|
In September 1996,
the Janata Dal (Deve Gowda) government introduced the Bill providing 33 per cent
reservation for women in parliament and assembly seats by introducing the 81st
Amendment to the Constitution.
At present, women
have minute representation in the legislative bodies (parliament and
assemblies). Till now, women representation in parliament does not exceed 8.1
per cent. That means, in the 544-member parliament, only 43 are women. The
remaining 500 members are male members! The same conditions exist in the state
assemblies as well. This is the situation of women, who comprise half the
population and half the number of voters. So, the government claimed that this
Bill was introduced to facilitate women representation in the legislative
bodies, in order to give them a share in political power and thereby achieve
social justice.
At present, only the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have reservations in the legislative
bodies. With the 33 per cent women reservation Bill, women will get 180 seats in
parliament as well as a one third share in the assemblies. In the AP assembly
women would get 98 seats.
But in the
Constitution there is no such clause that provides 33 per cent reservation for
women. Therefore, the Constitution has to be amended to provide the 33 per cent
seat reservation for women. To add such a clause to the Constitution, two-third
members of parliament would have to vote in favour of the Bill.
Cunning Drama of the parliamentary
parties on this Bill
Ever since this Bill
was introduced in parliament in 1996, all political parties pretended to support
that Bill. The Janata Dal government (Deve Gowda) which introduced the Bill was
replaced by the Janata Dal government of Gujral. Then came the BJP’s Vajpayee
government which fell in April, 1999 and was re-elected in October ’99. Though
so many governments have changed, this Bill has not got the approval of
parliament. This is nothing but mischievous foul play played by all the
political parties.
When the Bill was
introduced, all parties agreed to support it. But when the Bill came for
discussion in parliament, Sharad Yadav of the ruling Janata Dal and Uma Bharati
of the BJP etc., demanded that OBC (Other Backward Castes) women should have a
sub-quota in this 33 per cent reservation on the basis of their population,
otherwise only upper caste women would usurp the benefit of reservation.
Discussions were held
in parliament on this issue and a Joint Parliamentary Committee headed by Gita
Mukherjee of the CPI was formed to present a report by studying this Bill. The
Gita Mukherjee Committee gave its report in December 1996. The committee opposed
giving sub-quotas for OBC women and proposed that the Bill be accepted as it is.
Then, Deve Gowda
agreed to propose it in the next parliament session. But, the Janata Dal members
themselves said that they would vote against the Bill. Gujral too said the same
thing. To get a consensus, he held an all party meeting. But the sub-quota issue
was not solved. In the mean time, muslim members demanded that muslim women
should be given their part in a sub-quota. As a result, even without a
discussion in parliament, the ’97 Monsoon Session ended. The Gujral government
fell after withdrawal of support by the Congress(I). The BJP stated, before the
elections, that if it came to power, it would make the amendment for 33 per cent
reservation. It came to power in February ’98 and remained there for 13 months,
but there was no amendment.
Though all parties
say that they are in favour of the 33 per cent reservation, there is no
sincerity in these parties to convince their members in favour of the Bill. The
example of an incident in parliament on 13th July 1998 shows the true nature of
these parties. On that day, when the Law Minister, Thambidurai, was introducing
the Bill, 50 MPs belonging to the OBCs attacked the minister and dragged the
papers from his hands, as well as from the hands of the Speaker and tore them to
pieces. Though Laloo and Mulayam’s men were in the forefront, MPs of all parties
indirectly supported it. After this incident the Bill disappeared. All these
parties tried to mislead the people by blaming each other for obstructing the
Bill.
Sharad Yadav of the
Janata Dal, Nitish Kumar of the Samata Party, RJD’s Laloo, Mulayam of the
Samajvadi Party — all these who want a sub-quota for OBC women — are all
pretending to be the protectors and champions of the OBCs. But what have they
done for the OBCs when these parties were in power at some time or the other ?
The muslim MPs who are shedding tears for muslim women, were in the forefront in
passing the anti-woman, 1986 Muslim Law Bill (Shabano case).
Though it may appear
that the Bill was not passed due to rumblings over sub-quotas, the real point is
that if the Bill gets approval, 180 male MPs would lose their seats. Will the
male MPs, who are from top to bottom seeped in male chauvinism, and earn large
amounts by corruption and have a lust for power, leave their seats so easily ?
Hence, it would be a total illusion to expect that all these parties, and their
male representatives will easily conclude the discussion and pass this Bill.
Yet another example
of these cunning parties, who blame each other for not passing the Bill, is that
not one of the parties granted 33% of their candidates to women, in any of the
elections that have recently taken place. Who obstructed that ?
The BJP had given
only 28 seats to women in the whole of India. The Congress(I) which boasted at
the Panchamadi meet that they would give 33 per cent seats to women, had given
only 45 tickets to women, i.e., a mere 8 per cent.
In the 1999
parliamentary elections the total number of candidates was 4,648. Of these, only
277 were women candidates, i.e., 0.6 per cent ! The real nature of these
parliamentary parties stand exposed when they pretend to provide suitable
representation to women in the legislative bodies, yet give them not more than
0.6 per cent. Then what is all the big talk of giving 33 per cent ?
