At midnight on August 14-15, 1947, India made its "tryst with destiny." At that time, India promised millions of residents equality and a better way of life through human rights, peace, progress, and prosperity. But after 75 years of independence, there is a substantial gap between the claims made in the Constitution and the social legislation designed for men and women.
The gender gap in every sphere of public life and jobs can be seen even after 75 years of independence. But the gender gap in politics is very pathetic. To end the gender gap in politics, time and again, parties have promised to give tickets to women based on quotas, while others called for women to be given reserved seats in legislatures. That is the first reason to get a law passed that makes sure women are represented in the Lok Sabha and the state legislative assemblies.
The second reason why women should have special representation is that their interests can't be protected unless they look out for themselves. There was general agreement in the constituent assembly that the "vulnerable" needed to seek mainstream political solutions to their problems. This brings us to the argument used to support reservations for women. Despite all the promises and claims to end the gender gap, one of the laws that have been pending the longest in the Indian Parliament is the Women's Reservation Bill.
A women's reservation bill was proposed as a constitutional amendment to include this change in the Constitution. Such a suggestion was not at odds with either parliamentary or constitutional thought because it followed the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendment acts, which allowed reservations in the new third tier of administration. The goal of the women's reservation bill was to make sure that at least one-third of the seats in the state and union legislatures were reserved for women.
In its Common Minimum Programme, which listed the goals it wanted to achieve during its time in office, the UF government acknowledged the need for reservations and promised to make them happen. On September 12, 1996, for the 84th time as the Constitution Amendment Bill, former Prime Minister Deve Gowda took the lead on the bill to change the constitution so that women could be given seats in the Legislature. The Women's Reservation Bill was to be passed on the same day, but because of the many shortcomings of the bill, it was postponed to the next day, which was the last day of the budget session. The bill was not passed on that day because there was no separate quota for women of OBCs and minorities in the bill.
The bills for women’s reservation were introduced in Parliament in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2008, respectively, but could never be passed because of the lack of a concept of equality and justice by not giving quotas for OBCs and minority women. Bill had the following points:
One-third of the seats in the House of the People and Legislative Assemblies of the States that are filled by direct elections will be set aside for women.
One-third of the seats are reserved for SC and ST women under clause (1) of article 330 and clause (1) of article 332 of the Constitution.
There is no reservation of seats in the Lok Sabha for women from a state with fewer than three seats.
If the number of seats reserved for the SCs or the STs is less than three in any state, there is no reservation for women belonging to the SCs and STs.
Seats would be set aside for women on a rotating basis.
There are no reservations for seats for women belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC).
There is no reservation of seats for women in the Rajya Sabha and the Legislative Councils of the States.
Due to the few people from backward classes, scheduled castes, and scheduled tribes in the bureaucracy, Parliament, and assemblies, the question of affirmative solid action has come up from time to time. Some women in Indian society can be among the most defenseless. However, some educated women, mostly from upper castes, are privileged in comparison to OBC, SC, and ST women. Because of the lack of OBCs and minority quotas within the women's reservation bill, controversy and protests started. Finally, the bill was submitted to the joint committee meeting.
Geeta Mukherjee, a member of parliament from the CPI party, was in charge of the Joint Select Committee. This committee was set up to find common ground on the complicated issues that came up during the short debate on the bill. In the end, the Committee said that the bill should be passed in its current form, but that reservations for OBCs should be considered "at a good time" in the future. This mistake could be the same as OBC's reservation in education, and government education came very late.
Bill didn't pass in the 1996 monsoon and winter sessions of Parliament because female lawmakers "chicked out" Lalu Prashad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Sharad Yadav when they started demanding quotas within quotas for OBCs and minority women.
Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, and Sharad Yadav said that they would strongly oppose the bill in its current form unless it was changed to include a 10% sub-quota for OBC women. Along with them, some Muslim MPs and their non-Muslim allies also wanted the reservation for women to have a quota for Muslim women. As a result, the discussion turned into a veritable battleground. Without any resolution of the issue, the budget session came to an end.
Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, and Sharad Yadav were never against the bill, but they wanted a quota for the OBCs, SCs, STs, and minority women, which is why they protested. The SP-RJD coalition also got support from the BSP, the JD (United), and the DMK at the last minute on this issue. They promised to reject it in its current form and even start a national movement against it.
Phoolan Devi, also known as the Bandit Queen and a member of the Samajwadi Party, demanded that at least half of the seats be set aside for women. She claimed that since women make up half of a nation's population, they should be granted representation commensurate with their numbers.
The Rajya Sabha passed the bill on 9 March 2010. However, the Lok Sabha never voted on the bill. The bill lapsed since it was still pending in Lok Sabha and the Lok Sabha expired during this two times in 2014 and 2019.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author. The Mooknayak is not responsible for the accuracy, integrity, practicability, and completeness of any information contained in this article. All the information in this article has been presented as it is. None of the information or facts or views expressed in this article are those of The Mooknayak, and The Mooknayak is not responsible for them in any way.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.