Why be Afraid of Being called a ‘Feminist’?

The passage of the constitution amendment bill to introduce 33% reservation for women in parliament and state assemblies in the Rajya Sabha is a progressive and substantive step towards the political empowerment of women in India. The fact that it has taken nearly a decade and a half for this legislation, since its introduction, to be passed in the upper house of parliament stands testimony to the stubborn opposition against it from various quarters. There is no point singling out the “Yadav troika” or the “social justice lobby” for opposing this legislation. It is well known that a big section of male parliamentarians cutting across party lines; who have never held less than 87% seats in the parliament since the first general elections of independent India; have been all along providing covert (sometimes even overt) support to the prominent and vocal opponents of this bill. In essence, the opposition is from all those who want to preserve the status quo. Therefore the real roadblock before the bill is patriarchal ideology; not individual parties or leaders. It is important to underscore this point at this juncture, because the political battle to enact this progressive legislation has only been half won so far. It cannot become a law until the Lok Sabha passes it and at least 15 state assemblies endorse this constitutional amendment.

Idea Whose Time Has Come

Much has been said about the desirability of women’s reservation in Indian legislatures. It is undeniable that not only will it empower women by increasing their political representation but also open up substantial space for gender issues in the political sphere. This is very essential given the unequal status of women in our society. Almost six decades of overwhelming male domination in legislatures has ensured that gender equality, as envisaged in the Indian constitution, still remains a far cry. Not only have women continued to be denied equal rights in land, property, access to education and jobs, but violence against women in myriad forms, from female foeticide and domestic violence, to dowry and honour killings, to sexual harassment, continues to be a part of our daily existence. If we are serious about reversing these retrograde trends, we have to accept the centrality of women’s empowerment in all spheres – social, economic, cultural and political.

Among the myriad discrimination against and denial of equal rights to women, the political one is crucial. Patriarchy never had problems in accepting a woman as a political leader or even a head of the state; the history of India, indeed South Asia, is replete with such examples. But whether in intent or in action, that never really challenged the status quo. In contrast, 33% reservation for women in legislatures will not only amount to a trifle change in the status quo; it has the potential to fundamentally alter the political landscape and challenge existing power relations in society. That is why the patriarchal opposition to a constitutionally mandated floor of 33% representation in legislatures is so steep. But this is also the reason why this opposition has to be comprehensively defeated. The experience of women’s reservation in village panchayats and other local bodies have already shown the positive spin offs of greater public participation by women, not only in terms of advancing social justice but also in terms of greater efficacy of public policy. This process needs to be furthered, especially at the highest level of decision-making and governance. In the 15th Loksabha, out of 543 MPs, only 59 are women (10.8%). This status quo is unacceptable, not only from the point of view of women, but the society as a whole. Women’s reservation in legislatures is an idea whose time has surely come.

Political Opponents

The opposition to the women’s reservation bill today is couched in three distinct but inter-related threads. Let us consider them by turns. The most vocal and steadfast opponents of the bill within the political class have termed it as anti-OBC, anti-dalit and anti-Muslim. They have demanded sub-quotas for women from these categories. These demands, either raised together or in parts, amount to pitting one deprived section of society against another in order to jettison women’s reservations altogether. While there are perfectly just grounds for OBC reservations in education and jobs due to historical discrimination, there has not been any significant demand for OBC reservation in legislatures. Even the SP or the RJD have not demanded this so far because given their proportion in population, OBCs are fairly represented in the political sphere. In case the seats held by OBC MPs or MLAs get reserved for women, there is no reason why OBC women cannot get elected from those constituencies. In fact, the proportion of OBC women MPs in total women MPs in the 14th Lok Sabha was slightly higher than the proportion of OBC MPs in total MPs. While their socio-economic backwardness is undeniable, OBCs cannot be considered as politically or electorally marginalized communities in today’s context.

