Congress and BJP MPs scuttle seat reservation for women

This had to happen, but it took that long because no-one in their stupid political correct mind (read: cowardly mind) could take on the notion that women empowerment and women reservation in parliament need not be done by trampling on democratic rights of people to contest elections, and citizens to choose their candidates.

Congress left isolated on women's quota

NEW DELHI: The women's bill seems to be going nowhere. On Monday, BJP offered to consider the option of letting political parties implement the 33% quota while Congress's own allies Trinamool Congress, NCP and National Conference urged that the objections of Yadav leaders should not be brushed aside.

…

BJP leader Sushma Swaraj, while reiterating the party's support for the quota bill, told an all-party meeting that if unanimity could be built on political parties implementing the quota by way of ticket distribution, with the process being overseen by the Election Commission, the BJP was prepared to consider such an option.

So finally a large party like BJP has woken to the realities that whatever nonsense the media might spread about women empowerment through seat reservation, the right way to ensure women representation in parliament is by political parties ensuring at time of ticket allocation to enough women candidates!

If the BJP positioning -- perhaps a reflection of deep discontent among its Lok Sabha MPs -- was a surprise, Congress's allies like Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee batted strongly for the Yadavs, urging that interests of the "weaker sections" not be overlooked. With NCP and National Conference also chipping in, government does not seem to be in a position to bring the bill to Lok Sabha.

Finally some men in parliament said enough is enough and we can’t allow our seats to be taken away from us after doing the hard work (or so we hope) in nurturing the constituency.

The BJP's shift seems dictated by a virtual vertical split in the saffron outfit against the quota legislation. But it strikes a chord with male MPs across party lines like Congress who may not speak in the open. It also aligned the party with Shiv Sena which made a similar plea.

Ha ha … a politician is a politician, and there are so many males in parliament that they had to get together to scuttle the bill.  It is really the male members of Congress and BJP who have come together on the issue and BJP has been made the face of this new suggestion.

Indira Jaising with her feminazi logic, read and appreciate

The additional solicitor general of India, Indira Jaising who is also a prominent feminazi writes about women in parliament, but the article betrays the warped and perverse mentality of all feminists.

Tomorrow we will see the power of women in Parliament

It came as a shock to me that in most developed countries, including Germany and the Netherlands, women constitute not more than 5 per cent of elected representatives in parliamentary bodies.

I also learnt that women do not receive equal pay for equal work in these countries.

Indeed, while reporting on the Netherlands, the minister said that women 'choose' home-based part-time work as part of their right to choose to stay home with their children!

Go easy on the exclamation mark woman.  It is a woman’s choice how she wants to divide her time between work and children.

On the other hand, Rwanda, which had emerged out of genocide and would be expected to be backward by all economic parameters, had 58 per cent women as elected representatives in parliament.

This was thanks to the provision in their constitution for reservation for women. It was then that I realised that there was no relationship between development and gender justice and that development does not necessarily lead to equality for women.

Development leads to more prosperity and opportunity for everyone including women, but the feminazis are usually worried only about female supremacy and not really justice for females.

Critics there too argued that they would have to appoint 'escort girls' to the board, as men here argue that women in panchayats would have pati-panchs deputing for them as an argument against reservations. These and many others are self-serving arguments, intended to preserve privilege.

Henceforth all privileges will be granted only to female supremacists, who have no accountability except they were females by birth and it is their privilege to have privileges by way of their gender.

We have finally woken up to the realisation that the demands of equal representation for women cannot be denied for another century or more. An equal society means a society in which men and women have equal opportunity in all walks of life, including political representation.

Funny you should say equal opportunity, when a man cannot stand for election from reserved seats for women, but a woman can fight election either on reserved seat or on open seats.  It will be equal opportunity when there were reserved seats for men too!

The sheer numbers of women to be seen in Parliament in the very near future will form a critical mass, never before seen in any country in the world save a few which have chosen the path of reservation for women.

And the feminists are secretly gloating that what they could never do in US or Europe, they may be able to do in India.

