The Women’s Reservation Bill: Will it serve its purpose?
May 17th, 2010
In 1993, the Indian constitution was amended to reserve at least one-third of the seats for women in India’s 265,000 village governing bodies called panchayats. Since then more than a million women have been elected into these seats. However, fewer than 11 percent of members of parliament are women even with the high profile female Indian leaders. In an effort to bring more women into parliament, The Women’s Reservation bill would reserve one third of the seats for women in the national, state and local governments. The bill has been repeatedly knocked down since it was first introduced 14 years ago and finally won passage by parliament on March 9, 2010 by majority vote.
The main purpose of the bill is to increase the participation of women in politics and society. Additionally, it is an effort to create equal opportunity for women in India as a means to breaking social norms that favor men. Many argue that increased political representation is critical to overcoming discrimination against women. It is also expected that the bill will help give equal status to women and improve the sex ratio. The current sex ratio is approximately 933 adult women per 1,000 men, which is the result of a deeply ingrained cultural preference for sons. In addition there are many inequalities between men and women in education and compensation. Inequality is particularly evident in political life. The idea is that by reducing political inequalities it will help to reduce inequalities between men and women through out Indian society, in particular in education and wages.
Most importantly, women are said to bring many benefits to the political arena. They tend to be in favor of much needed public services, such as wells and roads. Evidence also shows that women are more likely to invest in safe drinking water while men are more likely to invest in irrigation and vocational training programs. It seems to me that more participation by women will bring a much needed balance of interests. Lastly, women are said to be more resistant to corruption. Corruption remains a big problem in India.
In spite of the many benefits there are still some concerns. One of the biggest concerns is that the bill could lead to women acting as proxies for their husbands interests. Additionally it is also said to favor upper caste women at the expense of lower caste.
In my opinion, the bill seems to be a step in the right direction, however I feel like it is a band-aid to a much deeper issue. More women in power is likely to bring many benefits but I don’t think that it will be a major turning point in solving discrimination issues. I just do not see how the bill will be effective unless extensive efforts are made to address the root causes of discrimination in India. It’s also important to remember that in spite of the quota, money and power still play a big role in a candidate’s election. Some women have many more advantages than others thus this still might not serve to eliminate inequalities. It seems to have worked on the local level hopefully the same results will arise on the national level. In the US there was no quota system set up to empower women in politics and discrimination against women was a long hard battle. But today with out quotas women are playing a huge role in politics. So will the bill bring about the desired results? Will this bill actually empower women or is it just a means of appearing politically correct? What does this bill say about the democratic process? Shouldn’t women fight just as hard as men for their political positions?
Resources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/world/asia/28iht-quotas.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_Reservation_Bill_India
-Jordan Wente
Entry Filed under: 2010 Student Blogs, India, Misc.
5 Comments Add your own
1. Jason Silver | May 20th, 2010 at 10:51 am
This is a great article that shows how Indian politics is seeking to involve as many people and opinions as possible. It seems like this bill forces change in India as opposed to letting the social climate adjust at its own pace. If there is one thing I know about change, it is that people don’t like it. By passing this bill, I’m sure that many people feel alienated. If this bill imposes strict quotas, who is to say that these women are or are not ready for these positions? Although this bill is very noble, is India ready to change this quickly? Are Indian women ready to step into positions dominated by men? We shall see in the coming years.
2. John Barry | May 31st, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Great article and post Jordan! It raises a lot of interesting considerations. From the sounds of it, having women in these seats would bring about many positive changes to India. Currently, one of the biggest challenges India faces is its poor infrastructure which makes it difficult and inefficient to get goods across the country, particularly in rural areas. Indian women appear to be more willing to fight for these public services which had a tremendous amount to do with America’s economic success. This bill does arouse two concerns for me though. Will this new law mean that a candidate who is not sufficiently prepared for a position gets it in favor of a more qualified representative? And, does this bill run the risk of adversely impacting the close-knit, family-oriented Indian culture?
3. Tim Lynds | June 2nd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
I agree that it is good that India recognizes and is trying to solve the problems associated with gender discrimination, but ‘quotas’ often lead to unintended consequences. Just as Jason alluded to, quotas such as set forth in this bill can lead to lesser qualified individuals getting the job. I am not implying in any way that Indian women are less effective in politics than men, but that quotas lead to smaller pools of candidates that may or may not include the best of the best.
Good post. It brings the Affirmative Action debate to the table.
4. Danielle Steussy | June 9th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Excellent post, Jordan. You bring up a really important topic. I agree with you that the bill is a step in the right direction but also that this isn’t really a fix of any sort. It doesn’t directly target the problem of discrimination or the real underlying issue of why women are so inferior in the first place. It’s difficult to change someone’s mindset, much less a good part of the population.
Ultimately, it will take time, a change in mindset, as well as the law to give women, especially female politicians, in India the respect and voice they deserve. Look at women’s and minorities’ rights in the United States and how they evolved. It took years and years for people to accept that women and minorities should be equal. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped but people had to be willing to believe that the act was the right thing to do. We’re still even struggling with this issue to this day in some parts of the country.
Right now, in the United States, we’re going through the same situation as we did 50 years ago with equal rights for homosexuals. There is a lot of resistance, especially in the religious communities and with the older generation, to allow homosexuals to have the same marriage rights as a straight couple. More younger people tend to support the equal rights and it will only take a matter of time for their mindsets become the majority. It takes time to achieve justice because the mindsets have to be cycled through.
My point is that generations to come will realize the importance of equal rights for women in India. When that happens, more women will be willing to take on the role of a politician and be accepted as a public figure. The law helps push it along in that direction, but it’s not as effective as it could be and doesn’t tackle the real issue at hand. Again, good post and a great topic to discuss.
5. Kirk Story | June 11th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I’m all for the Women’s Reservation bill. Unlike our esteemed Econ professor, I see a need to implement social constructionism at a policy level to counteract decades or centuries of unofficial discrimination. I feel social constructionism in the US has merit, despite the inherent inequity of its practice. We so often forget the socio-historic roots of peoples situation. Those in love with the free market will use rent control as one of their favorite examples of government interference. In this case, and on an ethics level, we need to step back and ask ourselves, “how did this person or this group of people find themselves in disproportionate poverty? The same applies to the Women’s Reservation bill. Yes it’s retroactive and seemingly unfair, but what precipitated its foundation? I’m fine with giving the oppressed a leg up- because often the situation they find themselves in is a product of socially pervasive inequities.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed