The Media's newfound love for reservations
This is the same media and middle class who have always been hell-bent
against all reservations, who have listed reservation as among one of
the most despicable evils. So why this u-turn, asks SUDEEP K.S.
Posted Monday, Mar 29 15:42:48, 2010
Our mainstream media has suddenly fallen in love with reservations.
They go ga-ga about the Women's R reservation Bill, the social justice
it brings about, and how bad it is to oppose such a move. The 'middle
class' consumers of this media also shares these views to a great
extent. One is impressed. Well, almost. But then one realizes it is
the same media and the middle class who have always been hell-bent
against all reservations, who have listed reservation as among 'one of
the most despicable evils'. So why this U-turn?
Those who have got the advantage of reservations know how difficult it
has been to live with the stigma associated with the word. Students
who get into educational institutes, adults who have got jobs through
reservations have all borne this trauma and have been objects of
mockery for decades since our independence. So this sudden approval of
it by the media and the elite alike does come as a surprise. Does it
mean that they realize that they were wrong in opposing reservation
for unprivileged communities all along? Have they decided to correct
themselves?
I am happy if the media turned progressive overnight, and started
standing for the social justice cause. But unfortunately, that does
not seem to be the case.
Almost all the newspapers and television channels reported the
opposition to the bill in the Lok Sabha on Women's Day (8 March 2010)
as "What a shame", without bothering to even make any kind of analysis
as to whether any of the criticisms carry any sense. All oppositions
to the bill were termed anti-women and regressive in very simplistic
terms.
The basic point that they (intentionally?) missed was that everybody's
opposition to the Bill cannot be equated. ("Many have expressed their
opposition to the Women's Reservation Bill. Only Mulayam Singh Yadav
has been honest enough to say what he really thinks…", said Kalpana
Sharma in The Hindu), and everyone opposing the bill is not
necessarily saying the same thing. Just like everybody supporting the
Women's Bill is not saying the same thing.
It seems Mulayam Singh Yadav said that he fears that once this law
comes into effect in little over a decade, Parliament might well be
occupied almost entirely by women. There were also people who opposed
the bill saying that 'women are not able enough to make big
decisions', 'that there are not many women in the public sphere'.
Some even went to the extent of saying women are supposed to be
looking after homes and not the nation. I can only agree with the
media here, and say "what a shame". Let us not go backwards in time.
But another major criticism to the bill, that first came from Sharad
Yadav and later found many takers including Mayawati, was based on the
very concept of reservation itself. Their argument is that it is true
that women have to be part of the democratic decision making process,
but we have to make sure that it does not feed into the exclusion of
other socially backward sections.
The need for reservations is part of our journey towards just
representation and wholesome development. Women constitute half of our
population, but it has mostly been men who took decisions in our big
(large) democracy. That excluded the women's way of looking at things.
So it means both social justice for women and a better vision in our
development as a nation and as a society if we ensure that women also
have as much stake in the decision-making process.
Unfortunately we are not in a situation where all parties naturally
ensure such representation, that is why we have to force
representation through reservation.
Now if we agree on this much, then comes the question of who should
get representation. It will be unfortunate if even after such a bill
to ensure better representation, only the elite classes and castes get
represented and all major decisions are made based on their
experiences alone. For instance, how many SC/ST MPs or MLAs have we
had from open constituencies? Not Jagjiwan Ram, not Mira Kumar, not K
R Narayanan. Mayawati is one of the rare exceptions. Which is where
the question of 'quota within quota' comes. Mayawati has asked for
quota for financially backward women from upper castes also (along
with quotas for SC/ST, OBC and Muslim women) in this bill.
It has been 14 years since the bill first appeared in Parliament, and
the major supporters of the bill have hardly shown any willingness to
discuss such options. Each time they insist on passing the bill 'as it
is', without even a discussion or debate on the clauses of the bill. I
think that justifies the fear that the Women's Reservation Bill will
not ensure just representation. The recurring photographs of Sushma
Swaraj and Brinda Karat hand in hand in support of this bill only adds
to that fear.
It is the mainstream media's refusal to acknowledge such criticisms
that make them list all the opposition to the current form of the
women's bill as a homogeneous entity, and equate it all to a male fear
of "women taking over". Their true colours show up in many ways even
as they try hard to appear progressive. They say "these Yadavs etc"
want to keep their women at home. Not just their headlines, even the
cartoons talk the same language. See the Amul ad: "MPs win, MCPs
lose", with a dejected Lalu and another man (Sharad Yadav?) on one
side, and Sonia and the Amul girl celebrating on the other side. A
cartoon by Ravi Shankar that appeared in Hindustan Times on 16 March
2010 went one step further, and said "Well, Ma'am, this is where the
women and cattle are kept." (The line below said, 'inside the minds of
Lalu Prasad, Sharad Yadav and friends').
This mainstream portrayal of "lower class" men and women does not jell
with the facts. Currently, the SC/ST reserved seats have a much higher
women's representation when compared to the "general" seats in the Lok
Sabha. Of the total of 59 woman MPs, 17 are from SC/ST reserved seats.
It means that out of the 121 SC/ST reserved seats, we have 17 women
MPs (14.05%) whereas in general seats, this is 42 out of 422 (9.95%).
So one suspects that the media euphoria over the women's bill is a
mask that hides their casteist nature, as they vehemently trash anyone
who talks about the need for a more inclusive approach in the proposed
amendment to the Constitution. The branding of anything spoken against
the bill in its current form as "anti-woman" seems to be only
reflecting this same casteist consciousness. Because they have always
been (and still are) against reservations and talk about "pure merit"
if there is any talk about caste-based reservations, they are opposed
to identity politics, but when it comes to women, they do not talk
"pure merit" any longer, and the identity assertion becomes positive
all of a sudden.
Let us call their bluff.
[Thanks to: Anu Ramdas, Kuffir, Sandali Thakur, Anoop Kumar, Bhanu
Pratap Singh, Harpreet Kaur Azad, Gurinder Azad and Manju for the
discussions that we had on Ffacebook and in person, to Prof. A K
Ramakrishnan his interview in Malayalam that appeared on Dillipost and
more importantly, to many good friends of mine who spoke almost the
same language as the mainstream media and prompted me to write this
article.]
------------------------------------
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/
PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com
TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/
Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment