No. 97 9

The law to reserve one-third ofthe total number of seats forwomen was implemented at the

panchayat and zilla parishad levelin all the states of India without anyopposition from any political quarterwhatsoever. Ramakrishna Hegde’sgovernment in Karnataka started thisprocess in 1983 before the centrallegislation mandating representationfor women was passed. It provided for25 percent reservation for women atvillage panchayat levels. This wasbefore any powerful women’s lobbyemerged in Karnataka to press for thismove and before there was any populargroundswell of opinion in favour ofwomen’s reservation. In the mid 1980s,the Shetkari Sangathana ofMaharashtra, led by Sharad Joshi,pioneered the move to field all-womenpanels for panchayat elections in thatstate and subsequently focused ongetting women elected to zillaparishads in as many constituenciesas possible, with men of theSangathana playing a supportive role.However, the Bill introduced in theParliament in Septemeber 1996 toreserve one-third of the seats inParliament and state legislatures hasevoked a good deal of resistance andopposition. This despite the fact thatall our major national parties — theCongress, the BJP, the Janata Dal, andeven the two Communist parties havecommitted themselves to reserving 33percent of the seats in legislatures forwomen by including this promise intheir respective election manifestos.

The Common Minimum Programme(CMP) agreed upon by the variousparties constituting the present UFgovernment starts its section entitled“Social Justice” with the declarationthat “one-third of the electedmembership in Parliament and statelegislatures will be reserved for women.Legislation, including an amendmentto the Constitution, if necessary, willbe introduced to reserve one-third of

Women’s MarginalRole in Politics

Madhu Kishwar

all posts in government for women. . . .All laws will be reviewed to removeprovisions which discriminate againstwomen.” Though they dare not openlybacktrack from their promise, it isevident that they did not expect to becalled to account so soon and soearnestly. News reports indicate thatthe greatest opposition to this bill iscoming from the United Front MPs.Some of them have openly declaredtheir intention to even defy the partywhip (if one is issued) and vote againstthe bill.

Compare the present daycontroversy over the issue of women’srepresentation in legislatures to theatmosphere that prevailed in the 1920s.In response to the Indian agitation for

representative government, the Britishgovernment set up a committee headedby Montague and Chelmsford in 1919to work out a proposal forconstitutional reforms aiming at theinclusion of some Indians ingovernment. Many groups presentedtheir case for representation before thecommittee. Among the manydelegations that met this committee,Sarojini Naidu and Margaret Cousinsled a small delegation of women todemand that women be granted thesame rights of representation inlegislatures as men. The Britishgovernment predictably thought thisdemand was quite preposterousbecause women in most Westerncountries had still not been given the

Men dominate the election day scene — Meerut elections, October 1996

10 MANUSHI

right to vote, despite a protractedstruggle. The SouthboroughCommittee stated that “the extensionof the vote to women would bepremature in a society which continuedto enforce purdah and prohibitionsagainst female education.”1 However,instead of taking on themselves theonus of rejecting the demand outright,the British government simply skirtedthe issue by leaving it up to each ofthe individual provincial legislaturesthat they had just set up in India togrant or to refuse the franchise towomen. Their assumption was thatsince Indians were so “backward”, theywould never accept the idea of equalpolitical rights for women. But despitethe fact that at this time there was nomass-based women’s suffragemovement in India, each of the Indianprovincial legislatures voted to makeit possible within a short span of timefor women to be represented at par withmen without much fuss.

The testimony of MargaretCousins, an Irish feminist who playeda major role in women’s organisationsin India as well as in Britain, brings outthe contrast between the Western andIndian response to women’s politicalrights very clearly.

“Perhaps only women like myselfwho had suffered from the cruelties,the injustices of men politicians, theman-controlled press, the man in thestreet, in England and Ireland while wewaged our militant campaign for eightyears there after all peaceful andconstitutional means had been triedfor fifty previous years, could fullyappreciate the wisdom, nobility and thepassing of fundamental tests in self-government of these Indian legislators.. . . Between the Madras LegislativeCouncil in 1921 and Bihar Council in

Women come out enthusiastically as voters; few participate as campaigners

adult franchise without genderdiscrimination, it was turned down bythe British government. The samedemand received a totally differentresponse from the Indian leaders. Thevery next year, in 1931, the Karachisession of the Indian NationalCongress took the historic decisioncommitting itself to the political equalityof women, regardless of their statusand qualifications. This proposal metwith virtually no opposition.

Laws claiming to protect women’srights have seldom evoked the sameamount of hostility or opposition inIndia that they provoke in many othercountries of the world and get to beeasily endorsed by the entire politicalspectrum. In fact, in India there is verylittle difference between parties of theright or left on women’s issues. Forinstance, the BJP’s current manifestosounds even more progressive thanthe left parties on women’s issues.

