Women Reservation Bill

A PARTY TO BEAT ALL PARTIES: BJP’s Sushma Swaraj (L) and CPI(M)’s Brinda Karat—who represent the Right and Left extremities of the political spectrum—on Tuesday turned sisters-in-arms on the reservation bill – Times of India, March 10, 2010

The picture says it all. If getting the bill passed in the Upper House can do this, wonder what it is capable of doing when passed in the Lower House as well! Just wonder! This is what the proponents of the bill would like to advocate.

What is this Women Reservation Bill? The legislation proposed to reserve 33.3 percent seats for women at each level of legislative decision-making, starting with the Lok Sabha, down to state and local legislatures. The bill was first drafted by Deve Gowda led United Front government in 1996. In continuation of the existing provisions already mandating reservations for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, one-third of such SC and ST candidates must be women. Since September 12, 1996, when the draft was first introduced in the Parliament, it has been 14 years of Vanvaas that the Bill is finally seeing light of the day. Though the ordeal is yet from over.

All these years, the Bill could not be passed essentially because of lack of political consensus. It has always triggered heated debates (even physical) inside and outside Parliament. So what has been the journey so far?

·         The path-breaking Bill was first introduced in the Lok Sabha by the Deve Gowda government on Sept 12, 1996.

·         It was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee chaired by Geeta Mukherjee, which presented its report to the Lok Sabha on December 9, 1996.

·         Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s NDA government re-introduced the bill in the 12th Lok Sabha in 1998.

·         The NDA government re-introduced the bill in the 13th Lok Sabha in 1999.

·         It moved the Bill again amid pandemonium in 2002 and Left parties and the Congress gave assurances to support the bill if taken up.

·         The Bill was introduced twice in Parliament in 2003

·         In 2004, the UPA government includes it in the Common Minimum Programme

·         In 2005, BJP announced complete support for the bill but it yields to the objections of Uma Bharati and several others within the party, who stress on quota within quota for women on caste basis.

·         In 2008, the government tabled the bill in the Rajya Sabha so that the legislation does not lapse.

·         The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, and Personnel recommended passage of the Bill in Dec 2009.

·         The Bill was cleared by the Union Cabinet on February 25, 2010 and placed before the Upper House on March 08, 2010

·         After initial hiccups the bill is passed in the Rajya Sabha on March 10, 2010

·         The government is planning to table it in the Lok Sabha when the budget session resumes on April 12.    

The table below has tried to encapsulate the major issues around the much debated and controversial bill.

Women Reservation Bill
For The Motion	Against The Motion
·         Essential for active political participation of women ·         Increased political participation of women will help them fight the abuse, discrimination, and inequality they suffer from, resulting in the empowerment of women as a whole ·         Supporters argue that provision of reservation for women is only for 15 years. ·         The idea of reservation is to create a level playing field so that women can raise their share in politics and society and then, look for equal status ·         33.3 percent seats in panchayat elections have already been reserved for women and the results are very encouraging. This is the largest mobilization of women in public life in the world.	·         The SP and RJD are opposed to the bill in its present form and want a quota within quota for women from backward classes. ·         Reservation would only help women of elitist groups gain political power, aggravating the plight of the poor and deprived sections ·         Fear that many of their male leaders would not get a chance to fight elections if 33.3 percent seats are reserved for women ·         If 33.3 per cent reservation for women is added to the already existing 22.5 percent for scheduled castes and tribes, more than 55 per cent of seats in Parliament would be reserved. This would not be fair to other sections of the population ·         Asking for reservation, women are perpetuating unequal status for themselves ·         If inadequacy of representation is the issue, why not reservation for Muslim women (there are only two in the present Lok Sabha)? ·         Most members feel it is better to create reservation of women in political parties than in Parliament. The provision of rotation of reserved states is also debated

There is yet another school of thought who is against the concept of reservation itself. The group if of the belief that reservations have done no good to the Indian democracy, if not bad and the latest in the kitty would be no different. Reservation in itself is a proof to the failure of the state and the political system!

Further, discrimination is not a new phenomenon to women folk. They face a thousand forms of it every day, every minute. Be it foeticide, infanticide, dowry, domestic, physical, sexual abuse and what not! The idea that more women in the legislature would change the picture is doubted for valid reasons. There are already adequate laws and rules to safe guard and promote gender equality. The current bill will do little to change the grassroots reality.

What is needed is an affirmative action rather than reservation is what the critics feel is the need of the hour. Alas! The same was voiced during the OBC reservation issue and even before that and no action was initiated but ‘reservation’.  Also, any self-respecting women would want to be ‘here’ because she deserves to be ‘here’ and not because of her gender.

Having said all that, all the pros and cons, the fact remains the bill has been passed in the Upper House and is due tabled in the Lower House next month. The journey of the bill has been quite uneven like the real issue of women empowerment and it would remain so even if its legislated again much alike to the state of ‘women of 21^st century’ who is still unsafe traveling alone on the capital roads! So only three words to all of us - All The Best! 

