Reservation for women: An appeal in defense

Affirmative action, or in the Indian parlance, reservation, must be comprehended to be not so much as an accusation of inferiority aimed at the intended recipients as much as a desperate attempt by a State, that is obliged to work towards the development of the people, and not just work at that, but also be seen to work, to ensure the aims and objectives of social justice.
Why such aims and objectives necessitate such desperate measures isn’t hard to answer. We are what our society makes us out to be. When social prejudices and biases can derail even the most well-intentioned reform schemes, then how can social justice be achieved? The answer lies through the forceful intervention of the State.

Society contends that each and every member of its fold possesses the sacred right of representation. On the basis of this representation, it then presumes to accord legitimacy to the State. And yet, when such representation fails to echo the true character of the society, choosing instead to mirror the jaundiced and bigoted visions of a few demented sections, can such a representation lay the foundation, a strong one at that, of a legitimate and powerful State? In truth, in a nation of one billion, in the highest legislative body in the country, there exist less than 15 percent female legislators, when the proportion of women in the entire population is nearly half; it speaks volumes of the “representative” nature of the legislature.

And so, the State must assume for itself the right to impose on a generally unwilling society a reformative process to achieve justice and to right all that must be deemed wrong by the laws of natural justice, until such time as when the society comprehends genuinely the need for the said process. Such an enlightened society is capable of executing or rather meeting such egalitarian objectives on its own, without intervention by the State.

It is an important element of affirmative action that merit alone is insufficient. A policy based only on merit would not recognize past - and continuing- injustices that may hinder the realization of their full potential by disadvantaged groups. In many cases, what we see as merit is the product of years of social and economic opportunities, so that those who have not had these opportunities may appear to lack merit.

Women have traditionally been denied access to education, and in effect, to a better and much more empowered lifestyle. That such mentalities are on the wane is a positive sign, and worth applauding, but it is important that we also investigate avenues whence we can empower the woman further. It is not merely a question of empowering members of a specific gender; rather it is of recognizing that an empowered woman implies an empowered family. We have the example of the local self-government bodies, wherein nearly one third of the seats are reserved for women.

A study indicates that women representatives are usually more responsive to their duties, more attuned to the sensitivities of their constituents, and more focused on meeting the core requirements of sanitation, public health, education, water supply, and basic infrastructure. Such representatives also are more amenable to proposals for investments in entrepreneurial ventures, as also for limiting or even eliminating the influence of alcohol and other intoxicants on the family. That doesn't go to say that male representatives are boors, and drunkards; it's just that such empowered women tend to pass the fruits around, rather than hoarding it.

And yet even while we observe all these statistics, we must never lose sight of the fundamental question: Is reservation for women in today’s age justified? My take on this contentious issue is an emphatic ‘yes’.
With all due respect, I do think that India’s women deserve this legislation. Merely the fact women may seem to avail of such reservation to enter the legislatures in no way implies that they aren’t equal to men. On the contrary, when I observe the statistics, I feel that they are more justified, more qualified to be in the legislatures than men. And yet, I cannot bring it upon myself to ignore the urban-rural divide.

Women in urban India are more liberated in the economic sense of the word and perhaps even in the social sense as well. I don’t wish to imply that city women are not restricted like rural women; just that the restrictions are different, and perhaps lesser. Rural India to this day remains a predominantly feudal society, whence the birth of a boy child merits celebration, while that of a girl child means grieving. That this society chooses to deny its girls access to education, basic healthcare, employment opportunities, etc., in my opinion, is one of the primary reasons why rural India remains underdeveloped. Admitted, this situation doesn’t exist in cities. But, on the basis of certain kinds of freedom enjoyed by urban women, it cannot be said that women as a whole have managed to win equality.

Reservation, in any form, for any group, is never, or rather should never be intentioned to last forever. A carte blanche is not my idea of a beneficial proposal for either the women of India or for India per se. But as always the devil lies in the implementation. We must understand that reservation alone also is not the panacea to the problems. We need to create more awareness, and also enlighten our people. An enlightened implementation of the reservation policy may ensure that our society is sensitized to the issues facing the female population as a whole as a result of its prejudices and biases, and as such these prejudices and biases are discarded.

Anger at reservations is common, but such anger may be better channelled when it is targeted at the real problem. The seats that will become subject to State policy on reservation may prove to be miniscule in comparison to the daily deprivations that hundreds of millions of women endure. The simple truth is, reservations on the basis of gender happen far more as a social custom than through state policy. Those reservations of opportunities by custom are the larger phenomena; if we are going to be angry about reservations, we should begin by first attacking those. Only when we have made significant progress in erasing reservations stemming from social customs can we honestly focus on gender equality as a State policy.

Merely because the prevalent reservation policies have been misused is no reason, or justification to deny the State the opportunity to use the same tool for achieving some semblance of gender equality. Misuse is an act of the People, not of the State. A responsible and responsive citizenry will or rather should be able to appreciate that reservation will succeed only when those for whom it is intentioned are the true recipients of its fruits. This appreciation should arise out of a greater realization that the empowerment of the recipients will only lead to an improvement in the general standard of our society. If the political system is seen to misuse the provisions of the policy for their own vested interests, then this responsive citizenry must use its powers and purge the system of such miscreants, whose sole aim is self-gratification. If a certain section of the citizenry is seen to abuse the terms of the policy, then through their representatives, the remaining electorate is entitled to the right to purge the policy of such provisos which are being misused. Whether or not it chooses to exercise these powers and rights is solely its prerogative.

We may be diverting our attention from the meritocracy goal for a moment, but when by the effective and efficient implementation of the reservation policy, we would have in effect eliminated the very need for it, that day, truly we shall be justified in terming our state a meritocracy, not so much a result of the impositions of the State, as the efforts of the People.