It took women in Europe a century-long struggle to win the right to vote.By contrast, the right to vote and otherlegal rights came without a fuss or fightin India. The right to abortion, right toequal employment and educationalopportunities, equal remuneration for

1929 all the legislative areas of Indiahad conferred the symbol andinstrument of equal citizenship withmen and women who possessed equalqualifications — a certain amount ofliteracy, property, age, payment oftaxes, length of residence.”2

These limitations were includedsolely because the British were onlyprepared for limited suffrage for thosewho possessed a certain amount of

property and education. They werenot willing to consider universal adultsuffrage. When a meeting ofrepresentative women’s organisationsin 1930 drafted a memorandumdemanding immediate acceptance of

Laws claiming to protectwomen’s rights have

seldom evoked the sameamount of hostility or

opposition in India thatthey provoke in many othercountries of the world andget to be easily endorsed bythe entire political spectrum.

1. Report on the Committee for the Status ofWomen, pp. 284-285.

2. Margaret Cousins, Indian WomanhoodToday, Kitabistan Series, Allahabad, 1937,pp. 32-33.

No. 97 11

equal work, protection againstdomestic violence — all came to bepassed as laws in India without anyhostility or resistance. However, sinceour government neither has thepolitical will nor the appropriatemachinery to implement any of its laws(not just those relating to women buteven traffic laws) little of ourprogressive legislation makes animpact on citizens’ lives.

People’s ResponseOur country has had a well-

entrenched tradition whereby a party,politician or public figure bad-mouthing women in public or opposingmoves for women’s empowerment arestrongly disapproved of and usuallyrejected. As far as I can remember,among our male politicians, only BalThackeray of the Shiv Sena had thestupidity to make some brazenly anti-women statements some years ago. Inthe assembly elections that followed,his party suffered a major setback inMaharashtra, which was attributed tohis indiscreet anti-women remarks,among other things. Because of this,very few politicians dare attack womenfrom public platforms except when theyare in direct electoral competition witha woman.

This is not just due to the pressureon our politicians to be “politicallycorrect” on women’s issues. IndiraGandhi as the first woman PrimeMinister of India was rarely attackedon account of her gender. If anything,she was able to use her gender to heradvantage projecting herself asMother India and Durga incarnaterolled into one. There was no fussmade over her assuming the highestpolitical office in the land. By contrast,many of the supposed advanceddemocracies of the West are still notready for women in such high offices.The first woman prime Minister ofFrance was constantly derided andattacked for being a woman till she

simply resigned from the job.There is indeed a widespread

social opinion in favour of women’sactive political participation. Therecent countrywide post-electionopinion survey conducted by theCentre for the Study of Developing

Societies for India Today providesthe most encouraging and definitiveendorsement that there is no real dividebetween men and women in India onthis issue. 75 percent of men and 79percent of women favour activeparticipation of women in politics and

Australia 9Austria 21Bangladesh 10*Belgium 9Chile 8Czech Republic 10Denmark 33Finland 39France 6Germany 21India 7 †

Japan 3

* 30 seats are reserved for women, chosen by the elected MPs.† The 1996 figure has dropped to 6.4 percent.

Source: The World’s Women 1995: Trends and Statistics. United Nations, NewYork, 1995. Table 14, pp. 171-175.

Mexico 8Netherlands 31New Zealand 21Norway 39Poland 13Russian Federation 10Sweden 34Thailand 4Turkey 2UK 9USA

Senate 9House of Representatives 11

Table 1: Percent of Parliamentary Seats in the Lower House Occupiedby Women in Selected Countries, 1994

“You two stay by my side!” All three election commissioners after themeeting at the Election Commission office

12 MANUSHI

75 percent of men and an equal numberof women favour reservations forwomen in legislatures.

On the eve of assembly electionsin Uttar Pradesh, I interviewed scoresof men and women in Meerutconstituency to gauge people’sresponse on a range of politicalissues, including reservations forwomen. Barring one Sikh couple,everyone I interviewed expressedstrong feelings in favour ofreservations for women. Thisincluded men and women fromsupposedly conservative Muslimfamilies, illiterate working-class Hindusand Muslims, and representatives ofthe Balmiki and Jatav (sweeper)communities, apart from the middle andupper classes. Men and women alikesaid that the inclusion of women wasboth necessary and desirable andwould be beneficial not just for womenbut for politics as a whole.

Despite all this, women have beenpolitically marginalised in our countryand most of them live extremelyrestricted lives. They are not allowedto have much of a voice even within

is actually declining. There were manymore outstanding women leaders andworkers in the Congress Party at alllevels during the freedom movementthan are present today in all the partiesput together. Table 2 shows women’sdeclining representation in thelegislatures of a few select states andTable 3 shows the stagnantrepresentation of women in the LokSabha since Independence.

