Usually I refrain from writing about topics on which I have not made up my mind. Here’s one topic where I have not made up my mind but still decided to write about. It is about Women’s Bill in the Parliament. With passing of this bill, India is going to reserve 33% of the seats in Parliament and State Assemblies to women.
At the outset, I am happy that such a bill is coming into existence. We are going to set a great example in the world if we have many women parliamentarians and ministers. India has emancipated some of its women through series of steps, started during British Empire where sati was banned and women were allowed into schools through Independence Movement where we saw women standing shoulder to shoulder with men.
Ambedkar thought he could not reform India without emancipating its women. He was quite keen on implementing the Hindu Code Bill. However, the Hindu leaders of that time were not ready to consider woman as an equal to man. They were opposed to giving woman equal rights to property, they were not willing to allow divorce saying it will destroy Indian family system. There was so much opposition that Nehru could not pass the bill in one go. Ambedkar got disillusioned with Indian politics when the Bill could not be presented and he resigned never to come back to active politics.
Nehru took the bill, broke it into pieces, and passed one chunk at a time to emancipate Hindu woman, and with it Parsi, Christian and Sikh woman. What about Muslim woman? He chose to avoid that subject because he faced opposition from Muslim leaders. Freshly coming out of throes of Partition, fearing another civil war, Nehru deferred on emancipating Muslim woman. It came to his grandson, Rajiv Gandhi, to deliver on it. But Rajiv Gandhi also shied away from it.
Women continue to be discriminated in India. In many states, women-to-men ratio is quite low, so low that it has reached crisis levels. Women literacy is many notches lower than men in almost all states of India. Their participation in education, employment and political representation is quite dismal. Swami Aiyer of Times of India writes:
Women suffer a thousand forms of discrimination. Foeticide, infanticide and dowry deaths constitute a triple whammy of murder. Girls that survive are discriminated against (compared with sons) in food, health, education and choice of livelihood. Adult women suffer physical abuse and rape. Female workers are paid less than males. India has among the highest rates of female anaemia and maternal mortality in the world. Women fear physical attack if they travel beyond village limits to a clinic, and their husbands don't want to lose a day’s wages by accompanying them.
Now, we are about to pass a historic bill in the history of mankind, allowing highest participation of women leaders in the world. Once this bill is passed, we would witness an unprecedented moment. Nowhere on the planet at no time in the history have so many women rulers sat next to each other in the same building, representing so many people.
I welcome this bill. However, I have some nagging doubts.
Rotation basis
Right now, this bill says that for each constituency in India, there will be a woman candidate every three elections. We have never explicitly decided that a politician can contest only two consecutive times from a constituency, and yet this bill clearly seems to break one’s streak in a constituency by limiting the male candidate to two times.
Sadly, one of the motivations for politicians in India to perform better is to get elected in the next elections. If the guy knows he cannot contest the next term, will he have the motivation to perform for his constituency? Assuming only men contest where there is no quota, we have a weird scenario. At any point of time, our Parliament will consist of 1/3 comprising women on quota and 1/3 comprising men who cannot contest election next time. M J Akbar in Times of India writes, ‘two-thirds of the Lok Sabha, therefore, will have no political incentive to serve its constituents’.
And if we assume that incumbents keep winning, soon we will have more women than men in the Parliament, and that number could keep on rising.
And if we assume that incumbents keep winning, soon we will have more women than men in the Parliament, and that number could keep on rising.
Promote biwi-beti-behan-bahu
It’s not like the Indian subcontinent has not elected women leaders before. But most of them happen to be kin of the erstwhile male leaders. MJ Akbar writes:
Sonia Gandhi and Indira Gandhi did not battle male discrimination to get to the top. Rather, the death of their husband/father made them heads of a dynasty, giving them an unassailable advantage over rival males in the Congress Party.
For the same dynastic reason, Bangladeshi politics is dominated by the two begums, Khalida and Hasina, both widows of former Presidents. Benazir Bhutto got to the top in Pakistan because she was the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. In Sri Lanka, Sirimavo Bandaranaike got to the top as widow of Solomon Bandaranaike, and her daughter Chandrika succeeded her in classical dynastic fashion.
This rotation system for woman candidates has an unintended side effects which our Indian leaders will definitely put to use. A male candidate who won the second term election will position his wife, daughter, sister, or daughter-in-law the third term election bypassing the system. There is a good chance that this woman will be a puppet. She will not be accountable to her people, but the man behind will be. But the hope is that over a period of time there will be maturity and such puppets will not be elected (is that too much to hope from Indian voters?)
Bottom-up; not top-down
We have had woman Prime Ministers in the region. Did that emancipate our women? Not really. Just having women parliamentarians is not good enough. Women should be emancipated ground up.
I would like to see the emancipation to go bottom-up, and not top-down. It should start at lower layers first. There should be reservations in schools and colleges for girls, like in Andhra Pradesh which has yielded great results. There should be incentives for families to send girl children to school. There should be reservations in employment for women. Private companies should be given incentives and tax-breaks only when they have adequate women in employment. There should be reservations in IITs, IIMs, AIIMS; there should be reservations in IAS, IFS, IPS; there should be reservations in BHEL, BEL, HAL; then there should be reservations in Panchayat elections; then we should move up to make reservations in the Parliament and Assembly.
Currently, with the introduction of this bill, there is a faint hope that more bills and laws to safeguard and protect women would be passed. And that may lead to emancipation of women. Is that too much of a hope?
Start with a smaller percentage
33% women in Indian parliament is quite a big number. How will dynamics of Indian administration change without making ground work at all levels? How different is it to have so many woman MPs while all administrators are still men? How about we increase the reservation for women in Parliament and State Assembly in small doses? Like 16% first; then making it 33%?
I agree 33% is huge and parliament passing it like it is currently, is not possible. I think there should be some safeguards from misuse: more than one member of a family cannot use the reservation. For eg. a male MP cannot keep his wife and daughter in different constituencies under this quota. He can keep one of them in open competition. Another safeguard is a contestant making use of the reservation should have run for public office before under open competition. Third: an MP/MLA who lost his seat to woman reservation, cannot keep his family member in the 'SAME' constituency. More suggestions welcome
ReplyDeleteGood one Sujai,
ReplyDeleteI am forced to rethink on this issue for you have opened a plethora of inconsistencies.
I think Mulayam's sorts of idea of implementing it at party levels is good. I mean every political party should atleast put 50% of women contesting in each round of election.
This actually would reform our parties also. This might, some how I feel, increase with in the party democracy(internal democracy).
But the problem is how strict the parties are going to implement this??
And there is a greater chance that parties put women candidates against strong opponents where they are confident not to win.
And while your proposition seems OK on the long run there is a great need to actually increase the women representation in legislatures- Union and State.
Since 1996 there has been consistent decrease in women's representation.
I might agree on some views.But the my point is that there are certain things a man cannot think on behalf of a woman.Just as a Hindu or a Muslim cannot think on the problems faced by lets say an Anglo-Indian and by their own merit they cannot make it to the House.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly there are many perspectives that a woman sees but a man cannot be it software,social service or politics ,its just nature.When women form 50% of the population its only natural that they want one of them to stand for them.
A Muslim woman can offer some perspective on some thing a Hindu or Christian woman might not realize.How know if we had reservation for woman the Shan Bano fiasco might not have happened.
Another major point is what you do and how you'd make a difference with power rather than how you come to power.Indira Gandhi though swung into power by virtue of her father,she did make her mark.
But the most disgusting aspect is how the Govt is backing on BJP and sidelining its allies.Charity always should begin at home.Let the govt take the likes of Mulayam ,Lalu et al into confidence and then go and approach BJP.
I want to add another angle to the discussion.A woman by her nature is
ReplyDeleteprone to emotional swings be it PMS,Menopause anything.Sometimes they tend to act on impulses hurriedly instead of taking a fair and balanced perspective.Also there is a tendency to blow things out of proportion so mountains or molehills spring out based on the mood and sometimes there a 'bollywoodian' conspirations of revenge and vendetta.
But I believe that these things should not stand in between power and an emotionally intelligent woman.
hey the party based reservation is a brainshild of your 'friend'..JP.
ReplyDeleteTotal crap..
ReplyDeleteEvery problem or any problem.
Solution: reservation
this stupid mentality of solving the world's problems with just reservation..
only in india !!!
Sujai:
ReplyDelete33% women in Indian parliament is quite a big number.
50% of Indian population is a bigger number. Their representation of 10% is dismal and pathetically low. 33% is a good compromise line, atleast for as long as 'reservations' may be necessary.
How will dynamics of Indian administration change without making ground work at all levels?
You are right. Work is needed at all levels. Bottom up seems like a good idea. But, here lies the problem: What about those laws that need "male vote" to go "against males"?
e.g.: What about crucial and critical laws that need to be passed in the legislature?
It takes a critical mass of "elected representatives" to create a law.
It takes a few decades to enforce the law (e.g. Dowry)
If we wait for the "bottom up" approach, we may end up waiting for ever.
How different is it to have so many woman MPs while all administrators are still men?
When it comes to administration, the gender has little role to play. If our 'IAS/IPS' officers follow the law and enforce the law, without messing with its spirit or adding a 'male-chauvinist' agenda to it, gender doesn't matter.
In this case, what matters is the 'honesty' with which laws are enacted, enforced and followed. 'Corruption' in our society allows for the 'falling of women's rights through the cracks'.
In a Democracy, there is a vicious cycle.
"Yatha Raja tatha Praja"
AND
"Yatha Praja tatha Raja".
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteThough I am not fan of reservations, they do exist with different names through out the world including USA, Canada, UK.
Check the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
@ Nayeem:
ReplyDeleteA woman by her nature is
prone to emotional swings be it PMS,Menopause anything.Sometimes they tend to act on impulses hurriedly instead of taking a fair and balanced perspective.Also there is a tendency to blow things out of proportion so mountains or molehills spring out based on the mood and sometimes there a 'bollywoodian' conspirations of revenge and vendetta.
You seem to have a "biased" view on things.
Let me ask you a few questions:
1. Do you believe your upbringing would have been better if both your parents were Men (i.e. with no PMS and no mood swings)?
2. You may have had many female teachers at work. How much did their PMS impact your learning?
3. When was the last time you caught a "female MP" regret her "decision" on a law... and blame it on her PMS?
4. When was the last time you saw a "male MP" regret that the "parliament house" has become a venue for "women making a ruccus because of their mood-swings".
5. Do you have statistics on "number of Male MPs who made a mountain out of mole-hill" vs. "number of female MPs who made a mountain out of a mole-hill"?
In the western countries the comments you made are considered "sexist remarks". In India, the comments you made are considered "male-chauvinist" remarks.
Here is an FYI for you:
This world already has 50% women. The PMS, the mood-swings and the bunch of other stuff... didn't "delay or derange" the progress of this world.
If anything... it is the "flesh trade" and the "rapes" that prove the dismal situation of women in India.
//Do you believe your upbringing would have been better if both your parents were Men (i.e. with no PMS and no mood swings)?
ReplyDelete2. You may have had many female teachers at work. How much did their PMS impact your learning?
3. When was the last time you caught a "female MP" regret her "decision" on a law... and blame it on her PMS?
4. When was the last time you saw a "male MP" regret that the "parliament house" has become a venue for "women making a ruccus because of their mood-swings".
5. Do you have statistics on "number of Male MPs who made a mountain out of mole-hill" vs. "number of female MPs who made a mountain out of a mole-hill"?
In the western countries the comments you made are considered "sexist remarks". In India, the comments you made are considered "male-chauvinist" remarks.
Here is an FYI for you:
This world already has 50% women. The PMS, the mood-swings and the bunch of other stuff... didn't "delay or derange" the progress of this world.
If anything... it is the "flesh trade" and the "rapes" that prove the dismal situation of women in India.//
Didn't you read my opinions on the other side of the coin and on muslim minorites.I did say reservations are need for women.
I told all these in response since
33% is a higher number and whatever
decision they are going to take should not be made emotionally without losing sight of reality.
Do you think Indira Gandhi acted with poise.Read about emergency and the split decisions she used to take.
Hey please control your toungue and go over what I said again.Don't talk foolishly and insanely. These are precisely the reasons why Hillary Clinton was not voted into power.There is a scientific rationale behind what I said.Ask a your wife's gynecologist..I told adequately that I do support the reservations but Yes there are factors which even a woman would acknowledge.Yes western societies
openly discuss,you male chauvinists
would not even acknowledge biology.
There are thousands of examples
to show how hasty some women acted and its result in history.
Please withdraw your bloody remarks about Same Sex.Sujai please do remove it.I presented a point that I happen to see men talk about women politicians.Its up to you to like it or now.Opinions are assholes everybody is entitled to one.
//1. Do you believe your upbringing would have been better if both your parents were Men (i.e. with no PMS and no mood swings)?//
Hey dud Men too suffer from Menopausal like symptoms- Andropause maybe you are suffering from one.
@ nayeem
ReplyDeleteThere is a scientific rationale behind what I said.Ask a your wife's gynecologist..I told adequately that I do support the reservations but Yes there are factors which even a woman would acknowledge.Yes western societies
openly discuss,you male chauvinists
would not even acknowledge biology.
Kindly enlighten me with the "biology" you are talking about.
I have no problem discussing it OPENLY!!
Rest assured, I am not a male chauvinist. I would like to know more about the "factors which even a woman would acknowledge" but I missed out acknowledging as you have accused me of.
Also another question for you:
Biology and Genetics were not discussed when you openly defended "Muslim reservations". Why do you bring these factors in, when you discuss reservations in Parliament?
Do you think that the average woman of India is less capable than Laloo Yadav, Owaisi and Karunanidhi?
How know if we had reservation for woman the Shan Bano fiasco might not have happened.
ReplyDeleteNayeem don't you think that is really farfetching statement.
You are wrongly putting the burden of proof on the victim.
I agree with Suaji that starting from a ground level would address this taxonomy. Every tactile move when started from the bottom of a pyramid would strongly structure the foundation.
ReplyDeleteThe state of Andhra Pradesh achieved excellence in women education under the chief ministership of P. Janardhan Reddy. He introduced 33% reservation for girls into admittance of Engineering, polytechnic and Medicine colleges in the year 1993.
Nayeem's remarks point to one important aspect of the society.
ReplyDeleteThat this is a completelymale dominant society.
That unless acknowledged any body taking an action or voicing opinion should be considered as man.
Women least likely are found to be voicing their opinions.
And there is a good great chance that a man is usually the one who speaks for a women.
On the whole, women haven't reached a level where their opionions are to be acknowledged.
We can expect that women stand for their likes, with a meager 5-7% of their representation in higher elected bodies.
This link might provide some perspectives.
ReplyDelete"Click here"
I've been to scores of meeting during the presidential campaigns and spoke with so many people who don't construe that it is a taboo to discuss about women in politics in relation to pms or mood swings...Even in offices everybody discusses it openly.I've seen so many mangagers who have deputed their tasks to their subordinates while they were on 'menopause'.
ReplyDeleteEven in Indian society I think this aspect needs to be discusses freely.
When Bill O'reilly can discuss on his show with guests openly about Hillary and PMS what is the fuss to
apply this to Indian settings where denial ,both by men and women and refusal to acknowledge these conditions as heatlh conditions is really pathetic.
Here are some links for your reading pleasure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premenstrual_syndrome
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2240923397&topic=1750
http://www.epigee.org/menopause/mood_swings.html
http://www.askmen.com/dating/heidi/48_dating_girl.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2922027
Nayeem,
ReplyDeletePeople usually do not start believing in something because some XYZ has acknowledged it. You are supposed to substantiate certain things with stronger than usual evidence.
And evidence that usually compares the components in the question.
Questions worthwhile to consider here are
why do you think men do not have mood swings?
And certain studies have mentioned that men are more prone to develop anti-social personality disorder based on existing data.
Don't you think this renders men unsuitable for power posts?
Nayeem,
ReplyDeleteAnd simply saying women have high frequency of mood swings during certain times is not just enough to refute their chances of being chosen for elected posts.
You should be able to substantiate enough that this is going to affect badly the policy making decisions.
Do you have any?/
In my opinion, it is better to have reservations in political party level. It is enforceable and every political party (recognized by the EC) be mandated to field at least one third women candidates, at all levels. This can be implemented in conjunction with existing SC/ ST reservations. While this may not ensure 33% women representation, it will not be very low too. Political parties have a tendency to field women candidates against women even today and hence there will be a good chance of all women contests, there by not diluting their representation by much.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the proposed model, as you mentioned, is that with the rotation system, it will be very difficult for leaders to emerge. But this will help the existing dynasties to consolidate better and that probably is one of the reasons the Congress party and its allies are very enthusiastic in pushing this!
Couple of days back, I was watching analysis in a TV channel on how it is going to impact AP. I started laughing out loud when they listed the probable reservation constituencies based on male-female ratios! They can choose any, provided existing reservation quotas are taken into consideration.
//Biology and Genetics were not discussed when you openly defended "Muslim reservations". Why do you bring these factors in, when you discuss reservations in Parliament? //
ReplyDeleteNobody is advocating reservations based on Biology or Genetics my dear friend.Apply the same rational as you'd to BCs,the criteria set by the famous Mandal Commission.Just because one is muslim doesn't mean he is not backward,there are classes and professions too.It is based on the backwardness as they are living their lives.Muslims in Hyderabad had literacy rate compared to Hindus but now look at their lives.