Mulayam Yadav cites danger about males missing in parliament

I was pleased to note that the danger of males being left out of parliament posted on this blog a while ago is now being voiced by Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav.  He deserves some respect for this because there are very few politicians who are doing straight talk about provisions of WRB which are a clear infringement on Indian men’s constitutional rights.  So it seems that the message about ills of present women’s reservation bill are spreading and politicians are not afraid to voice them.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_women-s-bill-won-t-let-a-male-be-elected-to-lok-sabha-mulayam-singh_1362475

He said not a single male would be elected to the Lok Sabha 10 years after the bill comes into force and advocated quota for the fairer sex within political parties.

"Once the bill comes into force, not a single male would be elected to the Lok Sabha after 10 years as elected women would not leave their seats, nor the political parties would be in a position to replace them," he said.

Advocating reservation for women within political parties instead, Yadav said it should be made mandatory for them to give 15% tickets to women.

Could women take over the whole parliament excluding men?

Someone sent this analysis of Women’s reservation bill in its present form, wherein seats are reserved for women candidates only by rotation in every election.  It does look like a scary scenario, given the fact that as of now, a woman candidate has higher chance of being elected (1 in 12) compared to a man (1 in 15) in Lok Sabha.  So although only few women candidates stand for elections right now, the electorate has shown a preference for women candidates overall.  It could also be that since only few women candidates are given tickets by political parties, these few women are better candidates compared to men.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The WRB rotation formula is a big conspiracy of radical feminists.

Consider Below:
33% Reservation to women means

Consider the case with only 3 seats(suppose there are only 3 seats in parliament)

after WRB becomes a law

FIRST ELECTION
First seat reserved so any woman and only woman will be elected.

SECOND ELECTION after 5 years
First seat will be open seat now but again the woman who won earlier could contest this seat and most likely to win if she has done good work for constituency.

The 2nd seat is reserved for woman so only woman will win on this seat . SO AFTER 5 YEARs there will be 2 women against these 3 seats and its 66%.

THIRD ELECTION after 10 years
Now the women earlier contested on 1 & 2nd seats in earlier election will be having strong possibility of winning if they have served the constituency well.

Now the 3rd seat will be reserved for women so only women can win. So in all the 3 seats there will be women and its 99% women.
So after (3 elections) 15 years there will be hardly any male parliamentarian in idle situation.

This is the actual rationale behind this WRB. Now those (Males) who are with the Women reservation please apply mind and act accordingly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although this could be scary scenario for men candidates, however the assumption in above analysis is that the women candidates always do good work for constituency when they were elected on woman-only seat, so that the electorate rewards them next time when they stand for same seat which is now open to men and women.  So if women are winning by doing good work, then why the hell there is need for reserving seats?  Let political parties give enough seats to women (say at least 33%) to contest and let it be a be a fair match while upholding democratic values too.

Increase women representation, don’t create quotas

Karan Thapar has succinctly put the problems of Women Reservation Bill (WRB) in its current form, in an article here.

First, as a principle, reservations cause offence because they amount to discrimination. India accepts that the scheduled castes and tribes (SC/ST), given their special history, deserve reservations. No such consensus exists for women.

Second, on top of 22.5 per cent for SC/ST, 33 per cent for women (although some of it would overlap) would push up total reservations in the Lok Sabha to around 48 per cent. It means non-SC/ST men (78 per cent of the male population) can only contest 52 per cent of the Lok Sabha seats! Is this acceptable in a democracy?

Third, the way these 33 per cent seats are to be reserved will undermine the key relationship in a parliamentary democracy between an MP and his/her constituency. This is because they are reserved for only one out of a set of three elections. Clearly, therefore, the winning women MPs will have limited incentive to nurture their constituencies. Indeed, this could also apply to the MPs they replace. That’s possibly 66 per cent of the Lok Sabha!

The solution is disarmingly simple as several people have mentioned and Thapar also outlines below.  It is just that the political parties are used to making simple issues into complex beasts, and then indulge in name calling each other trying to fool people that they are doing it all in people’s interests.  Maybe there is a political mindset in India that every problem has to be solved by creating a quota of some kind in favour of the people who demand their rights.