Puzzling ContradictionsOne of the most puzzling features

of low political representation ofwomen in our legislative bodies is thatit seems to have no direct correlationwith literacy and other seeminglylogical indicators. A comparisonbetween the states of Kerala andRajasthan, whose literacy rates are atopposite ends of the spectrum,demonstrates this clearly. In Kerala, theoverall literacy rate is reportedly 90

Table 2: Representation of Women and Men in State Legislatures

States/UTs Year Total Women Year Total Women

Andhra Pradesh 1957 252 11 1994 294 9Karnataka 1957 179 18 1994 224 7Kerala 1957 127 6 1991 140 8Madhya Pradesh 1957 218 26 1993 320 12Punjab 1957 101 5 1992 117 6Rajasthan 1957 136 9 1994 200 9Tripura 1957 30 0 1992 60 2Uttar Pradesh 1957 341 24 1993 425 12West Bengal 1957 195 11 1991 294 18Delhi 1972 56 3 1993 70 3

Source: A Status Report on Participation of Women in Panchayati Raj. Institute ofSocial Sciences, New Delhi 1995.

Table 3: Women’s Representationin the Lok Sabha (Lower House)

Term of Total No. of Percen-Lok Seats Women tageSabha Members

1952-57 489 14 2.81957-62 494 18 3.61962-67 494 30 6.01967-71 520 31 6.01971-77 520 20 3.81977-80 542 19 3.51980-84* 529 28 5.31984-89 542 42 7.71989-91† 523 23 4.41991-96† 536 39 7.21996 543 35 6.4* Elections were not held in 12

constituencies in Assam and inMeghalaya.

† Elections were not held in J&K andPunjab. Figures include womenelected from Punjab during the by-elections in 1992.

Source: Election Commission of India.

3. A Status Report on Participation of Womenin Panchayati Raj, Institute of SocialSciences, New Delhi, 1995.

their own community’s decisionmaking processes, leave alone havinga meaningful say in national politics.In addition, today we are witnessing aserious backlash. Not just politiciansbut even many intellectuals are angrilyrejecting the idea of reservations forwomen and calling it a retrogressivemove.

Peripheral Role of WomenMost countries in the world have

failed to give due space andrepresentation to women in politicalinstitutions. Even in societies wherewomen exercise relatively more freedomin day-to-day living, they remainpolitically marginalised.

As can be seen in Table 1, womenhave done extremely well in theScandinavian countries — Sweden,Norway, Denmark, and Finland, wherethey are moving in the direction of nearequal participation. In these societieswomen have begun to seriously alterthe very nature of politics and havemade enduring and substantial gainsfor themselves in every field. In India,the problem is more serious becausewhile in many other countries womenare inching forward bit by bit, in Indiathe participation of women in politics

No. 97 13

women was four percent in 1967 andreached eight percent in 1985-90. Sincethen it has been going down. Similarly,the state of Manipur, which has a tra-dition of women playing a dominantrole in family and community, again dueto a matrilineal heritage, never electeda single woman legislator up to 1990— when it elected its first. A similarlow level of women’s representation is

true for Nagaland and other North-east-ern states, which are known for a lessrepressive culture for women. By con-trast, UP, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh,which are known for their low educa-tion levels and repressive culturalnorms for women, have not only senta relatively larger proportion of womento the Lok Sabha but have also electedrelatively more women MLAs.

Post-Independence PoliticsIn independent India, politics has

proved to be very inhospitable forwomen. One important reason is thepervasive gender discrimination whichresults in making even veteran womenpoliticians feel bypassed and ignored.For new entrants, discrimination makesit very difficult for them to establish afoothold without patronage from pow-erful men in the party.

However, it is important to

Cut-outs of P.V. Narasimha Rao put up on the road at Anand Parbat in New Delhi

The sidelining of women inour polity is part of a larger

process in which mosthonest, decent people have

become politicallymarginalised as our politics

and government havebecome the hotbed of

crooks, thugs and evenoutright criminals.

percent with 86 percent female literacy.By contrast, in Rajasthan, femaleliteracy is a mere 20 percent and only12 percent of the females are literate inrural areas.3

Kerala has a matrilineal tradition inwhich women have a much larger mea-sure of autonomy and freedom ofmovement. Kerala’s women also tendto marry at a much later age comparedto women in other states. Most womenin Rajasthan live far more restrictedlives in aggressively patriarchal com-munities, many of whom still practicepurdah very early or even child mar-riages. However, all these cultural andeducational advantages women havein Kerala have not translated intohigher political participation. The per-centage of women in the Kerala legis-lative assembly rose from less than onepercent in 1967 to six percent in 1991.In Rajasthan, the representation of

14 MANUSHI

harmful for our democ-racy as are the BalT h a c k e r a y s ,C h a n d r a s w a m i s ,H.K.L. Bhagats andAdvanis. The pres-ence of this type ofwoman is neitherworth fighting for norcelebrating.

This is not tosuggest that I am infavour of leaving thepolitical arena to themale crooks whodominate ourParliament and statelegislatures today. Farfrom it. But I would like

to see women enter politics with avision for restoring the health of ourdysfunctional political system, to makeour politics truly representative andoverhaul our institutions ofgovernance — the local corporations,police stations, courts, and variousgovernment offices — in such a waythat they become actually accountableto ordinary citizens in their everydayfunctioning.

