Why not 100% reservation for women!

D. Murali

WOMEN'S Bill seems to be doomed once again, with almost every party neta having his view on the matter, as if the women who are supposed to benefit in the bargain never matter, after all. "On one issue at least, men and women agree: they both distrust women," said James Russell Lowell, and we may rephrase that to conclude the quote with politicians. But, there are urgent mails on the issue, with curious questions...

What's the argument about?

It's about one-third reservation for women in Parliament and state legislatures, as at the panchayat level. Because, the current ratio is dismal. For instance, of the 500 plus candidates elected to the 14th Lok Sabha in the May 2004 election, less than 10 per cent are women. Compare this with 22.5 per cent (1,663 out of 7,382) women in the US state legislatures, as www.ncsl.org would show.

Is the dispute about percentage?

It seems so, because Mulayam wants only 10 per cent to be given to women, and he says we have to give importance to the other groups too. Many parties are apparently happy with the 33 per cent proposed. As Virginia Woolf said, "The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation is more interesting, perhaps, than the story of that emancipation itself."

When did it all start?

The Bill has been hanging fire for almost a decade now, surfacing now and then. "Nature has given women so much power that the law has very wisely given them little," said Samuel Johnson, and that's a wry comfort for the deprived.

Why not 100 per cent?

Not a bad idea, I'd say, though many or our politicians may swoon at the thought. Come to think of it, we have never been happy with the crop that we send to the hallowed House every time, so why not think of wholesale change. If cent per cent is too much, we can talk about some reservation for men!

I don't understand why women have been keeping quiet!

"Clever and attractive women do not want to vote; they are willing to let men govern as long as they govern men," reasons George Bernard Shaw. But, H.L. Mencken postulates that women have simple tastes: "They get pleasure out of the conversation of children in arms and men in love." Not many have understood women, or why they do what they do; as Groucho Marx cautions, "Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot." There's a theory that women are silently plotting to overthrow men from the game of politics.

Are there any risks in letting women govern?

"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent," laments Friedrich Nietzsche. It's said that when men go wrong, women stay on a wise course; in contrast, as Mae West points out, "When women go wrong, men go right after them." That, I guess, is a grave risk!

Will the Bill ever see the light of the day?

Against odds, it's quite possible that the Bill finds its fruition, with all key players sporting smiles and taking credit for the new law.

But, George Santayana advises that when men and women agree, it is only in their conclusions; their reasons are always different. Something that would apply to any likely consensus on the Bill too.

SayCheek @ TheHindu.co.in