As far as dalits and adivasis are concerned, the constitutionally mandated SC/ST reservation in parliament and state assemblies already exists and 33% reservation for women will only amount to reserving one third of SC/ST reserved seats for SC/ST women. This will substantially increase the number of SC/ST women in legislatures from the current levels; for instance to at least 40 SC/ST women MPs in parliament from the current number of 17. The argument made by the BSP that this increase in the proportion of SC/ST women be brought about not by reserving one third of existing SC/ST seats but by increasing the SC/ST quota itself beyond the constitutionally mandated 22.5%, is not very convincing. If more women have to be adequately accommodated in parliament and assemblies, then men belonging to all castes and communities, including those belonging to the socially deprived sections, have to make some way for the women of their castes and communities. After all, gender discrimination and oppression cuts across all castes, communities and class. To suggest that the principle of positive discrimination in favour of women is acceptable for everybody else but not for my caste or community is neither a logically tenable nor an ethically sound position.

The situation vis-à-vis Muslims does merit a more sympathetic consideration. The number of Muslim MPs in the 15th Loksabha is a mere 28 (5%), down from 34 in the 14th Loksabha. This is certainly way below the proportion of Muslims in Indian population (13.4%). There is no doubt that this gross under-representation of Muslims in parliament and several state assemblies, needs to be redressed. However, reservation for Muslims on a religious basis is still an unsettled question within the framework of the Indian constitution. The Ranganath Mishra Commission recommendations have surely opened the issue, as far as minority reservations in education and jobs are concerned. Given the past interpretations of secularism by the judiciary, the implementation of the Ranganath Mishra Commission may well require a constitutional amendment. In fact, the existing socio-economic condition of the Muslim minorities, as brought out clearly by the Sachar Committee findings, merits a serious reconsideration of the received notions of secularism and social justice. Can the secular basis of the state remain secure if the largest religious minority continues to remain a victim of systemic discrimination and socio-economic deprivation after sixty years of independence? It is imperative that the Congress led Government at the Centre initiates a result-oriented debate on this vital issue without any further delay. It is inexplicable why the Central Government took over two years to table the Ranganath Commission report in parliament after its submission and that too without any action taken report.

Having said so, however, it makes little sense for those genuinely fighting to ensure social justice for the Muslims to oppose the constitution amendment for women’s reservation because it does not reserve seats for Muslim women. That amounts to pitting the legitimate demand for greater Muslim representation against another equally legitimate step to enhance women’s participation. This will only work towards narrowing the support for greater Muslim representation in legislatures. India’s neighbouring countries with a majority of Muslim population, like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, already have constitutionally mandated quota for women in their national legislatures. In fact the positive experience of those countries following greater women’s participation in legislatures, especially for their women, have strengthened and inspired the forces in favour of women’s reservation in India.

While women’s reservation in the present form may or may not increase the participation of Muslim women in legislatures, it is certainly not going to make matters any worse for the Muslim minorities. Opposing the women’s reservation bill in the name of Muslim quota would be entirely unwarranted, since it amounts to postponing the issue of women’s reservation on which there is a political consensus today – after 14 years of debate no political party says they are opposed to women’s reservation per se – till a consensus emerges on the issue of Muslim reservation, which will obviously take more time. If anything, a broad based consensus on a constitution amendment in favour of the women’s reservation bill today can only facilitate a similar consensus on Muslim reservation tomorrow. And when that happens, 33% of those seats will also get reserved for Muslim women.

Liberal Cynics

Apart from the political opposition to the constitution amendment, there are opponents in the liberal intelligentsia, who are berating the bill in televised discussions and news columns. Some are of course conceptually on the same page as far as women’s reservation is concerned, but are opposed to the specific provisions of the bill, like reserving 33% of the existing 543 seats rather than applying quota on an increased number of constituencies in the Loksabha so as to protect the existing seats of male MPs. Some continue to maintain that mandated quotas in the candidate lists of political parties would have been a better and non-controversial option. What has particularly miffed some commentators is the provision that the 33% women’s quota seats would change every five years so that in fifteen years every constituency in the country is covered. This, it has been argued, would imply existing male MPs losing their right to contest in constituencies, which they have “nurtured” for years.

