socio-economic status of women is improving”. It is implausible to sustain arguments for India as a superpower, with such blemishes.
I am personally of the opinion that the reservation is a progressive step. However, even this initiative is cosmetic, at best, and will not address societal constraints strangling women.
Finally, even after the passing of this bill, 282 seats in the parliament will be open to males from the general category. In a house of 543 (+2), this figure is still greater than 50%. Whereas, the basic logic of proportionality would reveal that males of the general category still enjoy opportunities disproportionate to their demographic quantum.
To conclude, why express fears about the "millions" who won’t be able to contest elections? Is this bill expected to inspire a sudden awakening of the slumbering millions who will not be able to contest the polls? And how many of the "millions" actually visualise a future for themselves in politics? For all the fears that you express, you certainly chose to steer clear of the political arena and pursue other career options.
I do respect you arguments, primarily for your persuasiveness, but not for the rather archaic nature of thoughts. I sincerely hope that this comment compels you to rethink your position.
These are some interesting points that you raise. However, in my opinion, they are dangerously close to what one would term as "xenophobic chauvinism".
You cited the name of a few female politicians, having made it without reservation. Barring the few that you mentioned, I can barely think of any who have "made it". The patriarchal leanings of our society are inherent in daily political discourse. The dismal numbers of women in the legislative bodies is symptomatic of this phenomenon. Moreover, you argue that providing reservation would be to question their potential. Extrapolating from that argument, would it not be equally logical to argue that your fearful and rather "conservative" arguments are an insult the capabilities of a male?
I do not wish to challenge your claim that most acts of ensuring reservation are populist in nature and politically motivated. But, to use that as a template to reject any development would be naive.
In the course of your article you also cited some statistics about the status of women in terms of literacy, mortality rate, etc. For one, the very apparatus used by the state to arrive at this figure has been a subject of heated debate. Secondly, the figures, by any analysts such as P. Sainath and Nagarajan are considered as optimistic. Thirdly, to congratulate ourselves on the “improving” status of women would be perverse and obscene. The HDI indices released annually show the grim realities, wherein on some indices we fare worse than Sub-Saharan African countries. It would be amateurish to trace the “growth” of women over the last couple of decades and conclude that the “socio-economic status of women is improving”. It is implausible to sustain arguments for India as a superpower, with such blemishes.
I am personally of the opinion that the reservation is a progressive step. However, even this initiative is cosmetic, at best, and will not address societal constraints strangling women.
Finally, even after the passing of this bill, 282 seats in the parliament will be open to males from the general category. In a house of 543 (+2), this figure is still greater than 50%. Whereas, the basic logic of proportionality would reveal that males of the general category still enjoy opportunities disproportionate to their demographic quantum.
To conclude, why express fears about the "millions" who won’t be able to contest elections? Is this bill expected to inspire a sudden awakening of the slumbering millions who will not be able to contest the polls? And how many of the "millions" actually visualise a future for themselves in politics? For all the fears that you express, you certainly chose to steer clear of the political arena and pursue other career options.
I do respect you arguments, primarily for your persuasiveness, but not for the rather archaic nature of thoughts. I sincerely hope that this comment compels you to rethink your position.
These are some interesting points that you raise. However, in my opinion, they are dangerously close to what one would term as "xenophobic chauvinism".
You cited the name of a few female politicians, having made it without reservation. Barring the few that you mentioned, I can barely think of any who have "made it". The patriarchal leanings of our society are inherent in daily political discourse. The dismal numbers of women in the legislative bodies is symptomatic of this phenomenon. Moreover, you argue that providing reservation would be to question their potential. Extrapolating from that argument, would it not be equally logical to argue that your fearful and rather "conservative" arguments are an insult the capabilities of a male?
I do not wish to challenge your claim that most acts of ensuring reservation are populist in nature and politically motivated. But, to use that as a template to reject any development would be naive.
In the course of your article you also cited some statistics about the status of women in terms of literacy, mortality rate, etc. For one, the very apparatus used by the state to arrive at this figure has been a subject of heated debate. Secondly, the figures, by any analysts such as P. Sainath and Nagarajan are considered as optimistic. Thirdly, to congratulate ourselves on the “improving” status of women would be perverse and obscene. The HDI indices released annually show the grim realities, wherein on some indices we fare worse than Sub-Saharan African countries. It would be amateurish to trace the “growth” of women over the last couple of decades and conclude that the “socio-economic status of women is improving”. It is implausible to sustain arguments for India as a superpower, with such blemishes.
I am personally of the opinion that the reservation is a progressive step. However, even this initiative is cosmetic, at best, and will not address societal constraints strangling women.
Finally, even after the passing of this bill, 282 seats in the parliament will be open to males from the general category. In a house of 543 (+2), this figure is still greater than 50%. Whereas, the basic logic of proportionality would reveal that males of the general category still enjoy opportunities disproportionate to their demographic quantum.
