The current Women’s Bill is a landmark bill that is designed to emancipate and empower Indian woman. However, it has a serious flaw.
This quota reserves a constituency for woman on rotation basis. That means 33% of constituencies have quota for women in one term of Lok Sabha, and then another set of 33% constituencies have quota for women in the next term of Lok Sabha, and so on. That means every constituency gets a woman leader every three terms. The flaw in this system is following:
This quota reserves a constituency for woman on rotation basis. That means 33% of constituencies have quota for women in one term of Lok Sabha, and then another set of 33% constituencies have quota for women in the next term of Lok Sabha, and so on. That means every constituency gets a woman leader every three terms. The flaw in this system is following:
Assuming only men win during non-quota time, at any instance, there are potentially 66% of candidates in Lok Sabha who would not be able to contest from the same constituency in the next elections. That means 2/3 of Indian Lok Sabha has no incentive to perform for their constituency in the current term. This results in serious damage to India democracy because the only check against the incumbent lawmaker in Indian politics is the incentive to win in the next elections. With that incentive gone, 2/3 of Indian constituencies do not have a leader who is accountable to them.
In India, we cannot call back a lawmaker once he is elected. So, if he not performing his duties, if he is absconding from his constituency, or if he is blatantly corrupt, the people of that constituency cannot do anything other than wait for the next election. The only check that people have is to tell him, ‘Look I won’t vote for you next time’. This fear, and this fear alone, brings in certain accountability from this lawmaker in India politics. If we remove that fear as well saying that he cannot contest in the next elections, we are going to see a great danger to Indian democracy.
From the current understanding, there will three groups of constituencies in India, and each group will have women quota in election for each term. I have described the scenario below:
Assuming women contest only during their quota-time, it is clear from the above picture that at any point of time 33% women and 33% men will not contest in the next election from their constituencies. That means we will have 66% of our legislators not being accountable at a point of time. It will make 2/3 of Indian parliament not accountable to their constituencies. This has serious repercussions for Indian democracy.
Though it looks a bit complicated, please take time to take examine it. Instead of 3 groups, I have divided constituencies into 9 groups. Each group will have women for 3 consecutive terms followed by a 6 term break. The advantages of above system are the following:
Assuming only men win during non-quota time, we will have each constituency for 3 consecutive terms for women, and 6 consecutive terms for men. With this, the number of lawmakers sitting in Lok Sabha at any point of time who will be not be contesting in the next elections come down to only 22% (instead of 66% in the previous model).
The only disadvantage is the following:
Women will get their required 33% in three stages, with 11% first, then 22%, then 33%. But once they get their 33%, the system can be used forever. There is no need to repeal the system after 15 years.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteWomen will get their required 33% in three stages, with 11% first, then 22%, then 33%. But once they get their 33%, the system can be used forever. There is no need to repeal the system after 15 years.
Women do not need the 11% you have proposed. The current Lok Sabha already enjoys 10.8% women representatives. (59 in 543).
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteWomen do not need the 11% you have proposed. The current Lok Sabha already enjoys 10.8% women representatives. (59 in 543).
;-) Wouldn't these new quota add to the existing representatives provided the constituencies of Group 1 do not match with the incumbent women representative constituencies?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTelangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteSorry I am at a loss. I don't understand this:
Why go through the pain of making a BILL if the "allocation" is the same as "Sattus-Quo" for the next 9 general elections!! (going by your model)
Result of a Mis-read on my part.
ReplyDeletehence deleted my previous comment.
good model sujai. can u explain why specially 9 groups? what is the sanctity of this no. 9? wouldn't going for 12 or even more decrease the disadvantages of ur model??
ReplyDeletenice model sujai. good work. but can explain why specifically 9 groups? what is the sanctity of the no. 9? wouldn't going for 12 groups or even more, reduce the disadvantages??
ReplyDelete--------------OUR WONDERFUL QUOTOCRACY--------------
ReplyDelete(Part 1 of 2)
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
There is a constitutional revolution underway.This new type of regime it will beget defies classification. It cannot be captured by the categories bequeathed by those who understood different regime types: Plato or Polybius, Aristotle or Kautilya, Montesquieu or Madison. This new regime is not a monarchy, aristocracy, republic or a democracy. Behold all, the rise of Quotocracy!
Quotocracy arises out of a democracy and often gets confused with it. But make no mistake. Quotocracy is distinct. A democracy values choice. . In a quotocracy, voters by turn are obliged to vote for someone with particular ascriptive characteristics. In a democracy, a general will is possible. In principle people can reason in terms that take all relevant reasons into consideration and are good for all. In a quotocracy, by definition there are only particular reasons and interests: men for men, women for women, caste for caste. A general will is a conceptual impossibility.
Montesquieu said each regime has a principle that sustains its best form. In despotism it is fear, in aristocracy it is honour, in republics it is virtue. Quotocracy has its own principle: victimhood. No quotocracy can be sustained without it.
Democracies occasionally make exceptions to redress gross injustice. In a quotocracy, the exception is the norm. OBCs want quotas for themselves, but not for women. Women want for themselves, but not for OBCs. And no one wants for Muslims. Some say, “Why do women need quotas? Why don’t parties give tickets?” But in a quotocracy this question is not legitimate. However, those who deny the legitimacy of this question use this same argument when the demand for sub-quotas is made. “Why not give OBC women tickets under the quota?” But don’t confuse this with hypocrisy. Hypocrisy can exist only in a democracy, when ideals do not match reality. In a quotocracy, exception is the norm.
Democracies have ideological contention: between left and right, liberty and equality, secular and religious. Quotocracy has consensus: all divisions between left, right and centre are dissolved by quota. And those who oppose quotas are accused of treason. In a way there is justice to this charge. After all, in quotocracy, opposing quota is like subverting a regime. Quotocracy creates a new distinction between public and private. Privately you may oppose quota, but you politically act on that belief at your own peril....(contd)
(The comment is posted by JACK ROBERTS)
--------------OUR WONDERFUL QUOTOCRACY--------------
ReplyDelete(Part 2 of 2)
Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Quotocracy has its own conception of justice. It is not equality, or capability or fitness or fairness. It is simple arithmetic: 33 here, 22 there, 50 for the rest. . Simple quota is just what justice is. In a democracy, where you came from should matter less than where you are going.A quotocracy is the reverse. A democracy prizes individuality (not to be confused with its bad cousin, individualism). Quotocracy prizes group think. You are your group. Democracy values self-identification. You should be whatever you wish to or choose to be or name yourself. Quotocracy is premised upon ascription. You are what the state certificate says you are: SC/ ST or OBC. You can be this and no other. Democracy is suspicious giving the state power to construct identities. Quotocracy creates new identities by using state power to create incentives.
A quotocracy has a new separation of powers. OBCs get reservation in jobs and education but don’t deserve it in politics. Women can get it in Lok Sabha but not Rajya Sabha. Women get reservation in politics but don’t get it in jobs. In a quotocracy, legislation and administration are also confused. Panchayats are equated with supreme law making bodies forgetting that they have different functions.
In a quotocracy, the fact that select individuals from some communities are empowered is considered as empowering the community. In a quotocracy we can empower elites within communities with impunity and call it empowerment for all.
Democracy thrives on historical traditions associated with its founding. A quotocracy thrives on historical amnesia. The British used two tactics: divide and rule. And they said that we were infants because we could not think outside of caste and community. We were incapable of self-government. Quotocracy likes divide and rule. And it also thinks we are incapable of self-government. Our identities need to be boxed. Our founders worked hard to combat ascriptive identities. They rejected two-nation theories, separate electorates, narcissism of partial groups, communal representation, caste censuses. The logic of quotocracy is to bring them back. Democracy seeks to unite despite differences. Quotocracy seeks to divide despite commonalities.
Quotocracy is truly revolutionary. Make no mistake about it. It is deeper than most revolutions because it needs a new moral vocabulary. And it needs a new political science to understand it. Prepare for the Age of Quotocracy.
The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi
(The comment is posted by JACK ROBERTS)
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteThis is what I just wrote in the context of Telangana on
http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/telangana-ii.html
To a question that was asked:
4. If Telangana people (not leaders) were so passionate about separate state, why only one TPS member was elected in 1972 assembly election. You may want to bring back 10 seats that they won in parliament election but if you want we can start analyzing what happened based on the newspapers of that time.
You have to see it in the context. After 1971 elections, all TPS politicians abandoned cause of Telangana and joined Congress bringing new set of promises. Indira Gandhi did not entertain any secessionist talks and was ready to take charge if the politicians continued to seek separate state. Telangana people felt betrayed by their own politicians. Disenchantment and disillusionment set in when TPS couldn’t deliver on Telangana. Eventually TPS withered away.
The same happened between 2004 and 2009 elections. People were disappointed with TRS when they couldn’t deliver on Telangana. They voted them out in 2009. Unless TRS delivers, they will fade away too.
Indian democracy doesn’t give people a chance to recall their leaders or hold their leaders accountable other than wait for the next elections. Between two elections, the politicians can change stance, dance, completely go against election manifesto, and people cannot do anything about it. The politician bids his time and hopes to create enough good will before the next election. That’s the only little dose of accountability the political leaders of India extend to their people of India, and he bets on the getting his act right before the next elections.
That’s what most Telangana leaders of the present time are betting on. They know that they cannot face the people in another election – hence they do not resign. Rather they wait for next elections in 2014 and hope they achieve Telangana before that.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteThis 33% reservation would be a victory for feminist groups. The same groups that brand all men as vile creatures not to be trusted with.
If one looks at the history of democracies, all the laws for men, such as Anti-Domestic violence, Anti-Dowry, were all framed by a pre-dominantly male legislature.
Men thanks to their sexual hormone testosterone, actively seek power and position. And women select these men for sexual reproduction. Thanks to their innate nature and immense sexual rewards from the female, almost all of the men seek power. They take immense risks to acquire position. So what would essentially happen is that men would continually have the most powerful positions in the society and these 33% women would just be phony posers.
This will only help the political families to strengthen their hold on Indian parliament.
Nice model Sujai.
ReplyDeleteAnother way I think is to mandate political parties to allocate 33% of there contestants to ladies, this way they choose ladies where ever they are strong, and party can choose same lady for next elections to fulfill the quota.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteWhat will happen if incumbent women continue to win in their constituencies.
Imagine 100% women in lok sabha.
If 100% women are in lok sabha , we may need to open some beauty parlors in Parliment.
ReplyDelete:))))
There was a saying muppai jutlu kalasi untaayi kaaani mudu shigalu kalsi undavu
no hard feeling just fun :)
For the record only,
ReplyDeleteThe elected representatives NOT being answerable to the people after the elections is a
"CONSTITUTIONAL FLAW".
If we have to change the stand on rotation,we need to make an amendment in the constitution,against the present set up.
In case such a scenario presents itself,the politicians would NEVER to do anything against their own interests......
Sorry,but your suggestions are quite similar to another"FRIEND" of ours,Mr.J.P.
Even he suggests,that the backwardness in Telangana is mainly due to corruption,and since it is every where in India,if we need to do anything at all about development in T,we need to first checkmate corruption.
I don,t understand either logic...
//we need to first checkmate corruption.//
ReplyDeleteI don't think Andhra will join with Telangana to fight against corruption.
Because of there corruption now we have this separatist movement.
For example, as per the Girglaini Commission, there are more than 50K Andhras illegally working in Telangana govt jobs. If the fight is against the corruption they should first resign there jobs. Can they do?
There are better chances to fight against corruption in Telangana state than Andhra Pradesh.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta or JACK ROBERTS
ReplyDeleteI disagree it NOT Quotocracy but Castocracy.
There is a fair chance that Pratap Bhanu Mehta might have got that position in CPR because of his caste.
There is also fair chance that his family, fathers and grand fathers might have enjoyed Castocracy being at the top of the value chain because of which Mr Bhanu might have got a better than fair chance at getting education resource in this country than the rest of slumdogs.
Lavanya:
ReplyDeleteThe elected representatives NOT being answerable to the people after the elections is a
"CONSTITUTIONAL FLAW".
I don’t think it is a constitutional flaw. In Indian Constitution, certain duties are obligatory and punishable by law, but others are not obligatory. Some of them can never be made obligatory.
Being answerable to the people cannot be legally enforced.
If a lawmaker has never visited his constituency, there is no provision which says he should live in his constituency at least certain number of days. And if we introduce such a provision, he could still not meet anyone by shutting himself off in a bungalow. If we introduce a provision to meet at least some people each day, he may meet hired people and avoid real people. You cannot make such things obligatory. The message is simple – you may force a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink.
If he is not keen on building a bridge that people ask, you cannot force him. Some people may shout at his doors, he could still not construct it, citing opposition from some other people within his constituency, and that opposition could be one person hired by him. There is no way to enforce him to construct the bridge if he doesn’t want to.
Being not accountable or answerable to people is not a constitutional flaw. People have some options when they such a lousy leader. Use negative campaign against him and malign his reputation. Protest to coerce him. Not vote him next time around.
Though the role of media is not discussed in a constitution and no duties are assigned to media, the freedom of expression is used to give teeth to media which provides the necessary checks. Awareness is an extremely important ingredient to make a vibrant democracy, and that comes with unbridled freedom of expression – that is why I support it so much. However, no amount of awareness can make a lawmaker do things if he does not have an incentive to perform better.
We get all kinds of leaders. While choosing leaders, it is expected of people who have been given the right to exercise adult franchise, to vote someone who has displayed the characters of integrity, strength of character, other leadership qualities, etc. This is where a proper use of media and freedom of expression helps.
However, if you make a bad choice in electing a wrong leader, people of that constituency cannot kick him out. Protests, negative campaign in media, ignominy and humiliation in front of the people, the loss of face having gone back on his word, etc, can sometimes force a leader live up to the expectations of his constituents. If he is not coerced by those protests, there is nothing the people can do.
Certain degree of accountability can be imparted by saying, ‘we will not vote you next time’. The fear of not being elected next time usually makes such leaders perform for the better of people. Unfortunately in India, many leaders are such leaders, who would not perform unless they are forced into it.
However, this fear works only when there is an incentive to get elected next time. Though the odds may be against him, almost all political leaders in India aspire to win next elections, and that is currently imparting certain amount of accountability in Indian democracy. This is true of many developing countries and even developed countries, except that the degree varies.
My opposition has been solely against Rotation System, nothing to do with Women’s Bill. Rotation System in a mild dose is tolerable. Having a 2/3 of the Parliament not performing for their constituencies because they have no incentive will change the nature of Indian democracy – not for good. It’s unfortunate that the authors of this bill have used rotation system. They should have looked at few other examples in the world where quota system is used.
[Contd…]
Lavanya:
ReplyDeleteIf we have to change the stand on rotation,we need to make an amendment in the constitution,against the present set up.
No change in constitution is needed.
India will become a better democracy through more maturity. More debates, more awareness, more investigative media, concerned people participating in the election, electing better leaders, etc, are the answers to bring more accountability.
Sorry,but your suggestions are quite similar to another"FRIEND" of ours,Mr.J.P.
Even he suggests,that the backwardness in Telangana is mainly due to corruption,and since it is every where in India,if we need to do anything at all about development in T,we need to first checkmate corruption.
My suggestion is not to amend the constitution. I am supporting quota for women in Parliament and Assembly. I even proposed a milder form of Rotation System which still ensures 33% reservation for women in Parliament and Assembly. And I have taken care of my problem by mitigating the effect of rotation – by reducing the number of parliamentarians who would be facing the transition due to quota from 66% to 22%.
My model does not dilute your cause – quota for women.
