Everyone of you would have heard of the Women's Reservation Bill proposed by successive Indian governments. Every government since 1996 tried but failed to pass this bill in the Parliament. It means there is considerable opposition to the bill among the Indian lawmakers(MPs) even though every political party, except two or three, publicly expressed their support for the bill time and again.
This bill proposes to reserve one third (33.3%) of all the seats in the Parliament and state assemblies for women. Every one seems to have an opinion on the bill, most of them thinking it is a good proposal. I too have an opinion. I oppose it in the present form. You would have guessed the author is a man, and also a chauvinist :). I don't blame you. Popular media of our country (newspapers, magazines, news channels...) overwhelmingly and unanimously supported the bill. I think no other bill has ever received so much of media support in the recent past. Media is the biggest factor influencing public opinion in any society. Media so heavily polarized public opinion on this bill to the extent that any one opposing it is seen as a male chauvinist. Only few politicians like Lalu and Mulayam have the temerity to publicly oppose it (albeit for the wrong reasons).
I feel this bill is not really put up for discussion in the public domain. Ordinary people like you and I never discussed the pros and cons of the bill. Everyone would have heard or read many good things of the bill. Let use also see the bad things of the bill. Consider the question, why only one third of the seats for women, why not half the seats when half (little less) of the population are women? What is the basis for this 33.3%? Also imagine what would happen if this bill becomes a law. Close to 25% of the seats in Parliament are already reserved for SCs and STs. If 33.3% of remaining are reserved for women, only 50% of the total seats would be open for anyone. It means only 272 seats will be unreserved, open for all. Of these, one is reserved for Rahul Gandhi, one for Sonia Gandhi, one for Varun Gandhi, one for the Scindhia boy, one for the Pilot boy, one for Farooq Abdullah or Omar Abdullah, one for the Owaisi boy.. the list goes on and on. Where is the chance for a common man who has no reservation? Let us take the case of Andhra Pradesh. Of 42 MP seats, 10 ( 7 SC + 3 ST) are already reserved. If 11 of the remaining are reserved for women, only 21 seats would be open for all. Of these 21, one would be for YSR family, one would be for NTR family, one would be for Chiranjeevi's family, one for the Owaisi family....... The bill, in the name of increasing the representation of women, is taking away the opportunities of common men. There would be no big benefit to Common women ( equivalent of common men) either. Many of these newly reserved seats would go to the wives, daughters, sisters, even darlings.... of the great Indian political families. Above all, reservation is never a good policy. There is no end to it. So, my fellow common men and women, let us oppose the bill.
In that case, what should be done to increase the representation of women in the Parliament and state assemblies? I have a different proposal. Consider doubling the size of the Parliament and state assemblies. Every constituency would elect one man MP and one woman MP, one man MLA and one woman MLA. Everything else remains as it is now. Half of the MPs and MLAs in this country would then be women. Isn't this better than one third? Common men and women also get more opportunities to contest and get elected to the legislative bodies. As a side effect, this would also reduce the clout of the political families. It is said that there is only one solution to the ills of democracy, that is more democracy.