To conclude, why express fears about the "millions" who won’t be able to contest elections? Is this bill expected to inspire a sudden awakening of the slumbering millions who will not be able to contest the polls? And how many of the "millions" actually visualise a future for themselves in politics? For all the fears that you express, you certainly chose to steer clear of the political arena and pursue other career options.
I do respect you arguments, primarily for your persuasiveness, but not for the rather archaic nature of thoughts. I sincerely hope that this comment compels you to rethink your position.
These are some interesting points that you raise. However, in my opinion, they are dangerously close to what one would term as "xenophobic chauvinism".
You cited the name of a few female politicians, having made it without reservation. Barring the few that you mentioned, I can barely think of any who have "made it". The patriarchal leanings of our society are inherent in daily political discourse. The dismal numbers of women in the legislative bodies is symptomatic of this phenomenon. Moreover, you argue that providing reservation would be to question their potential. Extrapolating from that argument, would it not be equally logical to argue that your fearful and rather "conservative" arguments are an insult the capabilities of a male?
I do not wish to challenge your claim that most acts of ensuring reservation are populist in nature and politically motivated. But, to use that as a template to reject any development would be naive.
In the course of your article you also cited some statistics about the status of women in terms of literacy, mortality rate, etc. For one, the very apparatus used by the state to arrive at this figure has been a subject of heated debate. Secondly, the figures, by any analysts such as P. Sainath and Nagarajan are considered as optimistic. Thirdly, to congratulate ourselves on the “improving” status of women would be perverse and obscene. The HDI indices released annually show the grim realities, wherein on some indices we fare worse than Sub-Saharan African countries. It would be amateurish to trace the “growth” of women over the last couple of decades and conclude that the “socio-economic status of women is improving”. It is implausible to sustain arguments for India as a superpower, with such blemishes.
I am personally of the opinion that the reservation is a progressive step. However, even this initiative is cosmetic, at best, and will not address societal constraints strangling women.
Finally, even after the passing of this bill, 282 seats in the parliament will be open to males from the general category. In a house of 543 (+2), this figure is still greater than 50%. Whereas, the basic logic of proportionality would reveal that males of the general category still enjoy opportunities disproportionate to their demographic quantum.
To conclude, why express fears about the "millions" who won’t be able to contest elections? Is this bill expected to inspire a sudden awakening of the slumbering millions who will not be able to contest the polls? And how many of the "millions" actually visualise a future for themselves in politics? For all the fears that you express, you certainly chose to steer clear of the political arena and pursue other career options.
I do respect you arguments, primarily for your persuasiveness, but not for the rather archaic nature of thoughts. I sincerely hope that this comment compels you to rethink your position.
These are some interesting points that you raise. However, in my opinion, they are dangerously close to what one would term as "xenophobic chauvinism".
You cited the name of a few female politicians, having made it without reservation. Barring the few that you mentioned, I can barely think of any who have "made it". The patriarchal leanings of our society are inherent in daily political discourse. The dismal numbers of women in the legislative bodies is symptomatic of this phenomenon. Moreover, you argue that providing reservation would be to question their potential. Extrapolating from that argument, would it not be equally logical to argue that your fearful and rather "conservative" arguments are an insult the capabilities of a male?
I do not wish to challenge your claim that most acts of ensuring reservation are populist in nature and politically motivated. But, to use that as a template to reject any development would be naive.
In the course of your article you also cited some statistics about the status of women in terms of literacy, mortality rate, etc. For one, the very apparatus used by the state to arrive at this figure has been a subject of heated debate. Secondly, the figures, by any analysts such as P. Sainath and Nagarajan are considered as optimistic. Thirdly, to congratulate ourselves on the “improving” status of women would be perverse and obscene. The HDI indices released annually show the grim realities, wherein on some indices we fare worse than Sub-Saharan African countries. It would be amateurish to trace the “growth” of women over the last couple of decades and conclude that the “socio-economic status of women is improving”. It is implausible to sustain arguments for India as a superpower, with such blemishes.
I am personally of the opinion that the reservation is a progressive step. However, even this initiative is cosmetic, at best, and will not address societal constraints strangling women.
Finally, even after the passing of this bill, 282 seats in the parliament will be open to males from the general category. In a house of 543 (+2), this figure is still greater than 50%. Whereas, the basic logic of proportionality would reveal that males of the general category still enjoy opportunities disproportionate to their demographic quantum.
To conclude, why express fears about the "millions" who won’t be able to contest elections? Is this bill expected to inspire a sudden awakening of the slumbering millions who will not be able to contest the polls? And how many of the "millions" actually visualise a future for themselves in politics? For all the fears that you express, you certainly chose to steer clear of the political arena and pursue other career options.
I do respect you arguments, primarily for your persuasiveness, but not for the rather archaic nature of thoughts. I sincerely hope that this comment compels you to rethink your position.
Nice one buddy!! Keep it up!!
http://indiawithme-prateek.blogspot.com/
Hi
This blog is very nice.I like its blog.
Indian Holidays are increasingly becoming so popular amongst tourists from all over the world
Post a Comment