The majority wants the muslims to remain downtrodden to make them feel that they are unimportant all the time,but come elections you see everybody sucking upto them.Thanks to the petrodollars and gulf, otherwise muslims would have drowned deeper into inescapable morass would have become living exhibit of abject poverty.
Didn't we talk ad nauseum about this before??
@ nayeem:
ReplyDeleteThe majority wants the muslims to remain downtrodden to make them feel that they are unimportant all the time,but come elections you see everybody sucking upto them.
Where did you get THAT from?
Wait a minute... did the MAJORITY stop at your door step and tell you that? Or.. better still... did you get a tweet or e-mail over MAJORITY's intentions?
Get over it. No one wears their religion on except the fanatics.
//When Bill O'reilly can discuss on his show with guests openly about Hillary and PMS what is the fuss to
ReplyDeleteapply this to Indian settings where denial ,both by men and women and refusal to acknowledge these conditions as heatlh conditions is really pathetic.//
Nayeem,
Did Bill O'reilly talk about Sarah Palin PMS also? You are weakening your argument by quoting a white supremacist, male chauvinist like Bill. Angela Merkel is the biggest leader in Europe today. And there are any number of women leaders and CEOs.
We can talk freely about Menopause, how it affects women and how they deal with it etc in a different forum. With all the means and knowledge of experiences of others available today, these are non issues when it comes to the question of: whether female leaders will be able to cope with or not!
@ Nayeem:
ReplyDeleteWhen Bill O'reilly can discuss on his show with guests openly about Hillary and PMS what is the fuss to
apply this to Indian settings where denial ,both by men and women and refusal to acknowledge these conditions as heatlh conditions is really pathetic.
Here are some links for your reading pleasure.
LOL!! ROFL!!!
All you had to say was:
Bill O Reilly discussed PMS on his show. So... that must be TRUE???!#@@$E#?
All the research you could dish up is Askmen.com???? The site for single miserable men who have to prove to themselves every single day that women are dumb, weak, selfish and mean targets that they can win over using colognes and style to bed?
C'mon buddy... be a man! grow up!!
I am kinda sure that if women argue with you... they will not quote from Oprah, Huffington Post or Femina magazines.
First grow up!!!!
HA HAA hAAAAA heeee cant stop laughing.
@ RealFan:
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the proposed model, as you mentioned, is that with the rotation system, it will be very difficult for leaders to emerge. But this will help the existing dynasties to consolidate better and that probably is one of the reasons the Congress party and its allies are very enthusiastic in pushing this!
This particular argument (copy+paste) is straight out of JP Narayan's Loksatta propaganda.
What the hell do you mean by "Leaders cannot emerge"?
USA laws do not allow any President to Occupy office for more that 2 terms in his life-time.
Does that mean... USA is getting rid of the experience of Presidents???
Rotation..... is the BEST side-effect of this bill.
It will put the "elected representatives" in an "insecure zone" and they will try to work hard and do things that will make people remember them for the 5 yr gaps that come about.
C'mon buddy... be a man!
ReplyDelete!!??!?
TG_Bidda,
ReplyDeleteYou impress me most of the time, except when you go brandishing about Telangana.
In your response to Nayeem, kindly replace 'muslims' with 'Telanganas' and 'religion' with 'region' and read it aloud! I have pasted it below for convenience!!
The majority wants the muslims to remain downtrodden to make them feel that they are unimportant all the time,but come elections you see everybody sucking upto them.
Where did you get THAT from?
Wait a minute... did the MAJORITY stop at your door step and tell you that? Or.. better still... did you get a tweet or e-mail over MAJORITY's intentions?
Get over it. No one wears their religion on except the fanatics.
@ sravan:
ReplyDeleteHad to use the phrase!... Nayeem here is very very proud of himself for not having PMS!!!
I need to dish up statistics on crime, murders, rapes and the numbers on "male occupants" of JAILS across the worlds!
//And simply saying women have high frequency of mood swings during certain times is not just enough to refute their chances of being chosen for elected posts.
ReplyDeleteYou should be able to substantiate enough that this is going to affect badly the policy making decisions.
Do you have any?/
I don't say all women are that way.
If you are bad the mood swings will make you worst.
Definitely I've my apprehensions when that "nuclear suitcase" is carried by a woman with violent mood swings.I want decisions pertaining to me and my leader to take informative decisions.I don't want a Maya or or a Mamata or let's see a Jaya, hanging a Domicile's sword over my neck just because I differ with her...
TG_Bidda,
ReplyDelete//What the hell do you mean by "Leaders cannot emerge"?
USA laws do not allow any President to Occupy office for more that 2 terms in his life-time.//
They have the limitation for presidents but not for senators / congressmen! For honest people who aspire to take politics as a profession, the rotation rule will be a major cause of concern.
//Does that mean... USA is getting rid of the experience of Presidents???//
lol. whatever!
//Rotation..... is the BEST side-effect of this bill.//
Can you explain how?
Through a combination of partnerships with AOL and MSN, AskMen.com became the leader in the men's lifestyle space, though it still trailed ESPN.com and other websites in terms of total reach within the male segment on the Web. It has one of the highest concentration of males online, according to Media Metrix's @Plan.
ReplyDeleteAs of February 2007, the site claims 7.2 million unique visitors, according to comScore Media Metrix. It ranks #801 on Alexa ranking's of websites.
A straight forward proposition based on these facts:
ReplyDeleteWomen make almost 50% of the populations.
Given that, women do make a large group of population as single entity.
There are certain things women would more than simple probability that they would address their distinct problems.
These problems that concern 50% of total population.
In various sub-populations this is more or less constantly maintained.
Women however are not represented in democracy at the same rate.
Why not elect a man and a women from each constituency?
Thereby in parliament we have two people who represent the constituency rather than one.
If it is one man and one women there is a greater chance that both men and women are given equal probability in exercising power.
Already the our govt. is proposing increase in strength of parliament to accomodate women reservations.
Guys any input on this??
@ Nayeem:
ReplyDeleteHere is a link with numbers saying:
"Men commit more crimes than women"... and this is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH.
Now... based on this... we should restrict Men's access to the Parliament... afterall... we dont want criminals in the parliament!!!
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=442
http://social.jrank.org/pages/1254/Violent-Crime-Victims-Violent-Crimes-Most-Are-Men.html
//
ReplyDeleteI am kinda sure that if women argue with you... they will not quote from Oprah, Huffington Post or Femina magazines. //
Honestly if you see Oprah you would understand more about the woman her sensuality,her emotions and her problems.....
@ nayeem:
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to stats on Oprah.com. Quite impressive.
http://www.quantcast.com/oprah.com
But... I really dont see how and why Askmen.com or Oprah.com should be the authority to talk on PMS. I understand you love Bill O Reilly... but, read this: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200509160009
We are not ready to let a western TV host take over our Indian Parliament's decision over Women's reservations!
@ Nayeem
ReplyDeleteA woman by her nature is
prone to emotional swings be it PMS,Menopause anything
A man, by nature is very violent and crime oriented. Just look at the numbers in prisons - the number of women in prisons is pretty close to zero.
Hence, ban all men from becoming politicians, CEOs and pretty much from any job - they are all violent and criminal.
Definitely I've my apprehensions when that "nuclear suitcase" is carried by a woman with violent mood swings.
ReplyDeleteIndira Gandhi was the PM who first oversaw the Nuclear Program of India.
Margaret Thatcher was PM of Britain for whole lot of 11 years carrying the nuclear suitcase.
Benazir Bhutto was the PM of Pakistan for a period of about 6 years with probably a nuclear suitcase in her hand.
And Nayeem,
ReplyDeleteInterestingly two of them were in Post menopausal period during their tenure.
Does it ring any bells?
And do not tell me that Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency because of this PMS associated mood swing.
Definitely I've my apprehensions when that "nuclear suitcase" is carried by a woman with violent mood swings.
ReplyDeleteWe get it! You had a bad experience... probably with chappals?
Next time.. be careful.... and be MORE CAREFUL around a woman with a nuclear suitcase. :)
@ sravan:
ReplyDeleteWhy not elect a man and a women from each constituency?
So... are you proposing that India will be the ONLY country in the world with a Male PM and a Female PM?
Also... will we have a Male President and a Female President?
I wonder who wins the race by twisting arms around?
@ Nayeem,
ReplyDeleteA woman by her nature is
prone to emotional swings be it PMS,Menopause anything
A man, by his nature, screws anything that moves. Sometimes, things that don't move. Coz of this, there is very low blood flow to the brain, blood flows downwards (you know where) and decisions taken by men are worse than those taken by garden lizards. Men should be banned from all occupations. Lets start with politics and give 100% reservation to women.
@ nayeem:
ReplyDeleteHonestly if you see Oprah you would understand more about the woman her sensuality,her emotions and her problems.....
LOL!!! You seem to have understood too much!
And yet... you are using the PMS card.
Just an FYI... even the west is tired of the PMS card. The American Jobless stats say that as of today... More American women are employed, compared to men.
So... are you proposing that India will be the ONLY country in the world with a Male PM and a Female PM?
ReplyDeleteI am not speaking about the executive body but about the legislature body.
The parliament will elect the PM male or female depending on the current equations.
I wonder who wins the race by twisting arms around?
ReplyDeleteDon't you think Parliamentary democracy is all about that?
So... are you proposing that India will be the ONLY country in the world with a Male PM and a Female PM?
ReplyDeleteOf course some one should initiate.
Novelty precedes Generality
//
ReplyDelete"Men commit more crimes than women"... and this is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH. //
Hey nobody is talking about crimes.It is true Men commit more crimes and mostly heinous.I told earlier that we need women representatives since they are the ones who know what women want.Just as they don't know what men want.You and I don't know.But at the sametime bolstering Sujai's views about 33%(technically you can have 100% woman,since they are eligible of general quota too,I digressed..) being huge percentage and making a quick transition to that point with one stroke of legislation,I expressed my apprehensions.I want a slow transition to 33% until the new system schools the new generation of women into seasoned women politicians with emotional intelligence.Men and Women have to acknowledge the difficulties like gender bias but I wanted to added the other important element related with biological and psychological aspects.Nothing wrong with it.There are some very good and personable women around ,they stand out because they are emotionally intelligent but are fully aware of their limitations without superciliousness.
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteI am not speaking about the executive body but about the legislature body.
The parliament will elect the PM male or female depending on the current equations.
And... the problem arises right here.
There will be 50% men and 50% women. What are the chances of a tie if the election of PM takes an ugly gender-face?
Do we really need to stick with the "girls and boys sit in separate classes" syndrome that Indian schools so far suffered from??
//And yet... you are using the PMS card.
ReplyDeleteJust an FYI... even the west is tired of the PMS card. The American Jobless stats say that as of today... More American women are employed, compared to men.//
That is preposterous.In the West an unrelated man can ask a woman if she is having PMS :) or a woman tells her co-passenger that she is having hot flashes,oms and irritable..I never said it has to do anything with employment.
@ nayeem:
ReplyDeleteHey nobody is talking about crimes.It is true Men commit more crimes and mostly heinous.
Well... you cannot pull off a one-sided argument by highlighting PMS and hiding the 95% criminals of the world and their crimes under the carpet!!!
Afterall... The world had a Male Hitler... there was no female-hitler so far!!!
@ nayeem:
ReplyDeleteThat is preposterous.In the West an unrelated man can ask a woman if she is having PMS :) or a woman tells her co-passenger that she is having hot flashes,oms and irritable..I never said it has to do anything with employment.
You speak out of ignorance buddy.
Never take the risk of asking a western woman if she is through her PMS. She will report you to the HR or police. It is insulting a lady, to say the least! And... and... askmen.com is pathetic at teaching such etiquette.
Men and Women have to acknowledge the difficulties like gender bias but I wanted to added the other important element related with biological and psychological aspects.Nothing wrong with it.
ReplyDeletePoint taken Nayeem.
That is what the discussion is about.
Never take the risk of asking a western woman if she is through her PMS. She will report you to the HR or police. It is insulting a lady, to say the least!
ReplyDeleteNO That is not.
If question is asked with good intentions.
@ sravan:
ReplyDeleteOf course some one should initiate.
Novelty precedes Generality
Actually,.... I am beginning to like the idea... except, it leads to a very "confused" governance.
So,.. will there be a women's parliament and a Men's parliament? (girls and boys in separate classes?) :)
Will the Madam be handling Defense ministry and Sir be looking after Home? Or... do they have to stick to the old rules?
Or better still... One Male and One Female MP take up the portfolio of Madam Defense and Mr Defense?
Jokes apart... it will not workout. There will be questions of "Who vetoes and who is the ultimate authority".
If we do not mirror a Male CEO with a Female CEO, a male-teacher with a female-teacher, why do this mirroring selectively on MPs and MLAs?
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteWill position his wife, daughter, sister, or daughter-in-law
negates this: Will have no political incentive to serve its constituents
Eitherway, the position will be within the family for any given nTh term. The family has an incentive to serve its constituents.
There is no loss with the rotation system. There is, however, potential for gain. It may not manifest immediately, but the long term gains are inevitable.
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteIf question is asked with good intentions.
And... how do you expect the woman to know your "intentions"??? Do you wear them on your collar, on your sleve or on your face... to let her know the intentions are "good"?
Only husbands or Boy Friends are known to be able to ask that question... and for se*** reasons!
Afterall... The world had a Male Hitler... there was no female-hitler so far!!!
ReplyDeleteAren't we going too far stereotyping people based on gender?
There is a negative evidence against forming a stereotypic view out of risk characterization.
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteAren't we going too far stereotyping people based on gender?
There is a negative evidence against forming a stereotypic view out of risk characterization.
The Mr. Hitler is being dragged into conversation along with his Crime Statistics to counter the PMS and Mood-swing stereo-typing.
I was hoping Nayeem will step back.. but he dodged the bullet and you ate it. :)
And... how do you expect the woman to know your "intentions"??? Do you wear them on your collar, on your sleve or on your face... to let her know the intentions are "good"?
ReplyDeleteThat depends on the context.
If it is proven that asking such questions lead to discrimination and public insult, no women would answer that.
It is quite common in medical profession to ask women about the menstrual status.
//Never take the risk of asking a western woman if she is through her PMS. She will report you to the HR or police. It is insulting a lady, to say the least! And... and... askmen.com is pathetic at teaching such etiquette.//
ReplyDeleteHey I know what the etiquette is or how to talk with a western woman and also when to talk and when to keep quiet.I've lived enough in the West to understand that.You suggestions are unwarranted here.But at least now you know the implications and show a better understanding of what the heck I'm trying to tell you folks..good job!!!
Another point about Hilter,a woman
Hilter would have planned much more meticulously and the Second War result would have been different.
As I said before didn't we have enough of Maya,Jaya et al already..
I was hoping Nayeem will step back.. but he dodged the bullet and you ate it. :)
ReplyDeleteI was simply trying to be more objective.
So that all valid points are taken in correct context.
And effort to pipeline the discussion in a more mature way
@ Nayeem:
ReplyDeleteAs I said before didn't we have enough of Maya,Jaya et al already..
And... we had enough... I mean ENOUGH of Lagadapatis, Karunanidhis, Laloos, Mulayams and terrible Chandra-Babus. Enough of criminals already!
Another point about Hilter,a woman
ReplyDeleteHilter would have planned much more meticulously and the Second War result would have been different.
And my comments on stereotyping is directed to everone.
There is a good evidence that stereotyping based on risk characterization should not applied in each and every practical decision. It is a very bad confounder
@ nayeem:
ReplyDeleteAnother point about Hilter,a woman
Hilter would have planned much more meticulously and the Second War result would have been different.
Are you saying women are better at planning?
Nayeem alias Reality would be proud to call sexual perverts like Arjun Singh his fearless leader!
ReplyDelete... but would not allow women become politicians because they have pms! ( not their fault!! )
According to Nayeem, women have emotions, have PMS, etc and should be banned from sports, medicine (no point in having female doctors, it is an extraordinarily stressful job), engineering, computers, and pretty much every occupation. Women shouldn't handle kids, they are prone to emotions and may not bring them up correctly.
What according to Nayeem are women good for? Wash clothes, do the dishes and cook for him. While he bitches about food not being tasty and complains about her PMS!
LOL!
ReplyDeleteChauvinism playing hide and seek?
Actually,.... I am beginning to like the idea... except, it leads to a very "confused" governance.
ReplyDeleteActually it solves lot of confusion.
And do you think the portfolios that deliver services in general to all people are being given based on existing reservations?
No
With 50-50 representation in legislature does not mean 50-50 representation in each and every portfolio of executive body.
Of course if you have such doubts it can still be solved.
The minister would be one gender and the deputy would be another.
Need not be always the same gender takes the same position always
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteWill position his wife, daughter, sister, or daughter-in-law
Bhai-Bhateejawad is and has been in Indian politics since eternity.
When argued over the same point, our esteemed ministers and MPs reply back saying... "If a doctors son becomes a doctor and actors son becomes an actor, why cant a politician's son become a politician?"
