WMC Women Under Siege

Selling women short in the name of fighting for their rights

There is a movement in India that is seeking to secure 33 percent of seats for women in elected bodies. And while the "intellectuals" are racking up op-eds and the celebrities are lavishing their endorsements for the Women's Reservation Bill, I have some serious reservations of my own.

But before I get into the issues of social behavior and political patterns in India—which would prevent any real change from happening with this bill—I must publicly object to the “33 percent.”

A new movement in India just repeats the norms of male chauvinism—that women must not ask for too much. Here, women gather in a market in India. (Seema Krishnakumar)

The idea of demanding 33 percent of seats as a form of demanding "equality" for women is insulting. Thirty-three percent of something is not equal—it is one third of a whole.

Between 49 and 51 percent would be more honest: 49 percent, because India actually has fewer women than men, so representation-wise, having one percentage point less would be accurate in terms of representing the gender dynamics of the country; 51 percent, because it would make a statement out of those missing women and give them representation; 50 percent, because it would express the ideal of equality.

But 33 percent? That just repeats the norms of male chauvinism—that women must not ask for too much.

Several reasons have been tossed about as to why it should be 33 percent. One is that few would agree to 50 percent. Yet if no one agreed to 50 percent, then the bill wouldn’t pass and it would go on record that Parliament refused equal representation to women.

But no. Instead, what we get is a cosmetic patch that pretends 33 percent is equal.

Selling women short

This seems like the misogynist default—that women must struggle for their rights. So we have a movement demanding women’s rights that demands their right to struggle? If there must be a movement, why can it not be to end the struggle and ensure proper representation? Setting the goal too small is one of the key causes of failure. Is this movement aiming for failure?

Why must women first fight for the right to be under-represented—and then have to again fight for more? Over and over, our women's rights movements seem to aim for cosmetic solutions that can be achieved too easily, because they sell women short in the name of fighting for their rights.

We saw this after the 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, for some reason the landmark for anyone who wants to talk about women's security in India. What was needed was better security, social reform, and unambiguous social messages on the utter inviolability of a woman who says NO. But the easiest "achievement" of "change" in a country that mostly misuses laws is the creation of more laws—easiest because it can be done quickly if it is crafted so as to not rattle any status quos.

So, in the end, what did we get?

We got a revised law: a man who touches the genitals of a woman with the slightest penetration can now go to jail for a minimum of 10 years. This is completely irrelevant because the 2012 gang rape was illegal and punishable by the death penalty under existing laws.

We got zero real change in security. A woman was sentenced to public gang rape last month for having an affair. Child rape is thriving.

We got not a single official public service message that attempts to combat violence against women. Ministers and government officials continue to blame rape victims and the press merrily propagates it by reporting it for the value of a scandal.

What happens next?

If the Women’s Reservation Bill were to be passed, everyone would claim they got equality for women. But this, of course, would butcher democracy, because male candidates getting more votes than women candidates would end up losing until the 33 percent quota for women was filled. It could lead to an increased culture of "puppet women," in which politicians propped up their wives and daughters in their place, while making the decisions and essentially running the job themselves.

Today, parties with enough women members to have entire women's wings and that supposedly focus on women’s rights have little influence. So what would 33 percent achieve in this country? Sonia Gandhi for Congress, Mamata Banerjee for Trinamool Congress, Jayalalithaa for the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagan party, Mayawati for the Bahujan Samaj Party, and Mehbooba Mufti for the Peoples Democratic Party. Other parties also have powerful women in the top hierarchy: The Bharatiya Janata Party has several, the most visible ones being Sushma Swaraj and Meenakshi Lekhi. Then there’s Brinda Karat in the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Supriya Sule for the Nationalist Congress Party.

Yet women’s rights in India remain what they are.

So what, you ask, can be done?

I think settling for anything less than 49 percent of seats for women in elected bodies is futile in the struggle for women’s rights in India.

Women should be mobilized to campaign for and vote for women. Women should be encouraged to join parties that actively seek to improve the presence of women in government and are willing to give them greater opportunities in the interests of the country. Women should form parties that advocate for women's rights.

Plenty can be done once we actually get into actions that show results—instead of slapping laws on anything that twitches in a way that embarrasses us.



More articles by Category: International, Misogyny, Violence against women
More articles by Tag: Equality, Sexualized violence, Asia
SHARE

[SHARE]

Article.DirectLink

Contributor
Categories
Sign up for our Newsletter

Learn more about topics like these by signing up for Women’s Media Center’s newsletter.