Its lonely here without you...

आज सुबह मैं अपने एक मित्र के ब्लॉग पढ़ रहा था..समय, हालात और व्यस्तता के बीच हमारी मित्रतता कहीं खो सी गयी है, परिचय बाकि है और हम दोनों मित्र दो अलग अलग पहचान लिए अपने अपने जीवन वृत्त में घूम रहे हैं.

परन्तु विषय यह नहीं की हम दोस्त क्यों / क्यों नहीं रहे; विषय है उसके एक परिस्थिति विशेष में हमारे मिलते अनुभवों का, जो महेज एक संयोग मात्र है; और कभी न कभी हम में से हर किसी ने ऐसा अनुभव किया होगा.

३१ दिसम्बर की रात, सारी दुनिया ख़ुशी और जशन के माहौल में डूबी हुई थी और इधर मैं एकांकीपन में सराबोर!!!यह दीगर है की उस वक़्त मेरे साथ मेरा एक दोस्त अपनी नव विवाहिता पत्नी के साथ नए साल का बेसब्री से इंतज़ार कर रहा था.पर इन इन्सानों की भीड़ में कभी कभी हम खुद को कितना अकेला महसूस करते हैं...शरीर से मैं उन दोनों के साथ अपने घर पर था पर मेरा मन पता नहीं जीवन के किस खोखले वीराने में क्या ढूंढ रहा था.

यूं तो मैं लोगों का धनि हूँ पर कमबख्त गाहे बगाहे जिंदगी मुझे मेरे अकेलेपन का एहसास करा ही देती है....

मुझे मेरा ये अकेलापन बेहद प्रिय है. बहाने ढूँढता हूँ मैं अकेला रहने को....ये मौका होता है आपने आप से जुड़ने का...समझने का...पहचानने का....पर सावधान भी रहना पड़ता है वरना अकेलेपन का सूनापन बहुत जल्द ही जीवन में प्रवेश कर जाता है. उस वक़्त अंग्रेजी के ये बोल अनायास ही निकल पड़ते हैं - I am so lonely, I am so lonely.....

So much so about Celeb-privacy

Today I was watching We The People show on NDTV 24x7. Private Life in PRIVATE LIVES, PUBLIC GAZE: Are the private lives of public figures legitimate media stories?


The distinguished panel and the gathering has their own views on the same. My take on the topic - 

• Once I become a public figure how can I even think of remaining private? What I do, think, advocate...eat,drink, everything is under public's eye. Having said that then don't I have my right to privacy? Yes, I do have BUT its a limited edition privacy and its boundaries are monitored and re-drawn continuously by both of us (me - the celeb and you - the public / media).
• I may be a Pole Star in my profession but that does not mean I am perfect...I am also fallible. Woods is a great golfer whom the world will find hard to replace after he is gone but then it is his choice to go sleeping around with women. I love sex; and if my partners are ok with it how and why should it matter to you until I am not sleeping around with either your wife or sister or...
• I agree to the thought that we are increasingly becoming more voyeuristic. e.g.Mr. X is married and he is having affairs with eight women at a same /different time just under his wife's nose. How does it matter to me, to you, to any one else? That is his choice, his way of living, his decision.Its between Mr. & Mrs X  and the other eight women to decide if the action is OK or not OK. Still if I know Mr. X then in more than 90% of cases people like me would definitely enjoy in listening, viewing, discussing about the 'juicy' or lack of it life of Mr. X. We as a common people are by nature like that. As Mr. X is a common man so his story is limited in small circle of people who know him while Woods is a public figure and hence a larger circle of people is interested in knowing about the details. Thats it.
• We are interested in our celeb lives because A) we always wish to be like them B) if they commit anything wrong, we connect to them as one of us the common, fallible man!!!
• Yes, its all together a different issue that why we are voyeuristic-  may be is basic human nature that we like to peep into others life or something other but the fact remains we love to watch others' lives!!! 

Now coming back to main question  -  Does the private lives of public figures make legitimate media stories?

The answer to me, unfortunately, is YES. 

Media is the fourth pillar of democracy and its a responsible medium because it has the  capacity to build, influence, mold opinions. Its saddening to see the 'responsible' media is turning to 'entertaining' media. To quote one of the panelist from the show - The mainstream media called us yellow journalism but today they are all in RED. So true.

When journalists say that "we show what people want to see" is like saying we pamper our children by fulfilling all their wishes whatever right or wrong. As a parent we do give things that our child seeks or demand for but as responsible parents we at times do say NO. 

It has to be a collective decision of all the media houses to be 'RESPONSIBLE' and decide what of our (viewers) demands are justifiable and what are not and try molding our demands rather than falling prey to it. Exceptions may and will be there.

Woods affairs, as an example, is a news and should be reported in the media as he is a public figure but as a news and not as a story. So I may have said yes to the question but the correct answer should be NO. Its all about the question of what you show and what you should show...and that decides your legitimacy.