If Bhai-bhateejawad exists and flourishes in the general elections with or without reservations.... Why are you looking for IDEALISM in the women's bill?
Even within the quota... the Women's politics will reflect the same scenarios as the general Indian politics do.
You cannot expect a whole new world with utopia just because a few constituencies will only see women running for elections.
I believe this reservation is just to encourage more women into the legislative bodies ... and to give them a chance to prove themselves to the people.
I do however, believe that ALL RESERVATIONS SHOULD BE TIME BOUND. i.e. they should expire after a max. of 5 decades.
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteActually it solves lot of confusion.
And do you think the portfolios that deliver services in general to all people are being given based on existing reservations?
No
With 50-50 representation in legislature does not mean 50-50 representation in each and every portfolio of executive body.
Of course if you have such doubts it can still be solved.
The minister would be one gender and the deputy would be another.
Need not be always the same gender takes the same position always
No... I have come to reason myself out of this idea.
If we do not mirror a Male CEO with a Female CEO, a male-teacher with a female-teacher, why do this mirroring selectively on MPs and MLAs?
// PMS and Mood-swing stereo-typing. //
ReplyDeleteDo you understand what PMS and its seriousness is or are you building castles in the air? Read about it fully.It doesn't happen daily my friend.It doesn't provoke a woman to commit crimes,it has the capability of exposing their inner weakness.It tell me that you really don't understand a woman,how pathetic.
I told umpteen number of times and my throat is still sore with those shouts,that it has nothing to do with crime.
I'm not very analogy friendly but for you sake let me try one.
You work in a company your woman manager really respects you and treats you like you the greatest man in the world even though you do minor mistakes in your work.But next week you get little late or bungle something up just a little,but that invites the reading of riot act just for a peccadillo.You park your car behind that white car that already few scratches you don't notice,but you get back to you car,she finds out screaming and railing at you saying you are responsible and doesn't budge to any logical argument or rational only to tell the police that that reason behind her irrationality was her PMS and she be excused.If that happens to you you'll know what I'm talking.
Hey don't stand as vanguards of women.Everybody knows how illogical and ridiculous your arguments were on Telangana and all of a sudden you are taking the cudgel for somebody whom you don't represent.
If you had the softer corners as you depict you'd listen to arguments and try to gather the essence of it and then beg to differ.
Don't mess with somebody under PMS don't burder her with cloak of miseries,they at that time have enough already.It really takes lot of training and determination for a woman to be herself.
Having two representatives from each constituency solves additional problems.
ReplyDeletePeople have a chance to compare both.
I am not saying women will elect a women representative and Men will elect men's representative.
All will elect a man and a woman as representatives.
That way problems distinct to each gender can be addressed effectively.
If they both do not come to a consensus then the decision would be delivered at Parliamentary vote.
People will have more choice to make.
And ofcourse there is a problem of responsibility.
But ofcourse that is still present.
No body takes responsibility of bad ones but all are eager to take the responsibilities of good ones.
This is not specific to what I proposed here.
And confusion to people.
I think people should be more active in making their political choices.
And two is not very different from one.
Like it is not about forcing people to make 10 choices. It is just two.
Nayeem,
ReplyDeleteThat means atleast mood swings in women are predictable.
But in men very iunpredictable.
What would you choose?
@ nayeem:
ReplyDeleteYou work in a company your woman manager really respects you and treats you like you the greatest man in the world even though you do minor mistakes in your work.But next week you get little late or bungle something up just a little,but that invites the reading of riot act just for a peccadillo.You park your car behind that white car that already few scratches you don't notice,but you get back to you car,she finds out screaming and railing at you saying you are responsible and doesn't budge to any logical argument or rational only to tell the police that that reason behind her irrationality was her PMS and she be excused.If that happens to you you'll know what I'm talking.
Yeah! I hear you!!
But, just like you had a bad time... dont you think that Laloos and Mulayams should also have Some teeny-weeny-bit of bad time in the parliament?
It nos not fair for them to break the benches and mikes all the time... atleast once in a while, they should get to pull their hairs out! :)
Jokes apart....
Nayeem.... let it go. Men are prone to more crime... and women have PMS. This doesn't take us anywhere.
If we cannot send Men and Women to parliament... do you have viable options left?
According to Nayeem aka reality:
ReplyDeleteDon't mess with somebody under PMS don't burder her with cloak of miseries
Of course! The only acceptable things that a poor women can do is wash dishes, clothes, clean the hourse and cook food.
Idler:
ReplyDeleteI am working with two premises.
1. That we should move away from dynastic politics where only kin get to rule after you are gone.
2. That we hold our elected members more accountable that what it is now.
You say:
Eitherway, the position will be within the family for any given nTh term. The family has an incentive to serve its constituents.
The above observation of yours perpetuates dynastic politics and therefore goes against premise #1 of mine.
There is no loss with the rotation system. There is, however, potential for gain. It may not manifest immediately, but the long term gains are inevitable.
Already, leaders like Sabitha in AP are clueless. She looks at Rosaiah to answer every question. Right now, she doesn’t look like she is in control though she is Home Minister. Imagine having 33% of Parliament and State Assembly like that. Are we improving the system?
We cannot work with people where the accountable person is always in the background.
More puppets in the Parliament and State Assembly goes against #2 premise of mine.
Sravan:
ReplyDeleteIn my previous comment, I listed my premise:
2. That we hold our elected members more accountable that what it is now.
You say:
Why not elect a man and a women from each constituency?
What you say dilutes the premise#2. Having two leaders from the same constituency dilutes the accountability.
@ Nayeem:
ReplyDeleteIt really takes lot of training and determination for a woman to be herself.
It takes a lot for any individual to carve out a Character and a personality... and to be themselves. More importantly, it takes a lot of training for anyone to be balanced in the turmoil all the time.
Neither Men nor Women are exempt from it. I personally know a family where the woman is the "crisis manager" and the man is just not so good at reacting to crisis. It is not a short-coming... it is a balancing act.
This balancing act has to be attained at all levels in the society... else, it will ... forever... remain a Man's world! Pray who designed the RTC buses? They are so female-UN-friendly!!! And... you will see the same buses running around for centuries for your daughters and grand-daughters to use... unless you pro-actively step down a bit and let the ladies decide once in a while what goes better for them.
If we do not mirror a Male CEO with a Female CEO, a male-teacher with a female-teacher, why do this mirroring selectively on MPs and MLAs?
ReplyDeleteThe problem is reading it in non-comparable contexts.
Policy decisions are made in Parliament, at a legislative level.
Policy enforcement at Executive level.
Since executive bodies are usually elected from the legislative bodies(the majority wing forms the gov, and assigns portfolios), there is a greater chance that on a overall basis Executive would be expected to accumulate men and women in equal proportions.
And if a company has two equal executive level positions then there is always a comparison made. But it is not possible at executive level to enforce such equal proportionality.
But at legislative level can be made that would definitely reflect at executive level.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteAlready, leaders like Sabitha in AP are clueless. She looks at Rosaiah to answer every question. Right now, she doesn’t look like she is in control though she is Home Minister. Imagine having 33% of Parliament and State Assembly like that. Are we improving the system?
Agreed. Sabitha and leaders (followers) like her are a disgrace.
But... what do you have to say about Rahul Gandhi?
What do you say about Rajiv Gandhi when he came into Indian politics after Indira's death? What was Rajiv Gandhi without PVN's right-hand-help?
There is always a puppet and a driver.
How good was Bush2 for US?
Puppets are a reality in Politics. East or West... Emancipated or not... There are many puppets posing as leaders... but are mere masks to the brains behind them.
Why are you looking for an "Ideal outcome" only when it comes to women?
What you say dilutes the premise#2. Having two leaders from the same constituency dilutes the accountability
ReplyDeleteI think I already answered that.
And ofcourse there is a problem of responsibility.
But ofcourse that is still present.
No body takes responsibility of bad ones but all are eager to take the responsibilities of good ones.
This is not specific to what I proposed here.
And confusion to people.
I think people should be more active in making their political choices.
And two is not very different from one.
Like it is not about forcing people to make 10 choices. It is just two.
That kind of confusion always is present irrespective of whether there are two representatives or one representatives. It exists even now.
The truth is politicians and political parties are not accountable in democracy.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteIf Bhai-bhateejawad exists and flourishes in the general elections with or without reservations.... Why are you looking for IDEALISM in the women's bill?
Just because dynastic politics exist and flourishes does not mean we enshrine it, legitimize it and institutionalize it with laws that seem to move it in that direction. Knowing dynastic politics exist, we should constantly create systems and laws that move us away from it not towards it.
I never said I oppose reservations for women in Parliament. I have some apprehensions about ‘rotation system’. Is it the best way, I ask.
Currently, SC/ST reservations in Parliament are not based on rotation system. We have never been introduced to rotation system. Rotation system has unintended effects which nobody is actually paying attention to. I have calculated 3 scenarios.
1. 40% of the incumbents win
Within three terms we will have more 51% women in Parliament in perpetuity.
2. 50% of the incumbents win
Within three terms we will have more than 58% in women in Parliament in perpetuity.
3. 60% of the incumbents win
Within three terms we will have more than 65% women in Parliament in perpetuity.
The key word above is perpetuity.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteThat we hold our elected members more accountable that what it is now
I said more accountable than now and not that i am completely precluding the confusion.
I said more accountable because the two representatives are at odds one time or the other to gain people constituency's confidence.
And that might drive them to be more accountable to the people.
Not only people the representatives are now compelled to compare each other.
How good was Bush2 for US?
ReplyDeleteLot of Americans actually believe Bush was puppet to dick cheney.
Sravan:
ReplyDeleteI said more accountable because the two representatives are at odds one time or the other to gain people constituency's confidence.
Its like having two CEOs. In my experience it does not work. Our democracies still hold one person accountable for a certain job.
Play out the scenario in your head. You will realize the weakness of having two representatives for each constituency.
There will be 50% men and 50% women. What are the chances of a tie if the election of PM takes an ugly gender-face?
ReplyDeleteDon't you think we came across such situations score of times when coalitions were formed?
Actually men and men fighting each other is not different from men and women fighting.
The problem arises only one group is dominating the other in number.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteRotation system has unintended effects which nobody is actually paying attention to.
In reality, those side-effects have been discussed in the past too.
Hence I added...
ALL RESERVATIONS IN INDIA SHOULD HAVE A FIXED TIME OF EXPIRATION (NOT MORE THAN 5 DECADES).
Post-expiration, all constituencies should be free of the reservations.
You can give a 'Stimulus' for a limited period of time... Not for ever. Thus... it will never come to a stage where women completely take-over the houses.
Its like having two CEOs. In my experience it does not work. Our democracies still hold one person accountable for a certain job.
ReplyDeleteNo, in our school specifically in my class we used to have an elected body to represent the class.
We all used to select a boy and a girl.
The teacher used to select one of them as chief representative.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteThe executive decisions are not made at constituency level in India.
They are usually made in large legislative bodies.
The elected repesentative represent the constituency in the legislative bodies and at the same time oversee the enforcement of decisions at the constituency level.
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteHow good was Bush2 for US?
Lot of Americans actually believe Bush was puppet to dick cheney.
Which is why I quoted that example. Bush was a puppet too. And not just that, Bush is a classic example of "dynastic politics".
Its a part of politics.
I am wondering what kind of laws in US "institutionalized" dynastic rule... but, some prominent families like kennedys, bush's and others seem to never tire of their power.
Women's bill will not "institutionalize" dynastic rule any more than what it is today.
Every Male MP/MLA has a think-tank behind him. Very few of our politicians actually have an in-depth knowledge of policies. Though it is a sorry state, it is a true reflection of the Indian-population and the Indian-psyche.
It will change... but, it will take decades to change.
Women's bill... or no Women's bill... Rotation or no rotation... certain aspects of Politics, Power and Power-ful-families... will not change in the near future.
How many can bet that Rahul Gandhi will never be the PM of India?
I cannot. Infact, I would put all the money against the above proposition... coz he will ... one day... be the PM. Can we push for laws to change that? (instead of blaming it all on the Women's bill?)
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteWhy are you looking for an "Ideal outcome" only when it comes to women?
I am not against reservations for women. I have apprehensions about rotation system. I would have had the same apprehensions if it was rotation system for SC/ST/OBC. This system has far dire consequences for Indian democracy than alleviating the problem of representation of women in assemblies and parliament. It could be like trying to fix a small wound and ending up losing the whole hand.
In our euphoria to correct the representation for women, I wouldn’t want us to mess up Indian democracy which has come about after a long struggle.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteIt will put the "elected representatives" in an "insecure zone" and they will try to work hard and do things that will make people remember them for the 5 yr gaps that come about.
In India, they will use the 5 years to loot the country as much as possible. Right now, the motivation to win in the next elections is making them little accountable.
RealFan:
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it is better to have reservations in political party level.
I would have liked that more than the proposed rotation system. But it cannot be done legally since political party is not a recognized entity. Only Election Commission can recommend it, but I am not sure if it can enforce it.
Another aspect of Indian Party systems are lack of women's representation with in the party.
ReplyDeleteIf the parties are compelled to select a women contestant from each constituency, the women would garner more representation at the part constituency group.
And it is possible also to rectify the problem of unequal representations from a constituency based on present social-class reservations. If the women is reserved for BC or ST from one constituency the other can be general or in any other kind of equation
sravan:
ReplyDeleteThe executive decisions are not made at constituency level in India.
True, but still people turn to their elected leader to get lot of things done in their constituency, like roads, etc. When there are two people, our leaders will get a chance to get into a blame game, and thus excuse themselves of all duties.
Suajai,
ReplyDeleteAbout rotation system,
Actually the present bill addresses that.
And the time period of the reservations is only 15 years.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteALL RESERVATIONS IN INDIA SHOULD HAVE A FIXED TIME OF EXPIRATION (NOT MORE THAN 5 DECADES).
I am talking of a scenario where 65% of the Parliament and Assembly will be ONLY women within 3 terms (15 years).
When there are two people, our leaders will get a chance to get into a blame game, and thus excuse themselves of all duties.
ReplyDeleteWell nevertheless if there is no intention they will somehow find an excuse.
And here, the one or the other might actually intend to do it.
And regarding the formation of political factions they are present now also with opposition parties and internal party factions.
That is nothing new.
When cold war was on the run, there was ofcourse two powers dominating and to some extent there was a kind of balance achieved.
ReplyDeleteAnd still today USA is not the one who rules the roost.
There is a fierce competition from China and EU.
That actually helped in acceleration of Science and Technology and Industrial Production.
The countries developed a lot due to cold war tensions.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis is not your Telangana issue where if you cannot argue you show your frustration..... We are a progressive group of people who believe in education of soul not the kind you practice.
ReplyDeleteSujai you should not allow posts like this..
And Nayeem,
I do not think there were any good number of anti-telangana commnenters who behaved well.
When the discussion is healthy it is better to keep it that way.
Only Election Commission can recommend it, but I am not sure if it can enforce it.
ReplyDeleteActually judiciary is only one entitled to enforce it.
//I do not think there were any good number of anti-telangana commnenters who behaved well.
ReplyDeleteWhen the discussion is healthy it is better to keep it that way.//
I want to keep it polite and pertinent to the issue but don't sling mud it makes one lose sight.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteUnderlying assumption is Womens Bill (or all bills!) should be a solution for (1) dynastic politics and (2) accountability. :)
It is not. Different bills address different problems. India has many problems, Womens Bill is no more a solution to the above than it is a solution for many endemic problems - poverty, corruption.
All bills do not address all issues. For example, the bill for RTI addresses transparency (accountability) only and nothing else. Womens reservations are left out in the RTI bill.
What is Womens Bill? It is just that -- increased representation of women. Should it solve any of India's endemic problems? Not necessarily.
60% of the incumbents win Within three terms we will have more than 65% women in Parliament in perpetuity.
Nothing wrong with that. We had 95%+ men majority for 6 decades. If its going to be Womens majority, so be it. The solution is to put an expiry date, as TG_Bidda suggested. Five decades is a good idea.
Besides, it would be far more interesting to watch Parliament debates. It is bound to be entertaining! Ever seen the crowds gathering around Women *debating* at public taps!
Imagine these Andhra women in Parliament!
PRP Shobha Rani Vs TDP Roja
Nannapaneni Raja Kumari Issue
Akka! Gangakka! Roja...
This will definitely boost creativity in India. All the channels will have to come up with more entertaining content than what goes on in parliament!
@Nayeem
ReplyDeleteExcuse me ?!?! Do you even realize what you are saying ?
"It really takes lot of training and determination for a woman to be herself. "
What the hell ? What do you mean by your above statement ? Yours are the most sexist remarks that i've come across in my entire life...no kidding
" There are thousands of examples
to show how hasty some women acted and its result in history."
I'll quote a million reasons on how the world could have been a better place if not for the mindless egotistic political decisions of men. You can very conveniently pick on a Indira Gandhi or a xyz and their faults coz our representation has been miniscule so far. Men are most often, offered a free pass to leadership roles. Men most likely select a man over a woman to be their boss and are reluctant to change this status quo. How many women can you quote for ethical or moral debacles ? What about current successful women leaders such as Angela Markel, Michaelle Jean, Maria Macapagal (to quote a few) who hav been doing fantastic job as heads of nations ?
