My Blog – My Voice

¡¡ Aware,Awakened, Active & Determined Individuals Can Bring Change!!

Feminism

SEARCHING FEMINISM

“One is not born, but becomes, a woman. “-    Simone De Beauvior(The Second Sex)

One of the most enigmatic words of our time is “Feminism”. It is a word, a signifier that seems to denote a lot to different people. I have observed that a while it signifies emancipation or liberty to one set, it I a derogatory word for another. For some it means male bashing, while for others it is symbolic of equality.

So, what is feminism? The most common definition of it declares that it is the radical notion that women are people. A feminist could be a male or a female. A feminist is someone who believes in equality of both the sexes but also accepts the inherent biological differences. I say “biological” because there is a basic difference in the biology and anatomy of a man’s & a woman’s. If you ignore this, then you blind & foolish & most definitely not a true feminist! A man is physically stronger & a woman’s body is designed to tolerate the pains of childbirth.

Celebrate the difference, not demean it.

To be a feminist you don’t have to hate men. Both men & women are people. They are, philosophically speaking, two halves one of Whole. No one is better or worse than the other. They are equal, but different.

I think that within all these years, the term “feminism” has almost become a folklore. People have come up with so many versions of it without even grasping its concept. They comment on it, judge it without even knowing what it is really about. It is even used derogatorily. I think when a woman says she hates men or that men are evil animals or worse etc etc, she is not a feminist but a direct opposite if a misogynist. She is a misandrist.

Feminism is not a political thought, nor is it a sociological one. It is a psychological state. No form of liberty (national or individual) exists if the mind is not free of petty boundaries that society has imposed on us.

Nature has assigned division of labour beautifully to both the sexes; it would be hideous to make it biased towards only one. Gender discrimination has taken its toll on both the sexes. Men are also victimized into being the compulsory provider to the family, the problem fixer and all that. The question that one may as is that then why is there no such thing as “Masulinism”. The answer is simple: that out of the two sexes it is the female whose oppression is tangible and overt. Now people are slowly starting to do away with the stringent codes of how to be a man or a woman. Men now sport pink colour and long hair. Women… have gone miles. But there’s still light years to go.

The question of a women’s quota in India is distinct from any other nation because the Constitution of India has already provided for quotas for the ‘Scheduled Castes’ (SCs) formerly untouchable castes in the Hindu community and the ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (STs). It has provisions for similar measures for the socially and educationally backward classes now termed as the ‘Other Backward Classes’ (OBCs). These quotas are for admissions to educational institutions, public sector employment and political representation. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments provided for 33% quotas for women’s representation in the local self-government institutions.

These Amendments were implemented in 1993. They were enacted without any pressure or persistent demand from women or any other section. Prior to these Amendments the State of Karnataka had introduced 25% women’s quota in Panchayat Raj Institutions.1 First elections after the implementation of quotas were held in 1987 (Jain 1996). Later, State of Maharashtra passed a law providing for 30% reservation of seats for women in rural as well as urban local self-government institutions. It is curious that, in spite of over 1,000,000 elected  women representatives flooding the local governments; the women’s movement in India was totally silent over this issue till 1996. The smooth passage of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments encouraged all major national political parties to commit themselves to extending 33% women’s quota to state legislatures and Parliament. The 81st Constitutional Amendment Bill, popularly known as the Women’s Reservation Bill (WRB), was introduced in the Parliament in 1996 to that effect. The women’s movement had no role in bringing about this Bill. It did offer some inputs in the Committee hearings but it became vocal and visible on this issue only after its first debacle in XI Lok Sabha.2 Even then, this visibility was in the form of demonstrations and sit-ins in front of  the Parliament and not by way of proactive intervention in the electoral process by supporting women candidates or recruiting movement’s spokespersons in elective roles on various levels.

Women’s Reservation Bill:

Libration ...

1. As nearly as may be one-third of all seats in Lok Sabha and State Legislative  Assemblies shall be reserved for women.

2. Reservation shall apply in case of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) as well.

3. Seats to be reserved in rotation will be determined by draw of lots in such a way that a seat shall be reserved only once in three consecutive general elections.

Main Drawbacks of the Women Reservation Bill:

1. Rotational reservation of one-third seats is the most serious flaw in the Bill. The pre-election nursing of a Lok Sabha or State Assembly constituency involves a very heavy investment on the part of the political parties and individual aspirants. Rotational reservation of one-third of  the seats exclusively for women would lead to a grave uncertainty for sitting male MPs  eroding their meticulously developed political base and leaving them no scope to pursue  politics as a life-long mission or career.

2. This is harmful for the political career of an individual politician as well as for the process of the development of national level leaders with towering personalities. This would dwarf the popularly elected political leadership and strengthen the bureaucracy.

3. The Bill also ignores an important recommendation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the 81st Amendment Bill about extending reservation to Rajya Sabha1 and Legislative Councils that was incorporated in the Clause 21 of its Report.

4. The Bill turns women’s quota into a zero sum game where women would get seats only if male MPs were removed from one third of the constituencies.

Passing the Bill in its present form would mean a political suicide for the sitting male Members of Parliament but in spite of all its drawbacks many women’s organizations are treating it as non-negotiable and are refusing to consider alternate proposals. A proposal emphasizing nomination of 33% women candidates instead of reserving the constituencies for women is being advocated by a senior feminist activist scholar Madhu Kishwar (Narayan and Kishwar: 2000) and a proposal for converting 50% constituencies into dual-member constituencies is being advocated by Rami Chhabra (Chhabra 2000). But the former has grave drawbacks and the latter is more expensive than the July 2003 proposal of dual-member constituencies discussed below.

Proposal for Dual-member Constituencies:

On 15th July 2003, Manohar Joshi, then Speaker of Lok Sabha convened a four-party3 meeting to discuss a proposal of dual-member constituencies. Afterwards, on 19th July 2003 at the National Executive meeting at Raipur the BJP passed a resolution to that effect and called upon the government to bring a Constitutional Amendment, to convert one-third of the Lok Sabha constituencies into dual-member constituencies4. The highlights of this proposal are:

1. Current 543 Lok Sabha constituencies would be grouped into three lots of 181 each. In each election, one of these lots would be converted into dual-member constituencies, each electing two Members of Parliament – a male and a female.

2. This would increase the number of elected Lok Sabha members5 to 724 (362 + 181 + 181) from 543 Lok Sabha constituencies.

3. The dual-membership would rotate after each election to the next lot of 181 constituencies.

4. The proposal would also apply to State Assemblies and to SC and ST constituencies.