Extra Load of MoralityMany argue that to expect women

to carry an extra load of morality is tomake unreasonable demands of themwhich only strengthens the stereotypeof women as self-sacrificing creatureswho can be easily sidelined. I confessthat I am still stuck to the perhapssomewhat outdated, naive, andromantic vision of Mahatma Gandhiregarding women entering politics notto compete with men in loot andplunder but with a view to cleanse andpurify politics. While it is legitimate forwomen to demand a share of the pie, itis equally important to ensure the pieis worth eating and that there is enoughthere for everyone to share. Women’sentry into politics will not changeanything for the better if the overall

recognise that thesidelining of women inour polity goesbeyond genderdiscrimination. It is partof a larger process inwhich most honest,decent people havebecome politicallymarginalised as ourpolitics andgovernment havebecome the hotbed ofcrooks, thugs and evenoutright criminals. Veryfew honest men orwomen have survivedin electoral politics andkept their honestyintact.

Today the political scene has cometo be dominated by anti-social elementsbecause we have reduced ourdemocracy to the sole ritual of theelectorate casting its vote whenevercalled upon to do so. After they vote,the people have virtually no role in thefunctioning of civic and otherinstitutions. After Independence, thebrown sahibs led by Nehru, whoinherited power from the gora sahibs,allowed the colonial bureaucracy tostrengthen its stranglehold over ourcivic, administrative, and politicalinstitutions from the village to thenational level. Even today, a youngcollector in his 20s rules supreme like acolonial master over the district hegoverns. He can dismiss panchayatsand zilla parishads at will and peoplehave to appear before sarkari babusas hapless supplicants for every littlething. In such an atmosphere, localleaders, including electedrepresentatives, tend to establish anexus with bureaucrats so that bothcan join in unrestrained loot andplunder of public resources. Noeffective monitoring mechanisms existto restrain our netas and babus or callthem to account when they

systematically abuse their authority.Politics has become the quickest andshortest route to getting rich withoutdoing any work other than brokerage.If the rules of the game remain ascorrupt as they are now, only thosewomen politicians who are good atemulating the worst of male politiciansin the art of power-grabbing andplundering will be able to survive.

Career graphs of Indira Gandhi,Jayalalitha, Mayawati, Rithambara,Sheila Kaul, and a host of other promi-nent women in power politics is a tes-timony that women become as vicious,corrupt, and authoritarian as the worstof men when they occupy positions ofpower which demand little or no ac-countability. Such specimens of the fe-male gender serve neither the cause ofwomen nor that of society. They are as

Mayawati

We have reduced ourdemocracy to the sole ritualof the electorate casting itsvote whenever called upon

to do so. After they vote, thepeople have virtually no

role in the functioning ofcivic and other institutions.

No. 97 15

character of politics does not improve.If women join politics in greaternumbers through the present schemeof reservation this change alone is notgoing to create a new political cultureby itself. While the inadequaterepresentation of women ingovernance is a serious flaw of ourdemocracy which needs correction, tostop at merely that would be suicidalas it will only lead to making a sizablespace for women in the world oforganised corruption and crime.

Politics At What Cost?As things stand today, even those

women who have made a mark inelectoral politics find it hard to sustaintheir involvement unless they toobecome money making racketeers. Forthe honest, the heavy investment oftime and money that is required provestoo burdensome to be sustained formore than a short time. A good examplefrom among the many accounts I haveheard of the special hurdles womenface in politics, is that of SarojataiKashikar, who was a member of theMaharashtra assembly between 1991and 1995. Sarojatai was initially drawninto politics through her husband’sclose association with the ShetkariSangathana. Before her exposure to theSangathana, she was an ordinaryhousewife whose only connectionwith political life for years was cookingand serving her husband’s colleaguesin the movement. Though she waswell-educated, she had no interest inor knowledge of the political world.

However, as the Sangathana leaderSharad Joshi insisted that women mustparticipate actively in the movement,she slowly came to be one of theleading cadres of the Sangathana. In1991, the Sangathana fielded her as acandidate for the Maharashtra stateassembly elections as part of theircampaign to get as many womenelected as possible. Though new toelectoral politics, she won by a

convincing margin and within a shortspan of time came to be one of the mostrespected legislators in the stateassembly. She took her work seriously,studied the required documents, keptin good contact with her constituencyand was respected even by districtofficials for her honesty and integrity.However, her job as an MLA required

Saroja Kashikar

Campaign posters

that long periods had to be spent awayfrom home attending assemblysessions in Bombay. Since she did notfeel safe living alone in the MLA’shostel in Bombay, a young brother-in-law was deputed to accompany andstay with her in Bombay. She told methat even for a middle-aged marriedwoman like herself, to be seen chattingand freely socialising with malepolitical colleagues was likely to bemisunderstood and become cause forcharacter assassination. To avoid this,her brother-in-law remained by her sideto act as a protective shield.