" These are precisely the reasons why Hillary Clinton was not voted into power. "
Dont draw conclusions with your half-baked knowledge. Hillary was up against a man of color. This played a major role in swaying the voters decision of whom to elect as their democratic nominee. In fact she was battling a complicated issue of sex plus race and she did a great job to say the least. Almost every political pundit agreed to the fact that she was a little complacent of her victory and this was one of the reasons why she lost. Of course for all the irrelavant mood swings you are talking about, how can anyone forget her infamously famous man - Bill Clinton and his poor choices on slipping tongue at some of her speeches ?
Oh btw, this might not be a very good news to you considering your out of the world 'biological' and 'pyschological' theories on us, but Dr. Bernard Bass (developed the current theory of transformational leadership) predicts that in the future women leaders will dominate simply because they are better suited to 21st century leadership/management than are men.
" We are a progressive group of people who believe in education of soul not the kind you practice "
Progressive ??? YEAH RIGHT !!
Reality,
ReplyDeleteYou are so full of shit that if we give you an enema, the rest of your body will fit in a match box.
Of course for all the irrelavant mood swings you are talking about, how can anyone forget her infamously famous man - Bill Clinton and his poor choices on slipping tongue at some of her speeches ?
ReplyDeleteon a funny note,
May be PMS in women cause mood swings in husband also???
//Dont draw conclusions with your half-baked knowledge. Hillary was up against a man of color. This played a major role in swaying the voters decision of whom to elect as their democratic nominee. In fact she was battling a complicated issue of sex plus race and she did a great job to say the least. Almost every political pundit agreed to the fact that she was a little complacent of her victory and this was one of the reasons why she lost. Of course for all the irrelavant mood swings you are talking about, how can anyone forget her infamously famous man - Bill Clinton and his poor choices on slipping tongue at some of her speeches //
ReplyDeleteHey from New Hampshire primaries to election speeches,I've attended meeting by both Obama and Hillary.American men are definitely more apprehensive of a woman, especially in the southern and midwest states and veterans ,taking the front seat rather than the race.They thought it was fun having a black than a woman to put in their words.Did you hear about the remarks in the Hillary Clinton meeting like 'Iron my shirt" and even Obama had his own sexist dig at Clinton.Or did you hear the frustrated Hillary making the 18-Million glass ceiling speech how Hillary's 18 million votes made a difference to the dream of a woman coming to the power in the US?
The television debates openly discussed the PMS,Mood swings and the incapability of Hiilary to take complicated decisions and to belittle everybody including Obama and Mccain.
In this male-dominated world it takes lot of courage,training and determination for a woman to excel.Its not too simple. The male brain is tuned over the generations to believe to dominate and the women's brain to accept.That is true.The change doesn't happen overnight.It still happening as we speak.
Hey if some woman comes to you and talks with you,assuming you are not in your teens of early twenties (just to rule out the element of fascination) you would access her in terms of her intellect.if she doesn't excel or put forth her thought in an exemplary way no man would care for her or her opinion.
That is the sad truth in whichever
society you take.
How many women politicians take the help of their husbands and we have on the record a mayor approaching judiciary to allow her husband to help run the day to day administration?
Regarding transformational leadership we don't need an opinion of theoretician to say women will dominate.That's crap talk..
I saw the argument Sujai brought out regarding the total domination of the political scence by women thanks to rotation scheme.By theory all the seats can be filled by women in course of time.Now apply that in the context to the women politicians we have who are know for the impulses and mood swings.I broached the PMS and mood swings to buttress my argument.Some women are
totally prone and some gather themselves without getting impacted.
IF you closely follow Maya and her antics you can appreciate my thoughts.When Baraeli is burning she is having a swell time with money garlands and sychopants.And Jaya who just for mindless vendetta with BJP forced an election on us within a year.
God,you and I know thru the media how brash and furious she was .
Finally you can carp at me all your heart's content but take some time to read what I really said.
Lets read the excerpt from my earlier post.
"But I believe that these things should not stand in between power and an emotionally intelligent woman."
What does that imply,the intention is that though there are some inherent weaknesses that women themselves cannot help ,still that should not stand in the way of power if the women is emotionally intelligent.And as a matter of fact I do feel that any politician male or female must possess the emotional intelligence.
Idler:
ReplyDeleteUnderlying assumption is Womens Bill (or all bills!) should be a solution for (1) dynastic politics and (2) accountability. :)
You read it wrong. That is not the underlying assumption.
For example, when we try to curb terrorism, we get into a euphoria and try to implement laws like POTA, TADA, etc. In a narrow perspective, they seem to be reasonable to a wide audience, but they end up have other consequences which are dire – like when they infringe upon basic human rights. I have seen many laws like that. Recently, there was an octroi that was imposed in Karnataka for electronic goods. It was such a mess. It became a tool for corruption and harassment. Eventually it was removed. Now, there is a ban on cow slaughter. Nobody wants to think how it would affect many poor Hindus and Muslims who eat this meat and who thrive on this business.
It is not. Different bills address different problems.
Yes, but we should make sure that a bill does not violate other institutions and laws, does not affect them in a negative way – and if they do, we should discuss that. Some of them are related. In this case, rotation system, the tool that is used to reserve seats for women has unintended consequences. How can we not discuss this?
What is Womens Bill? It is just that -- increased representation of women.
I never opposed women’s reservations. However, rotation basis is something that is troubling me. It is going to bring in things that are unintended. And I would like to go on to say that it introduces dire consequences for Indian democracy.
Nothing wrong with that. We had 95%+ men majority for 6 decades. If its going to be Womens majority, so be it. The solution is to put an expiry date, as TG_Bidda suggested. Five decades is a good idea.
I am not sure if you have thought through the whole thing. Representation is one thing, moving the entire power to women is a different thing. Though I am all for SC/ST representation in Indian politics, I would never agree to a rule or law that brings about 65% mandatory representation right away. When it is 65% it is no longer representation, it is handing over the power on a silver platter.
Societies mature gradually. It took many years before Indian became a democracy. We are still maturing. Unless the women is emancipated at the grass root level, only elite women from a very small minority group backed by elite families will take up these positions. They are not representative of a whole section of society. With such a big representation in the Parliament which is coming from a very a small section, we will be diluting the entire Indian democratic setup that we have attained so far.
A Hindu woman from an elite family is as far from a Muslim woman from a downtrodden family as a man. I understand that a better representation of women helps, but not an overwhelming majority delivered as a quota. Rotation system will make that happen.
There is no country on the planet where there are 65% women parliamentarians, not even the most developed countries where the women has reached equal emancipation. And we are trying to experiment that in India without even bringing that emancipation at the grass root level.
Having representation in school, government jobs is one thing, but having the same in the house of parliament where the power of the entire country resides is something very different. We have to more debate than what has happened so far.
Besides, it would be far more interesting to watch Parliament debates. It is bound to be entertaining!
I take Indian democracy pretty seriously and I have high expectations from this country. That’s because I live in this country and what they do in that Parliament affects me. I wouldn’t want our Parliament debates to become entertaining. As much as Telangana is not a joke for me, what happens in Indian Parliament is not a joke for me.
What is the problem if there are more women representatives in the Parliament????
ReplyDelete33% reservation for people,who constitute 50% of the population,who are not represented sufficiently is a good start.
It took several hundreds and thousands of years of discrimination of women for their present status.This would be a good start for them to come forward and be a part of the decision making policies,instead of just being in the back ground.
I see a lot of solutions for the problems faced by women today,with the bill.
I feel they should have atleast given it a 25 year time,instead of just 15.
Nevertheless,I am still happy for all the women.
No one knows what they can until they try........
Hitch your wagon,s to the stars,you may still reach the skies.........
@ Nayeem,
ReplyDeleteThe problems women in the U.S face are completely or majorly different from the problems that Indian women face.
You are confusing yourself with the apple,orange theory.
If a woman is supposed to be competent for a job,so is a man.
Are you suggesting she need not bother learning something just because she MIGHT not be good at it??
You sound irrational,when you say that biological differences should limit a woman,s representation.
The total representation of women in the Parliament in India or anywhere is an utopian theory.
For all that we know,this bill might be either be cancelled when a new party comes to the fore or expire before anything like that happens.
And a small percentage of women politician,s behaviour does not
reflect on the entire group.
I know of some women who have been Sarpanches of their villages and have done a great job of it too.
Indian women deal with a different set of issues like dowry deaths,infanticides,improper or incomplete education,feoticide,child marraiges,widow remarraiges and many more which I am sure you arent going to find in the U.S.
If at all,I am only worried about the misuse of the bill by some politicians ala Laloo,s and his likes.
There are several people who have the ability to do well as politicians but lack the background to make it.
Which really is the problem in India.
The dynasty politics would atleast lessen in such scenario,s.
Seriously,I expected better from you.
No points for guessing who you might have voted for.....
You do not have to be educated to solve simple problems at the grass root level.
ReplyDeleteYet,there seems to be an unending wait for even small improvements to be brought across.
You arent on groung zero my friend,you would not understand.
I wont blame you if you just back off,instead of suggesting solutions from space.
Idler:
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with that. We had 95%+ men majority for 6 decades. If its going to be Womens majority, so be it.
Imagine me saying this: We had Hindus in majority for six decades, let’s mandate 65% Muslims in the Parliament. If it’s going to be Muslim majority so be it. OR we had people above 35 in the majority for six decades, let’s mandate 65% of Parliamentarians below 35.
There’s a big difference between trying to correct the gap in representation to actively pushing for majority. It is not going to be women’s majority on its own. We are pushing it.
Pushing women in employment and education is different from pushing them into Parliament. Pushing women into employment and education is to give them equal access to opportunity. These are considered basic for any human being to lead a decent life. However, pushing them into seat of power where they are going to decide fates of millions is altogether a different topic.
The current structure is fraught with many problems. A Hindu elite woman may not represent all women. She may not understand plight of a Muslim woman living in a place like old city Hyderabad. Right now, there is opposition from some parties on these lines.
A Hindu elite woman may not represent all women. She may not understand plight of a Muslim woman living in a place like old city Hyderabad. Right now, there is opposition from some parties on these lines.
ReplyDeleteBut do you think a Hindu elite women is no better than a man to understand the plight of a muslim woman living in a place like old city Hyderabad.?
Well... we can still reserve a constituency in Old city to Women.
It is highly likely that a elite muslim woman would take the seat.
But still it is better than a Man.
I understand that you have given a case example but I think it is still interesting to question why not we can reserve the seat to a woman in such special cases also.
They should make the reservation permanent and not for just 15 years.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong if women run our country?
Let there be 100% women MLAs.
It'll do our country a lot of good.
@ Sujai,
ReplyDeleteThe government has put this bill forward AFTER the elections and has given a 15 year period.
How many elections are going to be held in this frame of time??
TWO.
Dont you think with a 33% reservation,for a population constituting 50% of them,there isnt much scope for your fears of 65% representation coming true.
Even if there are 3 elections conducted I dont see that happening.
Even if they are going to make a start now,it would take several decades for them to be where their male counterparts are.
I strongly feel that the grass root levels are actually going to benefit from this setup,as the governance is going to be a bit more equally represented.
Since most of the problems are rurally based,the educated lot get to understand the problems in these remote areas,there by atleast solving a few of them.
Women I have seen,open up to other women with their issues and concerns.
They tend to suffer silently either out of fear or helplessness,even when a male official comes to enquire about their problems.
That is why women police,bus conductors and such....
Even during medical camps they are more prone to get proper treatment when there are other women involved.
This whole exercise of giving power into the hands of women tends to solve many such issues.
The recent order of including permanant commissions for female Air Force officers is another such good step,forward.
This bill is done on an experimental basis and would bring several first time politicians forward,which is actually good for Indian democracy.
And what is wrong in being answerable to a woman boss??
Or is it :-)
@ POK,
ReplyDeleteThat coming from you after your previous comment was a welcome change.
//Pushing women in employment and education is different from pushing them into Parliament. Pushing women into employment and education is to give them equal access to opportunity. These are considered basic for any human being to lead a decent life. However, pushing them into seat of power where they are going to decide fates of millions is altogether a different topic. //
ReplyDelete@I dyapa
This is exactly what I'm trying to say .The women who will decide the fate of 1 billion Indians if they are in a majority.I don't feel comfortable if a Prime Minister Jaya in fit of rage decides unilaterally just for sake of argument says that decides to that men cannot hold properties since they drink too much or men should undergo compulsory family planning procedure since women cannot be bothered ,in a majority women legislature if such a bill passes...?? .
In serious politics I expect my MP or MLA to be accessible 24/7 can I bother a woman MP at 3AM in the night asking her to come down to see something happening.Affirmative action is ok but it should not compromise the status quo largely.Let there be a balance.
Regarding Clinton and the comparison,I had to force the comparison in light of the counter arguments.Even in western democracies the representation of women is still debated animatedly.
Biology does affect a woman's function and it is a way of life, subjugation is a byproduct of the attributed to biology.
To another point I do think that a hindu woman cannot represent a Muslim populace.
Lavanya:
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that this quota is only for 15 years.
If that is the case then many of my fears are allayed.
However, there is a danger it would be extended.
Coming to reservations for women in education and employment, I am not keen on keeping a time limit like 15 years.
Sujai:
ReplyDeleteComing to reservations for women in education and employment, I am not keen on keeping a time limit like 15 years.
All reservations... ALL reservations... should have an expiration date.
No Stimulus in the world can do justice if used for an extended period of time.
Caste reservations, gender-based reservations, etc should have an expiration date.
The ONLY reservation that has a case for long periods of validity is the Backwardness based reservation in top Educational institutions.
A 15 yr time-limit on the Women's reservation bill is a good sign. 15 yrs may not be "enough" in the eyes of many people. But, once the women's participation in politics takes a "critical and important" dimension of Win vs. lose for political parties, they will do what they can to make it work well. I would consider these 15 yrs a "training on job" for women.
@ Nayeem,
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting we should NOT try doing something just because we feel it MIGHT fail.
Women have their own ways of expressing themselves,or handling situations which are different from men.
That doesnt mean they are not capable of taking any major decisions,at all.
For another question,
An MLA/MP cannot and need not be present every where,if there is trouble in the neighbourhood.
What matters is the promptness and efficiency with which the problem is handled.
It is impossible for anyone to be on call 24/7,even for a male representative.
But,if the representatives have the local administration under check it does not really matter if they are around or not.
Our poiticians(mostly male)have prooved that they are not available for ANY emergencies,leave alone emergencies involving women.
Who then would solve their problem,s???
How then do you suggest that men are better off handling problems of male AND female???
If so we wouldnt have been having so many problems worsening by the day...
For every Jayas,Mayas and such I can quote Markels,Indiras,Thatchers and Condolezza,s and hundreds of Sorens,Lalus and Bush Jr.s who have been the worst cases of political representation(male or female).
History,s saya that the world,s worst decisions have been taken by men.
If you say that women cannot even make mistakes in majority land then you are closing all discussions right here....
The entire Parliament consisting of women is an impossible and hypothetical situation.
Still,
If a BILLION people elect all women into power,I need not say anything else about who they trust more.
But,since that is an impossible situation itself,our argument about it is a little ..........
Anyways,
The main issues are corruption,transperancy and ability to take decisions.
If a candidate possessess the right qualities,then she/he should be given an oppurtunity.
Women have prooved themselves in several fields,inspite of several hurdles.
Then why not politics???
Women,s bill is a small step in this direction,a small yet firm step towards changing the scenario of single sex representation,in the Parliament.
This sorry state of affairs in our country is due to our inability to accept any change(even positive ones)in our male dominated society without fighting tooth and nail against it.
There is unequal distribution of power,which even you would agree...
Giving more power to women would atleast be a step towards making these disparities a little lesser.
Dont we all perform better when we are answerable to someone?????
Why should it matter if the person is a woman?????
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeletePushing women in employment and education is different from pushing them into Parliament. Pushing women into employment and education is to give them equal access to opportunity. These are considered basic for any human being to lead a decent life. However, pushing them into seat of power where they are going to decide fates of millions is altogether a different topic.
I am wondering WHY?
Why should politics be considered any different from the fields like Medicine, Teaching and Journalism?
In each of the fields I mentioned, A Doctor, A Teacher and A Journalist can make/break people's lives.
If women can be good at the above mentioned fields, why should Politics be any different?
You seem to believe... I mean... Actually believe that the MPs and MLAs (male) are any different intellectually or any better in decision-making compared to women.
Laloo's fodder-scammed Bihar was worse compared to Jayalalitha's corrpution-ridden Tamil Nadu.
If you take a large enough sample of male vs. female politicians, you would conclude that there is no difference in decision making.
Sabitha IndraReddy is a "sad" example.... but RAHUL GANDHI gives me more grief with his lack of basic common sense.
@ Nayeem:
ReplyDeleteIn serious politics I expect my MP or MLA to be accessible 24/7 can I bother a woman MP at 3AM in the night asking her to come down to see something happening.
Yes. A Resounding Yes!
