A political activist in her own right
By Reicha Tanwar

THE manner in which most politicians have reacted to the proposed Constitution (81st Amendment) Bill, seeking to reserve seats in the legislatures, should not come as a surprise. Political systems across the world, whatever the ideology, form and mobilisation capacity are seen to commonly rest on one essential rule, the virtual exclusion and marginalisation of women from formal politics. Yes, women have frequently exercised political power, often this had been distinctive and unopposed, but almost always it has been the result of exceptional circumstances.

The irony and paradox of women frequently leading the political system because of abnormal events like assassination of male relatives etc. stands underlined in developing countries, particularly in South Asia, where the masses of women are infact the most marginalised.

Leaving aside the petty and degenerative politics of the likes of Mulayam Singh and Laloo Yadav, who appear to believe that no price is too much to capture power, there are also some other hurdles in the path of the 81st Amendment. As a former Law Minister, R. Khalap, said in a television interview: "Most male members, party affiliations apart, have reservations on the Bill, because they feel personally threatened. They of course lack the courage to speak out openly."

Looked at carefully, constitutional questions, be they of guarantees or even reform, invariably concern the elite. In countries like India, with over-riding problems of poverty, the Constitution means very little to most people. The debate that led finally to the Government of India Act, 1935, for example had also raised the question of reservation of seats for women, particularly in the province of Bombay. But at that time, the women who personified the brave new Indian women, Sarojini Naidu for example, were against any such reservation. Begum Shah Nawaz and Sarojini Naidu wanted enhanced participation for women, but in essence were of the view that, "a woman is the high priestess of home." (Naidu’s speech in 1918, Natesan, Speeches and writings, p.199). Later Naidu opposed seat reservation for women on the ground that, "women had always stood side by side with men, ....there was no need to grant any kind of preferential treatment for women as this would be an admission of their inferiority". (Speech at All Indian Women’s Conference, Jan 20, 1930).

The fight of women for political equality has like all reformist campaigns been a minority cause. Opposition, apathy and ridicule have been widespread. British Prime Minister Gladstone had thought that enfranchising women would, "trespass their delicacy, purity and refinement". Another member had said in the House of Commons that women were, "illogical, fickle, fragile absorbed only in trivial domestic matters."

England saw a prolonged struggle for equality in political participation from 1792 upto 1919 when the first woman was elected to the House of Commons. Even as New Zealand was the first country to enfranchise women, its first woman member in Parliament was elected early in 1933.

The year 1903 was a kind of turning point in the women’s fight for political equality in Europe. The Women’s Social and Political Union was founded with the then bold slogan, "Deeds not Words." It was to this organisation that belonged Emily Davison, who shocked the world by becoming the first martyr in the cause for women’s political equality. On June 4, 1913, as the Derby (horse race) was in progress, she crossed the fence and flung herself in front of a horse owned by the king to die of serious injuries four days later. Even as she succeeded in bringing the issue to centre-stage, it was the contribution of women in the World War I that led to enfranchisement in England. France, Italy and Japan gave women the right to vote only after the World War II (1945).

But even as the century draws to an end, half the world’s population (women) holds only between 5-10 per cent of formal political positions. In India, the world’s largest democracy, women have never held more than 8 per cent of seats in the Lok Sabha, 9-11 per cent in the state assemblies and 12.96 per cent in the Council of Ministers. In the 1998 elections to the Lok Sabha, of 4750 candidates in the fray, there were only 267 women. Of the 543 seats women presently hold only 43 seats.

India does, however, stand out among developing nations for attempts to improve the level of women participation in formal politics. Even as a considerable hiatus remains between constitutional guarantees and actual participation, a number of legal provisions have attempted to remove traditional inequality in respect of marriage, divorce, property rights. Yet the deeply rooted patriarchal structure and male-dominated political system have prevented women from finding their rightful place in decision-making bodies. The issue of equal political participation for women deserves immediate attention and remedy because even if we put aside the moral and legal basis for this right, it is imperative to remember that fair representation of women in decision-making bodies of our political system is not merely a political question but in fact has far greater socio-economic dimensions. The fact that when women raise voices of concern over issues like violence, equal rights, property, marriage, health, little is usually the response. This is not because a few women who do manage to enter the formal political system lack ability and articulation, but because of their numbers being so few, they are barely visible in such formal political institutions.

The proposed Constitution (81st Amendment) Bill, 1996, has proposed reservation of one-third seats in legislatures for women. The basic objective being to politically awaken and empower women and ensure their participation in political and democratic institutions.

The Bill rests on the premise that the gender composition of our elected assemblies is not relevant to their functioning. The case for the Bill revolves around mainly four arguments. First, the fact that if there are more women politicians, it may inspire women to participate in public life in large numbers. Second, secure representation for women is a matter of justice. Third, women have something distinctive to bring to politics that will enhance its quality. And finally, greater representation will ensure that women’s interests, problems and issues are well protected.

The manner in which women have been delegated to a subordinate economic status because of the patriarchal nature of the decision-making process stands underlined by some indicators of the 1971 census. Women constitute almost 48 per cent of the physical labour force in the unorganised sector, while adult males formed only 26 per cent.

But what is most alarming is the difference in the literacy level, 64.13 per cent (male) and 39.29 per cent (female). The growth in the number of girls and boys going to school in the years 1951-95 tell the same story. The number of female literates grew from about 5 lakh to 8 million, while that of males increased from 1.3 million to 16 million. It is alarming to note that 41 per cent of girls in the age group of 6-14 years are not attending any school. The dropout rate of girls at secondary level is now touching 73.78 per cent. Unfortunately here too women of the Scheduled Castes with 23.76 per cent literacy are in the worst situation.

The history of the Indian woman is one of an ironic paradox. In the fight for freedom she smoothly transformed from her traditional role into one of a serious political activist. No fight for freedom of a country has seen a more equal involvement of men and women. Yet, be it in the Gandhian movement or the militant alternatives to it, Indian women were never allowed a permanent reversal of their traditional customary role. With the coming of freedom, even as Gandhiji placed the equality of women among his nine priority objectives the clock began to move backwards.

The elite among women did prosper and progress but as Madhu Kishwar has for long been saying, this progress did not percolate down to the common women. Yes, reservation of seats for women at the outset is more likely to benefit elite women.

However, if those that are opposing the Bill are genuinely concerned for the oppressed and deprived, how can they overlook the fact that of the minimum of 181 seats that would be reserved for women in the Lok Sabha by the proposed Bill, 43 would be for Dalit and tribal women?

Yes, such a radically transformed Lok Sabha may not suit some of the professional political manipulators but for the women of India it would be perhaps the most important step ever taken.