You should equate me with JP if I say ‘emancipation of women can happen through other means, like better schooling, etc, and not through quotas’. I am supporting quotas and even suggested a means to implement the quotas while taking care of the problems I cited. I didn’t even put the onus of solving my problem onto anyone.
I don,t understand either logic…
You will understand the logic I am presenting if you keep aside your bias that all men are opposing women’s bill only because it is to do with women. You will understand the logic if you stop believing we are being insincere in our attempts to emancipate Indian woman.
I am not sure if you understood what I presented above. Women will have their 33% reservations while reducing the negative effect of Rotation System. I am not sure why Telangana Bidda and you are stilling thinking that I am standing against you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure why Telangana Bidda and you are stilling thinking that I am standing against you.
I am not sure where you are getting that idea from.
I refrain from commenting coz I dont want to trigger off another round of "you are fired!... your writing is naive... we dont seem to understand democracy well... incentive to win again leads to accountability... Rotation System is a suicide for Democracy....".
I got your position well enough.
You actually believe that we in India have a "Democracy". You also believe that the form of Democracy we have is "an untainted shrine".
Everything has to be looked at in "context" of the Current day Scenario and the expected outcomes of it based on what we already have.
All sons love mom... All fathers are protective about daughters and secretly wish that their daughters become the "power-women" who never fall at the mercy of another man.
But, somehow, when it comes to treating women their age on better terms, the Male Psychology is hard-wired in one direction.
There are healthy exceptions to what I just said above. But, by and large, every single time an issue of Womens rights, emancipation of women or Affirmative action for women comes up... the opposition is filled with Cliche's like this:
http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm
http://www.learncalifornia.org/doc.asp?id=1646
Before you jump into saying "That was in the past"... read some debates during recent times.
I was LIVE witness to one such debate in the Lok Sabha of India during zero hour... year 1996, Winter session... Madhav Rao Scindia and Rajesh Pilot making "Sexist" comments no worse than what others came up with in the above links.
In the context of "Current political scenario" in India... I do not believe that a Rotation System is a "threat" to democracy.
You say without "incentive" there is no accountability. This comes from a very "MALE" expectation from work.
From a female perspective, what "incentive" does a mother get... going after one mis-carriage to another... to finally having children, cleaning their shit and taking their teenage crap?
There is such a thing called "fulfillment from doing what you passionately believe in". Now that... is a very female "expectation from work".
Once the "incentive to win again" is put in "question"... I believe it will have a cleansing effect, however short-lived it may be... and the kind of men who come into active politics ... may change too... (before you jump into attacking this one and ask me for precedents and statistics... it is wishful thinking!!!)
I have seen male teachers and professors... and how they worked for lesser remuneration, with no guarantees for "better incentives" just because they are passionate about what they do. I am hoping to see more politicians who fall in that category.
Hence... I do not believe rotation system is a threat to Indian Democracy.
@ Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteSorry that I dragged you back into the debate.
You actually believe that we in India have a "Democracy". You also believe that the form of Democracy we have is "an untainted shrine".
Yes, I do believe that we in India have a democracy, but I believe it is a flawed democracy. I have said this many times doing Telangana discussion that India has failed to live up to its democratic credentials. So I am not sure why you think that I believe that our democracy is ‘untainted shrine’.
I have never said anything that gives even a faint hint in that direction.
However flawed this democracy is, we cannot move away from democracy and install something that undermines its. In our efforts to correct some mistakes, we cannot shake the fundamentals.
But, somehow, when it comes to treating women their age on better terms, the Male Psychology is hard-wired in one direction.
I agree with you there. Men continue to undermine women. That’s why we need regulations, we need quotas, we need laws to protect the interest of women, to ensure fair representation. In absence of those, men will continue to suppress women. I never disagreed with you on that.
…Affirmative action for women comes up... the opposition is filled with Cliche's like this:
Today I read an article on Times of India, written by a woman. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/The-Flawed-Logic-Of-Quotas/articleshow/5703265.cms
I do not agree with her on many counts. I do believe quota is the only way to go. And I don’t think I have expressed my opposition to the quota anywhere.
Before you jump into saying "That was in the past"... read some debates on recent times.
I continue to hear sexist statements everywhere. We men are very biased. We want to create system that protects women from men. In fact, we have to work hard not to be biased. If our biases translate into discrimination, which does most of the time, we need to arrest it with laws and systems. We cannot believe that men will change naturally and accommodate women. We need to fight it and you need all the support you can get, including from those men who want to ensure such laws and systems are made.
You have support from men like me. But your failure to understand our opposition to ‘rotation system’ is a bit of bafflement. I fail to understand why you are averse to look at the problem of ‘rotation system’ – which we believe is a serious flaw – and it has nothing to do with women.
[Contd…]
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteYou say without "incentive" there is no accountability. This comes from a very "MALE" expectation from work.
I really do not know how to answer that. After looking at your ‘trends’, I am wondering if there is a female definition of ‘trend’. I am not sure what is ‘female’ definition for accountability. I always thought that they had universal definitions, not confined to castes, regions, races or sexes.
You jumbled my sentences to get a new meaning. I will repeat myself here:
I said without ‘incentive’ there is no ‘motivation’ to ‘perform’. The ‘incentive’ is to win next elections. Then I said, the accountability comes from the ability of the people to NOT elect the leader in the next elections. Not electing the leader the next time is a check.
How does accountability come without some proper check? Is having proper check a ‘male’ definition?
From a female perspective, what "incentive" does a mother get... going after one mis-carriage to another... to finally having children, cleaning their shit and taking their crap?
I hope you understand we are discussing two different things here. Didn’t we need checks and balances to limit the power of Indira Gandhi though she was a woman? How can we not have checks and balances when we give power to someone to rule over us? Does it really matter if that leader is a woman or man? Do we believe every leader we elect acts like mothers to their babies?
If so, why were Telanganas discriminated? Why was Gentlemen’s Agreement flouted?
History tells us that the biggest struggle of mankind was to move away from being a subject of a king to become a citizen with rights. The biggest threat to our rights is always our own state. And hence the modern nations are formed with necessary checks and balances to curtail the power of state over the citizens. People in power abuse it – whether it’s men or women. Hence we need necessary checks and balances to curtail it.
Five year term for a leader is one such regulation to limit the ability to exercise power of leader forever. Can we relax expecting our leaders to act like our moms?
Not really. That has never happened whether the leaders were men or women.
There is such a thing called "fulfillment from doing what you passionately believe in".
And what do you do when your leaders goes on to usurp your rights. The way they have done with Telangana? Why do we even fight for Telangana if all our leaders are supposed behave like our moms?
Once the "incentive to win again" is put in "question"... I believe it will have a cleansing effect, however short-lived it may be... and the kind of men who come into active politics ... may change too... (before you jump into attacking this one... it is wishful thinking!!!)
I do hope that introduction of 33% of women into politics might cleanse the politics too. I never said anything against it. My opposition was not towards women participation, my opposition was towards rotation system irrespective of whether the leaders are women or men. Just because we have women now doesn’t mean we should stop holding them accountable in the ‘male’ or ‘female sense. We still need accountability whether it is male Nehru or female Indira Gandhi.
[Contd…]
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteI have seen male teachers and professors... and how they worked for lesser remuneration, with no guarantees for "better incentives" just because they are passionate about what they do.
You will see that everywhere. But that is still a desired attribute. Not a necessary attribute. We do not create systems thinking every leader is good and passionate. We create systems to protect people when leaders go bad and unaccountable.
We don’t make laws thinking people will behave good. We make laws taking care of scenarios when people will behave bad. That’s why you will never see laws that reward people for being good. You will see laws that punish people when they are bad.
There are other systems in place to provide motivation for good people, like winning in the next elections again, like getting promoted, like getting a ‘best teacher award’, like getting a pat on the back. That’s how create systems – to reward good and to punish bad.
If everyone was supposed to behave so good, why do we even need laws to protect women, or quotas to get them fair representation? Think about it.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteYour first comment response was fine.
But, I was mis-understood in the second and third ones.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteI hope you understand we are discussing two different things here. Didn’t we need checks and balances to limit the power of Indira Gandhi though she was a woman? How can we not have checks and balances when we give power to someone to rule over us? Does it really matter if that leader is a woman or man? Do we believe every leader we elect acts like mothers to their babies?
You have completely mis-understood me here.
I didn't give the example of a mother going through her mother-hood to say: a) Mothers are better leaders. b) Mothers do not need to have checks and balances.
More importantly... I didn't bring up the analogy to establish "Superiority" of one gender over the other.
The reason I brought up the "Motherhood" analogy as well as the "male-teachers" is:
There are a few very difficult things people do... and they do it without the hope of a reward or incentive.
What drives such people is "their passion to do what they truly believe in".
Contd from above....
ReplyDeleteIn a small social experiment... select 2 schools in your locality.
In one College, post flyers inviting Volunteers to help out at a local orphanage.
In another College, post flyers inviting Volunteers... and add in BOLD letters that volunteers will receive a scholarship at the end of their volunteering task.
From the first College, you will volunteers motivated by their own passion to help out. Chances are... you may get very few volunteers.
From the second College, however, You will receive a bigger number of volunteers... and their motivation is the scholarship promised on the flyers.
If the reward at the end of term is removed or put in question, the kind of people who will come into active politics will be folks who are truly passionate about the task.
Hence, I believe that reducing the chances of a candidate's being able to win from his own constituency will have the following positive side-effects:
1. He/she will hang in there if he is truly passionate about serving people. Else, he will find a "Govt. contract" or a "Governor-ship" and move out.
2. He/she will refrain from playing petty caste-politics or vote-bank-politics as there is a chance that he/she would have to contest from a different constituency where their hate-speeches or poll-promises come back to bite them.
3. When Candidates contest in different region and learn about the problems in the region and about what the electorate want/need, their exposure to different region will groom them better for executive decisions.
I really do not know how to answer that. After looking at your ‘trends’, I am wondering if there is a female definition of ‘trend’. I am not sure what is ‘female’ definition for accountability. I always thought that they had universal definitions, not confined to castes, regions, races or sexes.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 'trend'... it is a carry over from your previous post. I got the numbers as well as the analysis from a paper published and available online. But... this morning, in my attempt to get to the statistics of ALL 15 lok-sabhas, I realised that the person who wrote the paper completely ignored the past-experience of "Sitting MPs". Both his analysis and the numbers he gave are wrong if you look at the bigger picture (i.e. First time MPs vs. Experienced MPs from 2'nd Lok Sabha to 15'th Lok Sabha). I have to take my words back for copy-pasting something in a hurry.
In the previous comment on the 'trends' which are obviously in question, I wanted to state that:
People have been consistently voting out both incumbents and first-time MPs. Veteran Parliamentarians are few... infact less that 5% of all the MPs elected to Lok Sabha. With such a rigorous weeding out by the electorate, why should we bother "protecting" a candidates right to run a second time? Added... the candidate may not end up getting a "party ticket" too at the end of the term.
Citing another research paper, I gave you the high anti-incumbency faced by sitting-MPs in next round of elections. Unless an MP won the previous election by more than 5.5% of total vote, his chances of winning again are very less (more so if the candidate belongs to the ruling party).
I recall your counter argument to the above... you cited an example of participants in Olympics.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what is ‘female’ definition for accountability. I always thought that they had universal definitions, not confined to castes, regions, races or sexes.
In my previous post, I stated: You say without "incentive" there is no accountability. This comes from a very "MALE" expectation from work.
Here... I wanted to highlight Gender-Role and Gender-based-biases displayed by Men. For men, it is about winning... motivation comes from incentives.
For women, it is about fulfillment... from being assured of doing well...
This gender-bias is reducing in the west now. It is a very commonly quoted reason by Managers when they respond to surveys on why their female employees make less compared to the Male employees on a same/similar position. Men expect the job to be "rewarding"... Women expect the job to be "fulfilling".
There are healthy exceptions to the above bias.
Like I stated in a previous comment... Some Male professors and teachers could certainly make more money, but prefer to continue on the low-pay/reward teaching jobs as they find the profession fulfilling or in line with their "passion".
Bringing some diversity into the legislative bodies is a good idea without killing the genuine "passion to serve" among both genders (not just female). But... if the selection criteria involves a RACE that is more geared towards the "reward-seeking people", even genuine social workers who have the passion to serve fall behind.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteJust because we have women now doesn’t mean we should stop holding them accountable in the ‘male’ or ‘female sense. We still need accountability whether it is male Nehru or female Indira Gandhi.
I never said... "Expect less from female leaders"... or show Bias in how you view the candidates or elected representatives.
Once elected, both genders should be expected to meet the same public standards.
However... before the elections, if the "race" is setup to make women fail by default, it is not a fair-play.
party-vise nominations of 33% fail for the same reason. Though each party allocates 33% nominations to women, parties field them against stronger candidates to ensure they are not risking their strong-holds.
Number of MPs who made it from One Lok Sabha to the next:
ReplyDelete1 to 2: 219 0.40
2 to 3: 226 0.41
3 to 4: 200 0.37
4 to 5: 230 0.42
5 to 6: 145 0.27
6 to 7: 157 0.29
7 to 8: 243 0.45
8 to 9: 165 0.30
9 to 10: 259 0.48
10 to 11: 197 0.36
11 to 12: 250 0.46
12 to 13: 274 0.5
13 to 14: Not Available
14 to 15: 183 0.34
Source: Lok Sabha member data as released by the Parliamentary affairs ministry
The 'trends' that you happily mock at with a pinch of sarcasm came from this 'report' for UN Research Institute for Social Development:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/8E6FC72D6B546696C1257123002FCCEB/$file/KapMeht.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrequency distribution of ALL MPs Elected to Lok Sabhas (First to fifteenth) so far:
ReplyDeleteOne .... 2380 ...... 0.548892989
Two ..... 933 ...... 0.215175277
Three .....521 ...... 0.120156827
Four .....257 ...... 0.059271218
Five ..... 123 ...... 0.028367159
Six ..... 62 ...... 0.014298893
Seven ..... 38 ...... 0.008763838
Eight ..... 12 ...... 0.002767528
Nine ..... 8 ...... 0.001845018
Ten ..... 1 ...... 0.000230627
Eleven ..... 1 ...... 0.000230627
55% of MPs got elected to Parliament just ONCE in their lifetime.
87% of MPs got elected to parliament 3 times or less.
Consecutive elections to the lok sabha are given in the previous comment. It stands at 0.29% (min) to 0.5% (max) of MP's of previous lok-sabha over the last 15 general elections.
P.S: Giving this data not to imply or indicate that it has a direct relationship with the Womens Bill.
To say the very least... the 33% will indeed shake up a lot of dynasties from their roots. Added, it poses a new challenge to the political parties: "De-Reservation".
ReplyDeleteMajor parties give 70 to 80% of their successful candidates party-nominations during the next elections.... What do the political parties plan on doing after the first 5 yrs of 33% in 180+ constituencies? Drop the successful female candidates and give away all the nominations to Males? Give 50% to males and 50% to successful females?
Questions like these have been in debate fire for just as long as the Bill itself has been in cold storage.
This Bill is a silent revolution indeed. It may not give women the power to change their fate ..... But, it sure does shake up the current politics and give rise to a very heavy emphasis on nominations and pre-poll-surveys.
Ah! Now it all makes sense!!
A 30 to 50% of incumbent MPs have been re-claiming their seats to the Lok Sabha. This bill will threaten their long built bastions.
But... the same 30 to 50% incumbency ( sometimes Dynastic strong-holds for decades)... is the very reason for the NEED of a "reservations bill".
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteI made my mind on this one.
I do see the Women's Bill as a HUGE THREAT to the current political system in India.