If the Job demands your woman MP to be out in the middle of the night... nothing should stop her from doing so... and just coz she is a woman, you should not expect her to show up at 8am instead of 3am.
The whole idea of having women in the legislature..... is to make sure that they make decisions that will aid their being able to do their jobs at 3am... as well as help ordinary women feel comfortable with getting out of the house in the middle of the night, if needed.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteAll reservations... ALL reservations... should have an expiration date.
Why?
Is objective of reservations TIME or bringing in certain fair representation?
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteIs objective of reservations TIME or bringing in certain fair representation?
When you "reserve" a certain percentage of slots for "fair representation" of those sections of society that have been oppressed for ages, you give them a "preference" or "advantage" over the general competition, when it comes to proper evaluation of skill-set needed.
Such reservations and "Affirmative action" are needed only till we reach a "critical mass" of the backward sections running hand-in-hand with the rest of the "general population".
Once we achieve that, all reservations should be withdrawn.
But... in a democracy, withdrawing perks once "reserved" is difficult as politicians run into the danger of "losing a vote-bank"... the section of society that they may be voting-against after the reservations have run their course (i.e. say when BCs and FCs are comparable and doing equally well).
In such a situation, the "withdrawl" gets tough.
Hence, putting an expiration date on the reservations, adds an additional post in the "checks and balances" of our system.
contd from above....
ReplyDeleteHowever, if reservations are based on "economic backwardness" and are allotted in Educational Institutions, Self-employment schemes and Vocational Training, they can be created for ever.
Here... the sections of population who are "economically backward" keeps changing with time ... thus creating a "welfare scheme" that continues to meet the needs of deprived sections of people.
@ T-Bidda,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that there should be a cap on reservations.
But,15 yrs would be too less a time to bring substantial changes in things which took centuries of unequal representation.
There can be no instant solutions for long standing problems.
Women at grass root levels as well as the urban representatives need to be groomed to handle such power,without any prejudices.
Women need to be firm and mature while handling international,national,state and local level problems.
The political parties could play a major role while grooming them.
But,if this is a short term arrangement even they wouldnt take it seriously.....
A long term and collective effort is required from all sections of society to address any issue of such magnitude.
@Sujai,
I wonder why you press for education and not empowerment for women????
What use is education if you cannot even stand up and fight for your rights?????
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteWhy should politics be considered any different from the fields like Medicine, Teaching and Journalism?
I would oppose 65% reservations for women in the fields of Medicine, Teaching and Journalism. It’s too high. But in politics, I would oppose it strongly. Because in politics, numbers matter. They decide the fates of a billion people. It is no longer an access to opportunity. It is a privilege to preside over lives of others.
When I say the above, I am not undermining the competence. I am discussing the undesired outcomes, such as a small group of emancipated women coming from one or two sections filling up the seats, a set of male candidates who push women only as surrogates.
First we have to separate two topics. I see that you have misread my apprehensions. I was not worried about reservations for women. My concern was with the basis on which it was implemented – on rotation. If any country has used rotation basis for their quota for women legislators, I would be happy to take a look.
You seem to believe... I mean... Actually believe that the MPs and MLAs (male) are any different intellectually or any better in decision-making compared to women.
Never said that – wrong inference. There’s no statement from me in any post on this blog which suggest that women are less intelligent. However, in a society that has not emancipated its women, a quota in Parliament which is too big for women can result in too many puppets making the whole democracy a charade. [Before you jump the gun, read the next sentence please].
I would oppose the bill if someone said that 65% of seats will be for people below 30 for the same reason that it does not make sense. Just because we have half the population below 30 does not mean we allow for 65% of the seats for them.
My fears are with Rotation basis that could result in majority of the Parliamentarians having no incentive to work for their constituency.
15 years sounds OK for this experiment. I am fine with it. My worry is that it is going to be too costly an experiment.
Take a look at this:
http://www.idea.int/gender/quotas.cfm
Electoral Quotas for Women.
I tried to find about how others countries have put quotas. First, 33% is too high compared to any of these countries. Second, I couldn’t find rotation basis in here. May be, someone out there could throw light on this subject.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteHence, putting an expiration date on the reservations, adds an additional post in the "checks and balances" of our system.
All experiments with expiration dates have failed. Those who are in the seat of power or privilege do not let their positions go. They will somehow push it and ward it off till the time expires. Take Telangana for example. Mulki Rules had a time period. When it became clear that cases were just kept pending so that time period elapses, our Telangana people revolted in 1969.
How do you know the outcome of a social experiment on such grand scale when no such experiment took place anywhere on the planet in the history of mankind? Reservations for lower castes have still not attained fair representation though it has been more 55 years. Mandal devised his commission in 1970s only when 25 years of reservations did not attain results.
Expiration date in India will only result in pushing the cases and stalling the system to get a free ‘Get out of Jail’ card at the end of expiration date.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteSuch reservations and "Affirmative action" are needed only till we reach a "critical mass" of the backward sections running hand-in-hand with the rest of the "general population".
Once we achieve that, all reservations should be withdrawn.
What do we do if we have not achieved the ‘critical mass’ even after 60 years? Will expiration date work? Or will a certain target work? What if the target is achieved artificially so that we terminate the reservations? Just look at the numbers we are trying to find for Telangana. We realize that records are fudged, that records do not exist.
Look at the history of reservation for lower castes in India and go through each of the legal cases and other rules that have come in the last 60 years. You will know how the system was subverted at each time. Not very different from history of Telangana at the hands of Andhras.
Lavanya:
ReplyDeleteI wonder why you press for education and not empowerment for women????
What use is education if you cannot even stand up and fight for your rights?????
You and Telangana Bidda have misunderstood me on this topic. I never said no to education, employment or empowerment. I expressed fears on rotation basis. Like many laws in India, this has serious consequence and there is no reason why we should not debate about it.
RealFan:
ReplyDeleteWhat you suggest makes sense. I have noticed that some countries have followed this model.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteThis bill clearly seems to break one’s streak in a constituency by limiting the male candidate to two times.
In a Democracy, why should this be of a huge concern?
There are elections held at Municipality, ZP, Mandal P, State Assembly and Parliament levels... So MANY opportunities for the "incumbent males" to explore.
Percentage of "First Time MPs" has been increasing in the Lok Sabha:
First-time MPs:
7th Lok Sabha: 1980–1984 ----> 140
8'th Lok Sabha: 1984–1989 ----> 187
12'th Lok Sabha 1998–1999 ----> 123
13'th Lok Sabha 1999–2004 -----> 188
This percentage will continue to increase as people continue to deliver a "fractured mandate" based on "local issues".
Distribution of the number of terms served by MPs, first to thirteenth Lok Sabhas 9adding up ALL the MPs so far)
No. of terms No. of MPs Per cent
3 467 11.86
2 838 21.27
1 2265 57.50
11 1 0.02
There is ONLY one MP in the History of Indian Parliament to have won ELEVEN times to go to Lok Sabha.
An overwhelming 57.5% of MPs make it to the Parliament JUST ONCE in their life-time.
I am wondering... when the "people" and their "vote" didn't really worry about the "political careers" of politicians... WHY ARE YOU WORRIED?
Why do you want to "protect" the winning streak of politicians? They will find a Municipality to win and serve the people... if Service is what they care for.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteWhat do we do if we have not achieved the ‘critical mass’ even after 60 years?
If we did not achieve a 'critical mass' even after 6 decades, it means the "medicine" was flawed... and it did not cure the illness we were hoping it would cure.
Will expiration date work? Or will a certain target work?
A Combination of both!
Include a "legal" clause that says:
This reservation is valid and applicable only upto 5 General Elections, or upto the point when we have more than 50% of Lok Sabha with women-MPs, which-ever occurs first. It will take a 2/3r'd majority of both the houses to extend this time-frame UNLESS the percentage of women voted to parliament shows no increase over 33%
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteWhat if the target is achieved artificially so that we terminate the reservations?
Good question!
How do you artificially achieve women's numbers in Parliament?
By having Biwi-Behan-Betis to run and win?
But... what about the Beta-Bhateeja-Daamaad who run and win?
Exactly how do you fudge the number of women who win in General Elections?
Doesn't VOTE play a major role... apart from the "party ticket"?
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteJust re-stating the Statistics in one of the above posts:
Distribution of the number of terms served by MPs, first to thirteenth Lok Sabhas 9adding up ALL the MPs so far)
No.of terms ----No. of MPs ----Per cent
3 ---------467 --------11.86
2 ---------838 --------21.27
1 ---------2265 --------57.50
11 ---------1 ------------0.02
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteHow do you know the outcome of a social experiment on such grand scale when no such experiment took place anywhere on the planet in the history of mankind?
What are the potential threats of such an experiment?
The Political parties will do everything to win. They will probably place women from affluent families... women in Film industry and women in dynasties in the race.
But... it is people who VOTE.
Is it guaranteed that KTR WILL and ABSOLUTELY WILL win the next elections just because he is KCR's son? People have to elect him... based on a number of factors.
Even the "dynasty" is put to test.
Rahul Gandhi... as much as I hate seeing him in Parliament... will have to win through popular mandate... and PEOPLE have the POWER to vote-him-out.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteExpiration date in India will only result in pushing the cases and stalling the system to get a free ‘Get out of Jail’ card at the end of expiration date.
This may or may not be true.
If a particular incentive or reservation didn;t achieve its desired results, the parliament has the power to revoke it with a majority vote.
Do we have the "faith" in Parliament to make a "prudent choice" during voting? Now.. that is a different question.
If all bills and legislations fail because of:
1. lack of accountability
2. Corruption
Something has to change about our Society, our people and their perceptions.. or our constitution.
We have to leave it to the people and their elected representatives to deliver.
Have they been doing a good job so far?
The answer is a personal opinion. And that is the beauty of Democracy (mob-rule).
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteLike many laws in India, this has serious consequence and there is no reason why we should not debate about it.
Just because this is a "Women's Bill".... men are not forbidden from Opposing it, debating it or finding flaws with it.
Debate away.
But, when you bring out the flaws... put those to a simple test:
1. Do these flaws already exist in the System today?
2. Does the bill fail in execution because of "Spirit of the bill" or because of "current political scenario"?
If it is "Set up to fail in execution" because of the current political setup, what do you suggest as an alternative?
Political parties have been trying to buy women's vote by promising 33% within party-tickets... but, they ALWAYS field a newbie woman against a strong opponent in constituencies where they are sure they do not have any strong-hold.
This bill aims at breaking that log-jam and ensuring that all candidates field their strongest women candidates against other women candidates in the women-reserved-constituencies.
3.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteAll experiments with expiration dates have failed. Those who are in the seat of power or privilege do not let their positions go. They will somehow push it and ward it off till the time expires. Take Telangana for example. Mulki Rules had a time period. When it became clear that cases were just kept pending so that time period elapses, our Telangana people revolted in 1969.
B.R. Ambedkar had warned the Constituent Assembly:
I feel, however, good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work, happen to be a bad lot...The working of the Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of state such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the state depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics. Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave?
And in that observation lies the future of India’s Parliament.
Failure of execution of Mulki Rules is failure of:
1. Ruling parties elected to AP assembly
2. Opposition parties elected to AP assembly
3. IAS and IPS officers hired by the govt. of India
4. People who elected the representatives to AP assembly
The Outcomes cannot be any better than the "expectations of people".
Another resounding nugget of truth:
Women do not enter politics as they find the field dirty. Women politicians do not get elected ALL the time as people consider them weak.
Both these perceptions need to change.
The CHANGE can happen by "experience" to the contrary of curent beliefs. That "experience" is possible only through a simulated experiment.
If people begin to accept women representatives... they will show it in the general elections AFTER the experiment ends.
If women find Politics to be their cup of tea after this experiment, they will encourage, excel at the job and mentor other women coming into Politics.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteHere is the assumed flaw as stated by you:
"This bill clearly seems to break one’s streak in a constituency by limiting the male candidate to two times.
Here is evidence contrary to your assumption:
http://www.columbia.edu/~ll2240/Incumbency%20Disad.pdf
This study documents the surprising fact that unlike the results of studies that investigate the effects of
incumbency in the U.S. and other countries, incumbents in Indian national parliamentary elections starting in
1991 are at a disadvantage compared to those candidates that do not hold office prior to contesting an election.
This is an enormous deficit. To make up such a loss, an incumbent would have to have won the previous
election by over five and a half percent of the popular vote, a change equivalent to an incumbent moving from
the first to the thirty-fifth percentile of elected officials ranked by margin of victory.
Comparing subsets of constituencies over time reveals two suggestive facts. First, the change in the effect of
incumbency seems to be concentrated in constituencies that were represented by incumbents affiliated with the
Congress party. Second, after 1989, incumbents from all parties seem to fair equally poorly. The results are
generally consistent with a model in which prior to 1991, voters valued the experience of incumbents because
they had experience working within the Congress system and Congress was likely to continue holding power.
Starting in 1991, however, because control of parliament was likely to change hands, experience over the
previous term proved less valuable to voters.
@ RealFan:
ReplyDelete//Rotation..... is the BEST side-effect of this bill.//
Can you explain how?
In fractured mandates, candidates have won elections to Lok Sabha based on "local issues".
However, though representation from all constituencies is necessary in the Parliament, the representatives need to grow above the "constituency level" on many occasions and vote on the "general good" of the Country.
Hyper-localization of Parliament elections has led to MPs behaving like frogs in a well.
E.g: Assume a situation where P.Chidambaram of Congress is forced to run elections in Siddipet of AP. Isn;t it a welcome change? Chidambaram would grow above the "appease to tamils" and try to learn the problems of Siddipet for a change.
Similarly... imagine Owaisi rinning for elections from Nizamabad instead of Old City. Isn;t that a welcome change? Owaisi will have to expand his horizon of thought... and work on the issues of Nizamabad and its people for a change.
Another welcome side-effect of the rotation-system is:
Pseudo-intellectuals and random noise makers like K.A Paul, JP Narayan and a buch of other such weeds will be eliminated through the theory of "Survival of Fittest" when they are forced to contest from a different constituency.
What respect does K.A Paul have in Old City?
What respect does JP Narayan have in Suryapet?
What chances does Lagadapati stand if he contests from Medak on Congress ticket?
Who will vote for Danam in Vijayawada?
P.S: These are just examples. MPs will refrain from making Caste-religion-region-based hate-speeches. They will be forced to learn more about India's issues if they have to keep moving around to contest.
hmmm food for thought
ReplyDeleteGuys,
ReplyDeleteInterestingly the possible solution I proposed, one man and one women from each constituency is not a new one.
I just came across this article todya. Like to share with you guys.
sadly, I do not have the full article but what i am providing you is the first page of the article
This view had been studied extensively by
"Medha Nanivadekar". She was apparently a Fulbright Senior Scholar from Women and Politics in Institute at American University
Washington DC.
"Dual member Constituencies"
She however slightly differs from what I proposed, only slightly.
ReplyDeleteShe proposes a three lot model in which 543 constituencies would be divided into 3 equal lots of 181.
And in each term one of the lot would elect dual members(a man and a woman). This way she expects the people of the constituencies to select one of the two in the next term depending on their comparative capabilities tested in the previous term.
She did see a serious flaw in rotation system in current proposal of WRB. I do not think why we cannot make more lots and then increase the percentage of women in the Parliament.
Like to see your input.
Here is another link.
"Click here"
TG_Bidda,
ReplyDelete//In fractured mandates, candidates have won elections to Lok Sabha based on "local issues".
Hyper-localization of Parliament elections has led to MPs behaving like frogs in a well.//
Did you not hear the saying: "All politics are local"?
I don't see any meaning in your argument and the examples you gave are outright funny. Your examples will never work for budding politicians.
Most of the famous politicians (other than those chosen ones from dynasties) started their careers in their home constituency, got elected repeatedly and slowly rose thru the ranks. Afaik, Chidambaram contested and got elected 7 times 'locally' from his home constituency, Sivaganga. A politician derives his strength from his voters and whenever in doubt or in trouble, he should be able to go back to his constituents and seek their support.
With rotation system, it would be difficult for a genuine leader like YSR to emerge... As mentioned before, the rotation system further consolidates the dynasties.
@ RealFan:
ReplyDeleteIf teachers can be transferred between districts, if Govt. officials are regularly transferred across districts... if IAS and IPS officers are transferred from one place to the other (more in the case of IAS officers).... why is it HERCULEAN for politicians to run in different places?
PVN won from Nandyal.
Most of BJP stalwarts consistently run from places other-than home towns. Sushma Swaraj chose to run from a kannada constituency just to stand against Sonia Gandhi.
Politicians have to rise above their backyards.
Ever heard of the "Home pitch advantage"?
It is about time the politicians rise above the caste, religion, region .... and run elections based on issues.
This Bill will force a few of them to put their mouth in a safe-locker when it comes to barking on hate-speeches.
The JP Narayan who keeps talkign about "Primordial Loyalties"... how about JP Narayan run from Old City or Suryapet during next elections?
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteThis is straight out of Medha Nanivadekar's resume:
• Testified before the Parliamentary Standing Committee of the Dept. of Law and Justice on the 108th Constitutional Amendment Bill about the reservation of seats for women in Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies and proposed an increased in the seats in Parliament and State Legislatures to ensure greater representation of women while retaining existing representation of men. 28th June 2008
• Worked as the facilitated at the National Consultation organized by the Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women and the National Commission for Women to forge a consensus on women’s quota in Indian Parliament. New Delhi 21st August 2003
Excerpt From:
ReplyDelete“Feminist Fundamentalism over Women’s Reservation Bill: Lessons from Quota Debate in India” Paper presented at Institute of Women’s Policy Research, Washington, June 2005
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.
She claims that many women's Organizations are treating this bill as non-negotiable.
That is not true.
It would not have taken 14 yrs for this bill to surface again if that was the case.
Added, she has given a very "Feminist Activist" color to the women's bill.
It is a Bill to ensure representation of women in Politics. It is not a bill to propose a "long live feminism" slogan.
Seriously, if a feminist proposed this bill, it would look a lot different.
TG_B,
ReplyDeleteI think the way some women are simply stuck with the present bill she thinks are showing feminist fundamentalism.
If a feminist proposes a bill, I think that is really good.
But if a fundamentalist proposes bill then it is to be thought over again.
Anyways she grades the people who are fiercly opposing any change or alternatives as feminine fundamentalists. She is talking about the extreme personalities who are opposing any change not those who actually prepared the proposal.
And do you know what, the reason why the bill is struck for 14 years is the people like the ones she highlights, who think the bill in present state is sacrosanct.
She has a point. right??
The JP Narayan who keeps talkign about "Primordial Loyalties"... how about JP Narayan run from Old City or Suryapet during next elections?
ReplyDeleteLittle out of discussion but....
If at all JP faces this question what do you think his reaction would be?
He feels he is not that what he speaks(conforming to primordial loyalites), but he is excusing himself by contesting from Kukatpally just because he is Andhra.
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteIS SHE RIGHT?
We come across all kinds of people. There is a section of people who work for Special Interests. Not that working for SIGs is wrong... But, when the SIG happens to be the "powerful in politics"... you need to re-think every word that comes from them.
She is not neutral on the issue... I appreciate her for coming out with her opinions and make them heard in high places.
What irritates me about her is this:
She refuses to put the blame for delay on "Lack of commitment from Political parties" on such a critical issue.
Instead, like the majority of Chauvinists who take one extreme of the argument, she blames it on the "Female Fundamentalists".
I would like to shoot an email to her and dare her to publicly declare the "names" of individuals and Womens-rights-organizations who have been treating the bill like "Sacrosanct" and have been rejecting any and all ammandments to it.
You understand what I am saying?
Instead of going after the Elephant in the room... which is clearly not committed to this change... she is going after a few "un-named scapegoats".
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteOn JP Narayan and his "Primordial Loyalties" punch line:
THAT HYPOCRITE #&^$#&*$^*!!$!!???@
Ever wonder why he opposes the women's bill SO VEHEMENTLY??
Coz it is shaking is Kursi.
TG_B,
ReplyDeleteWhat you are saying is actually thoughtful. She might be excessively focussed, but the politicians may have stopped the bill coming into discussion(and she seems to be the one of those who worked to bring it up.
But remember that no politician is actually not against increasing women's representation. They are more keen to make changes to the bill. She actually provides and discusses few equally balanced alternatives.
She would know better who is opposing the changes to the present bill.
I think the representatives are not opposing the changes. If at all they might actually hinder the bill to come for discussion totally, which would definitely affect their political career, given that they also represent women of their constituencies.
Well in this regard, it is important to note that the bill was introduced in Parliament 11 times since 1996.
And the rotation system was the one which was being opposed always.
Is it not better that we accept the alternatives when it is clear that the bill in present state has serious flaws?
And the alternatives actually are worth commendable.
Look now the govt. is also planning to introduce another bill aftermath to increase the strength of Parliament to some 900+, only to accomodate women. Why not we do it together and accept the alternative??
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteBut remember that no politician is actually not against increasing women's representation.
Then... why did the Bill fail 11 times already?
And the rotation system was the one which was being opposed always.
Is it not better that we accept the alternatives when it is clear that the bill in present state has serious flaws?
And... what are the alternatives?
900+ seats? To ensure that the sitting MPs will not have to lose their home-constituency?
It is wishful thinking on the part og the Sitting MPs to believe that stopping this bill with some bull stories will actually ensure their "Safety".
But, Studies prove that nearly 60% of MPs (counting ALL MPS from 1'st to 13'th Loksabha) got elected to the Parliament just once in their lifetime.
Add to it the increasing "Anti-incumbency" among the people.
To assume that "Rotation System" is a threat to "budding leadership" is a MYTH propagated by the likes of JP Narayan.
A good leader is known far and wide. A Good leader who truly works for his constituents and addresses issues... is not ignored by the public.
She would know better who is opposing the changes to the present bill.
She should come out with the names. Blaming some imaginary scapegoat doesn't do it.
but the politicians may have stopped the bill coming into discussion(and she seems to be the one of those who worked to bring it up.
She is certainly one of the many many active defenders to the "Women's Bill" on many public forums.
But, to say that "If politicians didn;t want it, they would not have allowed a discussion to come up" is wrong.
There are few politicians who have been and will continue to bring up the issue. Sometimes to gain some brownie points... sometimes to fill the zero hour... and sometimes just to get back at the Ruling Party.
The real commitment of political parties is needed at this point.
It was a welcome sign to see the Opposition and Ruling get together across party lines and push this bill forward in the Upper house. We have to watch the fun in lower house.
900+ seats? To ensure that the sitting MPs will not have to lose their home-constituency?
ReplyDeleteIncrease in strength of Parliament to 900+ is not an alternative. It is what the govt. is certainly planning to do if the present bill passes.
The very next thing the Govt. is gonna do is to forward a bill on an amendament and increase the strength to 900+.
That was acknowledged by M'Singh already.
The alternatives are many but what she discussed in her article were two- one by Madhu kishwar and the other by Rami Chabbra.
The one proposed by Kishwar et al is something similar to what Mulayam and JP have proposed. And Ms Medha seems to be not advocating it much. It proposes 33% reservations in Nominations for Women and not the seats in Parliament. This requires a judicial order followed by a Presidential and Parliamentary endorsement to come into action. However there is great chance that the party's are going to put up women against strong opponents who are very much sure to win.
And that proposed by Rami Chabbra is Duel Member constituencies. She makes a little change however to Chabbra's proposition. Instead of 50% duel member constituencies she proposes 33% and to make 3 equal lots of all seats and then rotate the duel-member constituencies each term. However by this I do not think she is actually providing any solution to what she is intending to tackle i,e Rotation flaw.
It is highly likely that the women member is usually the one who is replaced in the next election. It only safeguards the seat of man and not woman. Thereby the incentive to win next term is denied to the woman member,
She reasons for the rotation basis in three lots only to keep the strength of the parliament in check and decrease the costs.(We know how much the govt. pays each MP every year in salaries, perks and others).
However since the govt. is keen to increase the strength above 900 I think why not increase it by a 100 more to accomodate dual-member constituencies in all(instead of lots).
And in some years to come (25 years or so)probably we can adjust back.
@ Sravan:
ReplyDeleteWhen the govt. proposed Muslim reservations Bill, did they increase the govt. jobs by 4% before announcing the reservations?
When the govt. went on to reserve jobs for SCs, STs and BCs, did they first increase the total jobs by corresponding allocated percentages to make sure OCs/Genral categories do not lose out?
Why the Safe-guards ONLY in case of "Elected Representatives"?
Why are political parties, politicians, etc making a huge deal ONLY when it comes to "Womens reservation Bill"?
They are currently citing the "Rotation System" as a flaw. But.... Rotation System was proposed to ensure that the "pain" is borne by ALL constituencies. Else, how will the Election Commission go about picking 33% of constituencies in the country and mark them "FOR WOMEN ONLY"?
The 33% nominations is a flawed proposal... it has been consistently abused by Political parties. They announce women candidates when they are sure of their loss in a constituency.
The opposition to this bill only proves the following:
1. Lack of commitment on the part of Political parties to a "Womens bill".
2. Lack of "United Organization" among women.
Women are not going to get this one on a silver platter.
The parties and politicians are playing the lip-service game:
"I will pay lip-service to this bill in every speech, while pointing out its flaws that I am not willing to propose an alternative for".
I could have proposed a "What the Heck... let us wait for the women to wake up and start promoting women in Politics". But... here is a small problem with that:
When "Competition" is between a Man vs. Woman... the winner is the candidate who proves to be "More MAN than the other". Which means... the whole point of bringing diversity into legislative bodies is defeated.
i.e. A Woman has to prove herself to be more man than the men in competition, to win.
i.e. An END to the genuine qualities of women ... through the stupid game of "Survival of fittest" in a game where the MAN makes the rules.
I am not sure if you understood what I just said. But... looks like women of India have a looooong way to go before this male bastion is broken down.
I will not be one among those who get disappointed if the Bill doesn't see the light of day anytime soon. Women didn't get it ... simply because they are not going to get anything served on a silver platter. You want equality among your brothers, learn to fight your brothers in their game and win. Else... stop whining... coz the stronger one will always win.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou want equality among your brothers, learn to fight your brothers in their game and win. Else... stop whining... coz the stronger one will always win.
ReplyDeleteAmmend the above to:
You want equality among your brothers, learn to fight your brothers in their game and win. Else... stop whining... coz the one who made the rules will always win the game.
Well,
ReplyDeleteIrrespective of what our politicians think, rotation is a serious flaw in the bill. I wasn't very much focusing on thi flaw before(vide supra my frist comment here).
When it is a 3% or 4% I don't think that is going to make a difference. But when we are supposed to increase representation of women by almost 200% in one go then the magnitude of flaw is magnified.
And you cannot also rule out our Politicians' family trick(Rabri style of gov).
It is nothing wrong glancing at alterntives at this historical moment.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDelete[Part 1]
This is going to be a long response, please bear with me. Let me reiterate few things.
#1. I do not oppose reservations for women in Parliament and Assembly. Though I would have liked the approach to be bottom-up, I can keep aside my suggestion for the greater good of the bill.
#2. I am OK with 33% reservation for women in Parliament and Assembly. Though I would have liked to see it in two stages, like 16% first and then increase it to 33%, I am ready to live with 33% in one go. No objections on that.
#3. I have some apprehensions on the ‘rotation-basis’ of implementing quota for women in Parliament and Assembly. There as follows.
#3a. Rotation basis may lead to men pushing surrogates as candidates thereby perpetuating dynastic politics. This already exists in the current setup. Therefore, I do not have serious objections on this. I hope that over a period of time, with maturity in India, the dynastic politics will fade away.
#3b. Rotation basis could result in 2/3 of Parliament and Assembly where members do not think they will contest from the same constituency. Without the ‘incentive’ to win again from the same constituency, there is now no ‘motivation’ to ‘perform’ for their constituency. This is a serious flaw in the current bill. And I will concentrate only on this flaw in the subsequent argument.
You cite the following figures:
First-time MPs in Lok Sabha:
1980–1984 ----> 140
1984–1989 ----> 187
1998–1999 ----> 123
1999–2004 -----> 188
to establish the following:
Percentage of "First Time MPs" has been increasing in the Lok Sabha
If my Vice-President for Marketing came up to me and suggested that 140, 187, 123, 188 is either an increasing or decreasing trend, I will fire him right away. If you don’t mind me saying this – the above interpretation is far worse than what Nalomotu and JP have been throwing at us in the recent past. A series of 140, 187, 123, 188, reflects neither increasing nor decreasing pattern.
It is better we stay away from such false interpretations.
To counter #3b, you cite figures where 57.5% of our MPS are first-timers. And you write:
Why do you want to "protect" the winning streak of politicians?
What you are saying is this: Since anyway most of our MPs (57.5%) are first-timers, why are we worried about their second-time winning in the same constituency? Why can’t they serve somewhere else?
Though nearly 32 countries participate in World Cup for soccer, everyone knows that only 1 of them will win. If you look at the statistics it will show that only select few countries have won the cup most of the times. There will many countries who have never won. And many countries have participated only one time in a World Cup. And yet many countries compete for the cup.
However, if they are told that the cup is already reserved for Germany, then all the teams lose the ‘incentive’. They are no longer ‘motivated’ to ‘perform’.
Though we know that most athletes who make it to Olympics do not win an award, the trophy is still an ‘incentive’ which ‘motivates’ them to ‘perform’ better.
In our democracy, we know that most leaders are first-timers, but they all want to win the next elections, and that is the ‘incentive’ which gives them the ‘motivation’ to ‘perform’ for their constituency, knowing very well that the statistics are against them. If you remove that incentive, then there is no need to perform for the constituency. In a country like India, it means loot as much as possible in the current term itself because we don’t have to care about the second term.
It is not about ‘protecting’ the winning streak. It is about providing the ‘incentive’ of winning again.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDelete[Part 2]
You write:
If teachers can be transferred between districts, if Govt. officials are regularly transferred across districts... if IAS and IPS officers are transferred from one place to the other (more in the case of IAS officers).... why is it HERCULEAN for politicians to run in different places?
There are elections held at Municipality, ZP, Mandal P, State Assembly and Parliament levels... So MANY opportunities for the "incumbent males" to explore.
IAS officers are appointed, not elected. A Kannada Collector may be appointed in Mizoram, but he would never win the elections there. Though we had many collectors in Warangal, not many of them could actually connect with the people. Most of them were seen as aliens who made a brief sojourn in our town. None of the collectors would have won in our town if they stood for elections. It is not easy for all leaders to win from anywhere. A leader from our Warangal may not necessarily win from Nellore or Tumkur. That does not make him less of a leader for people of Warangal.
You write:
PVN won from Nandyal.
Most of BJP stalwarts consistently run from places other-than home towns. Sushma Swaraj chose to run from a kannada constituency just to stand against Sonia Gandhi.
Politicians have to rise above their backyards.
Ever heard of the "Home pitch advantage"?
It is about time the politicians rise above the caste, religion, region .... and run elections based on issues.
There is lot of naiveté in your writing. Leaders contest from their constituencies and their regions. Only some of them transcend to become state-wide leaders and that’s when they may be able to contest from anywhere in the state. Even at the height of power YS Rajashekar Reddy could contest only from Rayalaseema. If he had contested from Telangana, there is a very good chance he would have lost. Does that mean he is not capable of becoming Chief Minister of AP?
You should take a look at the statistics on how many elected leaders change their constituency the SECOND time. Without even taking a look at them I can guess that the number will be less than 5%. Very few leaders grow to become state leaders or national leaders, and that too, after winning many elections. Nobody becomes a national leader the second time, unless he/she is an actor or coming from a prominent political dynasty.
Most of our leaders continue to contest from their local constituencies, the constituencies they are familiar with. Indira Gandhi contesting from Medak is not the norm; it is an exception, an exception that is not a necessary condition in a democracy. And therefore, we should not force it.
E.g: Assume a situation where P.Chidambaram of Congress is forced to run elections in Siddipet of AP. Isn;t it a welcome change?
Home pitch advantage is an extremely valid and inherent ingredient in a democracy. Pan-India contests are exceptions and not the norms. P Chidambaram may not win from Siddipet. LK Advani may not win from Warangal. That does not make them small leaders in stature. Such a situation should NOT BE FORCED. If it happens, it can be welcomed. But it will be an exception, not the norm, and you cannot force build democratic institutions on such exceptions.
Pseudo-intellectuals and random noise makers like K.A Paul, JP Narayan and a buch of other such weeds will be eliminated through the theory of "Survival of Fittest" when they are forced to contest from a different constituency.
Is that a desired objective? I would want to JP Narayan to win from wherever he is winning. His voice, though of dissent, and though disagreeable to some of us, makes this a vibrant democracy. I have a right to criticize him, but I wouldn’t want to force a situation wherein he loses his voice. A democracy that forces JP Narayan to lose is no democracy at all.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDelete[Part 3]
They will be forced to learn more about India's issues if they have to keep moving around to contest.
Not everyone has to worry about India issues. That is not a desired objective in democracy like India. We fight for Telangana because we want our representation- our people to become our leaders to rule us. Most of us elect leaders we are familiar with. Not all of them have to be of national leader stature. In fact, the constituencies which elect such leaders lose their representative forever to the national politics. LK Advani getting elected from Siddipet can be a loss to Siddipet. They are better off electing someone who resides in their region, so that they can approach him.
In fact, Warangal booted out PV Narasimha Rao because he was more engrossed in national politics and locals were not happy with it.
A good leader is known far and wide
That’s not true at all. Many a times, people of Jangaon (close to Warangal) profess faith in a leader which even the people of Warangal do not identify with. We think he is a lousy bastard, but they think he is a hero. Let’s not get into generalizations that a good politician is a good politician for everyone. Advani may never win in Tamil Nadu, Lalu may never win in Gujarat. That does not make them any less.
Why are political parties, politicians, etc making a huge deal ONLY when it comes to "Womens reservation Bill"? They are currently citing the "Rotation System" as a flaw.
