The Women's Reservation Bill

AFTER THE ADO about the Constitution 85th (Amendment) Bill there has been an ``agreement'' among the major political parties to achieve representation of women in Parliament and the State Legislatures with a simple change in the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The change contemplated is to add a provision to the Act making it mandatory for all recognised parties to field women in at least one-third of the total number of constituencies they contest in. Such a change, on the face of it, is bound to be challenged on grounds that the law will amount to an infringement on a political party's right to choose its candidates. After all, a cross-section of the political leadership in Parliament had revealed so clearly in the past few years its ``commitment'' (rather the lack of it) to the idea of positive discrimination of women with a view to ensuring their representation in Parliament and the Assemblies. And in this context one cannot but perceive the suggestion to achieve women's empowerment through changes in the RP Act with with some scepticism particularly when a change carries with it some serious legal infirmity.

Indeed, the Constitution Amendment too, at least in the manner in which the Bill has been drafted, is not free from problems. For instance, the Bill provides for rotation of constituencies reserved for women; a fallout will be that elected representatives (from constituencies reserved for women) will stop attending to the demands and aspirations of their constituents when it becomes clear that the particular constituency will fall in the ``non-reserved'' category in the next election. In the same context, MPs or MLAs representing the ``general'' constituencies at a given time are bound to be caught up in a state of uncertainty over their own position in the next election. Such a context is bound to further the process of alienation of the elected representatives from the voters; the implications of this are not far to seek. But despite all these infirmities, the idea of Constitution Amendment gained support from a cross-section of public opinion only because there was hardly any better way left to achieve a semblance of gender equity in the legislative apparatus. The failure of the political leadership, cutting across the ideological divide, in ensuring representation of women in Parliament and the Assemblies invested the Constitution Amendment Bill with a sense of urgency. And the inspiration came from the working of the panchayati raj institutions in many States in the post-73rd Constitution Amendment context (with one-third of all elected posts in the local bodies reserved for women).

Be that as it may, the manner in which the Bill has been dealt with in the past few years has exposed leaders of almost all the parties to the charge of doublespeak. For instance, the Congress(I) is also guilty of dragging its feet on the Bill at one stage. The BJP (despite Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee having moved a private member's Bill on the lines of the 85th Constitution Amendment Bill in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition) was unable to discipline its own MPs to fall in line, in support of the Bill now. And such leaders as Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav were blatantly opposed to the idea. These two leaders, whose parties' combined strength in the Lok Sabha is not even a tenth of the total membership, managed to prevent even a debate on the Bill; this was possible only because there were several others from the other parties opposed to the idea. This, indeed, is what led to the virtual shelving of the Constitution 85th (Amendment) Bill.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : The LCA still a dream?