Monday, March 15, 2010

Can someone explain to me as to what exactly is the harm in allowing a quota for the OBC and Muslim women within the 33% quota proposed for women? Why is the leader of every so called democratic party holding a whip in her hand?

Every provision and policy of positive discrimination is aimed at bringing about an ultimate equality and hence has to be time bound. So much has been learnt from the long experience of caste based and ethnicity based (schedule tribes) reservation. How much of that has gone in shaping the women's reservation bill? As it is this country is sufficiently ill reputed known for rampant dynastism that has already degraded our democracy to oligarchy. Why can't the reservation be time bound and progressively decreasing?

Why have some media barons suddenly discovered a problem with the rotation system provided under the Bill? We all know that the rotation system is well entrenched in the local self government elections for years now. Why were objections not raised about it in the past? Was it because it affected the village women and not those who aspire to grab the seats in the parliament made available by the proposed Bill? I am not against raising an objection late. It is never late for a valid objection. It must be raised once something objectionable is discovered. But the objection against the rotation system appears to be based on something that vindicates the very objection to the Women's Reservation Bill itself namely, 'only the elite and socialite women will grab the seats'. Is the objection against the rotation system an attempt to ensure that these women do not become jobless once their constituencies are made open.

Not so surprisingly, the women protesting outside the Parliament when the Bill was being tabled in the Upper House didn't demand any reservation for the downtrodden. Despite the fact that most of them must have long ago discarded the trickle down theory in economics.


No comments: