The women's Bill, if it does cross the Lok Sabha hurdle, will indeed be historic. But it might not be so for the reasons being aired on television and newspapers. Whether the Bill will bring about real political empowerment of women we don't really know. However, the Bill could bring about radical changes in the way Indian democracy functions.
According to the Bill, one-third of the seats in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies reserved for women will be allotted by rotation, which means that once in every three elections a seat will be set aside for women and for the other two revert to a general seat. How in effect would that work? A woman who wins in a reserved seat won't have the cushion of running against only women if she contests from the same seat in the next election. But she would of course be able to run for re-election so long as she is nominated by her party and is willing to contest on a mixed slate. Conversely, in one-third of the seats, incumbents, whether male or female, will have to sit out once in three elections. Is that such a bad thing? Not necessarily.
Critics have pointed out that there won't be any incentive for elected representatives to work for their constituency if there is no guarantee that they will be allowed to run again in the next election. It could also result in a lack of accountability, prompting MPs and MLAs to squeeze as much as possible from their constituency in one term. But there is a flip side too. Reservation could deal a blow to the phenomenon of pocket boroughs, of which there are several across India, where the same candidate gets elected year after year. And it could undermine the politics of patronage where an incumbent builds up an elaborate network to transfer funds and other favours to his constituents. Political parties, rather than individuals, stand to benefit from this trend, which would be a good thing.
Of course, there are always ways to get around this. We already have a number of bahus and betis in politics. Reserved seats might see an upsurge in the nomination of proxies or relatives of male candidates who are forced to vacate a constituency. The lessons from reservation for women in panchayats do not, however, entirely support this contention. Although initially there was a tendency of male leaders to nominate - and dominate - their wives in reserved constituencies, a 2008 study by the panchayati raj ministry has found that over time reservations have led to greater assertiveness and confidence on the part of women representatives. The same survey though points out that women panchayat members are still battling patriarchal values and prejudices.
Another independent study has found that compared to male counterparts, women representatives tend to focus more on basic issues such as health, education and sanitation that are most critical for vast swathes of India's population. Besides, in some states women representatives now exceed the numbers reserved for them, which goes to show that reservation has had a healthy ripple effect. The same could happen in Parliament and state assemblies.
There are other objections against the Bill which need to be heard out. Lalu Prasad, Mulayam Singh Yadav and others from caste-based parties have been the most vocal. They have sound political reasons for protesting against the Bill, but their demand for sub-quotas is dubious. What stops them from nominating more other backward classes (OBC) women in reserved constituencies? There are some who have argued that reservation for women dilutes the first-past-the-post system by smuggling in proportional representation through the back door. But since we already have reservations based on caste, reservation for women isn't such a radical constitutional departure.
The more serious objection is whether quotas are the best route to women's - or indeed any disadvantaged group's - empowerment. One, there is the perennial question of whether quotas perpetuate inequality rather than alleviate it. During the Constituent Assembly debates, Renuka Ray had raised precisely this issue: "When there is reservation of seats for women, the question of their consideration for general seats, however competent they may be, does not usually arise. We feel that women will get more chances if the consideration is of ability alone."
Two, quotas are a visible and politically lucrative form of public policy but their efficacy isn't always very clear. As we have seen with caste reservations, particularly with relation to OBCs, a creamy layer tends to profit from quotas whereas the intended beneficiaries tend to get squeezed out. This could well be the case with women's reservation too. The ideal way, of course, to increasing women's representation would have been for political parties to have quotas for women. Some of the countries with the most number of women in Parliament, such as Norway, Sweden and Argentina, do have such a provision. But unfortunately some 60 years since independence our parties haven't been able to muster the will to do it.
If the women's Bill does become reality it might not achieve what it set out to. But it could well change the rules of Indian democracy.