I do not, however, see it as a "threat" to Indian Democracy.
Given the pathetic attendance of MPs during Voting on critical bills... given the minimal or no debates on important pieces of legislation being passed... given that even Opposition's newbie MPs take cash for asking questions in Zero Hour (!!??!!) ... I do not believe putting a Jill in the seat of Jack will make a iota of difference to the proceedings in the parliament or to the Bills passed.
As Idler pointed out on the previous post.... the political scenario may just get more entertaining.
Pardon my cynicism. :)
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay in responding.
Reservations for women in employment, education and legislative houses make a case solely on one point – that a women have been discriminated and suppressed for thousands of years due to which their participation in most of these fields, which are considered equally accessible to both men and women, is quite dismal, far below what is considered an adequate representation. Since the discrimination and suppression happened on the identity called ‘woman’, all corrective measures should be based on promotion of that identity.
You have attempted to show how and why women can be good leaders. According to me, that is not necessary, and actually makes your case weaker. The minute you start demanding quotas for women because women are better leaders or have a different work ethic, you are inviting counter arguments where the opponents will field ten thousand year history where men ruled for better or worse. And quality of leadership is a completely subjective argument.
There is no need to prove whether women are good leaders or not. Quotas for women do not have any dependency on proving this way or the other way about woman’s leadership capability. In fact, it only causes an unnecessary diversion from the topic under discussion.
Reservations for SC/ST leaders were not made after ensuring if they make good leaders. States were not formed after ensuring if the people of that region make good leaders. That’s why I desist from all questions from Andhras who ask why Telanganas do not have good leaders. Those questions are irrelevant to the topic under discussion. Good leadership is completely subjective and not relevant. Will someone deny Telangana just because it is now proven we don’t have good leaders?
Women need quotas not because they make good or bad leaders, or because they have different work ethic, but only because they are NOT well-represented. And women should desist from proving to men they make good leaders – because such discussions can be easily used against them.
Also, you keep saying that this bill will shake things up and that’s why we need it.
But... the same 30 to 50% incumbency ( sometimes Dynastic strong-holds for decades)... is the very reason for the NEED of a "reservations bill".
That is once again not a valid reason for introducing quotas. Whatever you said as ‘for’ argument, one can use it as ‘against’. And that completely dilutes the topic under discussion.
I understand that I expressed my concerns, but some of those concerns are not the reasons why we should stop this bill. However, I still maintain that ‘rotation system’ not the ‘quota’ will demolish the efficacy of Indian democracy that we have attained in the last sixty years.
You cite some statistics on how first-timers do not necessarily win the next elections. I do not look at those statistics because your statistics are not addressing the issue here. The real issue is not statistics. Rather it is the incentive that brings in the motivation.
If someone is going to a casino or buying a lottery ticket, you can show statistics on how 99% of the people actually lose the money. But still people would go into the casino or buy that lottery ticket. They do so, not because of the statistics, but because they know that someone eventually wins the jackpot. That is the incentive.
The day you say, ‘no matter what, you will not be given the jackpot because it is reserved for the son of casino manager’, and make it a rule, then most people will lose the motivation to play.
I do seriously think that I could not deliver this point across to you. I advice you go to the nearest university and discuss this with a professor in history, politics, sociology, etc, and ask whether a democracy will work effectively if the incumbent candidate knows he cannot contest next elections.
[Contd…]
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteAlso, some of you say that there is nothing wrong with 66% of women in the house. That’s when I would like to ask, what are you correcting here in the first place? Are you correcting the under-representation? If so, how come under-representation of men is no longer a problem?
For men, it is about winning... motivation comes from incentives. For women, it is about fulfillment... from being assured of doing well...
What you say is not proven. It is not a consideration a state can take while formulating laws. In fact, if such subjective deportments are made into laws, it will be used against women. The minute we say that men are good for this and women are good for this and make it a rule then we will have bigger problems. You are only fulfilling the prejudices men having against women that they are different. Can we get into subjective arguments like, for Tamil it is fulfillment, for Biharis, it is motivation. And with that can we say we need more Tamil leaders in the country than Biharis?
What if we find out that Oriya men are closer to women in this context, should we have reservations for Oriya men instead of women? All those arguments you present do not make a case for quotas for women, but can be used against it.
Should we accept more women because they are better leaders or they have good work ethic? If so, can we accept the status quo, if men prove to be better leaders having good work ethic?
We run into such arguments when we go overboard with our corrections and justify them by other means.
I will repeat myself here:
Reservations for women in employment, education and legislative houses make a case solely on one point – that a women have been discriminated and suppressed for thousands of years due to which their participation in most of these fields, which are considered equally accessible to both men and women, is quite dismal, far below what is considered an adequate representation. Since the discrimination and suppression happened on the identity called ‘woman’, all corrective measures should be based on promotion of that identity.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteI kept wondering why we do not meet in our viewpoints though both of us are arguing FOR reservations.
This is getting interesting (to me, not sure about you).
Your very first line:
Reservations for women in employment, education and legislative houses make a case solely on one point – that a women have been discriminated and suppressed for thousands of years
My first and foremost reason to support/promote Womens Reservation:
Women bring in a diverse thought, perspective and viewpoint that will be a plus to the legislative bodies and many institutions.
Your main reason for supporting reservations is to "Make up" for the discrimination of the past and to give an affirmative boost to their numbers. Here, you are trying to do a justice to the group "identity" called "WOMEN".
I am coming from a different and a more positive approach:
Men and Women are fundamentally different. Gender roles exist and are not going away anywhere. The perspectives of Men and Women, when taken in a debate on equal representation, help us as a nation to achieve better "solutions" to our problems. The "Diversity" in thinking that women bring into workplace and to legislative bodies is "compromised" when the RULES are set in such a way that "Men" win it to the top jobs. Reservations will help us remove those "RULES CATERING TO MEN"... so that the women who make it to the Parliament do not have to prove themselves to be more "Men" than the competing Men in the race. (e.g. Mayavati, Jayalalitha, Mamta Banerjee... 99% of women do not identify themselves with these women. Reason: they lost their identities and transformed themselves to establish their lead in the male-dominated race).
The fundamental differences:
1. You expect me to be backing up a feminist ideology, while I do not. If you read my comments again with a different eye, you will see that I am not praising "Woman", "Mother" or "motherhood". Nor do I say "Men and Women are Equal".
2. You mis-read my analogies posted in defense of "changing the rules that are more geared to helping men win" as: My attempt at proving whether women are good leaders or not
More later....
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteWhat you say is not proven. It is not a consideration a state can take while formulating laws.
It is unfortunate. It is imperative that as human race evolves, it will be more receptive to "alternative" ideologies.
But... for now... you see "law-making" from the perspective of a Constitution that was made with an ALL-MALE representation. I do not blame you for believing that "laws are not made based on Men vs. Women".
FYI... we did come a long way.
When India Started out with her laws, there were no "females" in the Police... All Police stations were manned by Men... "female criminals" were arrested and interrogated by Men. It was only later that laws were made to ensure "human rights" of women.
How did the Human Rights of women involve "setting up women police force"? How did "Womens rights" branch off from the general
"human rights"?
Reason: We are evolving, we are learning from our experiences ... and we are changing... so are our laws.
The sad state in India today: If a woman goes to a govt. Officer in a high post, she will be molested. If she goes to a local police station, she will be raped.
Laws will have to evolve, just like our "law making bodies" to understand and appreciate the "Gender differences".
As much as we hate to acknowledge the Gender differences and Gender roles... as much as we want our daughters to be Jhansi Ranis and Karate fighters.... chances are, they will end up being normal women who love their families and are known for their feminine heart and thought-process.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteAlso, some of you say that there is nothing wrong with 66% of women in the house. That’s when I would like to ask, what are you correcting here in the first place? Are you correcting the under-representation? If so, how come under-representation of men is no longer a problem?
Like I mentioned in one of the previous posts:
It doesn't take a Woman representative to understand or solve women's issues. I expect the male representative of my constituency to take up women's issues on a HIGH PRIORITY.
The Current political and social scenario is setup for the "Male candidates to win". The odds favor the Male-candidates. "Winnability" of Men is high.... and hence, political parties are reluctant to field women on their party nominations.
In this scenario, if you ask an absurd and "unthinkable" proposition of Women "dominating" the house, people will take time to be "alarmed" by it. It is like saying, "What of the deer population starts hunting the tigers?".
Another reason:
For the past 6 decades, 90%+ of legislative bodies was dominated by men.
Even now, 33% reservation is being seen by many (incl. you) as a very high figure.
A Hypothesis of "What if women dominate the houses" is being thrown around.
And... my question would be.... OK... WHAT IF?
Will the world end?
Will women gang up against men and bring about laws that are "thougher" than the laws already put in place by a "male dominated parliament"?
I do not see the hypothetical situation you speak of as a major problem.
If it does come up... the 15-yr experiment of Womens Reservations in India would have been extremely successful... and we as a nation, would have put behind us the notion of "Women are not apt for politics or parliament"....It would be our truimph over the "winnability" factor that political parties are currently trapped in.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteShould we accept more women because they are better leaders or they have good work ethic? If so, can we accept the status quo, if men prove to be better leaders having good work ethic?
This argument is no different from the Meritocracy vs. Reservations.
I made my position clear... I do not think it takes a woman to solve issues of women.
My main reason for supporting a Women's Bill is to bring in a different thought-process and approach to our problems.
If men make it too difficult for women to succeed... Feminism will be an inevitable side-effect.
but, if our society evolves to accept our differences at all levels and celebrate those differences while making sure it is not a Man vs. Woman RACE anymore ... we as a society will succeed. Else... the "game of discrimination" will never end.
Mulayam's speech: "Women of high-class high-society will enter politics and there will be eve-teasing in parliament. I am afraid of that day!".
DUH!!!
Post it on CNN and BBC and the west will have some good chuckles and remember their own Sarah Palins.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteThe day you say, ‘no matter what, you will not be given the jackpot because it is reserved for the son of casino manager’, and make it a rule, then most people will lose the motivation to play.
If your aim is to make more money for the Owner, it may be a bad move.
But... if you want to separate out the "dedicated" people who truly want to make a difference in our system and/or represent a section of society from the PLAYERS.... removing the incentive works.
On a lighter note:
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Matt McIrvin, you are the author of Crooked Timber’s Two Hundred and Fifty Thousandth Comment! And I’m not even counting all the spam we deleted. I believe the term of art these days is that these quarter of a million comments — do you mind if I say that again? These quarter of a million comments — are “curated”. Gently managed. Lovingly tended. Hosed down twice a day. It’s kind of like you are all in a big museum, or possibly zoo. Of the future. We’ve come a long way from the very beginning. Eventually there will be a grad student and a thesis, I am sure. In the meantime, for his good fortune Matt wins, em, well anyway we thank you sincerely for your many contributions. And of course we thank you, as well. And you. And especially you. But certainly not you, you troll. You are banned.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteBut... if you want to separate out the "dedicated" people who truly want to make a difference in our system and/or represent a section of society from the PLAYERS.... removing the incentive works.
Let me illustrate how politics in Indian sub-continent works.
I was discussing this with some Pakistanis. Most of their elected leaders are extremely corrupt all the way to the top. Even Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were blatantly corrupt. The level of corruptness and its blatancy must be few orders higher than in India. The reason is quite simple. The elected governments were never sure if they would be able to complete their full term. No one was sure when military would take over or some jihadis would take over. So, when they were in power, they tried to hoard themselves as much as possible during the little time they had. They did not actually think of the next term or next elections because no was sure if they would even take place.
In India, the only accountability we have over an elected leader is when a voter tells him, ‘look I will not vote for you next time’. Without the incentive to win in the next elections, the Indian politician who is now left completely unaccountable will get into the same mode the Pakistani leaders did – they will try to gobble as much as possible in one term. When they know that they cannot stand elections next term, why the pretense, why the charade? Why not use the current opportunity to hoard so much wealth so that even the future generations can live happily ever after without having to contest again.
Removing the incentive removes accountability. It does not bring in a new set of dedicated players.
Where were the dedicated players hiding till now? Why didn’t they win the elections in the current scheme? Do you think the existing corrupt leaders will step back just because the incentive to win the next elections is gone? Not really. Do you think voters will elect dedicated players just because we have rotation system? Not really. The politicians will have no incentive to work for the people of their constituency because there is no necessity. The politicians will only increase their pillage like in Pakistan, without even trying to be work for their constituencies. What sobers them up from such pillage now is the accountability of having to face his voters in the next elections.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteMy main reason for supporting a Women's Bill is to bring in a different thought-process and approach to our problems.
You have to make up your mind:
Are you supporting Women’s Bill to bring more representation of women into legislative system OR to bring different thought-process, a diversity in opinion?
If your only goal is to bring in a different thought-process and approach to our problems, to bring in diversity in opinion, why a mandatory percentage based reservations for women? Why can’t the current 10% of women in Parliament bring that different perspective, like Obama included one woman to the nine-member Supreme Court team in US? One woman is enough to bring that kind of perspective? You don’t need 33% women in the Parliament. Many company boards have one woman to take care of that ‘different thought-process and different perspective’. Nobody puts a mandatory 33% clause for such things.
Also, if your only goal is to bring in a different thought-process and approach to our problems from a female perspective, how come we are not making reservations for Muslim woman and OBC woman? Because a Muslim woman’s perspective would be very different from a Hindu woman’s perspective, a OBC woman’s perspective would be very different from Upper Caste Hindu woman’s perspective.
Continuing the argument, if bringing in ‘different thought-process and approach to our problems’ is the driving force behind reservations, why not have reservations from Muslim man in the Parliament. It is clear that a perspective of a Muslim man will be different that of Hindu man.
There are many companies who bring in different thought-process into their organization by proactive action to bring diversity, by having some south Indians, some Muslims, some women, etc. But none of them have dedicated quotas for such things the same way Obama can introduce a woman into Supreme Court without having to use quotas.
Bringing ‘different thought-process and approach to our problems’ could be a desired byproduct of such quotas, not the original driving force for proposing mandatory percentage based reservations for women.
You have to make up your mind – if you want to bring in ‘different thought-process and approach to our problems’, we don’t need mandatory percentage based reservations for that. We can have one woman in each panel to take care of that. We don’t need percentage-based mandatory reservations for women in the parliament for that.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteA Hypothesis of "What if women dominate the houses" is being thrown around. And... my question would be.... OK... WHAT IF? Will the world end?
You have to understand that the same argument can work against you. What if men completely dominate the house, 90% of them, will the world end?
Not really.
The world will not end if there is no Telangana. The world will not end if there is untouchability. The world will not end even if there is sati. Such motherhood questions and statements should be avoided if you want to make a rational case – unsolicited advice.
Sujai,
ReplyDeleteWhat I like in the present womens bill is, every constituency would have elected a women representative in another 15 years. What I dont like in the bill you are proposing is that some consituencies will not get this reservation for another 8 terms which could be another 40 years.That is a very long period. I feel 20 years period would be a good trade off between the transition % and time frame.
The american president in his second term also has no incentive of getting elected again. He might be worried about getting impeached. It would be good if we can have this check for our MP's. I think getting elected again is one of the big incentives in democracy but it is not everything. The elected representative in his next term might have another incentives like getting nominated to Rajya Sabha or get a good nominated post in the govt if they come back to power again.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteYou have to make up your mind – if you want to bring in ‘different thought-process and approach to our problems’, we don’t need mandatory percentage based reservations for that. We can have one woman in each panel to take care of that. We don’t need percentage-based mandatory reservations for women in the parliament for that.