The opposition to this bill only proves the following:
1. Lack of commitment on the part of Political parties to a "Womens bill".
2. Lack of "United Organization" among women.
The political parties which are actively opposing this bill are Yadavs of UP and Bihar. They do NOT oppose the bill for its ‘rotation system’. They OPPOSE the bill because it lacks the provision for OBC and Muslims in the quota for women. So far, there has been no debate on ‘rotation system’ in the Parliament.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDelete[Part 4]
I am wondering... when the "people" and their "vote" didn't really worry about the "political careers" of politicians... WHY ARE YOU WORRIED?
Many Andhras ask me why I am worried about Telangana while I continue to live in Bangalore. Many Hindus ask me why I am worried about plight of Muslims in India while I am a Hindu. The same goes for why I defend Tamils in Sri Lanka and Kashmiri Muslims in Kashmir. I hope I don’t have to answer those questions here. I am quite sure you understand.
People ask me why I am so concerned with rotation system. I am concerned because I believe it will affect the basic fabric of Indian Democracy. It will have certain unintended effect, namely, ‘2/3 of the parliamentarians will have no incentive to serve their constituency’ which is an extremely dangerous outcome. While the Women’s Bill serves for good of the country, its women, we cannot ignore the effect of ‘rotation system’ that it introduces.
During the conversations on Telangana issue sometimes we feel like regulating the debate so that certain nuisance and irritating debaters can be curtailed. That is not in the best interest of this country in the long run.
To achieve something good you cannot let go of something that is great. For me, freedom to dissent is far more important than Telangana. And if Telangana can be achieved only by suppressing certain voices, then I don’t want to achieve Telangana. On the other hand if the freedom to dissent is preserved, I can always come back and fight for Telangana. In our euphoria to get Telangana, we cannot set a precedent where we shove ‘Jai Telangana’ down someone’s throat, or shut up someone because he has dissenting voice. JP Narayanan, how much ever I disagree with him on Telangana, is still a voice that we need in a vibrant democracy. This holds true for Ilaiah, et al.
The same way, here we are looking at Women’s Bill. It is a good bill. We need this bill. But let’s make sure we don’t bring unintended and undesired elements that will affect our democracy. Euphoria or Panic is worst time to pass such bills which have far-reaching consequences. Patriot Bill in USA was passed in panic after 9/11. Its contents were never debated. It had curtailed freedoms for many people – resulting in many unintended and undesired elements. I have seen similar experiments fail in India where laws were passed in euphoria or panic – like POTA, like TADA, like octroi in Karnataka, etc. They were dismal failures.
Conclusion:
For now, we can ignore all other small objections, and just take a look at ‘rotation system’. Going forward, to make this debate constructive, I would request the defendants of this bill in the ‘current form’ to cite some examples of other democracies which have implemented quota system and see if there are any success stories for ‘rotation system’.
I do not understand why there is so much noise about the rotation basis.
ReplyDeleteThe rotation basis keeps the level of complacency and corruption in politics under check AND discourages dynasties.
If a woman cannot represent 50% of the population in her constituency 1 time out of 3,it really is unfair to the female populace of the place.
Ever wondered why women in the old city suffer from such backward ness inspite of the MIGHTY Owaisi,s??
Why should a whole section of community be unrepresented for so long in a democracy??
If we can have one representation of women in every three elections,it not only solves issues like stagnation of power in the hands of only a few but also bring in different perspective.
Unlimited,prolonged or continuous access to the govt funds by a single representative creates a lot of unequal distribution of wealth,corruption and abuse of power.
Which is what has happened exactly until now and will keep happening even after if not contested...
Single sex representation is one of the worst indicators of backwardness in a,no,in any country.
If minorities can ask for and enjoy 4%reservation with a 4% population,it sounds ridiculous if someone opposes 33% for 50% representation.
Arguments like lack of ability to take decisions,PMS(lol),and inability to handle nuclear suitcases and what was that,forced family planning operations.....did I miss any more funnier excuses,seem to only abuse a few???
How many of the problems that women suffer from have been addressed and solved in 60 years.
I agree that there have been small changes,but are they sufficient ??
No body and absolutely nobody is born with complete understanding of all the things under the sun.
It is even more difficult for a woman,as she hasnt been trained to think on those lines.
Leaders can be nurtured,molded and groomed,in politics or anywhere else.
If that has not happened in 60 yrs,I would bet my last penny,that it would not happen even after another 600 yrs,if left to it.
Who then has FAILED to do their job??
In HR,when a person fails to deliver,they are sacked or demoted lower down the order.
Since most of the MALE politicians failed to address or solve the problems of half the population in the country,I would consider the job incomplete or unsatisfactory.
Whatever happened to collective responsibility for collective failure??????????
Will all the men come forward to take responsibility for this collective failure??
If a father refuses his daughter an oppurtunity to take care of herself or his business,but prefers a son-in-law to do so......
If an experienced senior in an office refuses to encourage a new comer citing the above reasons it is....................
Case closed.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteIncentives to win again....
To do what????
It IS their responsibility to do their job without any prejudices and expectations.
Why do they need incentives to do their job,the way it is being done,now.
India is one of the most corrupted nations in the entire world.Taking the incentive away would actually be good to checkmate corruption.
Even you would agree that women politicians are less corrupted compared to their male counter parts.
And,
Would you give incentives to an employee if he was making a sham out of your business instead of kicking him out???
Wouldnt you train and groom people for junior and senior positions in your company???
Politics should be no different.
To another question,
The representation of women in politics with a high 33%reservation will bring in a lot of new comers who might be talented but lack the willingness to enter politics for all the murk surrounding it.
Starting from the scratch or with a mere 16% would not make much of a difference as several politicians already have their women folk supporting them,it might end up making them stronger and discourage people from non political backgrounds to come forward.
The bigger the problem the stronger the measure.......
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteYou said:
If my Vice-President for Marketing came up to me and suggested that 140, 187, 123, 188 is either an increasing or decreasing trend, I will fire him right away. If you don’t mind me saying this – the above interpretation is far worse than what Nalomotu and JP have been throwing at us in the recent past. A series of 140, 187, 123, 188, reflects neither increasing nor decreasing pattern.
First time MPs to 7'th Lok Sabha: 144
First time MPs to 8'th Lok Sabha: 187
First time MPs to 12'th Lok Sabha: 188
Eleventh Lok Sabha is an Exception, falling out of the trend. It was short-lived (15 May 1996-4 December 1997) and Parties didn't "experiment" too hard with newbies during the elections in 1998.
I didn't go too far in the past as the pre-1980s were years when elections in India were no more than a means to rubber stamping the dominance of a single party, the Congress, or even the dominance of a single family, the Nehrus. But, if you look at those numbers, you will see the un-willingness of Congress Party to throw the dice and change the candidates who got party-tickets as the main reason for low numbers of "first time MPs".
Thank you for offering to fire me. :)
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Though we know that most athletes who make it to Olympics do not win an award, the trophy is still an ‘incentive’ which ‘motivates’ them to ‘perform’ better.
On the "Incentive to Politicians" to do well:
The lack of legislative experience in Parliament is highlighted by the fact that over the past half-century more than 90 per cent of legislators have served three terms or fewer, while less than 5 per cent of legislators have served more than four terms. While there does not seem to be a discernable difference in the number of new members in Parliament over the last two decades, greater political instability in recent years has resulted in parliamentarians not serving their full term. As a result, the decline in the number of years a Lok Sabha member of Parliament (MP) has served has, in all likelihood, declined significantly. Being an MP is not quite the lifelong perk as the term “career politician” that is usually applied to politicians would suggest.
Source: The Indian Parliament as an Institution of Accountability
Devesh Kapur and Pratap Bhanu Mehta
@Sujai,
ReplyDelete11 years and still waiting....
How can you call this a panic decision????
You CANNOT compare POTA,TADA and THE PATRIOT ACT with the Women,s Bill..
Whose freedom of dissent OR rights is the Women,s Bill encroaching on?????
We are fighting for a decent preposition here.
No other country in the world has the same problems and of such magnitude as an Indian woman has.
So,I do not expect any
other country to take such measures aswell....
They just do not get away,doing things that they do in India..
And, I,m sure this would be opposed even if changes are made in its contents,as the Indian male politicians who are so used to incentives to do their jobs would find it extremely inconvenient to pass a bill which would throw them out like the scum bags that they are..
IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CONTENT,IT IS ABOUT THE WILL.......
@ Sujai:
ReplyDelete#3a. Rotation basis may lead to men pushing surrogates as candidates thereby perpetuating dynastic politics. This already exists in the current setup. Therefore, I do not have serious objections on this. I hope that over a period of time, with maturity in India, the dynastic politics will fade away.
Thank you for acknowledging that Dynastic-Politics has been troubling India for too long (even the World!) and adequate maturity among the electorate will be the only way to show Dynasty-worship the door.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDelete#3b. Rotation basis could result in 2/3 of Parliament and Assembly where members do not think they will contest from the same constituency. Without the ‘incentive’ to win again from the same constituency, there is now no ‘motivation’ to ‘perform’ for their constituency. This is a serious flaw in the current bill. And I will concentrate only on this flaw in the subsequent argument.
I have addressed this already in the above post.
Given the fact that 90% of MPs over the past decade served for less than 3 terms, there is NO GUARANTEE or NO-ASSURANCE-OF-INCENTIVE for politicians and their careers.
The deep and strengthening cynicism and rejection to mediocrity by the Indian Electorate is one of the reasons. The second reason for such trend in Indian politics is "Hyper-localization".
In my opinion, a rotation-basis reservations will help counter the localization of Lok-Sabha elections atleast to a certain extent.
I am aware of the "All politics are local" saying.
However, for "Stable Govts" at the center, a shift in "priorities" projected by the candidates during elections can help people focus on the bigger picture during Lok Sabha Elections.
It is a welcome trend in my eyes. I would like to see some diversity. I would like to hear Chidambaram or Mamta Banerjee speak in Hyderabad during elections to Parliament... I would like to hear "Issues India is dealing with" from "non-local but Indian politicians" during elections to the Lok Sabha.
Others are welcome to hold their opinions. :)
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteThough we had many collectors in Warangal, not many of them could actually connect with the people. Most of them were seen as aliens who made a brief sojourn in our town.
After being selected for the IAS, candidates are allocated to "cadres." There is one cadre in each Indian state, except for three joint cadres: Assam-Meghalaya, Manipur-Tripura, and Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories (AGMUT).
The "insider-outsider ratio" (ratio of officers who are posted in their home states) is maintained as 1:2. as 'insiders'. The rest are posted as 'outsiders' according to the 'roster' in states other than their home states. The centralizing effect of these measures was considered extremely important by the system's framers
There is criticism on the postings of IAS, IPS and IFS officers stating that the cadres will be unable to "move from a command and control strategy to a more interactive, interdependent system.
I began my argument saying if Armed forces can unite at the front, if IAS, IFS and IPS cadres can serve across the country, why can we not extend the same principle to the Members of Parliament.
You started your argument by defeating the very basis for such cross-regional postings.
I have no problem with the Status-Quo with regards to the "All India Services" as they were supposed to be "All India Services".
None of the collectors would have won in our town if they stood for elections.
But... somehow... very strangely enough... Sonia Gandhi wins with a surprising majority ... though she was not born in Rae Bareli (UP), Amethi (UP) or Bellari (Karnataka)
Added, she is not the only exception. Many MPs contesting to Lok Sabha are not "Locals". I can give a ton of examples... but, still researching "Statistics" before I go full guns on this one.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteHome pitch advantage is an extremely valid and inherent ingredient in a democracy. Pan-India contests are exceptions and not the norms. P Chidambaram may not win from Siddipet. LK Advani may not win from Warangal. That does not make them small leaders in stature. Such a situation should NOT BE FORCED. If it happens, it can be welcomed. But it will be an exception, not the norm, and you cannot force build democratic institutions on such exceptions.
No FORCE!!!
It was wishful thinking... It was projecting the consequences of Rotation and hoping it would bring about some cross-regional representations... which would be welcome from the politicians who seem to take "extreme" stand.
Added... if and when a "Rotation System" comes to being... the "local candidates" can always chose to fight MP, ZP, MLA elections or... chose to strengthen their Party candidates by campaigning for them... instead of fighting/running elections from a non-home-constituency.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteThere is lot of naiveté in your writing.
Thank you!
If I was any good at writing.. or making excellent arguments, I would have chosen a different career for myself!
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteA good leader is known far and wide
That’s not true at all.
I would say we didn't have many "National level" leaders. The Competition has been lousy at best.
If we can get away from the "Hyper-localization" and elect leaders based on "Issues at National level"... we would have, as people, made active choices on many things like:
Nuclear Non-proliferation
Military Budgets and Spending
India's role in the Global-Warming related commitments and participation
Foreign Trade
Terms on World Bank's loans
Instead... Lok Sabha elections are being run on local issues. Sad situation and state of affairs.
I was hoping a better crop of politicians would come up if put through this test of "appeasing to people of different constituency".
Once again... Wishful thinking. Thanks for the chuckles. :)
Lavanya:
ReplyDeleteIncentives to win again...To do what????It IS their responsibility to do their job without any prejudices and expectations.
Agreed that he has to do his job. What happens when he doesn’t do his job? Currently, we have no mechanism to punish a lawmaker if he does not do his job. You cannot recall the lawmaker in the middle of his term.
For example, an elected MLA can abscond from his constituency forever, refuse to meet the people of his constituency, and not work towards that constituency, and yet, the people have no mechanism to terminate his position. They have to wait for the next elections.
In the current context, the only check we have is to tell him, ‘next time around, I will not vote for you’. That is the only fear the politician has from the people, the fear that he will not be elected next time around.
India is one of the most corrupted nations in the entire world.Taking the incentive away would actually be good to checkmate corruption.
Taking the incentive away is removing the only fear he has that pushes him to perform. It’s like telling someone that he will be vice-president in a company for the next 5 years no matter how bad he performs. He can continue to draw his salary and avail incentives without having to be accountable. But then he is told that even if he decides to perform better, he cannot continue after these 5 years.
The combination of those two factors is deadly:
#1. You never have to relinquish your position no matter how bad you perform.
#2. And no matter how well you perform, you will be removed any way.
Even you would agree that women politicians are less corrupted compared to their male counter parts.
We are discussing rotation system. Not about women’s competence. I have no problems with a woman and male ruler.
Would you give incentives to an employee if he was making a sham out of your business instead of kicking him out???
Exactly. How do you kick out a non-performing MLA? Other than wait for the next election?
Wouldnt you train and groom people for junior and senior positions in your company??? Politics should be no different.
Indian politics don’t work that way. ‘Should be’ is a wish. We should take a look at the reality.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteThe political parties which are actively opposing this bill are Yadavs of UP and Bihar. They do NOT oppose the bill for its ‘rotation system’. They OPPOSE the bill because it lacks the provision for OBC and Muslims in the quota for women. So far, there has been no debate on ‘rotation system’ in the Parliament.
I am aware of the reasons they STATE for their opposition. Thank you for highlighting it.
There is no reservation for OBC and MUslims in the general category. Why ask for reservations in the "Womens Bill"? My opinion? "Delay Tactics".
Your opinion: probably different.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteDuring the conversations on Telangana issue sometimes we feel like regulating the debate so that certain nuisance and irritating debaters can be curtailed. That is not in the best interest of this country in the long run.
Like I stated in one of the previous posts:
Please debate away!
Just because you are a Man and this happens to be a "Women's Bill"... you do not have to refrain from voicing your opinions or debating over it.
All Opposition is welcome. That is what Democracy is all about.
But... if I saw "nuisance" on my blog where mud-slinging is taking the place of healthy debate, I would have tried moderation. Personal Choice.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteYou said:
Going forward, to make this debate constructive, I would request the defendants of this bill in the ‘current form’ to cite some examples of other democracies which have implemented quota system and see if there are any success stories for ‘rotation system’.
No examples of 'rotation system'.
But... there is always a first time!
India is the WORLDS LARGEST and YOUNGEST democracy.
Other democracies will look to us in the future for both "policies" and "precedents".
A 15 yr experiment may not be as scary as the TADA or US Patriot Act.
Here is how I look at it:
If I were one of the 66% male MPs ... i would work harder than in the past... coz this time, I need to grab the attention of people who do not belong to my "Home constituency" in my next elections.
ALso... I would refrain myself from making any kind of hate-speeches against anyone just because "People of my constituency love it".
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteGiven the fact that 90% of MPs over the past decade served for less than 3 terms, there is NO GUARANTEE or NO-ASSURANCE-OF-INCENTIVE for politicians and their careers.
You have not understood what I have explained.
I didn’t say there is a guarantee. Though the statistics clearly show that you may not win second time, there is an incentive that he might win. That is good enough to perform better, like a soccer team from Ghana trying to win the cup though the odds are against them. If they are told that even if they win semi-finals they will not be able to play finals- then the incentive is gone.
No examples of 'rotation system'. But... there is always a first time! India is the WORLDS LARGEST and YOUNGEST democracy.
That’s a dangerous experiment when it is apparent that it is extremely flawed.
If someone came to me and said, ‘why don’t we try dictatorship for five years, just to experiment’, I will completely oppose it, because I can foresee what can go wrong. We can’t try anything just for the sake experimentation that may affect millions of people.
i would work harder than in the past... coz this time, I need to grab the attention of people who do not belong to my "Home constituency" in my next elections.