In addition, in Sarojatai’s case shecould also count on her four other malecolleagues from the Sangathana whoalso became MLAs at the same time asher. Having been trained in the politicalculture of the Sangathana, hercolleagues were not only exceptionallyhonest and decent but also used todealing with women as colleagues.These men acted as buffers, yetprovided her the necessarycommunication channel with the worldof politicians without her having todirectly hobnob with all kinds ofunsavory characters. Since they were

16 MANUSHI

all close and trusted friends of herhusband, interaction with themprovided much less scope formisunderstanding. Yet she did findherself handicapped in many respectsand had to watch her every step. Hencethe dependence on her young andrelatively inexperienced brother-in-law.

Sarojatai’s accomplishments wouldhave been nearly impossible withouther supportive husband and evenmore supportive sister in-law whocheerfully took over the entire load ofher domestic responsibility as well ascaring for her two growing sons.Fortunately, her two sons were alreadyresponsible teenagers and werecooperative, but they missed herduring her long absences from home.If her kids had been small, political workwould have been even more stressful.

Apart from the substantial sum ofmoney that had to be spent on herelection campaign, her husband hadto spend a lot of additional money tosupport her politics because, unlikemost other MLAs, she did not makeany “extra” money. The amount ofmoney and resources officiallyprovided to each MLA for their salaryand political work simply does notcover the actual expenses of nursing aconstituency.

Due to all this, Sarojatai simplyrefused to stand for the recentparliamentary election though shecontinues to be active in Sangathanawork. They say behind every great manthere is usually a great woman.However, behind each politicallyeffective woman, not just acooperative husband is required, butan extremely supportive andresourceful extended family and inaddition a strong movement-basedorganisation ready to encouragewomen into public life.

The Inhibiting FactorsA key component of politics is the

art of building alliances. In a culture

where even formal interaction with menunconnected to one’s own family isfrowned upon, women are severelyhandicapped in politics because theycannot cultivate close association withmen without jeopardising their positionin the family. A woman operating onher own strength in a party filled withcorrupt politicians who think nothingof slandering their own womencolleagues would find the going verytough, even if she can somehowmobilise other compensatoryresources by her own special efforts.

Not too long ago, Uma Bharti ofthe BJP was driven to a suicide attemptbecause of the slander campaignunleashed by her own colleagues whosaw her independent mass popularityas a threat to their power. They usedher supposed personal closeness to

one of the BJP’s respected male leadersto spread all kinds of vicious rumoursabout her, both within the party and inthe media. The fact that politics isdominated by the most unsavourykind of men makes most womenthemselves reluctant to break taboosregarding free intermixing with men. Awoman risks her reputation by evenbeing seen with many of them, whereasa man does not have to prove hiscredentials by such fierce avoidance.

Thus women are handicapped fromgetting crucial information which menpick up easily from casual gossip withall kinds of people. So much of ourpolitics is carried out in late nightsessions, often over booze, wheredeals are made and strategies planned.Most women politicians, including thecorrupt ones, don’t dare to be seenparticipating in such sessions.

The breakdown of institutionalpolitics in favour of gangster politicshas made things much tougher forwomen, especially given the strictregime of restrictions that most womenare made to live under. Even thoughmost men in India favour women’spolitical participation, this does noteasily translate into relaxingrestrictions on the women in their ownfamilies. Behavioral change at thefamily level will require consistent hardwork to change cultural norms andreduce women’s domesticresponsibilities.

Even in educated middle classneighbourhoods of Delhi, mohallaassociations are usually run by men.While a few families are willing to relaxsome restrictions on women and aresupportive of their activism, theworkload of women and the nature oftheir domestic responsibilities makesit extremely hard for them to spare thekind of time required for making even asmall difference in politics.

When I was studying the function-ing of an all-women panchayat in aMaharashtra village, one of the lead-

Uma Bharti

The breakdown ofinstitutional politics in

favour of gangster politicshas made things much

tougher for women,especially given the strictregime of restrictions thatmost women are made to

live under.

No. 97 17

ing members described the difficultiesof keeping women active and involved,except intermittently: “For every littlething, we have to go and petition thedistrict level officials — whether youwant a road repaired or a bus serviceextended to your village, a water tankbuilt or a phone connection sanctioned— each of these tasks require numer-ous trips to district headquarters witheach trip involving loss of one full workday for a woman. Often meeting offi-cials won’t get the work done. You haveto organise protests, sit on dharnasand what not. Women simply can’tspare that kind of time even if theirhusbands are not objecting to theirparticipation. Men enjoy meeting offi-cials, having chai-pani with them, be-cause that is how they build contactswhich can be encashed for personalbenefit in various ways. But womenare always in a hurry to get back. Theydon’t want to hang around gossipingin tea shops, chatting with officials andnetas — all of which seem to be a nec-essary part of men’s political world.”

As long as working in the politicalrealm involves endless petition mon-gering to un-caring, unac-countable au-thorities, aslong as deci-sion-makingremains re-mote and inthe hands ofbureaucrats,as long aspolitics can-not be easilyi n t e g r a t e dinto the ev-eryday life ofpeople with-out causingsevere distur-bances in do-mestic life,men are likely

sarkari schools, the government playsa crucial role in discouraging and ob-structing women’s participation inpublic affairs. Even for participation atthe panchayat level, it is no longerpossible for an illiterate person to func-tion effectively because the sarkaripanchayats have been integrated intothe vast bureaucratic network, with itsreams of forms to fill out and its dust-covered volumes of rules and proce-dures.

Moreover, the rules are renderedin such opaque Hindi or regional lan-guages that even the literate membersof panchayats find it difficult to makeany sense of them. Wherever thepanchayat members are incapable ofor diffident about handling rules andaccounts, the government-appointedgram sevak simply takes control of thepanchayats. Most women, especiallythose who are uneducated, feel help-less and lost when they are required todeal with the impenetrable maze of thebureaucratic world which defines theparameters of the panchayat’s role.What appears to be a womanpanchayat member’s incapacity is ac-

tually proof ofour system’sridiculous pro-cedures andinsensitivityto people’s re-quirements.

W h a tgoes by thename ofpolitics in ourcountry is anoverly timec o n s u m i n gand debasedactivity. Evenfor those whoare honestand sincere intheir work, thenature of ourp o l i t i c a l

to control and dominate it. Thereshould be no requirement that a per-son become a full-time politician andmake it a profession (as well as a meansof livelihood) if we want meaningfulparticipation by large numbers ofwomen in this country’s political lifeon a consistent, long-term basis, ratherthan fitful, sporadic involvement inmorchas and dharnas, as happens atpresent. The more centralised and au-thoritarian a polity, the lower the in-volvement of women will be in it.

Additional DisadvantagesBy keeping more than three-quar-

ters of India’s women illiterate and pro-viding shamelessly poor quality edu-cation to the few who manage to reach

The workload of womenand the nature of their

domestic responsibilitiesmakes it extremely hard for

them to spare the kind oftime required for making evena small difference in politics.

Election Control room with computers, fax, televisions and othercommunication instruments at the Youth Congress office

18 MANUSHI

institutions makes it very difficult tomake a real difference. Nothing comesto our citizens without sifarish andinfluence because the governmentencroaches on too many aspects of ourlives in negative ways.

Our MPs and MLAs are constantlymobbed by favour-seekers andpetition-mongers. They waste a goodpart of their time doling out favours totheir supporters and people who seektheir intervention in getting a water orelectricity connection, a telephone orgas cylinder sanctioned, jobs or schooladmission, out-of-turn railwayreservations from the MP quota, andgenerally mediating with varioussarkari offices for “getting work done”(kaam karwana) since our babus don’tbelieve in doing anything unlesskicked from above or bribed from below.This includes intervening in cases ofharassment by the police, corporationor other government agencies.

In addition, an MP or an MLA isexpected to lobby to get fundssanctioned for repair of roads or to getsarkari approval for the opening of anengineering or medical college. Evento get a primary health centre openedor a public sector enterprise started intheir constituency requires lobbying.In other words, all those things thatought to happen in the normal courseof events require constant string-pulling in India.

The kind of politicians who canthrive in such an atmosphere are notlikely to have the time or the skills re-quired of a legislator such as initiatingmeaningful changes in governmentpolicy and making appropriate laws totranslate that policy into action. Thiscultivation of a network of favour-seek-ers is essentially the only political ac-tivity commonly recognised as “politi-cal work” and “constituency build-ing”. Within this system how can a leg-islator do any meaningful work in her/his constituency? No matter how hardan MLA may try, she/he is not likely to

succeed in getting a primary healthcentre or primary school of that con-stituency to function properly. How-ever, very little effort is required for anMLA to become a part of the corrup-tion network and make money by keep-ing the malfunctioning system intact.The constant pressure from favour-seekers means that an MP/MLA hasno time for a normal family life. Womenfind this part of politics especially hardto cope with. That is why most of ourwomen legislators tend to be from po-litical families which are conditionedto withstand such a stressful life-style.No ordinary person can put up with somuch strain and stay sane.

Staying Power of WomenThe staying power of women in

politics is also limited due to the factthat while they may get support andeven get to be treated as heroines if

A woman who continues todevote time to politics evenafter the electoral setbackgets to be looked down onas a hopeless addict, like awayward man hooked on

drugs or liquor.

they win an election, very few womenare allowed to remain politically activeonce they lose an election. Accordingto Sharad Joshi, whose ShetkariSangathana worked hard to bring largenumber of women into the electoralarena, it is extremely difficult to keepwomen politically active after they havelost an election because a woman whocontinues to devote time to politicseven after the electoral setback gets tobe looked down on as a hopelessaddict, like a wayward man hooked ondrugs or liquor. Therefore, unlike men,women cannot take defeat in their strideand tend to fade out soon thereafter.

Considering all this, it is perhapsnot a coincidence that the few womenwho have developed an independentpolitical base and are able to competewith men in electoral politics are mostlysingle or widowed — as for example,Uma Bharti of the BJP, Mamta Banerjeeof the Congress Party, and ManekaGandhi of the Janata Dal. These womenare able to give their undivided atten-tion to politics because there is no manto hold them back and, therefore, theyare not easily cowed down by scandalor character assassination. These threewomen have had to wage relentlessbattles within their respective partiesfor due recognition because their

Voters queue up to cast their votes at a polling station in Sadar Constituency

No. 97 19

popularity, mass appeal and theirorganisational skills which are resentedby their male colleagues. Yet thesewomen have mostly emerged trium-phant because they are celebrities totheir supporters.

While Indian society may not bevery kind to ordinary women, it lovesto celebrate women who appear andprove themselves to be stronger thanmen.

In Maneka Gandhi’s case, the auraaround the Gandhi family name hasplayed an important role in adding toher charisma, while both Uma Bhartiand Mamta Banerjee come from veryordinary families and were not groomedby any powerful patriarchs. Womenwho show extraordinary resilience,courage and the capacity to withstandcharacter assassination get to betreated with special awe and reverencein our country. Despite all the muck-raking regarding Uma Bharti’s allegedaffairs, her opponents in the party havenot been able to eclipse her. She is apopular cult figure among the BJPfollowers, far more influential inelectoral campaigns of the party thaneven Rajmata Scindia with all her royalantecedents. However, none of thesewomen have the clout their popularityshould have earned them within theirrespective parties.

At the same time, it is ironic thatnone of these three women make aspecial point of mobilising otherwomen. They would see that as adowngrading of their status if theywere projected primarily as leaders ofwomen. The more successful amongwomen politicians do not like to be seenas representing women’s interests. Itis unfortunate that by and large onlythose who find it hard to maintain asecure foothold for themselves inelective politics tend to gravitatetowards women’s issues.

Politics for Ordinary WomenOur democracy will become more

meaningful when ordinary women cantake part in political deliberationswithout having to make heroicsacrifices and prove themselvesstronger than men over and over again.

In the existing circumstances, eventalented women cannot stay in politicson their own steam, especially if theyare married and have families. Womenneed the following conduciveconditions in order to participateeffectively in the public realm:

a supportive family, preferably onewith a political background.someone from within the extendedfamily willing to take over a largepart of the family responsibility,especially the care of her kids.a good amount of surplus moneyin the family.Not only in India, but even in the

Mamta Banerjee

West, very few women can count onall these factors combining together intheir favour. The nuclear family and thehigh divorce rate in the West make itthat much harder for women to givemuch time to sustained politicalactivity, especially since most Westernwomen are simultaneously engaged inemployment outside the house. If awoman’s day revolves arounddropping off and picking up kids fromcreches after an eight or ten hour joboutside the house, there is not muchenergy or time left for political work,except sporadic participation incampaigns and demonstrations. If thenature and demands of politics are suchthat a woman has to choose betweenher children and politics, most womenare likely to avoid politics.

Therefore, it is crucially importantfor women to have more leisure forthem to want to participate in politics.They tend to prefer political work thatdoesn’t take them too far away fromhome on a regular basis. Thus womencan be effective only in decentralisedpolities where decisions affectingpeople’s lives can be taken locally.

The few women who havedeveloped an independentpolitical base and are able

to compete with men inelectoral politics are mostly

single or widowed.

20 MANUSHI

Where Women SucceededIf we look around the world, we find

that women have secured a strongpolitical foothold only in thosesocieties where institutions functionaccording to well-defined democraticnorms, where the crime, violence, andoverall corruption levels are low, wheredecision-making is not concentrated inthe hands of a few, and where citizensactively participate in localgovernance without needing tobecome full-time politicians.

It is no coincidence that the repre-sentation of women is highest in theparliaments of the Scandinavian coun-tries. By contrast, in the more machoand aggressive political climate of theUSA, women’s representation in theSenate is barely nine percent. This isdespite the long history of the militantwomen’s movement in the UnitedStates. Apart from the above men-tioned factors, family life in the Scan-dinavian countries has changeddramatically due to changes fromabove and below, allowingwomen relatively greater leisureand freedom. According to 1994statistics, 66 percent of Swedishwomen in the age group 25-29were never married or remainedsingle. In the 40-49 age group thisfigure drops to 16 percent — stillhigh by Indian standards, wheremarriage is nearly universal. Thisdoesn’t count the people who aredivorced and separated, but onlythose who remain single.

In Sweden, according to 1994data, the average number ofchildren a woman has in her entirelifetime is 1.9, and according to1992-93 figures, 28 percent ofSwedish couples were cohabitingwithout children. In 1990-91,Swedish women spent an averageof 17 hours per week onhousehold work excludingchildcare, with men contributing

six hours. In 1990-91, women had 33hours per week for leisure activitieswith men having only a slightadvantage with 35 hours of leisure perweek.

The state provides high-qualitychildcare through municipalinstitutions and in 1993, 58 percent ofkids aged one to six attended state-supported daycare centres. The statealso provides “cash benefits” up to 450days after a baby is born for bothfathers and mothers of young children.There are many other special benefits

The functional andstreamlined democracies

typical of Scandinavia haveopened up a substantialamount of time for both

women and men who areinterested in political work.

provided for children who have specialneeds.

The functional and streamlineddemocracies typical of Scandinaviahave opened up a substantial amountof time for both women and men whoare interested in political work or anyother work outside the domesticsphere.

However, the support system thatis enjoyed by people living inScandinavian countries is onlypossible because these countrieshave:

very high income levels.not a very dramatic gapbetween the rich and the poor.small and culturally homo-geneous populations.well-developed traditions ofthe state playing a socialwelfare role.a substantial number ofwomen living indepen-dently.very high education levels forboth men and women and highparticipation of women in theincome earning labourforce. For instance, in 1994,

only five percent of women wereunemployed in Swedenwhile the figure for unemployedmen was a little higher at sevenpercent.

a situation in whichfamilies are spending less andless time on housework and careof children. Interaction with“other family members”, such aselderly parents, let alone otherrelatives, is at a minimum.

It is no wonder that havingfreed themselves from thedomestic sphere, Scandinavianwomen lead the women of theworld in political participation.However, this has been achievedat the very heavy cost whichmost of us in India may not bewilling to pay. Care of othersoutside the family takes up aboutCampaigners block all traffic

No. 97 21

30 minutes a week for both women andmen in Sweden. By contrast, Swedishwomen spend 32.6 and men spend 35.2hours a week on leisure activities.4

All of this paints a picture of anincreasing atomisation of human lifeand rapid erosion of family ties. If onecompares the time involvement ofSwedish parents with their children orrelatives to the amount of importancegiven to family life in India, includingtime with children, old parents,relatives, neighbours, and friends, itbecomes obvious why most people inIndia, not just women, are averse tosustained political work.

However, the gains Scandinavianwomen have made in the public realmare indeed substantial.

In this respect, Japan provides aninteresting contrast where politics atthe top is highly male-dominated butat the bottom is becoming ratherwoman-centric. In Japan, a majority ofwomen do not work outside the house,while men are expected to workextremely hard to support their families.Employers control not only men’s longworking hours, but also their leisuretime when they are expected tosocialise with male colleagues goingin groups to bars or geisha houses.Consequently, men have hardly anytime for family life. They come hometoo late, too tired, and leave too earlyto be able to take an active interestin family or neighbourhood affairs.Consequently, the whole domesticterrain and neighbourhood is left towomen who have lots of free time ontheir hands once their husbands andkids leave the house. In addition, menare expected to hand over theirearnings to women — family financesare controlled and managed mostly bywomen.

The male-centric traditional cultureof Japan does expect women to remain

servile to men and nurture themobediently. But since men are homeso little, the time women spend servingand pleasing men is very small. Duringsuch time they tend to wear a Kabuki-mask-like expression and do therequired rituals, only to shed that maskof servility as soon as men leave home.Unlike women in India, they socialisewith other women freely, especially intheir neighbourhoods and they do notlive under a regime of restrictions overtheir movements and interactions withthe outside world, provided they arenot spending too much time with othermen or having extramarital affairs.Consequently, women as a group havethe time and the resources to take anactive interest in local neighbourhoodaffairs — including civic matters. Thepolitics at this level is heavily female-centred.

The famous socialist party womanleader, Takako Doi, came intoprominence by quietly building a vast

In Japan, politics at thetop is highly male-

dominated but at thebottom is becoming rather

woman-centric.

Having freed themselvesfrom the domestic sphere,Scandinavian women leadthe women of the world in

political participation.

4. Women and Men in Sweden: Facts andFigures, 1995. Gender Statistics Unit,Sweden, 1995.

political base by mobilising suchfemale networks and energy into thepolitical mainstream.

Thus, women in Japan have carvedout a special space for themselves inpolitics at the base level without theconfrontational militancy of theWestern feminists. In this case, thefact that most Japanese women arerelatively leisured housewives provedto be a positive asset. It would havebeen much harder had they beenrunning from high-pressured jobs, tohousehold shopping, to creches, andto the kitchens, as most Westernwomen do.

All this only goes to underscorethe fact that the problem is far morecomplex than simply that Indian womenare lagging behind due todiscrimination. We have to makepolitics worthy of women, tune itsensitively to their requirements orelse even with reserved seats, onlythose who become like saree-wearing men will be able to survive inpolitics.

Photographs courtesypage 9 Sunil Umraopage 10 India Todaypage 11 Indian Expresspage 13 Indian Expresspage 14 Indian Expresspage 15 top India Todaypage 15 bottom Madhu Kishwarpage 16 Indian Expresspage 17 Indian Expresspage 18 Indian Expresspage 19 India Todaypage 20 Indian Express