I do not believe it takes a woman in top-job to solve womens issues. I expect the elected male-representatives to address womens issues on a high-priority
What is wrong if the parliament has 90% males?
Nothing... as long as the representatives give due consideration to the issues of all demographics before passing an act from a bill.
What is wrong if the parliament has 90% females?
Nothing... as long as the representatives give due consideration to the issues of all demographics before passing an act from a bill.
contd from above:
ReplyDeleteWell... if nothing is wrong, why dont we just get away without reservations?
The 'Reservations' are to address:
1. Society's inhibitions about women's ability to lead.
2. Counter the 'winnability' factor in politics that favors Men many fold compared to women.
3. Encourage more women into active politics.
4. Pave way for a different perspective to echo the houses of legislation and have all voices heard.
I do not have to vehemently back up a 'Feminist ideology' to support this bill.
I do not have to be the Hypocrite 'granting justice to women suffering from discrimination'. ('granting' being the keyword).
The constitution already states that it treats all people EQUALLY. Hence, there is no need for an 'equality of gender' debate on the 'Indian union and its constitution'.
We fail as a society in enforcing as well as following the laws. We fail as a society in protecting the rights of all sections due to our own prejudices and inhibitions.
Are you supporting Women’s Bill to bring more representation of women into legislative system OR to bring different thought-process, a diversity in opinion?
ReplyDeleteTo bring in a diversity AND diversity here directly means 'representing an alternate viewpoint' of an under-represented section (gender). To bring in a few voices that will put alternative viewpoints on the table. A widely spread inhibition in society shows 'lack of trust in women leadership'. A One-term woman-leadership may change such rigid outlook of the electorate.
Why can’t the current 10% of women in Parliament bring that different perspective,
Indian women do not identify themselves with Mamta Banerjee, Jayalalitha or Mayawathi. These representatives are champions of select vote-banks ( just like their male counterparts). I am yet to hear a woman say "I am so proud of what mamta didi is doing".
Also, if your only goal is to bring in a different thought-process and approach to our problems from a female perspective, how come we are not making reservations for Muslim woman and OBC woman?
Is it established already that muslim and OBC women will not succeed within the women's quota?
Is it established that muslim and OBC MEN have or bring different perspectives? Are they under-represented? If yes... why dont we have OBC and Muslim reservations in the general category?
Bringing ‘different thought-process and approach to our problems’ could be a desired byproduct of such quotas, not the original driving force for proposing mandatory percentage based reservations for women.
Why? Do you have any other reason apart from 'that is not how we do things'? Or... from 'The consititution doesn't explicitly say so'?
You don’t need 33% women in the Parliament. Many company boards have one woman to take care of that ‘different thought-process and different perspective’. Nobody puts a mandatory 33% clause for such things.
Can One woman's perspective match the aspirations, thoughts or needs of 50 crores of indian women?
Article 332 of Indian Constitution
As per Article332, the number of seats alloted to the SC/STs of a state should follow a proportion to the total number of seats assigned in the Assembly as the total population of the SC/STs in that state with respect to the total state population.
Replace the SC/ST from the above with the word 'Women'.
Article 334: Reservation of seats and special representation to cease after 289A - This Article holds the fact that after 60 years of the enactment of the Indian Constitution, certain provisions shall become ineffective.
And hence... the 15 year limit.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteSuch motherhood questions and statements should be avoided if you want to make a rational case – unsolicited advice.
Taken.
It was not thrown out to make the conversation irrational or personal.
I am going through fits of De-Ja-Vu. Been there... debated that... know whats up next. Hence the rhetoric.
Removing the incentive removes accountability. It does not bring in a new set of dedicated players.
ReplyDeleteThere are at least 70 studies showing that extrinsic motivators—
including A's, sometimes praise, and other rewards—are not merely ineffective over the long haul but counterproductive with respect to the things that concern us most:
desire to learn, commitment to good values, and so on. Another group of studies shows that when people are offered a reward for doing a task that involves some
degree of problem solving or creativity—or for doing it well—they will tend to do lower quality work than those offered no reward.
----- Alfie Kohn (Human Behaviour and Social Sciences Researcher).
Where were the dedicated players hiding till now? Why didn’t they win the elections in the current scheme?
Vote bank politics, corruption, poll-booth-captures, crime in politics, last minute sympathy-vote swings, parties seeking candidates who can "fund their own election costs".... a few reasons off the top of my head that keep the 'dedicated players' from winning.
Contestants and parties spend money in large amounts.... because they have the confidence of 'reaping it back when in office!'.
What if that 'confidence' is broken by making it difficult to get re-elected? Will the candidates think twice before spending crores? Will it create a level-playing field for the truly dedicated champions of a cause?
Are you supporting Women’s Bill to bring more representation of women into legislative system OR to bring different thought-process, a diversity in opinion?
ReplyDeleteFalse dichotomy.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteBefore we move forward, I do not agree with the following at all:
What is wrong if the parliament has 90% males? Nothing
What is wrong if the parliament has 90% females? Nothing
I ask,
What is wrong if the Indian Parliament has 90% British?
What is wrong if the Indian Parliament has 90% Muslims?
What is wrong if the AP State Assembly has 90% Andhras?
Everything is wrong with the picture you suggested and the picture I suggested. What is wrong above is that people in the Parliament and Assembly are not reflecting the ground realities.
Though there are 50% women, how come we have only 10% women in the Parliament?
Though there are 50% men, how come we have only 10% men in the Parliament?
Though there are 100% Indians, how come there are 90% British in the Parliament?
Though there are only 13% Muslims, how come they comprise 90% in the Parliament?
Though there are only 45% Andhras, how come they comprise 90% in the State Assembly?
Modern democracies have come about through a realization that when a government (elected or unelected) does not reflect the composition of group identities in that country/state then there must be something grossly wrong. And we question such representation with a suspicion.
When a certain group is not represented well, usually there is discrimination happening somewhere. Each country has its own methods to correct those discriminations. In a country like India where leaders, corporates, governments do not follow voluntary methods of correction, mandatory quotas have come to our rescue.
Many other countries have introduced mandatory quotas for women in their legislation bodies as well.
There are at least 70 studies showing that extrinsic motivators…
We are talking about two different things here. You are talking about personal satisfaction, growth, motivation, etc. I am talking about bringing in accountability into a system that affects entire constituency, not just the person in question.
What according to you brings accountability from elected MLA/MP in India?
Why are there checks and balances in a democracy if there is a way to put up only those leaders who are self-motivated?
What is the check for a non-performing elected leader in India?
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteContestants and parties spend money in large amounts.... because they have the confidence of 'reaping it back when in office!'.
What if that 'confidence' is broken by making it difficult to get re-elected? Will the candidates think twice before spending crores? Will it create a level-playing field for the truly dedicated champions of a cause?
I think I am repeating myself. You have completely avoided the argument I presented, asking the same questions in different forms.
My message is very simple in fact.
Rephrasing you question- What if the ‘incentive’ is broken by making it difficult to get re-elected?
To answer your question: the candidates will STILL spend crores, but instead of looting it over a period of time, they loot in one term. That is what happened in Pakistan. Just because the confidence of winning is not there, they DO NOT shy away from contesting – as in Pakistan. Removing ‘confidence’ or ‘incentive’ does not guarantee ‘genuine’ leaders to get elected.
And your statement: “Contestants and parties spend money in large amounts.... because they have the confidence of 'reaping it back when in office!'” holds true for one term as well. They don’t need a second term to ‘reaping it when in office’.
The only difference is that when they contest again, that is the only check people of India have against these leaders.
To bring in a diversity AND diversity here directly means 'representing an alternate viewpoint' of an under-represented section (gender). To bring in a few voices that will put alternative viewpoints on the table.
To do that we don’t need percentage based mandatory reservations. 10% voice is as good as 33% voice. Right now we have 10% women in Parliament. What is rationale behind increasing it? How do you say that 33% voice will present an 'alternate view point' but not 10%?
If 33% is the required number to present an 'alternate view point', should Sikhs also have 33% reservations in Indian Parliament to present an 'alternate view point'?
With above questions, I am trying to emphasize this here – reservations are not introduced to bring in ‘alternate viewpoint’ (though it could be a byproduct). The minute you go on that path, I can clearly see why we don’t need additional quota for women; 10% is good enough to bring in ‘alternate view point’.
A widely spread inhibition in society shows 'lack of trust in women leadership'. A One-term woman-leadership may change such rigid outlook of the electorate.
We already elect women leaders to Parliament. We already elected a woman as PM.
If you think the rotation system is introduced to teach every constituency, change their perception, to establish that woman is equally capable leader then I have a simple question: what about the perception that a Tamil/Muslim/SC/illiterate leader does not represent Indians very well.
Don’t we need rotation system as well where every constituency gets a chance to elect a Tamil/Muslim/SC/illiterate leader to change the perception and bring ‘trust in Tamil/Muslim/SC/illiterate’ leadership’?
The point I am driving is that quotas are not implemented to ‘change perception’ about leadership qualities of members of a certain group identity. ‘Change of perception’ could be a desired outcome, but not a necessary condition.
We don’t seek reservations for SC/STs to bring in ‘change of perception’ that SC/STs are also qualified leaders.
We don't seek separate Telangana to bring in 'change of perception' that Telanganas are also qualified leaders.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong if the parliament has 90% males?
ReplyDeleteNothing... as long as the representatives give due consideration to the issues of all demographics before passing an act from a bill.
Ignoring a critical section of my statement above, you have taken the argument to a different topic.
Obama represents the 300 million Americans. Obama is of African american descent, a male and a lawyer among other things. He was accepted by his electorate as the leader.
Zooming in.... JP Narayan is an MLA from the kukatpally constituency. JP narayan was an IAS Officer, a doctor by qualification/degree, Andhra by region of birth and a male... among other things. He was accepted by his electorate as the leader.
There is nothing wrong in Men getting elected to the executive offices or to assemblies or parliament.
A COunter-current takes shape and thrives when:
1. Obama stops taking the interests or opinions of all sections of demographic among his electorate.
2. JP Narayan stops considering the dissident voices in his own constituency who vote for Telangana.
A certain amount of disapproval of any leader is normal and acceptable.
But... if elected representatives consistently neglect the voices or opinions of sections of population they represent, they lose the moral/ethical right to continue in office.
In terms of Gender Development Index (GDI) India ranks 113 out of 157 countries ranked on the basis of their GDI values.
ReplyDeleteThe simple considerations like "There should be women police stations and cells" were lacking among the laws made by our law-makers during early years of democracy. The laws are skewed as the opinions/input of women were lacking. The leadership of those days failed at actively seeking the input from 50% of India's population.
Such simple considerations and such lack of understanding of the needs or aspirations of a gender can be avoided if women are adequately represented in law-making bodies.
What part of what I said above is "un-acceptable" to you?
Why the rotation system:
The reservations to other minority sections (SC/ST/BC/OBC etc) in India are based on identifying those constituencies where their presence is strongly felt.
How do you go about picking a few constituencies in India where Women are higher in number compared to men? Is that a fair method of identifying constituencies for reservations? Hence, a consensus was reached on a 'Rotation System'.
Is it perfect?
Like you pointed out, there are some 'fears'.
On Accountability:
If we are so sure that our representatives loot us... why do we elect them? And... give them the 'possibility of losing next elections' as the only method of demanding accountability?
Other checks and balances in the system:
1. Political parties are supposed to be releasing a MANIFESTO (AGENDA). Its elected members are to adhere to the agenda.
2. Press has a huge role in demanding accountability from elected representatives.
3. There is such a thing called democratically elected 'Leadership' both in Opposition and Ruling party. It is the 'Responsibility' of leadership to ensure that the party-members who are in office adhere to the party-ideology or face the wrath of expulsion.
4. The Prime Minister or the Chief Minister have the executive powers to demand an inquiry into the 'misappropriations' by any MLA/MP.
5. There is an institution called the 'Anti-Corruption Bureau'with some powers in this regard.
A women's reservation Bill cannot be expected to correct flaws in the political system or compensate for the existing flaws like:
1. Nepotism and Dynastic politics
2. Corruption
3. Lack of Accountability
4. Lack of internal democracy in political parties.
Though there are 50% women, how come we have only 10% women in the Parliament?
ReplyDeleteWe are aware of the reasons for such a skewed representation of women in Parliament.
One solution is reservations.
There is a Bill put together after many rounds of consultations with all political parties.
This bill has been in the cold storage for 14 years now.
Discussion on this bill came up 11 times already.
The Bill promises JUST ONE TERM of "Women only" elections in each constituency of India.
The key words: Just One Term.
The reservation percentage has been reduced from 50% to 33%... and some find even 33% too high.
All said and done... I have two options in front of me:
1. Support the Bill.
2. Reject the Bill.
I support the bill. I do not expect this bill to:
1. Make or Break the lives of 50 crores of Indian women.
2. Correct existing political flaws in the system.
Your choice:
You reject the Bill in its current form. The reasons you state for rejection:
1. It does not stop dynastic high-jack.
2. It paves way to more corruption and lack of accountability. It poses a threat to Indian Democracy.
3. 33% may be too high.
Whether the I's have it or No's have it... will be decided by the Lok Sabha.
I am indifferent to the outcome.
Despite the 'fears' expressed... I support the Bill... I do not ignore the 'fears'... I just dont find them 'valid' given there are other checks in the System. If all the other checks are mal-functioning... we need to re-think our democracy.
But... within the confines of this Bill... I respect the spirit... I foresee positive outcomes ... and I expect a change in how people view women as candidates for leadership.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteIndian women do not identify themselves with Mamta Banerjee, Jayalalitha or Mayawathi. These representatives are champions of select vote-banks ( just like their male counterparts). I am yet to hear a woman say "I am so proud of what mamta didi is doing".
You are taking your case into an abyss with this argument. Denying that the existing women leaders are not representatives of Indian women, you are actually establishing an argument that even if 33% reservations are introduced, they may not be representative of Indian women.
The questions that arise are: So who do Indian women identify with? What is the select class of elected leaders that Indian woman will identify with? How will the quota ensure that only the ‘true’ representatives are elected? How will it avoid Mamta Banerjee, et al from hogging the entire quota?
What if we get 33% of upper caste women, and then the lower caste women says they don’t identify with them? What if we get 33% Hindu women, and then the Muslim women says they don’t identify with them?
So, if the current 10% is not representative of Indian women, then who is? What is the guarantee that only the ‘true’ representatives will come to front in that extra 33%?
What criteria can an Indian democracy use to say whether an elected leader is ‘true’ representative of Indian woman or not? What is the litmus test?
As we continue to debate, you are bringing in extra content whereby you are undermining your own case. I am engaging you in this debate to try to make you understand why quotas have come in the first place in this country – definitely they did not come about to get an ‘alternate view point’ – just look at the reservations for SC/ST in education/employment.
Is it established that muslim and OBC MEN have or bring different perspectives?
Is a ‘different perspective’ a legible criterion for establishing percentage based mandatory reservations? This is a serious question. You need to think about it. Look at the history of reservations in this country, including reservations for women in education/employment. None of them were introduced to bring an ‘alternate view point’. They were brought into to correct under-representations.
Are they under-represented? If yes... why dont we have OBC and Muslim reservations in the general category?
Yes they are under-represented. There are only 28 Muslim MPs now comprising 5% of the Parliament when their population stands at 13%. Hence a reservation for Muslims MPs could make a case. India has yet to come to terms with recognizing religion as a valid identity for such reservations – this comes from our history – when such constituencies resulted in creating Pakistan. Even now only few states in India have given reservations to Muslims in education and employment.
As you said some time ago, we are a growing democracy.