There lies the problem. Now your own leader, whom you elected for your constituency, is positioning himself to win in another constituency, neglecting you. That’s where Democracy goes for a toss. I am beginning to get a feeling that we Indians have seriously misunderstood how democracy works. Take a look at any local elections in any country. The issues are always local.
Nuclear Non-proliferation
Military Budgets and Spending
India's role in the Global-Warming related commitments and participation
Foreign Trade
Terms on World Bank's loans
Our politics has not reached that stage yet. But even in most modern democracies, most local leaders are elected based on local issues, like a lake that needs to be conserved, a chemical plant that needs to be removed, a highway that needs to be built, building a soccer stadium, etc.
Only when they start contesting for Presidential elections, do they discuss the topics you suggested.
[Contd…]
[Continued from previous comment]
ReplyDeleteTelangana Bidda:
I began my argument saying if Armed forces can unite at the front, if IAS, IFS and IPS cadres can serve across the country, why can we not extend the same principle to the Members of Parliament.
Once again I get the feeling that we don’t understand our democracy. Appointments and elections are different. We need to understood each institution of democracy and understand their purport in the grand scheme of things.
The whole reason why we have elections to elect MLAs/MPs and not appointments is that people want to elect a leader who shares their temperaments, their needs, their aspirations, and most often the local elections see local leaders. Only some of these leaders transcend to start playing state politics, and some of them go beyond to play national politics. But bulk of the leaders still tends to represent their local aspirations.
Diversity includes diverse opinion – you want a Gorkha to represent Gorkhas, Naga to represent Nagas. There is no fun if we force Nagas to elect a Gorkha and vice versa. The same applies all the way to Mandal level. However, one can do that in IAS appointments.
It is in the best interest of India when local leaders fight for local issues. If everyone started concentrating on Nuclear non-proliferation we would have a bad deal for our people. The rise of regional parties in India happened for the same reason, to assert the local voice.
But... somehow... very strangely enough... Sonia Gandhi wins with a surprising majority
She is an exception, not the norm. Amongst the exceptions are actors and people coming dynasty families.
Many MPs contesting to Lok Sabha are not "Locals". I can give a ton of examples... but, still researching "Statistics" before I go full guns on this one.
While you are researching, you should look for those who have changed constituencies the second time.
There is no reservation for OBC and MUslims in the general category. Why ask for reservations in the "Womens Bill"? My opinion? "Delay Tactics".
I have no problem with passing the bill without introducing reservation for OBC/Muslim- because it is not there in Parliament anyway. May be Yadavs are against Women’s bill and using that as a tactic. All I am saying is that they are not debating ‘rotation system’.
Lavanya:
ReplyDeleteThe rotation basis keeps the level of complacency and corruption in politics under check AND discourages dynasties.
According to me, it is the exact opposite. A politician in India is removed from his complacency only when he has to face his constituency once again in the next elections. We have absolutely no other mechanism to make the politician keep his word. Take Telangana cause for example. The politicians made promises, and then went back on their word. The only thing we can do is wait for the next election.
Corruption is a beast that is omnipresent. An MLA/MP who realizes that he may not able to contest from the same constituency will have no incentive to prove that he actually cares for the people of that constituency. Would that increase his appetite for corruption or decrease it? I believe it will increase it.
How does it discourage a dynasty? A dynasty is established when his family members also enter politics. Reservation for women can be hijacked by positioning biwi-beti-behan-bahu as surrogate leaders. Does that discourage dynasties?
You are thinking that our opposition to ‘rotation system’ stems from our opposition to women’s representation in the Parliament or Assembly. You are thinking why do these people oppose the bill?
That is not the case. We are only expressing our fears on ‘rotation system’ the fears we would have carried even if it was quota for SC/ST, Muslim, etc.
Lavanya:
ReplyDelete11 years and still waiting…How can you call this a panic decision????
I would have attributed ‘euphoria’ and not panic.
Whose freedom of dissent OR rights is the Women,s Bill encroaching on?????
Nobody’s.
Women’s reservations is not the problem I am discussing. You have to understand that the ‘Rotation system’ doesn’t just affect women representatives, it affects the entire Indian democracy, all the MPs, all the MLAs. Once the rotation system is introduced, the democracy we have understood till yesterday would have changed. You need to replace the women with some other group to appreciate what ‘rotation system’ can do.
As I said I am quite willing to look at other countries who may have experimented with ‘rotation system’ in their democracies.
And, I,m sure this would be opposed even if changes are made in its contents,as the Indian male politicians who are so used to incentives to do their jobs would find it extremely inconvenient to pass a bill which would throw them out like the scum bags that they are..
I don’t know about that. I can’t speak for other males. I strongly supported Women’s Bill. In fact, I started off writing a very optimistic note on this bill till I read about ‘rotation system’.
You should really start thinking why we are so much against ‘rotation system’ without having to think we are prejudiced against women. As long as you think we are opposing this bill because it concerns women, then you are not able to see our point of view.
IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CONTENT,IT IS ABOUT THE WILL.......
I beg to differ there. If they come up with any other method other than ‘rotation system’, I have no problems with the bill.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteBeing an MP is not quite the lifelong perk as the term “career politician” that is usually applied to politicians would suggest.
I am not sure how the paragraph that you attached is even relevant to what we are discussing.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteEleventh Lok Sabha is an Exception, falling out of the trend.
I don’t even know how that is a trend. Sorry, but I don’t seem to get it. You have four data points, and one of them you call an exception.
The first Lok Sabha had all first timers, and then I can guess that the second Lok Sabha also must have had many first-timers, not 100% but still high from present times. It would have started to go down over the years. And after few terms, it must have stabilized hovering between 110-190, with some exceptions. [And I could be wrong as well].
That’s all I figure from your numbers. I don’t see a trend of increase or decrease based on the evidence you provided.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteThis is a gender based problem,with socio,economic,cultural and political issues attached to it.
So,suggesting measures for only one problem out of five will not solve it.
If with a 33% representation,we can achieve 50% of the expected results,I would still consider it a success.
It is all about a good start.
This quota could actually be reduced over a period of time,if there are fears of it being misused.
Taking away something from a deserving group only because you fear that it would be misused by a few creamy layer representatives is not fair.
Just answer a simple question,
How many years of political representation would solve all or most of the problems that Indian women faced????
There is no other country democratic or otherwise in the ENTIRE WORLD where women face so many issues on a day to day basis,other than in India.
I dont expect other governments to do any such thing,for the simple fact that some of them are "Exclusively Indian" problems.
Women in France,Russia,Pakistan,
S.Arabia,Afghanisthan or China do NOT have problems like dowry deaths,infanticide,feoticide,child marraiges,polygamy,property rights ,discrimination in their countries,at least in this magnitude.
They have laws for their own set of problems.
No two countries or for that matter even states can have the same problems.Then how can we have similar solutions???
When local and national problems are solved with dignity and maturity,global ones are not going to be left far behind.
This still is a bottoms up solution,that you suggested,only at the global level,instead of local.
If we want good leaders,we need to first think above prejudices,and give fair chances,sometimes go out of our way to do so too.
India would not have had Man mohan Singh if he were to contest like any other politician.
I would still say,that he is one of the best F.M or P.M that India had so far..
Just my opinion.
The only incentive for a politician to get a post is the greed and the need to be in power as long as he can and NOT a second chance to serve the people.
There are n number of cases where we find people changing parties for a ticket before and after the elections.
Infact if the politicians worked with their right intentions,none of them needs a third chance in the same constituency as their reputation would lead them anywhere.
I would say if you take away the INCENTIVE of a third chance,we would not let any or major scams to happen ala Bihar,where a politician got away doing such things.
One more aspect is Brain Drain.
An ugly and prejudiced scenario in the country has led several qualified and experienced people to move away or wish to settle outside India.
This could be a call for several politically educated people to return to their roots,when things seem brighter.....
Rotation system is only a mole not a mountain......
@ Sujai,
ReplyDeleteIf 50% of the population in any constituency are not represented atleast once in three terms,how then would their issues be addressed????
And when???
The representives not being answerable is a constitutional flaw,hence not related to the topic here.
The incentive being taken away,
We have seen countless examples of a local politician getting away with his wrong deeds,since he enjoys a clout there.
We have also seen good politicians being elected or rejected from other bases as well.
But,at the end of the day local politics cannot be the only factor to decide the interests of an entire nation.
All I am trying to say is,too much localisation has led to complacency.
The Owaisis,Gouds,Yadavs and Abdullahs of the country could neither do good for their constituencies,states nor for their countries.
The old cities,Bihars and Kashmirs are the same from several decades,if not,worser than the rest of the country.
The voices of the women or others who oppose are never heard from such places.
Why then not support "Rotation of Power"??
The woman would still be local.
She would know about the problems that plague the said places.
If she has been incompetent then the said leader can always come back to power the fourth time.
It could tumble the apple cart initially,but I see reasonable representation of the different sections of society.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteYou said...
Though the statistics clearly show that you may not win second time, there is an incentive that he might win.
When the Statistics are clearly stating that nearly 60% visit Lok Sabha JUST ONce in life time, 90% MPs will not go to Lok Sabha for more than 3 times in their life time (and hat-tricks are a very small percentage of that), how does someone go about betting on "incentive" of winning again, given that the anti-incumbency is a HUGE factor for any sitting MP?
Research on the Incumbents and how they are not the "preferred" in Indian Politics:
http://www.columbia.edu/~ll2240/Incumbency%20Disad.pdf
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteEleventh Lok Sabha is an Exception, falling out of the trend.
I don’t even know how that is a trend. Sorry, but I don’t seem to get it. You have four data points, and one of them you call an exception.
Excluding the 1'st Lok Sabha whcih had 100% first time MPs, the percentage of First-Time-MPs has been low in the first few decades in India's Lok Sabha. I have stated the reasons for this in a previous comment. Restating again:
1. pre-1980s were years when elections in India were no more than a means to rubber stamping the dominance of a single party, the Congress, or even the dominance of a single family, the Nehrus.
2. Congress party didn't experiment with too many newbies during those years. Hence, fewer party-tickets were awarded to first-timers.
The "number of first time MPs" to Lok Sabha has increased in percentage from 6'th and 7'th loksabha to the current 15'th lok sabha.
I could have skipped giving data points at all. I gave the data-points I had immediate access to.
I also took the pain to explain the reason for "exception" following the eleventh Lok Sabha.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteWhen the Statistics are clearly stating that nearly 60% visit Lok Sabha JUST ONce in life time, 90% MPs will not go to Lok Sabha for more than 3 times in their life time (and hat-tricks are a very small percentage of that), how does someone go about betting on "incentive" of winning again, given that the anti-incumbency is a HUGE factor for any sitting MP?
The same way an Olympic athlete would bet on winning Gold though the odds are against him, the same way a person would write for IAS exam though the odds are against him, the same way someone would buy a lottery ticket though the odds are against him, the same way an engineer would perform well to get that 'achiever of the year' award though the odds are against him.
People try to perform better in spite of statistics provided there is an incentive.
What is the incentive for a lawmaker to perform in India?
He cannot be kicked out, he cannot be called back. In Indian politics, the only incentive is to win again. That's when the voter holds him accountable and says, 'You will not get my vote in the next elections'.
This is true of many democracies - not just India.
I am sorry that I am not able to convey my message to you. We are going in circles. I give up. :-)
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteYou and I are a different page here.
Define trend. I don't seem to understand your concept of trend. Second, prove that trend is towards more first-time MPs.
That is only the first part of the problem.
Second part of the problem:
Prove that first time MPs are not keen on winning the next elections.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteIs that a desired objective? I would want to JP Narayan to win from wherever he is winning. His voice, though of dissent, and though disagreeable to some of us, makes this a vibrant democracy. I have a right to criticize him, but I wouldn’t want to force a situation wherein he loses his voice. A democracy that forces JP Narayan to lose is no democracy at all.
When I brought JP and his likes into the comments... I said it in a lighter note... and also mentioned that in MY OPINION it is a "welcome side-effect".
No... neither does the women's bill aim at eliminating JP Narayan from running ... nor does it stop JP Narayan from winning.
TO make my stand on the Women's Bill clear:
ReplyDelete1. I am not an active proponent of the Bill.
2. I am not working full-time ... or ever plan to work full-time on defending, promoting or rallying-for this bill.
3. The Rotation Basis or no-rotation-basis in my eyes doesn't make an iota of difference. (for reasons I stated in my previous comments)
4. The fact that this bill was beaten back to square one around 11 times now, since the first time it was introduced 14 yrs ago... speaks volumes about the bill, its promoters and their strength (weakness).
5. In my eyes, the Indian democracy is not a healthy one, for the simple reason that all sections of society are not adequately represented. Gender disparities are very high. GDI for India is pathetic. When the International Organizations make an assessment of GDI, they overlook a few problems that are "specific" to Indian Culture and its background. Women (as a group) end up losers. More representation of women in active politics and in legislative bodies does not "guarantee" a change in lives of Indian women.
I am indifferent to this bill and its failure or success.
But, I am not indifferent to the arguments in opposition to the bill.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a dangerous experiment when it is apparent that it is extremely flawed.
That’s where Democracy goes for a toss. I am beginning to get a feeling that we Indians have seriously misunderstood how democracy works.
Our politics has not reached that stage yet.
Once again I get the feeling that we don’t understand our democracy.
There is lot of naiveté in your writing.
We are going in circles. I give up.
Given that you have in many words, stated your displeasure at arguing with someone not quite in your league... I will spare both of us time and energy.
We do not have a "conclusion" from our arguments.
@ Sujai,
ReplyDeleteThe representatives should be made answerable to the public.
This is a constitutional problem.
If any,we need to change that rule,instead of fearing abuse of new bills.
Rotation has its benefits and drawbacks.
Sorry,your fears will only be coming true if this kind of a bill is completely abused,over a very long period of time.
Which I do not see happening in India.
Anyways,we can agree to disagree...
Good luck :)
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteHere’s my stand, in addition to previous one.
1. I am a strong proponent of reservations for women in education and employment. I do support reservations for women in Parliament and Assembly though I know that it will not have a major impact in emancipation and empowerment of most of the women. I believe that reservations have to happen bottom up. However, I am hoping that with passing of this bill, introduction of reservation for women in education and employment is going to be easy.
2.I am not apathetic to this bill. I take great interest in how it is going to affect Indian democracy. I cannot afford to be apathetic to this bill because I live in this country and I take this country and its institutions pretty seriously and continue to do whatever it is in my capacity to improve it.
3. According to me the Rotation System as currently prescribed seriously undermines Indian Democracy. If Rotation System has never been tried before, India should not try it without researching it. An experiment that affects a billion people should be done with caution after ensuring the consequences are well researched.
4. The fact that this bill was not introduced for so many years is sad. But introducing this bill without addressing the Rotation System is suicidal.
I am indifferent to this bill and its failure or success.
I am not indifferent to this bill. I take serious interest in the laws and verdicts that are geared towards emancipating Indian people – including women. I have been waiting for this bill for many years now. Maybe, that’s the reason why we do not find each other on the same page.
I am not indifferent to this bill. I take serious interest in the laws and verdicts that are geared towards emancipating Indian people – including women. I have been waiting for this bill for many years now. Maybe, that’s the reason why we do not find each other on the same page.
ReplyDeleteOnce again... Mis-understood.
I am indifferent to this particular "Womens Reservations Bill aiming at reservations in legislative bodies".
I am however, not indifferent to "womens emancipation", "women's issues" or laws addressing/governing women's problems.
Female Gendercide in India had more babies killed in the past 2 decades compared to ANY genocide in the world. These killings move any heart.
It is heart-wrenching and scary scene in the Labor rooms of Govt. hospitals and dispensaries.
I am indifferent to the women's bill as I do not believe it takes a woman to address womens issues . I expect the "Male representative" from my constituency to also address women's issues on A HIGH PRIORITY.
I am not indifferent to the opposition dished up against this bill. The Bill has been debated many times, put in cold storage many times, ammended and discussed many times.
Each round of discussion has the far-right-wing extremists bring out PMS and "weakness" of the fairer sex. It also has hypocrites posing as "liberals" and pointing out numerous flaws in the bill.
What is truly lacking is "Not a solution". Solutions are MANY!!!
What is lacking is a "political will".
I do not see the current Bill with "rotation system" as a "Panacea"... nor do i see the "rotation system" as a suicide to Democracy as you have taken a stand on.
I believe we are not "On the Same page" because most of the Opposition I am hearing is De-Ja-Vu... Been there... debated on that... know its outcome... people dont like changing their minds...
This bill is not going to "Make or break" 50+ crores of women in India.
But... the Opposition to this bill... gives a general feel and a "reality check" to all concerned.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteI concur with your opinion on this and appreciate your patience and clarity in presenting your view point.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteI concur with your opinion on this. I appreciate the clarity with which you tried to explain your view point, and also kudos to your patience!
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeletenor do i see the "rotation system" as a suicide to Democracy as you have taken a stand on.
I do believe that it will put Indian Democracy in grave danger. The little accountability that the leaders have will be lost.
Without such little accountability there wouldn't have been Telangana Movement of 2009-10.