These parliamentary
parties in a bid to make women as their vote bank, lure them with chatter about
reservations and passing of the Bill. This is nothing but an attempt to dupe
women as all the ruling class parties preach that women should confine
themselves to household work and child welfare. This was openly proclaimed by
the BJP, VHP, RSS and Bajarang Dal. House-keeping courses were introduced for
women in the states where the BJP governments are in power. Their motto is to
confine women to house-hold work. The BSP leader, Kanshi Ram, who says that he
is the champion of Dalits and Bahujans, stated that women should be confined to
the house. All these exploiting class parties propagate this feudal ideology
through the media.
Can this 33 per cent really provide
a share in political power to women ? Can it solve their problems ?
In history, it is not
novel for the bourgeois ruling classes to bring reforms in order to get the
people behind them, or to temporarily pacify their dissatisfaction and to
sidetrack them from their basic issues. Can this 33 per cent reservation provide
them with a share in political power as spouted by the ruling parties ? Can it
solve all their problems ? If this bill does become law everything may look fine
superficially.
But, what exactly is
meant by — women sharing in power, getting their due representation, and solving
their problems? It, first and foremost means solving their economic
exploitation, the patriarchal torture and the state violence faced by the poor
and middle class women who comprise 90 per cent of the total women population.
It must make the necessary laws which serve these classes.
In this context, we
have to, yet again take a look at our parliamentary system. All these MPs and
MLAs in the parliament and assemblies and their governments, merely protect this
exploitative system, in the name of ‘democratic’ governance and rule of law.
They are mere representatives of the exploiting classes. They become a part of
this bureaucratic rule by making anti-people laws and policies. If women enter
into these legislative bodies with 33 per cent reservations, they would have to
act accordingly. As all these women would get elected only from ruling class
parties, they would inevitably support all the anti-people laws and policies
made by those ruling class parties.
The present
representatives from the SCs and STs are a good example of this. Dalits and
Girijans who are suppressed socially, economically and politically are waging
enormous struggles today. They are in the forefront in overthrowing the feudal
forces and establishing people’s hegemony in rural areas as a part of the
revolutionary movement as well as independently. The ruling classes are
perpetrating cruel repression on these struggles. All the ruling parties are
unanimous on this. Not only the ruling parties, but even members of the
so-called ‘opposition’ parties are also not opposing this repression. They are
party to giving approval to this onslaught. Therefore, if the OBC women or
muslim women get a sub-quota in this 33 per cent reservation, the result will be
the same as at present.
Only through participation in New
Democratic Revolution, women will get their share in political power
Several women’s
organisations, feminists, intellectuals are also demanding to amend the law in
order to provide 33 per cent reservation for women in the legislative bodies.
This appears to be a ‘democratic right’, a demand of women who are oppressed
socially, politically and economically since generations. So, we need a
clear-cut stand on this demand.
Though we consider
reservations in education and employment as a democratic demand of the SCs, STs,
OBCs and Dalit Christians, it is wrong to equalise this with reservation in the
legislative bodies. In the legislative bodies, in the name of reservations only
a handful of women (mainly belonging to the rich classes) can get
representation. But even this small number also become a part of the ruling
classes who make anti-people laws. We must see this difference.
Another important
aspect is, that during the earlier days of parliamentary democracy, women had no
voting rights. They demanded voting rights as a democratic demand and succeeded
in achieving it, in those days. Historically, bourgeois democracy was then in a
progressive phase, fighting feudalism. Then, the voting rights for women had a
democratic character. Now, the situation is different. As capitalism has
transformed from ‘free trade’ to monopoly capitalism and to imperialism, it has
lost its democratic character and acquired a reactionary character. It continues
imperialist exploitation by exporting capital to colonial and semi-colonial
countries and fleeces all the natural resources of these countries. Since then,
the capitalist class has torn away all its bourgeois democratic principles (of
freedom, equality and fraternity) and have, if necessary even resorted to
fascism to continue its exploitation. Today, what exists in practice in all
these so-called bourgeois democratic countries is in reality nothing but a
bourgeois dictatorship. In our country, in reality, it is nothing but a
bourgeois-feudal class dictatorship, in the name of democracy.
Therefore, the demand
for reservation in these legislative bodies is nothing but a demand to become
part of this dictatorial rule. If we don’t bear this in mind, questions may
arise as to why one is not supporting a ‘democratic’ demand.
This ‘reform’ is
nothing but an attempt to side-track women from their real problems. This bill
is nothing but an attempt to turn women into their ‘vote bank’. This is nothing
but an attempt to divert the struggles of women, who are, each day becoming more
conscious and assertive, and thereby prevent them from coming into struggles
through instilling illusions in this system. This is the background for this
Bill. Yet, we must recognise the very fact that the exploiting classes have been
obliged to introduce this Bill, is evidence of the increasing women’s
consciousness as well as of their growing fighting capability. At the same time,
it is necessary to propagate that this Bill cannot do justice to women. This
must be propagated amongst the activists of women organisations who are trying
to pass this Bill in parliament with illusions that women’s conditions will
change through this Bill.
This Bill cannot
solve even the minimum problems faced by women. Women wouldn’t have any part in
real political power whatsoever, though several women may go into the
legislative bodies or may become prime ministers and chief ministers as long as
the present system remains as it is, which is, in fact, the chief instrument for
oppression of women and the main pillar of imperialist-feudal exploitation.
Women taking part in political power should result in the end of all oppression
and exploitation of women. To achieve this, there is no short cut but to fight
to end this system. Hence, it is necessary for women to participate in the New
Democratic Revolution going on in the country. To make them a part of the NDR
should be one of the main tasks of the revolutionaries.
The revolutionary
movement which is advancing in this direction would have to put in more effort
for the participation of women.
|
