http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Triumph+of+democracy+over+goondagiri&artid=UPp4QbyTVvA=&SectionID=d16Fdk4iJhE=&MainSectionID=HuSUEmcGnyc=&SectionName=aVlZZy44Xq0bJKAA84nwcg==&SEO=Triumph of democracy over goondagiri
Vir SanghviFirst Published : 14 Mar 2010 01:22:50 AM ISTLast Updated :
For as long as I can remember, I have been opposed to the principle of
reserving seats for women in Parliament. Way back in the nowforgotten
mad days of the Inder Gujral era, I incurred the wrath of the feminist
lobby when I wrote forcefully against women's reservation.
I think my arguments have stood the test of time. I asked how many of
those who were supporting women's reservation would react if I
suggested reservation for Muslims based on their representation in the
population. My guess was that most proponents of women's reservation
would oppose any such provision for Muslims.
And yet, it is possible to make out a case for the view that Muslims
are at least as badly off as, say, Dalits or tribals. Those who oppose
reserving seats for them respond that while they feel badly about the
status of the Muslim minority, they do not believe in an extension of
reservation.
That's a reasonable view. But so many of those who are opposed to
caste-based or religion- based reservation suddenly change their minds
when it comes to gender-based reservation.
If we are all agreed that reservation has gone too far and that India
must be a society based on merit not special reservations, then why
must we abandon these views when it comes to women's reservation?
Could it be that the nice middle-class ladies who opposed Mandal and
now oppose further reservations on most grounds, suddenly realise that
they have something to gain from genderbased reservation? My point was
not that I was against women.
I was simply against reservation. Besides, the whole argument for
women's reservation seems to me to be based on a central fallacy. What
its supporters are saying is that Parliament must not be a reflection
of the will of the voters but must be an accurate representation of
the balance in our society.
This is dangerous stuff. How do we respond when somebody counts the
number of Brahmins in the House and points out that they are
over-represented compared to their presence in the population? What do
we say to Muslims when they tell us that they are under-represented?
Once we accept the principle that it is unfair to women not to give
them representation that equals their proportion in the population,
all kinds of consequences follow.
In fact, the principle of representative government is that a
representative speaks for everyone, not just those who belong to his
caste or his community — or even, his gender. Tamper with that
principle and you question the very basis of electoral democracy.
Besides, women are only fooling themselves if they believe that the
only way for them to progress is for more of them to get into
Parliament.
Few people will deny that women have made enormous strides in the
United States in the last century. The same is true for women in
Britain. And yet, in both countries, never ever has the proportion of
women to men in Parliament approached 50/50. So, it is not necessary
to have a chamber full of women for progress to occur.
Nor is it clear that women actually help other women when they are in
power. Did women advance by leaps and bounds in Tamil Nadu when
Jayalalithaa was in charge? Has Mayawati been good for the women of
UP? And if it was simply a question of gender then why did Indian
women not advance dramatically from 1967 to 1984 when Indira Gandhi
was in charge (except for the brief Janata interregnum)? Contrast how
much women advanced in India during the period when the country was
run by a woman with the strides made by American women during exactly
the same period and you will see that the progress of women in society
is entirely unrelated to the gender profile of Parliament.
I've heard many debates on the issue over the last decade and yet I
have found nothing to make me change my mind. In fact, the only
notable development of the last few years is that a number of
successful, well-educated and otherwise liberated women have come out
against the Bill on the grounds that it ghetto-izes women, forcing
them to stand for election against each other.
So why then was I secretly pleased when the Reservation Bill was
finally passed in the Rajya Sabha? Mine was a complicated response and
one that reeks of the triumph of emotion over logical consistency. But
then, we are not always creatures of reason.
Simply put, I saw the vote as a triumph for democracy over prejudice.
I know what objections the three Yadavs have to the Bill and not one
of those objections has anything to do with the arguments I outlined
above.
These men represent the worst prejudices of the Hindi heartland and
their record in politics has always been one that emphasises the
chauvinist male over the interests of women. I could not possibly
accept their argument for reservation-within-reservation with the
special claims for Dalits and backwards.
More to the point, I don't think that even they believed their
rhetoric. These were mere excuses.
Their main objection was to the very empowerment of women. Funnily
enough, as offensive as I found their views, I did not grudge them the
right to hold these views.
My objection was to the manner in which they tried to subvert the
essential principles of democracy by preventing a majority consensus
from operating by using disruption and goondagiri. Not only was their
behaviour against every tenet of democracy, it also went against every
notion of civilised behaviour.
When the Bill was passed, it was as though democracy and civilisation
had won against the forces of prejudice and violence. Discourse and
voting had triumphed over discord and violence.
So, was I wrong to be pleased? Should I have supported the Yadavs, who
were opposing the Bill — just as I do — even if it was for entirely
the wrong reasons? Or am I right to take the line that a democratic
consensus has overruled my view and that in our system, a considered
expression of majority opinion takes precedence over an individual's
belief ? I don't know, you can argue it both ways. But, in my heart, I
remain delighted that eventually democracy defeated goondagiri.
— Exclusive to TNSE. More at www.virsanghvi.com.
------------------------------------
----
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/