It took time for us to deal with language as an identity and then region as an identity– even today fight for Telangana is not considered a legitimate fight. We readily accepted SC/ST as an identity, but not OBC as an identity – it took some time. Now, we are faced with gender as an identity and religion as an identity. They are still in the process of being implemented.
In all these topics, the criterion for reservations has been and will be under-representation, not a ‘different perspective’. Different perspective as rationalized in the West will come as a desired byproduct, and it is currently applicable in many areas like corporate boards, but it is not the driver for percentage-based mandatory reservations. That’s why you don’t see quotas for women in USA but small representation to bring ‘alternate point of view’, like one woman in nine-member Supreme Court. Countries like USA may have to adopt the quotas to correct under-representation. Today, a big firm in Germany, Deutsche Telecom, actually announced quotas for women in the corporate world.
Idler:
ReplyDeleteFalse dichotomy.
What is the third choice that you see from the discussion above?
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteYou reject the Bill in its current form. The reasons you state for rejection:
1. It does not stop dynastic high-jack.
2. It paves way to more corruption and lack of accountability. It poses a threat to Indian Democracy.
3. 33% may be too high.
In the discussions above, I clearly said that I DO NOT hold 1 and 3 objectionable enough to reject this bill. I am not sure why you are bringing those reasons again. For 2, I cited my fears and I clearly gave my proposal to mitigate my fears without diluting the original intent of reservations for women - I am not even sure if you understood what I propose and why.
The question is, why do you think I reject this bill? When did I say I reject this bill?
Can't the bill change its implementation mehtods? Don't bills go through revisions while capturing the original intent? Don't bills in USA go through revisions, amendments and modifications? Look how many times the Nuclear Bill was discussed or the current Health Care reforms?
Do we say, 'accept it in its entirety', or else 'reject it in its entirety'? Such positioning from proponents of the bills is one of the main reason why they fail to make it.
2. It paves way to more corruption and lack of accountability. It poses a threat to Indian Democracy.
You are missing the point. I never cited ‘corruption’ as a reason. I talk about lack of accountability. They are two different things.
I just dont find them 'valid' given there are other checks in the System.
I would love to hear from you. I repeat my questions once again here:
What according to you brings accountability from elected MLA/MP in India?
What is the check for a non-performing elected leader in India?
Such simple considerations and such lack of understanding of the needs or aspirations of a gender can be avoided if women are adequately represented in law-making bodies.
What is adequate representation? Why 50%? or why 33%? Who came up with these numbers, based on what? Do we need such high numbers if all we need is a ‘different perspective’ and ‘alternate opinion’? I am asking the questions again because you fail to answer any of them. I gave examples of bringing in ‘different perspective’ in USA by appointing a woman in a panel? Why do we need 33% reservations if our intention is only to bring a ‘different perspective’?
How did we bring Hindu Code Bill, Domestic Bill, and bring women into employment and education though there was only 10% representation in the Lok Sabha? Why can’t we continue with that? Why a need for increase in representation when we are already achieving the emancipation through bills and laws?
If we need higher percentage ONLY to get ‘different perspective’, don’t we need 33% Sikhs/Muslims to get their ‘perspective’ and ‘opinion’?
I have been asking extremely relevant questions. You have not looked at them. The intention to bring structure to this debate without flying all over the place.
We have spent lot of time on this. I don't think we need to agree on all topics.
Here is a final question, may be, your stand on this might unravel the thought process. Do you support reservations-based-on-caste in education and employment? Why?
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteObama represents the 300 million Americans. Obama is of African american descent, a male and a lawyer among other things. He was accepted by his electorate as the leader.
Having a Sikh Prime Minister or Muslim President is different from having 33% Sikhs or Muslims in the Parliament through quotas. Would you agree for 33% reservations for Blacks in US Congress and Senate? If not, why?
And if we find out that Blacks comprise 10% but their representation is only 2%, would creating a quota of 8% makes sense or not?
You can ask yourself those questions based on your reasons for support for Women’s Bill in India.
You are taking your case into an abyss with this argument. Denying that the existing women leaders are not representatives of Indian women, you are actually establishing an argument that even if 33% reservations are introduced, they may not be representative of Indian women.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so.
Added... my aim is not to 'win an argument'. I am here to express my views (however common or rare it may be) and confirm or reject them after looking at some counter-arguments.
Most women in India do not identify themselves with Mamta banerjee, Jayalalitha or mayawati. Go ahead and run a poll... You will agree with me after you see the results.
And... why should it be a 'prerequesite' for all women to identify with the elected representatives?
Do all men identify themselves with Mulayam or Laloo? Do they find themselves in the reflection of Rahul Gandhi?
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteMost women in India do not identify themselves with Mamta banerjee, Jayalalitha or mayawati.
Lets pick the top women in Politics:
Jayalalitha (Career in movies, single life and relationship with MGR)
Mayawati: Youngest un-married female chief minister of UP
Mamta Banerjee: Never married, India's youngest parliamentarian in 1984... who went on to remain single after attaining public office.
Shiela Dixit: Married into a freedom fighter's family whose diseased husband served in IAS.
Sonia Gandhi: Married into the most powerful dynasty of India. Qualification for job: Wife of Ex-PM with Gandhi sur-name.
Which of these women do you find close to the psychology of the woman next door or the girl next door, struggling to get to work on public transport or making it through her busy day with family, kids, career and society?
Exceptions (not the norm): Sushma Swaraj. But... even she has the advantage of being married to a former Supreme Court lawyer, ex. governor to Mizoram and Rajya Sabha member.
Show me a middle-class or lower-middle-class housewife/career-woman whose husband/father is not a businessman, politician, movie-actor or judge/lawyer/IAS officer?... regardless of caste or creed.
What is the guarantee that only the ‘true’ representatives will come to front in that extra 33%?
What is the guarantee that 'true champions of people's cause' get elected to India's lower house even after 6 decades of Independence? NONE.
An extra 33% would mean:
female contestants to Lok Sabha:
180x # of political parties... close to one thousand.
female contestants to state assemblies:
roughly about 25000 contestants to state assemblies.
Bigger numbers... more tickets to women from each party... more active participation of women in politics.
Certainly better chances for more women who are truly closer to the female population of India, both urban and rural.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteYes they are under-represented. There are only 28 Muslim MPs now comprising 5% of the Parliament when their population stands at 13%. Hence a reservation for Muslims MPs could make a case. India has yet to come to terms with recognizing religion as a valid identity for such reservations – this comes from our history – when such constituencies resulted in creating Pakistan. Even now only few states in India have given reservations to Muslims in education and employment.
The Constituent Assembly debated the issue of Minority Rights during the month of August 1947 right after Independence. One of the contentious issues was having separate seats for minorities. Maulana Hasrat Mohani makes some very thought provoking remarks:
I refuse to accept Muslims to be a minority
How is it that when you talk of minorities you mean Muslims only and when you talk of reservation you refer to Muslims only ?:
The Muslims refuse to be called a minority if parties are formed on political lines.
India can continue its journey in self-realization and take democracy deeper into the villages of India.
In the process... a lot of 'identities' will have to be 'recognized'.
Caste based, region based, Gender and language based.... down to the zilla and mandal based, dialect and career based, transgender and homo sex based... Reserve away till all reservations become redundant. Declare quotas till there is nothing left to declare. I am all for it. Let there be Mandal commissions II, III ... IX and X... and even more.
But... I would hope (and pray) that Indian govt. at the Union-level doesn't mess with religions and religious identities.
Let the reservations to OBCs and Muslims be delegated to individual states to act upon, based on the state population. Let the federal system exercise its muscle in dealing with social and economic-backwardness at State-level.
Let the Union govt. take the first steps towards getting out of the business of religion by abolishing the concessions to Kashi, Haj and Jerusalem travels.
The Secular-State (union) has no business with religion. Religion is a personal choice to the taste of its followers... just as is the amount of salt in one's food.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteAnd if we find out that Blacks comprise 10% but their representation is only 2%, would creating a quota of 8% makes sense or not?
n the 2001-2003 Congress, for instance, African-Americans comprised 12 percent of the population, but just 8.3% of the House members;
Hispanics made up 13 % of the population and just 4.4 % of the House; and women represented 51 % of the population but just 13.6% of the House, and 13% of the Senate.
Both the races do not suffer from the pathetic representation that women in USA suffer from.
How is USA dealing with the gap?
US govt has minority budgets... to spend specifically on welfare and educational programs in backward communities... and to fund the affirmative action programs in Universities and schools.
Despite the gap... there is a "Black Congressional Caucus" to which white representatives membership appeals are rejected.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteI would like to emphasise on a HUGE difference between 'race' and the 'identities' in Indian context:
RACE is what you wear everyday... like gender. It shows... when you physically walk into an office or school or even a public park.
CASTE, RELIGION and regional identities... do not show on your person... unless you explicitly subscribe to them.
I personally know progressive families who dropped the caste-names from the full-names of their kids. No more 'Dixit', 'Choudhury', 'Reddy', 'Iyengar'... world can get a lot better with less baggage.
Please stop equating RACE with CASTE.
Casteism is not an acceptable trait. But, there is escape from casteism.
Racism begins with the first meeting between to individuals of different races. Casteism survives only if you subscribe to it.
The only 'identity' close to racism in seriousness and impact is GENDER.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteDo you support reservations-based-on-caste in education and employment? Why?
Yes. Affirmative action.
Do we say, 'accept it in its entirety', or else 'reject it in its entirety'? Such positioning from proponents of the bills is one of the main reason why they fail to make it.
ReplyDeletehttp://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/womens-bill-in-parliament.html?showComment=1268929007735#c8896825993721994741
I do support the Bill in its current form, without reservations.
I believe that the 'lack of political will' is the main reason for this bill to be pushed back so many times.
I also believe that this bill is too-little too-late.
What is adequate representation? Why 50%? or why 33%? Who came up with these numbers, based on what?
ReplyDeleteIndian constitution has already laid a precedent to answer this question:
As per Article332, the number of seats alloted to the SC/STs of a state should follow a proportion to the total number of seats assigned in the Assembly as the total population of the SC/STs in that state with respect to the total state population.
In direct proportion to the total population (50%). 33% is infact a compromise.
Article 334: Reservation of seats and special representation to cease after 289A - This Article holds the fact that after 60 years of the enactment of the Indian Constitution, certain provisions shall become ineffective.
And hence the time limit.
It could be 60 years... but 15 yrs is a compromise.
Added.... the bill assures JUST ONE TERM for women from each constituency in India in three phases over the next 3 general elections.
In all these topics, the criterion for reservations has been and will be under-representation, not a ‘different perspective’.
ReplyDeleteIf Under-representation is the ONLY problem we are trying to solve... why not arrive at a formula based allocations to each and every 'recognized group identity' across India?
Reason: Such percentage based allocations across the board defeat the whole point of direct democracy where each individual gets to vote for a 'leader' to represent him, in consideration of or regardless of his own group identity.
Religion is a matter of taste. A Chrisitian by birth may go to masjid and a hindu by birth may follow Islam.
ReplyDeleteReserving a percentage of seats based on 'religion' is like reserving a percentage of seats based on choice of 'vegetarian', 'non-vegetarian', 'Eggetarian', 'vegan'.
Identities by 'birth':
1. Gender
2. Caste (in Indian context)
3. Region
Identities by association with a particular 'school of thought':
Religion, values (Conservative vs. liberal), gender biases (feminism, anti-feminism, male chauvinism), etc.
The Schools of thought people subscribe to may change with time. Constitution protects the rights of people to freedom of religion, culture, etc.
The argument that these 'schools of thought' represent diversity cannot be flawed.
But... the argument that sections of people subscribing to schools of thought need 'protected reservations' to decision-making-bodies is certainly flawed.
Lastly....
ReplyDeleteWE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE.
How did we bring Hindu Code Bill, Domestic Bill, and bring women into employment and education though there was only 10% representation in the Lok Sabha? Why can’t we continue with that? Why a need for increase in representation when we are already achieving the emancipation through bills and laws?
ReplyDeleteAre we achieving 'emancipation'?
In terms of Gender Development Index (GDI) India ranks 113 out of 157 countries ranked on the basis of their GDI values. Do you consider that 'Success'?
Succession act had to be ammended in 2005... till then, Indian women didn't have equal property rights over ancestral property. Wasn't that an indirect subscription and patronage to the dowry system?
Why did it take more than 6 decades to ammend the succession act if ALL IS WELL?
Why is there no census to date by the Govt. of India on
1. Average income of females' vs. 'average income of males'?
2. % of female workforce vs. % of male workforce?
Gather data on:
Female infanticide + dowry-deaths + female suicides + deaths of poor women during child-birth due to lack of basic health-facilities.
You will arrive at a number in crores. Did we achieve emancipation?
IS ALL WELL?
Public transportation... how friendly is it to the female consumer?
Law-enforcement... how long did it take for the govt. to come up with in-adequate women-police-station.
Answer to your question:
ReplyDelete"Why do you call it 'diversity' and not 'reservations for weaker sections'?"
Answer:
After a century from today, when our grandchildren live in India... women may be well-emancipated in all fields and walks of life.... but, may still not enter politics as a matter-of-choice... and be under-represented in law-making-bodies.
Asking for 'diversity' based on 'Gender' ensures 'diversity' regardless of backwardness and emancipation.
What is the need for such diversity?
Men and Women are fundamentally different in a lot of aspects. Human race can evolve to a point where men and women learn to respect each other for their strengths and weaknesses... but, 'losing their group identities' does not stand a chance.
Answer to your question:
ReplyDelete"Did'nt we achieve diversity with the women in Parliament today"?
Answer:
NO.
Not enough of diversity.
Ordinary woman's issues do not echo the parliament yet... Average Indian woman still stands with no representation... An average Urban woman with family, career and kids is not heard in the parliament yet. An average woman from rural India is not heard in the parliament yet.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteIn direct proportion to the total population (50%). 33% is infact a compromise.
"In direct proportion to the total population" is valid only for SC/ST. Not for OBC. Why?
Though the population of Muslims is nearly 14% in India, some states have reserved 10% while some reserved 4%. Why? Why don’t Sikhs and Parsis get any reservations?
Doesn’t your support for the mandatory reservations for women amounting to 33% or 50% contradict another position you take:
Such percentage based allocations across the board defeat the whole point of direct democracy where each individual gets to vote for a 'leader' to represent him, in consideration of or regardless of his own group identity.
While you seem to believe that mandatory percentages defeat the true purpose of democracy you advocate mandatory percentages for women. Why is that?
I am striving for consistency in your arguments. I don’t see it as yet. The reason for putting the questions is only to elicit that consistency with the hope that you will be able to appreciate your own stand on these issues. Most of us are prejudiced. We somehow think some of our problems are bigger and greater than others.
I see your position on women contradicting with position on Muslims. I don’t know why a state can recognize women as a valid identity but not Muslims.
You evaded my question when I asked: “Do you support reservations-based-on-caste in education and employment? Why?” By answering: Yes. Affirmative action.
In India we don’t have affirmative action like in US. We have mandatory percentage based reservations-based-on-caste. Do you support that?
Reserve away till all reservations become redundant.. Declare quotas till there is nothing left to declare. I am all for it. Let there be Mandal commissions II, III ... IX and X... and even more. But... I would hope (and pray) that Indian govt. at the Union-level doesn't mess with religions and religious identities.
Why shouldn’t Indian government deal with religion as a valid identity when it can deal with women as a valid identity? And why should Indian government deal with Telanganas as a valid identity?
The Secular-State (union) has no business with religion.
True. But a secular state can recognize religion as a valid identity. Why can’t a secular state provide reservations for people of certain religion?
Please stop equating RACE with CASTE.
Why is caste different from race? You can neither change caste nor race. Two thousand year discrimination happened based on caste. In Africa, discrimination happens on minor ethnic differences far more effectively than between races. Hutus killed Tutsi in million though most of us find them to look the same. Far more people were discriminated, persecuted and killed in Europe based on religion.
Discrimination can happen on any identity- either it is caste, race, religion, gender. Why should one discrimination be different from another if the results are similar?
Most women in India do not identify themselves with Mamta banerjee, Jayalalitha or mayawati.
Do all men identify themselves with Mulayam or Laloo? Do they find themselves in the reflection of Rahul Gandhi?
...more active participation of women in politics. Certainly better chances for more women who are truly closer to the female population of India, both urban and rural.
Look at the above three sentences. You say that Indian women do not identify with current women leaders. You also say Indian men do not identify with their leaders though the representation of men in Lok Sabha is 90%. So how do you expect something dramatically different to happen with women by increasing the percentage to 33% when 90% is not helping men to bring the ‘true’ representation?
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteYour questions:
In direct proportion to the total population" is valid only for SC/ST. Not for OBC. Why?
Though the population of Muslims is nearly 14% in India, some states have reserved 10% while some reserved 4%. Why? Why don’t Sikhs and Parsis get any reservations?
I see your position on women contradicting with position on Muslims. I don’t know why a state can recognize women as a valid identity but not Muslims.
Why shouldn’t Indian government deal with religion as a valid identity when it can deal with women as a valid identity? And why should Indian government deal with Telanganas as a valid identity?
I have already addressed these in my previous replies. Here goes the re-statement, hoping I could bring in some clarity:
Every individual has a few group identities he/she associates with. Group identities like:
1. Gender
2. Race
3. Nationality
4. Language
5. Religion
6. Caste (in the Indian Context)
7. Eating habits (vegitarians, non-vegetarians, etc)
8. Clothing and cultural aspects of it. (Sarees, skirts, Ghagras, Burkhas)
9. Political affiliations
.
.
.
.
The above list can go on and on.
There are a few identities aquired at birth.
A few identities are subscribed to by individuals based on their choice/taste.
Identities by Birth:
1. Gender
2. Nationality
3. Race
4. Caste (In the Indian Context)
Identities by individual-choice or affiliation from subscribing to a 'School of Thought':
1. Religion
2. Political affiliations (Communist, Socialist, capitalist, libertarian etc)
3. Cultural affiliations (What festivals we chose to celebrate and what aspects of those festivals do our families adopt)
4. Eating habits (Whether the individual is comfortable to eat a chicken or considers it a crime to kill another animal)
5. Morals adopted (Conservative, Liberal, etc)
EACH of the above categories contributes towards 'diversity' if you classify any group of people along those lines.
Each of the classifications above have clear demarkations and a few classics of literature on what they mean. contd ....
The 'State'.... and here I mean a democratic republic... should make deliberate attempts to STAY OUT OF providing guaranteed representation to any particular 'School of thought' that individuals subscribe to based on their choice.
ReplyDeleteIf the 'people' want a person subscribing to a 'conservative ideology' to win, they will ELECT such a person to the office. If 'people' like the fact that a particular individual is a 'vegan' with 'spiritual bent of mind', they will ELECT such a person to the office.
Beauty of Democracy is that diversity based on 'choices made by citizens of the state' are automatically built into their choice of representatives.
It is RIDICULOUS for any STATE to make a policy of guaranteed representation through reservations for 'Liberal minded individuals'. It is indeed a laughable proposition.
On similar lines... it is RIDICULOUS for any STATE to make a policy of guaranteed representation through reservations for 'Church-goers' in its country.... going to church or not is an individual choice based on a theology, a school-of-thought and a religion. By forcing a reservation down the troat of 'people' for 'church-goers', the state would be heading towards the same tyranny as the muslim-rulers in Ancient India.
Coming to the question of ' Why reservation for women'?
ReplyDeleteWomen's Bill addresses one key skewed representation based on GENDER.
Gender-based reservations make sense in Indian society as our law-makers do not put enough thought into the implications of laws on the female population.
When the Indian constitution was written, founders patted themselves on their back thinking that they did a great job by giving women the right to vote.
But, the constitution treats all people EQUAL.
There was no reason to adopt the 'hindu succession act' which guaranteed property only to the 'Male progeny'. The repercussions of this single act... were felt till recently. Dowry was seen as a 'legitimate' route for the society to bring in an equal-sharing-of-property among the male and female siblings. Many 'educated' young men argued FOR-DOWRY along the same lines, stating that when they get ancestral property legally in inheritance, what is wrong if the woman brings some gifts as dowry from her family? Thus, Dowry was justified in many circles because of a crooked succession-act.
This act was ammended in 2005.
Had there been adequate representation of Women in the parliament, such topics would have come to an open-discussion on the floor. It may not have taken 6 decades for the change to come by.
Removing all cultural and social aspects associaled with 'Gender roles' and 'Gender biases'.... the Male and Female categories are clear demarkations by nature, by genetics and by the natural choices exhibited by the female-population compared to the natural choices made by the male-population.
A representation of Women and their voices is important for the very simple reason that:
Once the basic needs of food and shelter are met, Women have very different NEEDS and PRIORITIES compared to men.
As I have drawn this example many times in the past, I repeat.... Security is an important aspect for the female. Lack of adequate women-police-stations where women can go and report abuses, is a serious flaw. Such flaws came into the being because of Lack-of-representation of women in legislative and decision-making-bodies, thus inconveniencing and sometimes even putting in danger... HALF THE POPULATION.
Why is caste different from race? You can neither change caste nor race.
ReplyDeleteCaste is different from Race.
Race is the first thing noticed when someone walks into the room, an office or a grocery store. Race is what people wear physically. It cannot be wished away. Even small kids of less than 6 months recognize colors ... and recognize shapes and sizes... experiments show that these are the very first few attributes that human brain uses to distinguish between the 'My trust-circle'... and 'not my-trust-circle' among infants.
Infants are much-less-likely to cry when in presence of a lot of other strage infants. But... they are more-likely-to-cry in the presence of a lot of strange adults (big people).
There is adequate evidence from sociology experiments that Race is more likely to fall in the 'discriminated attribute' compared to any other attributes. Color of skin plays a huge role.
Comparing to Race with caste is not right.
Though Caste can lead to some discrimination, when you come across a person of different caste in a grocery store or public park, you do not make a choice of ignoring or talking to the person based on caste.
'Caste discrimination' may play a role during recruitments to jobs etc. Hence, I support caste-based reservations for identified backward-castes in employment and education.
Race... and Caste... both can be a reason for discrimination.
But, with Race... it is a more social discrimination showing up in ALL aspects of life.
Caste has limited impact.
Hence, I do not equate the two.
In continuation to the above reasoning....
ReplyDeleteThe STATE can make it MANDATORY for all citizens to drop their caste-names in use on passports, official documents and employment-applications. This can and will help with 'un-subscribing' to the caste-based discrimination showed by employers.
At a grass-root-level, STATE should bring up laws close to the anti-lynching laws in the west ... where-by... if a dalit reports to a cop that a particular person has made fun of him for his caste, adequate fines and punishment are imposed.
I see your position on women contradicting with position on Muslims. I don’t know why a state can recognize women as a valid identity but not Muslims.
ReplyDeleteBeing a woman is not a choice. Atleast not a natural one.
Being a Muslim or a Hindu or a Christian... an atheist or a theist... is a CHOICE.
Religion is about a 'belief system'.
The State should actively protect the rights of individuals to their freedom of faith and religion.
But, a secular state should not use 'reservations' as a tool to ensure 'freedom'. Reservations do not lead to the constitutional right of freedom.
Other than identifying religious groups and protecting the rights of individuals to their choice of belief-systems... the State has no other business with religion.
Discrimination can happen on any identity- either it is caste, race, religion, gender. Why should one discrimination be different from another if the results are similar?
ReplyDeleteIf accidents occur on a high-way because of the Architecture-Design of the road or because of a lack of lighting etc... it can be corrected by making necessary changes.
But... If accidents occur on a perfectly well-built highway in broad-day-light because of reckless and callous driving habits of an individual, such a situation needs to be corrected by 'proper driving-lessons'.
If discrimination occurs because of gender... and individuals cannot change their gender to overcome the discrimination, the necessary structural changes needed to be made to avoid such discrimination. (Here, adequate representation of women... in law-making).
But, if discrimination occurs because of affiliations of individuals to a particular school-of-thought or belief-system... what is needed is a 'good-citizen-education'.... this change has to come from the society and the STATE should use its resources to:
1. Educate people against the evils of such discrimination
2. Penalize and punish the perpetrators.
Far more people were discriminated, persecuted and killed in Europe based on religion.
ReplyDeleteDo you have the numbers on female-infanticide in India?
Do you believe that the gendercide takes place because of 'poverty'?
Have you come across middle-class people going for abortions when the tests reveal a female is on the way?
Do these killings and the 933/100 female vs. male numbers indicate killing?
Sex ratio has fallen from 972/1000 in 1901 ... 933 females per 1,000 males in 2001 census.
Do you consider the difference of 39 females as killings?
If yes... if the population increase is taken as 50 crores between 1901 to 2001 (though I am aware that the number is much higher)... do you consider the missing 9750000 girls as KILLED/MURDERED/PROSECUTED for being female?
(half of 50 crores should be 25 crores. 972 to 933 is a missing 39 females per thousand. 0.039*25 crores is 97,50,000)
Do you have any other instance in the history of the world where systematic persection happened on un-born and new-born infants for being 'female'?
let us not compare apples and oranges.
Most women in India do not identify themselves with Mamta banerjee, Jayalalitha or mayawati.
ReplyDeleteDo all men identify themselves with Mulayam or Laloo? Do they find themselves in the reflection of Rahul Gandhi?
...more active participation of women in politics. Certainly better chances for more women who are truly closer to the female population of India, both urban and rural.
I didn't mean to say:
All men do not identify with Laloo, mulayam, etc... and that implies men are not adequately represented in the parliament.
Man have a wider choice among parliamentarians to pick the voices or individualities closest to their own. Which means... their voices are heard in the decision-making-bodies.
But... for women, the current representation has fewer choices.
Added... my idea of highlighting the 'most prominent women' is:
1. The most successful female politicians are Single/Un-married or widows of politically strong men.
2. The average middle class woman living in both urban or Rural areas is not represented.
contd from above...
ReplyDeleteHow will a reservation correct the situation?
I have addressed this aspect in previous posts.
Here is a more direct and clear version:
An average of 20 candidates run for elections in any given constituency for assembly elections. An average of 40+ (infact it may be in hundreds) run for elections to Lok Sabha.
If you bring in a law to reserve 181 lok-sabha constituencies for women, that is 181*40 = 7240 female candidates running for elections in Phase-I. Repeat that for three phases: *3 = 21,720.
If you add in all the State assemblies of the 28 states... the number of women contesting to the assembly may be in lakhs over the next 15 yrs.
That is ACTIVE participation of women in politics, in democracy and in decisions and discussions of law-making-bodies.
Chances that the middle class, lower middle-class, poor, urban, rural women are better represented: High.
Reason: Never before in india did 7000+ women contest to the parliament elections. Never before in india did 1 lakh+ women contest on assembly elections. More numbers... more voices... more diversity.... more representation from all sections of the society.
You evaded my question when I asked: “Do you support reservations-based-on-caste in education and employment? Why?” By answering: Yes. Affirmative action.
ReplyDeleteIn India we don’t have affirmative action like in US. We have mandatory percentage based reservations-based-on-caste. Do you support that?
I did not evade the question. I answered 'YES' to caste-based-reservations in education and employment. I consider such reservations as a part of affirmative action taken by the state.
I am fully aware that India doesn't actively use the words 'affirmative action',... but the spirit behind alloting reservations to 'weaker and backward sections' is the same as 'affirmative action'.
Why shouldn’t Indian government deal with religion as a valid identity when it can deal with women as a valid identity? And why should Indian government deal with Telanganas as a valid identity?
ReplyDeleteReligion is a valid identity. However, it is an identity aquired by choice.
Being a person belonging to Telangana is not a choice.
The Indian government already identifies the Telangana region as an identity. The submissions to World Bank on data points include sub-categorization based on Andhra, Seema and Telangana.
The reason I support Telangana:
When 3 brothers go shopping and the funds are Rs. 300, one brother can be discriminated against by the other two in a democratic setup with a simple majority.
There is NOTHING wrong with the three brothers splitting the Rs. 300 among themselves based on their INCOMES and shop around based on their own NEEDS.
The constitution recognizes distinct regions within the country and establishes that one representative from each constituency is elected to the Lok Sabha.
Such an arrangement is made to treat all 'regions' equally.
When it is established that 'equal representation' of people doesn't lead to 'equal treatment of people' based on regions... It falls upon the state to address this situation by creating systems like the Zonal System and GO 610. Only when such measures have failed... it makes perfect sense to isolate the financial and administrative affairs of one region from the other.
Regionalism is not an evil. It is a well recognized attribute. The Constitution didn't prohibit the STATE from creating new states based on regional-identities.
Added, Telangana has a unique history. It was an independent nation state that was engulfed into the union by over-throwing an England-style democracy (with a parliament as well as a monarch). The 'identity' of Telangana hence makes a stronger case for recognition.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteI took the time to address so many of your questions. Do you mind addressing few of mine?
Has it been established that the 'Backwardness' of Muslims is because of 'Discrimination'?
Is ALL backwardness only due to discrimination?
Do personal choices made by individuals have any say in how 'backward' or 'forward' they are?
Does the lack of uniform 'family planning' in the Muslim community contribute to their 'economic backwardness'? The 10-yr growth rate of Muslims in India is 29.5%, the highest among all religions.
Does the wide acceptance of 'Religious schools' and rejection of regular education by the Muslim Community contribute to their 'Social backwardness'?
Do reservations solve the backwardness arising from self-defeating choices made by people?
There is a 5 million plus missing Hindu population in Eastern pakistan since Independence. How is that possible in Pakistan and Bangladesh?
How is it possible that Muslim population in India on the contrary grows by a whopping 30%?
Do you find Majority discriminating against the minority in India?
Contrary to the above demographic trends, Women have been killed in lakhs. If you factor in the 'High life expectancy' of women when calculating the gendercide numbers in India, the number of missing women is more than 100 million. (1 crore+ )
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteBefore we discuss this further, I would like to say that I find your grouping of ‘identities’ by ‘birth’ and by ‘choice’ simplistic and at the most a lazy characterization. Without going through each one of them, I would like to take only two of them and present a counter-view.
You included Nationality in ‘birth’ identity while you included Religion in ‘choice’ identity. I see many similarities between Nationality and Religion that they can be put into the same category – whichever you choose.
A newborn child is given a nationality and religion at the time of his birth. And most often, unless the parents transition into another, the child lives with these identities though he had no choice in embracing them. A child born in a country is given the passport of that country – it’s not like he could say, ‘I want to live in another country’. A child born into a family is given a religious identity – including the name, which is a powerful identity – it’s not like he chooses his identity or the name. Both the identities are thrust onto the kid. Both religious fervor and nationalism are comparable ideologies in breeding pride in one’s identities and moral and cultural superiority over other religions and nations.
The kid may be able to change these identities only when he reaches his adulthood. But most people do not take that choice because they becomes such powerful identities that one wants to continue living with them.
A person born into Muslim family is Muslim; a person born in US is American. Clearly the identities are given at birth while the choice to change is given only after twenty years of living with that identity.
