Why male parliamentarians fear Women's Bill?

In the 13 long years it has been around, the Women’s Reservation Bill has had more than its share of protest and high-pitched debate. But 2009 is different, one male MP has already threatened to poison himself for fear of ‘political extinction’.

And Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav has warned that 33% reservation for women will mean men would no longer be able to get into Parliament. Do they have a reason to worry?

Yes, say supporters of the Bill. Good male candidates would have to slug it out for a limited number of seats. But the real worry would be the perceived threat to male dominance.

The Women’s Bill would end nearly 60 years of India’s most exclusive ‘boys club’ with all its perks and privileges. “It’s a sociological, psychological and political fear (in terms of wielding power),” says George Mathew, director of Delhi’s Institute of Social Sciences.

Indian women who should know, such as Professor Niraja Gopal Jayal, who chairs the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance at Jawaharlal Nehru University, say patriarchy is so much a part of the system that the slightest nudge triggers a storm.

Men felt threatened in much the same way 15 years ago when 33% of seats in all panchayats were reserved for women. Jayal says, “Even at the local level, it has taken 15 years for many of them to emerge as leaders. At any level , the root of the anxiety is the same, entrenched patriarchy.”

Ranjana Kumari, president of WomenPowerConnect, a national group that lobbies government and Parliament on women’s issues, calls resistant male MPs part of the obscurantist forces that represent a feudal mindset. She says, “They will do anything to keep women down. Mulayam Singh has eight members from his family in the party but not a single woman. The same is the case with Lalu and Sharad Yadav, the other opponents”.

Is there a way forward? Three ways to solve the impasse and the arguments for and against:

Quotas within parties:
“Each party must reserve some seats for women”, says Mathew, and “this is how most mature democracies function”. In the 1990s, Britain’s Labour Party decided to reserve half its winnable seats for women.

That move too was challenged by male wannabe MPs who claimed this breached laws against sex discrimination.

Jayal says the British example won’t work here. “The problem with party quotas are: First, women candidates remain accountable and even beholden to their party leaderships; second, in the absence of a parliamentary quota, parties are likely to nominate women from constituencies where the party has a weak presence. They will satisfy the condition and at the same time, not risk any of their certain seats.”

Have more MPs:
Some say the easiest way to boost the number of women in Parliament without threatening the men is increasing the overall tally of MPs. But Mathew points out it will add to the taxpayer’s burdens. “Right now, the Lok Sabha is the optimum size. Expansion will only dilute it.”

Opt for some double-member constituencies:
With a man and a woman elected from each. But Jayal says “the proposal for one-third dual member constituencies is not in consonance with the spirit of the Bill. It would increase the total number of members in Parliament, keep the number of male MPs intact, add on more women MPs and in the process reduce their percentage to around 20% instead of 33%.” The basic idea of having a critical mass of female representation would be killed.