For the 17th Lok Sabha election, major political parties have again shied away from fielding women. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Congress, two of the biggest political outfits in the country, have given less than 12 per cent seats to women. Under-representation of women in seat distribution for candidature in the Upper and Lower Houses of the Parliament of India and for Legislative Assemblies and Legislative Councils of the state government has been debated in SAARC countries time and again. Our neighbouring countries have women’s quota in parliament as follows: Bangladesh - 13 per cent (2008), Pakistan - 17.5 per cent (2002) and Nepal - 33 per cent (2016).

1. ALL PARTIES NEED TO WAKE UP. WOMEN ARE 50
PER CENT OF THE ELECTORATE. UPSET AND APPALLED
TO KNOW THAT OTHER THAN MAMTA BANERJEE WHO
HAS GIVEN 41 PER CENT AND NAVIN PATNAIK WHO HAS
GIVEN 33 PER CENT TO WOMEN CANDIDATES ALL
OTHER PARTIES ONLY PAY LIP SERVICE
TO OUR CAUSE. — SHAINA NC, BJP LEADER
F
or the 17th Lok Sabha elec-
tion, major political par-
ties have again shied away
from fielding women. The
Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) and Congress, two of the
biggest political outfits in the coun-
try, have given less than 12 per cent
seats to women.
Under-representation of women in
seat distribution for candidature in
the Upper and Lower Houses of the
Parliament of India and for
Legislative Assemblies and
Legislative Councils of the state
government has been debated in
SAARC countries time and again.
Our neighbouring countries have
women’s quota in parliament as fol-
lows: Bangladesh - 13 per cent (2008),
Pakistan - 17.5 per cent (2002) and
Nepal - 33 per cent (2016).
It is interesting that same nation-
al-level male politicians who sup-
ported 33 per cent reserved seats for
women in the Panchayati Raj insti-
tutions in 1993 — and in the recent
years it increased to 50 per cent in
more than 19 states — have
expressed their outrage
against the reservation
of 33 per cent seats for
women in the
Legislative Assembly
and in the Parliament.
They are using the
same arguments as
our colonial masters
used against the
native then, i.e.
women will not be
able to govern as
they are inexperi-
enced.
Justification
given by main-
stream
political parties for not fielding
women as candidates for
Parliamentary seats is that unde-
serving and inexperienced women
from influential families, mostly
from upper class and upper caste
backgrounds who are under the con-
trol of their fathers, husbands and
brothers, will come to power and
would not make meaningful contri-
bution in politics nor will they do
anything for the development of
their respective constituencies. But,
is not this true for male candidates
also who benefit from the dynastic
policy of political parties?
All political parties ignore
women foot soldiers who have
dedicated 20-30-40 best years of
their lives for party work such
as mobilisation on the
issues of regional or
national importance;
door-to-door cam-
paigning for party
rallies; public meet-
ings; demonstra-
tions; jail bharo;
picketing; day-to-
day activities of
the organisation;
community work;
networking; writ-
ing press releases,
leaflets, pamphlets
and circulars — in
short from writing to
fighting; when selec-
tion of candidates for
Legislative Assemblies or
Parliamentary seats are done. What
women party workers lack is not
‘win-ability’ but the backing of
money and muscle power.
Women politicians of all national
parties were jubilant when the Bill
on 33 per cent reservation of seats
in the parliament was introduced on
March 9, 2010 in Rajya Sabha and
also got passed. But Lok Sabha did
not pass it. Not only that, but their
own political parties, even when
headed by women, did not give party
tickets to seasoned women political
workers for the 16th Lok Sabha
Election in 2014. For the 17th Lok
Sabha election, only the All India
Trinamul Congress and Biju Janata
Dal have given more than 1/3rd of
tickets to their women candidates.
The major national parties have not
kept their promise as the table
below reveals.
Women activists in social move-
ments are politically articulate,
have courage of conviction to fight
for their agenda. They command
credibility and social respectability
for their sincerely, Spartan lifestyle
and solidarity towards the margin-
alised sections. But most of them
shun electoral politics as they find it
too murky and under the control of
toxic and misogynistic patriarchs.
Enormous use of money and mus-
cle power to win election also make
political life difficult for women. It
is in this context that the demand of
33 per cent reservation of seats for
women in the Parliament and State
Assemblies becomes extremely
important for deepening of democ-
racy for which passage of Women's
Reservation Bill by Parliament and
State Legislative Assemblies and at
least 1/3rd reserved seats for women
in all internal committees of politi-
cal parties are imperative.
The women’s rights organisations
in India are campaigning for their
demands of 33 per cent reservation
of seats for women in the
Parliament and legislature, univer-
salisation of education and public
health, gender responsive budget-
ing, land/property/housing rights,
implementation of the law to pre-
vent sexual harassment at work-
place, code of conduct with regard
to use misogynist language from
public platform, gender sensitive
criminal justice system, support to
women survivors of violence, safety
of women in the streets-bus sta-
tions-railways and support services
such as night shelter, toilet blocks at
all public places, day care centre for
children, special provision liveli-
hood needs for single women-wid-
ows and divorcees, deserted, women
with disabilities and transgender
women. But who will promote
women's agenda?
The writer is Professor, Advanced
Centre for Women's Studies, School of
Development Studies, TISS, Mumbai
PAGE
11360o
SUNDAY | 14 APRIL 2019 | MUMBAITHE ASIAN AGE
ANALYSIS
FEATURES
OPINIONREVIEWS
INTERVIEWS STORY BEHIND THE NEWS
MOST OF THE WOMEN ACTIVISTS IN SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
SHUN ELECTORAL POLITICS AS THEY FIND IT TOO MURKY
AND UNDER THE CONTROL OF MISOGYNISTIC PATRIARCHS.
Ensuring
Representation
of Muslims
U
ndoubtedly, the political representa-
tion of Muslims is under increased
pressure in Indian democracy. In
this context, the political parties of India
have to first tackle two key challenges:
how to reinvent itself to relate to elec-
torate and emerge as a tool to represent
the interests of the whole; and how to
restore democratic sense of inclusion,
particularly among Muslims forming 14.5
per cent of India’s population. If these
challenges are not addressed timely, there
is every possibility of minority citizens
becoming irrelevant and disappearing
from the political map of the country.
For long, political parties in India main-
tained a careful balance by assuring the
fair representation of minorities both in
the party fold and legislative bodies. But
the recent trend shows that the political
representation of minori-
ties and Muslims in par-
ticular has been set in
stone. It can be seen in the
lowest ever representa-
tion of Muslims in the
Parliament with 22 MPs
forming 3.5 per cent of the
total strength of 16th Lok
Sabha (2014-2019).
Previously, the gap
between the size of
Muslim population and
their representation in
Lok Sabha was fairly maintained. For
instance, Indian Parliament has seen the
upward increase of Muslims from two per
cent in 1952 to 10 per cent in 1980 (highest
so far). From 1984 to 2009, the strength of
Muslim MPs remained between the
ranges of eight per cent to six per cent.
The decline is equally noted in the state
assemblies. Comparing the assembly elec-
tions from 2013-2015 with their previous
elections for 968 assembly seats in
Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Delhi,
we noted the decline of Muslim represen-
tation from 35 per cent to 20 per cent. In
2018, only one Muslim candidate won in
Chhattisgarh, two in Madhya Pradesh,
eight apiece in Rajasthan and Telangana.
The representation of Muslims in UP
Assembly has declined from 17 per cent in
2012 to six percent in 2017.
Fair representation of minorities is
linked with the number of candidates
contesting the election with the symbols
of mainstream parties. But for the last
two decades, we have witnessed the con-
sistent apathy of mainstream parties to
field Muslim candidates fairly in Lok
Sabha elections. For instance, in 2009, one
Muslim candidate won out of four Muslim
candidates fielded by BJP. In 2014, BJP
fielded seven Muslim candidates but none
won. For 2019 parliamentary election, BJP
has announced seven Muslim candidates
again out of the 374 candidates it has
declared so far. In 2009, the Congress, field-
ed 29 Muslim candidates of whom only 10
won. In 2014, only seven of the 31
Congress Muslim candidates won. In 2019,
there are 32 Muslim candidates in the 344
candidates declared by the Congress so
far. Interestingly, regional parties who
were banking more on minority votes are
exhibiting the similar pattern of denial.
In 90 of India’s total 675 districts,
Muslims are more than 20 per cent. There
are 85 Lok Sabha constituencies where
Muslims constitute more than 20 per cent.
In the 720 of the total 4,121 Assembly con-
stituencies, Muslims are in decisive num-
ber. Muslim electorates are in good posi-
tion to turn the fate of candidates and
parties in good number of constituencies.
But against the prevailing notion,
Muslims do not vote en bloc. Their aspira-
tion to participate in the electoral process
equally and politically is increasing
despite denials. It is seen in the increased
number of Muslim candidates from 819 in
2009 Lok Sabha election to 882 candidates
in 2014 Lok Sabha election including
party and independent candidates.
Similarly, Muslims do not vote a candi-
date exclusively belonging to their own
community until the mainstream parties
considered relevant by Muslims fielded
exclusively Muslim candidates. Yet,
majority of the political parties are
approaching minority communities only
as monolith voters than a potential candi-
dates. How long Muslims be defined in
terms of exclusive religious category than
from the notion of citizenship?
Undoubtedly, the deliberate denial of
candidature from minority communities
is symptomatic example of populist
majoritarian impulse. It casts the very
survival of representative democracy
rooted in the idea of inclusive citizenship
in doubt. The denial of voice to minorities
in the political arena are the most striking
manifestation of democratic crisis.
Because, first, the denial instils political
disillusionment among the minorities.
Second, it equally sus-
pends the rationale of
accommodating diversi-
ty in democratic system.
To deny candidacy to
Muslims, two spurious
grounds are offered. One
is winability. And the
second one is polarisa-
tion. Before these two
factors, the denial of
rights as equal citizens
and the denial of equal
opportunity to represent
their interest politically are deliberately
ignored. This growing trend in India has
simply turned the very original meanings
of ‘voting rights’ frivolous. Sadly, this
exclusionary instinct is becoming
stronger even among the regional parties
as a tool to contain the growth of right-
wing fervour in India.
To address the denial, one may offer the
proposition of adopting the principle of
legislative reservation. But, this is imper-
fect remedy. In the Constituent Assembly
Debate after partition, Muslim members
opposed the idea of legislative reservation
for the minorities in the Minority Rights
Sub-Committee Report tabled by Sardar
Patel to realise the idea of “secular demo-
cratic state”. And they did rightly so.
Second, it is being argued that the inter-
ests of the Muslims could be protected
only through Muslim specific parties and
institutions. The idea is equally not a suc-
cess as there are three dozens of Muslim
parties already in fray. It is a poor propo-
sition to believe that Muslim interests
could only be represented by Muslim can-
didates and Muslim exclusive parties.
Muslims need to indulge in post-minori-
ty framework of citizenship politics.
Apart from developing community leader-
ships, the community should participate
in the activities of the cross-
sectional/religious civil society organisa-
tions to articulate their interests in sup-
port with larger citizenry. There is a need
to shift the attention of the community
from cultural and emotional agenda to
seeking favourable schemes, policies and
programmes so as to improve the liveli-
hood of Muslims. The community should
equally focus on creating critical intellec-
tual mass to work for itself.
Nothing could be achieved if minorities
are not trained as leaders and offered an
opportunity to lead the country, con-
stituency or, on occasions, their commu-
nity specific interests. The costs of polit-
ical denial is not only disenfranchise-
ment of the minorities but also deprival of
India of its classical heritage of “unity in
diversity” protected through pluralistic
model of participatory governance.
The writer is the Associate Professor &
Head of Department of Political Science,
Maulana Azad National Urdu University
Dr. Afroz Alam
Prof. Vibhuti
Patel
MAJORITY OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES ARE
APPROACHING MINORITIES ONLY AS MONOLITH
VOTERS RATHER THAN AS POTENTIAL CANDIDATES
LONG MARCH OF
INDIAN WOMEN
Source: Compiled from the press releases
of the aforementioned political parties
T
he Election Commission
of India (EC) has made its
mark as an exemplary
institution in electoral excelle-
nce ever since the first general
elections were held in 1952. But
in 2019, it is coming under scan-
ner as it has never come before.
A group of retired bureau-
crats and diplomats have also
written a letter to the President
of India dated April 8, terming
the EC as “weak-kneed” and
“suffering from a crisis of cred-
ibility”. The letter highlights
EC’s “pusillanimous” response
to the Prime Minister’s ASAT
announcement, the model code
of conduct (MCC) violations by
Yogi Adityanath and Rajasthan
governor Kalyan Singh, VVPAT
audits and corrosion of politi-
cal discourse in general.
Though nowhere mentioned
in the letter, the legalisation of
MCC is often proposed as a
solution by many to “empower”
the EC. This debate intensifies
with every successive election.
The case for legalisation comes
from ones who either think it is
toothless or rather paradoxical-
ly, the ones who are stung by it.
The reality is that the code’s
moral authority far outweighs
legal weight. Politicians realise
that censures from EC invite
negative public opinion. It is
not without reason that the late
Goa CM Manohar Parrikar said
in May 2012 that he “bows to the
moral authority of the model
code of conduct, which should
take precedence over his consti-
tutional right”. It has an
instant impact, unlike the long-
drawn legal processes.
It is noteworthy that certain
provisions of the code already
have statutory backing in laws
such as the Indian Penal Code,
1860; the RPA, 1951 and the Code
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),
1973. An action under MCC
does not preclude legal action
under relevant laws. The solu-
tion lies in strict enforcement.
The model code aside, fresh
questions being raised about
EC’s credibility are certainly
worrying. Commission officials
have been accused countless
times in the past for being
stooges of the government, but
the present situation is certain-
ly unprecedented. The genesis
of the problem lies in the
flawed system of appointments
of the chief election commis-
sioner (CEC) and election com-
missioners, which is done uni-
laterally by the government of
the day. This debate can be set-
tled once and for all by depoliti-
cising EC appointments.
The Law Commission in its
255th report recommended a
collegium, consisting of the
PM, the Leader of Opposition
and the Chief Justice of India.
Political stalwarts such as L.K.
Advani and former CECs
including B.B. Tandon, N.
Gopalaswamy and I have sup-
ported the idea even when we
were in office. But successive
governments have ignored the
repeated calls.
In November 2018, a PIL was
also filed in the SC calling for a
“fair, just and transparent
process of selection by consti-
tuting a neutral and independ-
ent collegium/selection com-
mittee”. On such a vital issue,
the judiciary, which I have
always described as the
guardian angel of democracy,
has to act urgently. Derailment
of democracy and decline of
public trust will lead to degra-
dation in the credibility of all
institutions, including the judi-
ciary itself.
The system of removal of
election commissioners also
needs reform. Presently, only
the CEC is protected from
removal except through impea-
chment. The government can
control a defiant CEC through
the majority voting power of
the two commissioners, who
have equal voting powers. They
have equal powers, but are vul-
nerable to government pres-
sure, due to the uncertainty of
elevation by seniority.
Unsurprisingly, the commis-
sion’s reputation suffers when
it is not able to tame the recal-
citrant political parties. This is
especially true in the context of
the ruling party. Despite being
the registering authority under
Section 29A of RPA, 1951, the
commission has no power to de-
register political parties for
violations of MCC, or even for
the gravest of violations of the
oath taken during registration.
The EC is the guardian of
electoral democracy and needs
urgent institutional safeguards
to remain fiercely autonomous.
It is time that action is taken,
not for making the MCC into a
law, which will actually be
counterproductive, but for the
depoliticisation of constitu-
tional appointments coupled
with empowerment of the com-
mission to deregister political
parties which will deter grave
electoral misconduct. This is
will make lead to decision mak-
ing being quicker as well as
more effective.
While these reforms are hotly
debated, it is imperative that
the EC asserts ample authority
that it already has constitution-
ally. It must make tough deci-
sions. It’s not mere discretion
that it is exercising, but a pious
mandate.
The writer is former Chief
Election Commissioner of
India. He is the author of An
Undocumented Wonder — the
Making of the Great Indian
Election and editor of The
Great March of Democracy —
Seven Decades of India’s
Elections
ECneeds urgent institutional safeguards to remain autonomous
Nothing can be
achieved if
minorities are
not offered an
opportunity to
lead the country
S.Y.
Quraishi
DISTRIBUTIONOFPARTYCANDIDATURETOMENANDWOMEN
BYPOLITICALPARTIESININDIAFORTHELOKSABHAELECTION2019
All India Trinamul
Congress
Men
42
% of women: 40.47%
Women
17
Biju Janata Dal
Men
19
% of women: 36.84%
Women
7
Rashtriya Janata Dal
Men
19
% of women: 17.64%
Women
7
Samajwadi Party
Men
29
% of women: 17.24%
Women
5
Indian National Congress
Men
344
% of women: 13.66%
Women
47
Amma Makkal
Munnetra Kazhagam
Men
23
% of women: 13.04%
Women
3
Bharatiya Janata Party
Men
374
% of women: 12.03%
Women
45
Telangana Rashtra Samithi
Men
17
% of women: 11.76%
Women
2
Nationalist Congress Party
Men
18
% of women: 11.11%
Women
2
Praja Socialist Party
Men
35
% of women: 08.57%
Women
3
Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam
Men
20
% of women: 10.00%
Women
2
Bahujan Samaj Party
Men
12
% of women: 08.33%
Women
1
Shiv Sena
Men
22
% of women: 04.54%
Women
1
Janata Dal (United)
Men
17
% of women: 05.88%
Women
1
All India Anna
Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam
Men
21
% of women: 04.76%
Women
1