"A victory for India's women", or is it?

[whore]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/03/a_victory_for_indias_women.html

So when a landmark bill reserving a third of seats for women in parliament and state legislative assemblies was passed in the upper house after stiff resistance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8554895.stm) by a small group of socialist MPs, it was a historic moment for the world's largest democracy. Analysts reckon this is politically as significant as the introduction of communal electorates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India)in 1909, and reserving seats for the "depressed" in 1932. But more than anything, it is a crowning achievement for India's women.

that stiff resistance by socialists, is not because they oppose womens rights. but, because they say

... it will reduce representation of minorities and socially disadvantaged groups. They want set quotas for women from Muslim and low-caste communities.

sounds fair yes?

ignoring the whole parliament thing, what do you think about this interesting move by the indian parliament?


Also, with barely 10% of its parliamentary seats held by women, India needs to play catch up. Its neighbours fare much better - Bangladesh reserves 15% of its parliamentary seats for women, Pakistan 30% and Afghanistan, after its new constitution, more than 27%.
as well, i understand that in a number of european countries, there are a gaurenteed number of spots for women on most parties candidate lists (leading to sweden having almost 50% of its parliment being women).

[¿Que?]

I know so little about indian politics and even culture, there's not much I can comment. Still, I can't help imagining what the response would be like if someone made such a proposal here in the US. I mean seriously, can you imagine?

[Red Commissar]

We will have to wait and see how it acts out. Their passing it on International Women's Day is no coincidence, but will it really empower women or give the illusion of it?

And I suppose like was later mentioned, the bit about some socialists opposing came out of their concern over what kind of "women" would be allowed in? What if they were all Hindi and upper-class?

[red cat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/03/a_victory_for_indias_women.html


that stiff resistance by socialists, is not because they oppose womens rights. but, because they say


sounds fair yes?

ignoring the whole parliament thing, what do you think about this interesting move by the indian parliament?


as well, i understand that in a number of european countries, there are a gaurenteed number of spots for women on most parties candidate lists (leading to sweden having almost 50% of its parliment being women).

I don't see how this can help Indian women. Letting a few dalit leaders in to the parliament didn't empower the dalits. Reserving seats for a few aristocrat women won't stop the thousands of dowry-deaths, well planned gang rapes and domestic violence in a country where the village-courts assume while trying rapists that a woman can always prevent a rape by crossing her legs.