Some people do change their national or religious identity either because of the problems they face with their existing situation or because a newer identity gives them better opportunities and incentives. Some people migrate to other countries leaving their countries behind. Some people change their religion leaving their old religion behind.
Most often the change in religion does not happen at an individual level but at a family level. And there is a bit of ostracism an individual faces if he takes an individual decision to change the religion. And that is a powerful detractor against individual choice – it continues to remain a family choice.
Religious persecution happens because people hold onto the religion they are born into. Jew was persecuted in whole of Europe because he resisted all attempts to convert him. It’s a choice a person is not willing to take even when presented with incentives. Nationality changes much more easily than religion. People lived in different kingdoms which kept changing. Even in the last hundred years, the national boundaries have been redrawn constantly. However, the religious identity seems to stick to the groups.
Many Muslims and Hindus living in the West are willing to change their nationality but not their religion. It looks like religious identity is far closer to a person than a national identity. That’s also because food habits and morals are also tied to religion in many cultures.
So we come to the question: How come Religion is grouped under identity of ‘choice’ while Nationality is grouped under identity of ‘birth’?
According to me, if religion is a school of thought, so is nationality. And if nationality is identity by birth, so is religion.
Frankly, I find this grouping of identities into ‘by birth’ and ‘by choice’ irrelevant to the current discussion. What you should be looking at is not whether an identity is taken by ‘birth’ or by ‘choice’, but whether that identity, either it is by birth or by choice, forms a group that faces marginalization, suppression, discrimination, ostracism, persecution, demonization, or inferior-characterization. Prejudice against a group, whether it is by birth or by choice, could lead to any of the above – and sometimes as worse as genocide.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteThe 'State'.... and here I mean a democratic republic... should make deliberate attempts to STAY OUT OF providing guaranteed representation to any particular 'School of thought' that individuals subscribe to based on their choice.
A person may be discriminated against by another person for his political ideology, for his moral standpoint, etc. This discrimination is working at an individual level where his/her position on certain issue is being opposed. There could be laws to protect individuals against such selective discrimination. However, they are some prejudices working at group level. They transpire over a period of time when the prejudices at individual level perpetuate over generations to form a collective prejudice.
If for some reason, non-vegetarians are discriminated by vegetarians, and they form two different distinct groups over a period of time, where the kids born to non-veg are non-veg, kids born to veg are veg, and now we have reached a situation whereby people are slotted under non-veg and veg as group identities, then we can imagine a future where such groups may need protection or laws that prohibit such discrimination. The laws could be as simple as, ‘you cannot discriminate the other person based on his food habit’. However, if the discrimination continues through generations whereby one group has usurped access to opportunity in education, employment and empowerment, whereby it has become clear that they are two disjoint groups, whose identities are perpetuated, and hence prejudices perpetuated, we may have to counter that with mandatory provisions.
The question is whether Muslims in India come under the above category. The slow realization in this country is that it indeed does. We are becoming mature as a nation and ready to admit that there are more group identities than we initially believed. And that some of those group identities are being discriminated against; and unless we take measures, it is going to become worse.
It is RIDICULOUS for any STATE to make a policy of guaranteed representation through reservations for 'Liberal minded individuals'. It is indeed a laughable proposition.
That’s the case because ‘liberal minded individuals’ can be born into any family. They can come from anywhere, irrespective of their parentage. They can even change their mindset to become ‘conservative’. A person born to ‘communist’ need not to be communist, but a person born to ‘Muslim’ is invariably a ‘Muslim’. Can a Muslim be born into Hindu family? Not really. If the discrimination is happening on religious lines, the kid will face the discrimination though he has nothing to do with embracing that ideology. Reservation for Muslim is not a laughable proposition.
A person born to ‘communist’ need not to be communist, but a person born to ‘Muslim’ is invariably a ‘Muslim’.
ReplyDeleteIn my books, religion is a choice. You may get to make that choice later on in life.. but, it is still a choice.
The Census data doesn't allow people to recognize their true religious affiliations, instead it treats the categorization as 'inherited'.
The census should have a category for people who want to be atheists.
There is no choice in these matters for a human until much later in life.
So is the Universal Adult franchise!!!!
You get to vote only when the State considers you are of age to make a choice.
Choice of religion or ideology on most matters happens later on in life. That doesn't mean there is NO CHOICE.
Religion, religious affiliations and doctrines and dogmas.... these are choices people make.
Is there parental influence or community influence? Probably... but so is their influence in ALL OTHER aspects of life. It is individuals choice whether to be sheep or be an individual.
Religion and all dogma is a choice.
If my kids are a social out-cast because they do not have friends from the church, temple, mosque etc.... do I have a case for discrimination?
ReplyDeleteMy kid is an atheist... and so am I... and we face discrimination.... does the govt. have reservations for us in Jobs... and does the country agree for my atheist voice to receive a 'reservation' in Lok Sabha?
Oh... and wait a minute.....
ReplyDeleteIf out of another ideology of another school of thought inspires me to have 2 dozen kids.... and my family is economically backward because of this choice of mine... will the govt. recognize this school-of-thought as a 'group identity', identify our economic backwardness and reward our Baby-boom-tradition with reservations to jobs?
Average muslim family has fertility rate of 5.5 children. Muslim 10-yr-population growth is 30%... HIGHEST among all other demographics and groups.
Gender is acquired by birth.
ReplyDeleteA woman, however backward and pathetic her situation may be, has NO CHOICE on her gender.
But... with regards to RELIGION... there were MASS-CONVERSIONS in Indian sub-continent during the past few centuries... into other religions.
So, if a Man is offered more incentives to be a man, no choice for a woman to become a man.
But... if the followers-of-a-doctrine receive special incentives... followers-of-other-doctrines can convert!
State patronage of any religious doctrine is un-warranted and un-constitutional in the Indian context.
Religion-based-reservations remove the religious-NEUTRALITY of STATE.
ReplyDeleteSuch a stance by a SECULAR state is un-constitutional and implies direct patronage of one religion over others.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteReligion-based-reservations remove the religious-NEUTRALITY of STATE.
“Gender-based-reservations remove the gender-neutrality of state.”
“Caste-based-reservations remove the caste-neutrality of state.”
“Region-based-reservations (such as Mulki Rules) remove the region-neutrality of state.”
Such a stance by a SECULAR state is un-constitutional and implies direct patronage of one religion over others.
“Such stances as cited above is unconstitutional and implies direct patronage of one gender over others, one caste over others, one region over others, etc. “
I believe we should move away from such sweeping generalizations if we want to solve real problems facing real people in this country.
Recognizing a group identity irrespective of whether it is based in religion, caste, region, gender is not unconstitutional. A secular state may not constitute its laws and treat people differently based on the blind belief, superstition and orthodoxy of a religion, but it can and should admit that discrimination can happen to groups based on religion, and it should make provisions to correct it where necessary. While making provisions to counter the marginalization a certain group, that group should be recognized by the state as a valid identity, even if that identity comes from religion.
It is the duty of a secular state to protect one religious group from discrimination by another religious group. If necessary, it can enact laws to counter it.
Fighting discrimination of one group by another by proactively increasing their representation in education and employment is not considered promotion of one group over another. Unless we move away from such lopsided definitions, we will never solve the problems ailing our multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious, multilingual country.
This argument is no different from the argument we make for Telangana. Many Indians believe that language is a valid identity to form a state but not a culturally and historically distinct region. We demand that India should recognize Telanganas as a distinct and valid identity to be given special provisions. When India imposes Mulki Rules it is not promoting people of one region over another. It is protecting people of one region from another.
I have two posts on this: Secularism and Religious Identities Part I and II.
Like I said before,
ReplyDeleteIf the SECULAR state wants to break its promise of religion-neutrality in policies and reservations, I am deeply disappointed and scared to believe that peace or safety of my family are assured in such a country.
If the State protects the rights of followers of one religion, why not extend it to FOLLOWERS-OF-NO-RELIGION?
I am an atheist.
My kids are atheist.
My family sees discrimination every day as we are social outcasts from the church-group, the temple-group and the mosque-group.
We need protection of our rights.
We need reservations for our voices in Parliament.
BEFORE there is a Muslim-reservation to loksabha, THERE SHOULD BE A CENSUS ON ATHEISTS IN THE COUNTRY.... AND ADEQUATE RESERVATIONS FOR THE ATHEISTS.
We are scared of the communal riots and the dogmas and doctrines that urge a man to kill in the name of god.
We need protection.
And reservations to loksabha.
Identify our group.
Thanks!
Telangana is not asking for 'reservations'.
ReplyDeleteTelangana is not asking for 'identity' either. There already exists a distinct identity for this region called Telangana.
Dont drag Telangana into the issue of 'religoin-based-reservations'.
You are consistently equating 'reservations' to 'rights of group identities'.
Reservations are not RIGHTS.
They are merely an instrument of positive discrimination.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteIf the SECULAR state wants to break its promise of religion-neutrality in policies and reservations, I am deeply disappointed and scared to believe that peace or safety of my family are assured in such a country.
I am hearing the same from some MEN who think that this country is going to break its promise of gender-neutrality in policies and reservations. They want to leave this country and go to more developed countries where men and women are treated 'equal'.
I am telling them that its better they leave this country because this nation will uphold its promises made in the Constitution and ensure that underrepresented groups and backward classes are given reservations – and if that backward class happens to be religion, so be it. And people like us will fight hard to make this nation uphold its promises it made to its people.
You should read Sachar Commission report and Ranganath Mishra report.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteTelangana is not asking for 'reservations'.
And yet, Mulki Rules are nothing but reservations.
Telangana is not asking for 'identity' either.
And yet, their fight for separate state is based on a group identity.
You are consistently equating 'reservations' to 'rights of group identities'.
I am saying that certain group identities can be uplifted through ‘reservations’. Some group identities may get statehood. Some group identities may just get protection laws.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteState patronage of any religious doctrine is un-warranted and un-constitutional in the Indian context.
True. But if that religious group satisfieS the criteria called ‘backward class’ under Indian Constitution, that group can be given reservations. Right now, India is moving towards realization that many Muslims form that ‘backward class’.
There is a difference between a state recognizing a religion as a group identity and a state framing laws based on a religious doctrine. A secular state shouldn’t go through the religious books like Koran to make laws. But it can make laws to protect and promote a religious group if it is considered ‘discriminated’ or ‘backward’.
Do reasons for 'Backwardness' mean anything?
ReplyDeleteYou have evaded this question before.
http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/womens-bill-rotation-system.html?showComment=1270064092718#c7206502826910970698
Also,
I gave clear opinion on the 'Backward classes categorization' here:
http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/womens-bill-rotation-system.html?showComment=1270065027909#c284031782682650247
I am not against identifying sections or classes that are backward.
But...
1. I refuse to believe that Muslims, as a religious group were discriminated against. If you look at the history for the past 10 centuries, Hindus were slaved, sold, forcibly converted and killed on Hindu-Kush in lakhs. If anything, it was Hindus whose culture was attacked, whose customs were made fun of by both Muslims and Christian colonizers... and whose traditions are lost in time. (not counting the lost lives and lost wealth).
2. I refuse to accept the 'religion based reservations'.
I am hearing the same from some MEN who think that this country is going to break its promise of gender-neutrality in policies and reservations. They want to leave this country and go to more developed countries where men and women are treated 'equal'.
ReplyDeleteMy sympathies to them. What a tyranny the state is showing towards the poor souls. I will help them leave the country if I can. Publish their contact info please.
@ Sujai:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be confusing communal clashes with 'discrimination'.
Communal clashes in India should instead be called 'Civil wars'. Two groups with different 'ideologies' breaking the laws of the state to get even.
They do not imply, indicate or prove 'discrimination'.
You need to understand the 'D' word better.
If the State protects the rights of followers of one religion, why not extend it to FOLLOWERS-OF-NO-RELIGION?
ReplyDeleteI am an atheist.
My kids are atheist.
My family sees discrimination every day as we are social outcasts from the church-group, the temple-group and the mosque-group.
We need protection of our rights.
We need reservations for our voices in Parliament.
BEFORE there is a Muslim-reservation to loksabha, THERE SHOULD BE A CENSUS ON ATHEISTS IN THE COUNTRY.... AND ADEQUATE RESERVATIONS FOR THE ATHEISTS.
We are scared of the communal riots and the dogmas and doctrines that urge a man to kill in the name of god.
We need protection.
And reservations to loksabha.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteDo reasons for 'Backwardness' mean anything?
Good question. I like good questions. Please read Sachar Commission Report. It is an exhaustive report that establishes 'backwardness' for Muslims.
I have read the Sachhar Committee report.
ReplyDeleteWhile all other religious groups in India have accepted and embraced modern education as their route to better lives, Muslims stick to the Madarasas.
'Lack of access' needs more clarity and explanation on the Sachhar report.
The new bill on 'Education for all' already tries to make up for the lack of modernization of madarasas.
There are more INDIAN GHETTOS compared to 'MUSLIM GHETTOS'.
The Sachhar committee should go back and make comparisons on the total number of slums in India vs. the Muslim-only-slums.
If Urdu lost its glory (believe me I am the saddest person, I had to take extra training to understand my gradfather's poems), so did Telugu, Punjabi, Marathi and kannada.
We are all... as a nation... cursed with a foreign language that is not our mother-tongue. We, as a nation... lost the 'Mother-tongue-advantage'.
But, post-industrialization, it has become imperative for the common wealth countries to embrace Engleees for LIVELIHOOD.
Muslim community wants to stay out of this change deliberately and intentionally.
I refuse to compensate for their bad-choices.
More on Sachhar Committee report when I have hours to spare on a Sunday.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteIf out of another ideology of another school of thought inspires me to have 2 dozen kids... and my family is economically backward because of this choice of mine…
Do personal choices made by individuals have any say in how 'backward' or 'forward' they are?
Do reservations solve the backwardness arising from self-defeating choices made by people?
It’s tough for me to fight people’s prejudices against certain groups. I can only make an attempt. But from the experiences of the past, including trying to get the realizations from Andhras on Telanganas, I believe that such attempts are usually useless.
Andhras consistently characterize Telanganas as lazy, incompetent, drunken people whose cognitive growth got stunted due to oppression from Nizam, whose language is bastardized by Muslims, and so on. Andhras believe that they have not discriminated against Telanganas but it was ‘self-defeating’ attitude of Telanganas which has resulted in their backwardness. Andhras think that Telanganas did not study hard, did not finish good education, and that’s why lost out in the race.
And yet I consistently fight that characterization because it is based in prejudices which actually fueled that discrimination.
There are many people in India who think that women make ‘self-defeating’ decisions that made their representation low in education, employment and politics.
In this case, all I can say is that your characterization of Muslims as ‘self-defeating’ is based in similar prejudice. I don’t have patience to fight your prejudices, the way I don’t have patience to fight prejudices of men who think women are inferior. No amount of data will make them think otherwise. These are deeply ingrained prejudices - will not be removed in one or two generations.
There is a 5 million plus missing Hindu population in Eastern pakistan since Independence. How is that possible in Pakistan and Bangladesh?
Missing could mean migration into India.
How is it possible that Muslim population in India on the contrary grows by a whopping 30%?
When you say ‘whopping’, it looks like no other religion grew at similar rates, but that is not the case. In the last 10 years, Muslims grew by 29.5%, Jains grew by 26%, Buddhists by 24.5%, Christians by 22.6%, and Hindus by 20.3%.
Higher growth amongst Muslims is a well known and well recognized phenomenon. However, the reasons that we attribute to it are based in our prejudice against that religion. Sachar Report and Ranganath Mishra Report clearly indicate that the poverty level and literacy level of that religion is one of the primary reasons.