But perhaps the best way is to emulate Tony Blair. In 1997 he increased the number of women candidates fielded by the Labour party, ensuring that over 100 were elected. In our case the Representation of People’s Act could be amended, requiring parties to field a minimum percentage of women candidates.

To ensure political parties don’t circumvent the spirit of this requirement by choosing women for unwinnable seats — e.g. the Samajwadi Party fulfilling the law by fielding women from Tamil Nadu, where they stand no chance of winning — the amendment could say that the percentage has to be implemented state-wise.

Saner voices on women representation appearing now

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article231543.ece

Shiv Sena, an ally of NDA, which voted for the Women’s Reservation Bill in Rajya Sabha, on Thursday said it will oppose it if marshals were called in and force was used to pass the measure in Lok Sabha.

…

…

Senior party leader and former Lok Sabha Speaker Manohar Joshi said the party is not opposed to 33 per cent reservation for women but constituencies should not be reserved and instead it should be made mandatory for the parties to give 33 per cent reservation to women.

It is becoming evidently clear to all MPs that the lottery based system of reservation of constituencies is probably one of the most lunatic ideas to be tried in a democratic setup anywhere.  Certainly a large country like India with 16% of world’s population cannot afford to try such a system of elections.

Sharad Joshi in Rajya Sabha has valid points against WRB

 

NEW DELHI: The only member in Rajya Sabha, who voted against the Women's Reservation Bill to provide one-third of all seats in India's parliament for women, was Sharad Joshi of a little-known party Shetkari Sangathana of Maharashtra.

He said he supported women's empowerment but the bill would only prove fatal to Indian democracy, as two-third of the elected representatives would be inexperienced.

He also stressed that the two-third of the MPs and MLAs would lose interest in serving their constituencies as they would be unsure of a second term, and that includes all female representatives. It will be fatal if the MPs and MLAs lose interest in public service, the cause for which they enter politics, he added. "Has the reservation actually ever benefited any of the targeted communities? Our experience has not been very pleasant," Joshi affirmed while advocating a system of proportional representation instead of a party list that would solve all the problems linked with reservation.

Rotation: Joshi said the bill provides for a rotation system that will create practical problems and damage democracy, adding that the idea that was ignored by the advocates of women's empowerment.

"Moreover, once a woman is elected, she would know that she does not stand a chance of getting the `woman reserved constituency' again. Therefore, she would not be equally enthusiastic about serving the constituency," Joshi said, pointing out that the same would be the case with male MPs and MLAs as half of their constituencies would be reserved for women in the next elections. A major effect of this predicament would be that all the constituencies would be poorly nursed. This kind of reservation will make it impossible for any House to have more than 33 percent "repeaters" anytime, he added.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C03%5C11%5Cstory_11-3-2010_pg7_38

70% of all BJP MPs are opposed to Women Reservation Bill

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/BJP-chief-whip-spills-it-out--70--of-MPs-oppose-Women-s-Bill/589444 

“At least seventy per cent of MPs are protesting against the women’s reservation Bill and the way the party supported the Bill despite marshals being used in Rajya Sabha. Top leaders of the party have assured that grievances of the MPs will be taken into account,” Bais told The Indian Express, adding that Murli Manohar Joshi and Yashwant Sinha had already held the first round of discussions.

I would not be too surprised at such a statistic.  After all, the resentment against 33% women’s reservation has been suppressed only because of overall media championing and political-correctness of the ‘cause’ of women empowerment.  No body of any importance wants to be seen voicing opinion against women reservation in parliament, because they will be labelled as Neanderthals, or male chauvinist pig, or something like that.

Countries like Germany have women reservation in parliament but it is not by proposed lottery system of making a constituency reserved.  The political parties there have to make sure 30% or so of women candidates are selected by them to represent people.

Evidently, the masters of our fate have decided that giving responsibility of ensuring women’s representation to political parties will not work!  It is a strange argument where the politicians attempt to ignore a much better legislation on the ground that they are incompetent to practise the much better law.