A critic to Woman Reservation bill

Woman reservation bill is pending in Indian parliament for over a decade and it has come for discussion many times but there has not been any concession on the form of the bill. No doubt it is an initiative with good intention but execution is flawed from conception.

This bill gives 33% reservation in the lower house in parliament and state assemblies for next 15 years.

Argument: Woman represent almost 50% of the population of the India but they represent less than 10% in the parliament so they need this kind of support.

Critic: How exactly this bill make 50% representation possible in next 15 years? How they (supporters of the bill) come up with 33% reservation and not 10% or 50%? One assumption can be that they are taking 50% probability for each woman MP to win next election without reservation. So after 3 general election there will be almost 50% women in the parliament. If it was so easy to win election then the many women (and men as well) would have jump into politics and become MPs. In reality chances are that these MPs will be defeated by the powerful, influential and of course good politicians. So the dream of having 50% women MPs will not be fulfilled and it will remain a dream only.

Argument: Women are socially weaker section and they will get this support to come out and represent the society.

Critic: Our current electoral system does not stop any women to contest election. They do not come out and contest because they have less motivation to do so. Many of them other priorities (e.g. family commitments). Election will still require money, power and influence to win the elections. Our electoral system is still party system. So only the influential women will only be able to get party tickets. If the party will not give pickets to anyone really socially weak woman, how on earth this will help in uplift of the weaker section of the society? A large number of these tickets will go to the wives, daughters and mothers of the sitting MPs and their strongest opponents because the bill not let them contest themselves so they will use family members as proxy to remain in power.

This will also demotivate the sitting MPs to work for their constituencies as there is no incentive to do anything when they can not contest election next time. In such a scenario what the use of MPLADS (MPs local area development scheme)?

Many think tanks have suggested that rather than reserving the constituencies, the bill should make this mandatory for all the recognised parties to give tickets to 33% tickets in each state. This will give freedom to the parties to field some strong sitting candidates in some constituencies and also give opportunity to the women to come forward into the politics.

I will say that best way to merge these two different approaches. Rather than 33% constituencies, reserve just 10%. It will make sure that there are minimum number of women MPs. Secondly, made this mandatory for the recognised parties to field at least 33% women candidates.

Though there are other issue to discuss as well in the bill. For example, why this bill does not talk about upper house in the parliament and the legislative councils in the states. But these can be sort out with less pain, if the basic consensus on the format of the reservation is made.