Take a look at the population growth of SCs between 1981 and 1991. While the whole country grew by 23.8%, SC population grew by 31.0%. That’s because of lower literacy and higher poverty in this population. This high growth is more a result of backwardness of that group, not ‘self-defeating’ choices as your prejudices dictate. The same holds for Muslims in India.
Average muslim family has fertility rate of 5.5 children.
In 1998-99, the fertility rate for Muslims was 3.6 (reducing from 4.3 from previous decade). For Hindus it is 2.8.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteI refuse to believe that Muslims, as a religious group were discriminated against.
There is nothing I can do to make Andhras understand how Telanganas were discriminated against. They obstinately hold onto their prejudice and refuse to see the arguments. I believe that your prejudices are clouding your judgment here.
I refuse to accept the 'religion based reservations'.
No different from how Andhras obstinately refuse to give Telangana. No different from how some men obstinately refuse to accept religions based on gender. Please think about it. I don’t think you will change your opinion right away. But ten years from now, hopefully, you will understand what Andhras could not understand about Telanganas, what other Hindus refuse to understand about Muslims. You can write a note to me then. Once again, I urge you to read the two reports that have provided considerable insight on this topic.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be confusing communal clashes with 'discrimination'.
If I know one thing about myself – I am not naïve. I am not confusing ‘communal clashes’ with ‘discrimination’.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteIf the State protects the rights of followers of one religion, why not extend it to FOLLOWERS-OF-NO-RELIGION?
Why not?
There may come a time when I will be sitting here on this blog where I have to defend the rights of atheists. I am an atheist myself – may be a little different from you and others, but still an atheist. But now is not the time.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteIf Urdu lost its glory (believe me I am the saddest person, I had to take extra training to understand my gradfather's poems), so did Telugu, Punjabi, Marathi and kannada.
Not that I want to enter this topic, India recognizes Telugu, Punjabi, Marathi, and Kannada as official languages of some states, by which the state promotes teaching of those religions in state schools, and all government work has a version of those religions. But not Urdu. That’s what Sachar Committee Report meant.
those 'religions' should have been those 'languages'.
ReplyDeleteSachhar Committee has more muslim members than other-religion members.
ReplyDeleteThat said.... You claim that I am 'prejudiced' is wrong.
My judgement is not 'clouded by my prejudices'.
I grew up in Muslim city and Muslim colony... My grand father didn't know telugu well, but was a poet in Urdu.
Sachhar committee's pointing out that Muslim community lost out because of 'Urdu' status can be extended to ALL TELANGANA people. pre-1948, there were more educated people with URDU medium education than telugu or english.
All said and done....
I have more personal insight into the choices made by the muslim community. These folks were doing better-off compared to the Hindus soon after independence.
Their main reasons for losing out on 'Growth'... are the same as their reasons for 'rejecting modernization'.
Orthodoxy has limits. It sounds and feels creepy to see your father's child-hood buddy and colleage of equal status at work have 8 kids... when your father makes a progressive choice of family planning.
It is more creepy to see an engineering graduate marry in 1'st yr of Engineering (under-age-by-law) and have kids by the time he graduates. The 'Engineering education' didn't stop him from having 4 kids so far.
Stop preaching when you dont know.
Stop pushing down your ideals my throat by bundling everything you want with Telangana or Women's Bill.
Sachhar committee concludes that:
'Backwardness led to the population explosion.'
Listen to my judgement from personal life experience of watching a whole colony in front of my eyes:
'Population explosion and rejection-of-progressive-policies led to backwardness'.
Should I believe in Sachhar committee?
Then... I should ALSO believe in the data and numbers published by the AP govt.
All said and done:
I am all for targeted incentives for the people in Old City and muslims elsewhere. I am all for building more schools in their localities. I am all for solving problems ... and investing tax-payers money to bring economic-growth in the muslim colonies. I am all for vocational-training (which is what they need more than any reservations).
But, PLEASE... stop taking it too far in the name of vote-banks.
the above... is my LAST comment on reservations.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteRegionalism is not an evil. It is a well recognized attribute
Is religion an evil?
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteAverage muslim family has fertility rate of 5.5 children. Muslim 10-yr-population growth is 30%... HIGHEST among all other demographics and groups.
Fertility rates in 1998-99:
Overall ---------- 2.85
Muslim ---------- 3.6
SC ----------------- 3.15
ST ----------------- 3.06
It is clear that backward classes tend to show a higher fertility rate.
More data rates in 1992-93:
Overall ----------- 3.39:
Bihar ------------- 4.0
MP --------------- 3.9
Rajasthan ------ 3.63
Uttar Pradesh – 4.82
Kerala ----------- 2.0
It is clear once again that BIMARU states (Bihar, MP, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh), which are considered the low development states, having low literacy levels, bad sex ratio, etc, have extremely high fertility rates, further proving that ‘backwardness’ tends to show high fertility rates.
High fertility rates is not just unique to Muslims but to most backward states and groups.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteHow is it possible that Muslim population in India on the contrary grows by a whopping 30%?
During 1981-91, Buddhists in India grew by 36.0, while Muslims grew by Muslims 32.8.
A report, Demographic transition and demographic imbalance in India, Ashish Bose, writes:
“Interestingly the growth rate of Buddhists is the highest, because of the conversion of lower–caste Hindus to Buddhism as a protest against social inequity. The high growth rate of Muslims must be partly attributed to high fertility and partly to migration from Bangladesh and Pakistan, legal as well as illegal.”
While high fertility is indeed a reason for higher increase of Muslims in India, it is also because of the migration of Muslims from Bangladesh and Pakistan.
There is a 5 million plus missing Hindu population in Eastern pakistan since Independence. How is that possible in Pakistan and Bangladesh?
Decline of Hindu population in Pakistan and Bangladesh is not due to low fertility rate but mostly due to immigration (and some to conversion).
“Since 1947, Hindu population in Bangladesh has been reduced from 30% to less than 10% because of the terrible religious persecutions and political terrorism.”
“Up to 1971, over 4.7 million Hindus had sought refuge in India, mostly in West Bengal.”
“The terror let loose by the Military Junta of Pakistan compelled about 10 million more to cross over to India in 1971. Many went back after the Liberation War in 1971, but a sizable undocumented section stayed back and mingled with the mainstream of India’s life (Guha Roy, 2003).” These were both Hindus and Muslims.
“As of 2004, it is estimated at total of 15 million illegal immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh live in India.”
“During 1990’s, the cause of migration was economic needs. Both Hindus and Muslims migrated, but Hindus migrated most. “
All quotes from: Push-Pull Factors of Undocumented Migration from Bangladesh to West Bengal: A Perception Study, Pranati Datta, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, India.
I am done with discussing reservations. My threshold on the tolerance-of-euphoria-over-reservations has been reached.
ReplyDeleteIs religion evil?
You dont want to know my views on it. Added, they have nothing to do with reservations. I am an atheist and lets leave it at that.
Reg. reduction of hindu population in neighboring countries, there are 'euphemistic' versions and theories on what actually conspired.
To me, from the outside, this much is enough:
The Hindu population could not survive or continue their religious affiliation with 'hinduism'. They had to make a choice. They were compelled to make a choice of either leaving the country or converting. I take pride in the fact that minorities in India didn't have to forcefully convert or migrate.
I will be the first person to speak up if someone was being FORCED to convert in India from a minority religion to any other.
However.... State patronizing any one religion is well outside my threshold of expectations from a Secular State. Religion-based-reservations will lead to exactly that. For positive discrimination, there has to be adequate historical and factual data to establish that 'discrimination has occurred'. Both Sachhar and Ranganath beat around the bush proving 'backwardness'. But, they fail to touch the 'politically wrong' aspects of this topic. Hence, from 22 yrs of my real-life-experiences living in a muslim colony, I reject the premises and conclusions drawn by both these reports.
Case closed.
Telangana Bidda:
ReplyDeleteOrthodoxy has limits. It sounds and feels creepy to see your father's child-hood buddy and colleage of equal status at work have 8 kids... when your father makes a progressive choice of family planning.
It is more creepy to see an engineering graduate marry in 1'st yr of Engineering (under-age-by-law) and have kids by the time he graduates. The 'Engineering education' didn't stop him from having 4 kids so far.
What you are saying is true of Hindus in BIMARU states as well. High fertility rates, early marriages are not unique to Muslims. In fact, the early marriage phenomenon is more common in Hindus than in Muslims. Uttar Pradesh ranks higher in fertility rates than in Muslims.
High fertility rates is not the only reason why Muslims are backward, but that their backwardness and high fertility rates go hand in hand. Same for SC/ST, BIMARU states, all considered backward and have high fertility rates.
Stop preaching when you dont know.
Personal experiences can only deepen one’s prejudices. Unless the prejudices are removed those personal experiences cannot tell a different story. Andhras who know Telanganas very well are the ones who seem to carry a much deeper negative bias against Telanganas – because of their personal experiences.
Recently, one Andhra lady who grew up in Telangana told us that Telanganas cannot milk a buffalo. And that her mother always preferred Andhra person to milk their buffaloes though they were living in Telangana. Through her personal experiences, she has categorically said that Telanganas cannot handle work, and that’s why they are backward.
For a while, it looked like her characterization of Telanganas is genuine because she has personal experiences to tell.
And yet, I got my daily milk all through my stay in Warangal from Telangana people who milked their buffaloes.
Stop pushing down your ideals my throat by bundling everything you want with Telangana or Women's Bill.
I apologize for doing that. I wasn’t thinking I was pushing my ideals onto anyone. If someone asks me something on my blog I think it’s an invitation to respond. That’s all I thought I was doing.
I wouldn’t have participated in this debate if I had not known that you support Telangana and reservations for women. I engaged in this debate hoping you will be able to see the reason why the fight for separate Telangana, support for women reservations, and inclusion of reservations for Muslims are not very different from each other. They are all based in the same principle. They are all about giving expression and proper representation to people of certain groups who have been marginalized.
This current debate on reservations for Muslims on this blog will have no meaning unless you set aside negative ideas that you formed about Muslims out of your personal experiences. Most discrimination happens because of such negative characterizations of groups.
Both Sachhar and Ranganath beat around the bush proving 'backwardness'.
For all you know SKC report on Telangana may not even use the word ‘discrimination’. Indians are squeamish about admitting ‘discrimination’. They think they never ‘discriminate’ – because it’s not in Indian culture.
the above... is my LAST comment on reservations.
:-) Not a problem. You can revisit this topic in ten years. I am positive that your ideas on this topic would have changed by then. Why? That’s because you ask yourself many questions. That’s an essential step towards exploring and learning new things. As long as you continue to explore you will continue to demolish the walls of prejudices.
I wouldn’t have participated in this debate if I had not known that you support Telangana and reservations for women. I engaged in this debate hoping you will be able to see the reason why the fight for separate Telangana, support for women reservations, and inclusion of reservations for Muslims are not very different from each other. They are all based in the same principle. They are all about giving expression and proper representation to people of certain groups who have been marginalized.
ReplyDeleteThey SEEM to be based on the same principle to you, as you look at it from the perspective of:
What are the groups? Are they backward? Do the groups feel margninalized?
The Womens Bill, Telangana issue and Muslim reservations are VERY DIFFERENT spaces.
To summarize:
I support women's bill for diversity in opinion and wider representation of women, whose needs and priorities are different from half the other population. DIVERSITY is the keyword.
Telangana, is not asking for 'affirmative action' or 'positive discrimination'. It is a different space.
Muslims can get reservations for certain sections... like other religions... but, cannot ask for a blanket religion-based reservation. It is a flawed concept in a secular country. Added, your advocating reservations in Lok Sabha is too far-fetched. Setting the Secularism aside for a minute, that would be 'pushing a doctrine' on the electorate.
Your comparison of me to an Andhra woman who hired an Andhra to milk buffaloes is flawed.
I did not aquire a prejudice based on 'efficiency' or 'intelligence' of a group. I have witnessed a reluctance of a group to let-go of an orthodoxy that the modern industrialized world has no provisions for. (explanation below) Kindly compare apples to apples.
Flaws in Sachhar report:
ReplyDeleteSachhar committee dedicated one section on the 'fields' in which muslims excel and highlighted small-trades.
Most muslims were self-employed (traditionally). They were rich pre-independence because of their self-employment. they owned and continue to own small businesses at a much higher rate than their counterparts of other religions. After Independence of India, certain trades like handloom, pottery etc saw a drastic downfall because of industrialization within the country as well as cheaper factory-made goods.
This HUGE change in economic trends is RARELY accounted for as a reason for backwardness of Muslims compared to the pre-independence period. Instead, it is blamed on 'Marginalization', 'discrimination' etc.
While the Hindu counterparts adapted (dont blame them for adapting, they got used to it because of adaptations over the past few centuries under colonizers)... and embraced a change in search of livelihood. Some credit to their 'open-mind'.
Hence, I blame 'Orthodoxy' of muslim populations not just with adopting family planning measures, but also in changing their family-line-of-busincess/trade.. and their initial resistance in accepting the modern schools.
Sachhar committee highlights that muslims do not identify themselves with the course-material at schools. Are you kidding? I am yet to meet hindu kids who 'identify themselves' with the school material. Most of the curriculum is a carry-over from pre-independence-era with a strong Secular tone.
Sachhar committee report makes many such mistakes of:
1. Mis-placing blame
2. Drawing wrong conclusions from right data
3. wrong correlations
4. mistaking slum-problems as muslim-problems
5. calling demise of Urdu as a 'loss of muslims' (Some linguistic research will show it as a loss of many communities across India)
6. calling course-curriculums 'distant' to muslims (course-materials are distant to ALL and need a MAJOR over-haul! But, India is shy to accept or re-define its own cultural-identity and copies away from the britishers-version drawn from their definitions of our culture.)
Sachhar committee is lot of words put together to make a case for muslim-reservations. Not enough debate occurred on it in public forums.
The general media-stance: If you say the report is flawed, you are being anti-minority... shame on you!!!
This current debate on reservations for Muslims on this blog will have no meaning unless you set aside negative ideas that you formed about Muslims out of your personal experiences. Most discrimination happens because of such negative characterizations of groups.
ReplyDeleteI do not have 'negative' idea of a group, I have the courage to call describe what I saw.
I am not sorry if you find it politically in-correct.
No one from Kashmir to Kanya-kumari is ready to acknowledge that the muslims with self-employment saw bad days during the past 2-3 decades due to the HUGE changes in market conditions.
Reasons and 'politically accepted reasons' for backwardness are different.
If I come out with the reasons I see, I cannot be branded as holding 'negative prejudices'.
Erm.. exactly how do 'reservations' solve the problem of Orthodoxy? Rich are Orthodox too.
I am not against targeted incentives for backward-sections or classes of muslims.
ReplyDeleteBlanket religion-based reservations is taking it too far. It is encouraging the same behaviour. It is rewarding mis-placed orthodoxy in a new world era. Reservations to lok sabha on religious grounds is State-patronization of a doctrine. Nothing less.
Such policies do not address the real underlying issues. They create new ones.
Hats off Telangana Bidda. You're one of the smartest bloggers I've come across.
ReplyDeleteIts true, a blanket religion based reservation would only serve to incentivise the bad choices that the Muslim community has made over the years. It also works against the secular nature of the Indian state as enshrined in our Constitution.
Muslims can be given reservations as part of an OBC group (like its being done for backward Hindus). A separate religion based reservation will serve to antagonise the other religious groups in India.
Also Muslim children need normal education like other kids if they ever want to improve their status in the job market. An outright ban on madrassa education is the need of the hour if they refuse to incorporate secular education as part of their curriculum.