Amidst much obsequious and self-indulgent fanfare, the Congress party was able to push through the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Rajya Sabha. One reason for the inordinate hurry was the fact that constitutional policy change in India is now being made with a firm eye on international newspapers and magazines. It was a set-up. The 100th anniversary of Women’s Day, and our policy-makers want to see their picture on the front page of the New York Times, or better still, the cover of The Economist. It was easier in the olden days when all people wanted was to “see my smiling” face on the cover of the Rolling Stone. (Youngsters, check Google for the Dr Hook song). Thankfully, a Lok Sabha test awaits, so there is time.
From the introduction of the birth control Bill some 50 years ago to today, the world has come a long way. The remarkably-changing world order, where women are playing the same role as men used to. Much has been accomplished, and while it is politically and femininely correct to say that much remains, that isn’t so. Yes, some distance remains, but that does not give a licence to men, and institutions, to pass absurd legislation. Especially if a simple solution is in sight.
In typical Indian Constitution style (time to rewrite the Constitution — with more than 100 amendments in a short space of 60 years, none of us know what is the basic law, and what is man’s interpretation, and what is his re-interpretation), the Bill relies on quotas, read that for extreme lack of intelligence. It is so so India of the licence raj; set quantities. So, the Bill says that one-third of all legislative positions in the country will be reserved for women candidates only. These legislative positions will be in all forms of government, from the Lok Sabha to the village panchayats, where it already exists. Sounds simple and straightforward. The mistake is to assume that India, a country of 1.1 billion people, is a village. If it works in a village, it is bound to work at an all-India level. That is just not stupid, it is irresponsibly stupid.
As the men-quaking dust has settled, the cracks are beginning to appear. First, at the national level, how are the women constituencies to be chosen? Are they to be frozen in time, as the reserved seats for the SC/ST candidates are, or are they to rotate? The latter, because there isn’t any quintessential woman constituency. So, how are the women’s seats to be chosen? Oh, didn’t you know, by lottery. But, and amidst the mandatory references, and obsequious genuflections to all the vision and service the Nehru-Gandhi family has done for India, and is continuing to do so, we are told that the party is open to suggestions.
So, the Bill is as follows. One-third of the total constituencies will be chosen by lottery for women only. The lottery will mysteriously not touch certain constituencies, unless there is a national random TV drawing of the samples. The sitting candidate from the anointed constituency, man or woman, will have to go fish. But the Constitution requires residency, so are we going to change that part of the Constitution also? Why not, we have amended it more often than most people change their toothbrush.
Isn’t there a simpler way for achieving the worthwhile goal of equality? There is. Any recognised political party has to field in whatever election — Lok Sabha or municipal dog-catcher — at least one-third women. End of policy. As simple as it can get. Now, let us think of the implications. There can be an all-woman party, but there cannot be an all-man party. It can be the case that all the elected officials are women, it cannot be the case that all the elected officials are men. Far better, and far more equal, to give extra benefits to women today for equality tomorrow. By subscribing to laws like the women’s Bill, all of us, women and men, are signing on to something that couldn’t, shouldn’t and wouldn’t happen.
So, why are the women not demanding, signing up, for this deal? Surely, if a constitutional amendment can be made, requiring clearance by both Houses and ratification by 14 states, a simple agreement can be reached to field one-third women candidates. Because the women are smart, and the men dumb. With this law, women are guaranteed with 33 per cent seats in Parliament, a three-fold increase, and an increase guaranteed to stay forever. Oh, yes, there is the proviso that Parliament will look at the quota situation again in 10 years, but recall that reservations for SC/ST were meant to be reviewed every 10 years; instead, we have got quota after quota, with no end in sight. A sure 33 per cent by law, rather than a hard-fought battle against the male order of only 10 per cent at present? It’s a deal, say the smart women.
But maybe they are being too, too clever. They should know the Indian male who has kept them at a lower status than most countries in the world, including Bangladesh and Pakistan. The clever, chauvinist, cheating Indian male has most likely given them the Rajya Sabha bait. The law is unlikely to get passed in the Lok Sabha. The smarter men are likely to triumph. By not going for the simpler, fairer solution, the Indian women, and women all across the world, and humanity, are the loser.
The author is Chairman of Oxus Investments, an merging market advisory and fund management firm. Please visit www.oxusinvestments.com for an archive of articles et al; comments welcome at: surjit.bhalla@oxusinvestments.com