In its long and arduous journey through the two parliamentary committees – the first one a joint select committee chaired by the late Communist leader Geeta Mukherjee and second time the parliamentary standing committee on law and justice – the merits and demerits of all these options and suggestions were thoroughly debated. In fact, very few legislations in the history of independent India have been scrutinized so meticulously for fourteen long years. All options other than what is contained in the present legislation were found to be inferior. For instance, reserving candidate lists of political parties would never guarantee a minimum threshold of elected women MPs in the first past the post system; it would merely ensure a minimum number of contestants. International experience shows that the countries which have opted for women’s quota in candidate lists under the first past the post system, continue to have much lower representation of women in their legislatures; the situation does not change much because it is difficult for female candidates to win against their male counterparts. Increasing the number of seats of parliament, to the extent of protecting all the existing seats of male MPs would amount to increasing the number of seats to over 720. An increase of such magnitude in the number of constituencies for the parliament and state assemblies, would not only make the elections and the democratic process logistically unwieldy and prohibitively expensive, it would also lead to the construction of new buildings for parliament and state assemblies in order to accommodate more women!

The upshot is that all these proposals which are being parroted today, which sought to accommodate the concerns of women’s representation while keeping the status quo of overwhelming male domination intact, were debated threadbare and found to be infeasible. Those who are shedding tears about existing male MPs/candidates losing their “nurtured” constituencies, are of course being quite candid. But they are missing the whole point about this legislation. The fact that this legislation will break the status quo, if implemented, does not amount to any argument against the legislation. The problem is with the status quo itself, since it has been unfair to women, who comprise half of our population and electorate. Therefore this legislation explicitly seeks to break that status quo; but does so in a fair manner, where all existing male MPs/candidates have to make way for a woman MP sometime or the other over the next three elections. And any male MP/candidate can return to contest in his “nurtured” constituency after a gap of one election. Thus, on the one hand it does not take away the right from any male MP/candidate to contest in his preferred constituency in perpetuity. On the other hand, it creates concrete possibilities for the growth of political activism of women across all constituencies of the country. Anyone who sincerely wishes to see greater participation of women in politics and enhanced number of women elected representatives will easily see that the present legislation is the best among all the options available.

Then of course, there are the skeptics, who consider greater women’s participation or representation in politics to be at best symbolic, and perhaps entirely meaningless. Not surprisingly, this opinion is not openly articulated in the political circles. Some successful women in the media and the corporate world have, however, become the most articulate proponents of this view. Their arguments amount to saying the following: ‘Look at us. We have succeeded in the men’s world without any quota. So why do women need quota to be successful in politics?’

This sounds typical of all those who are opposed to any positive discrimination, particularly reservations. There exists, for instance, a number of successful dalit or OBC professionals, who either out of conviction or compulsion, oppose reservations, confusing their own subjective experience which may have been marked by certain privileges or sheer good fortune for the objective social conditions of the large majority of SCs or OBCs. But in the case of those successful women opposing reservation for women in legislatures, there is a specificity. They seem to believe that a display of cynicism towards the political process and insensitivity towards gender discrimination in particular, reflects virtuosity. Being a professionally successful woman in a world dominated by men is certainly commendable; but that does not automatically make someone gender sensitive or alive to the problems and concerns of women. In fact women in politics, almost without exception and cutting across political lines, are supporters of women’s reservation because their own experience, however brief, must have shown them the enormous difficulty to sustain activism and compete successfully in a patriarchal setting.

Afraid of ‘Feminist’ Tag?

Why are some of the more successful women not sympathetic to the aspirations of the women in politics for some positive discrimination in their favour? Patriarchy, after all, is an ideology and it operates at complex levels. This indeed makes life difficult for women, even for those who have become successful in a world dominated by men. This difficulty is best captured in the Union Railway Minister’s comment made on the day the women’s reservation bill was passed in the upper house: “Though I am supporting the bill, I am not a feminist”. It can be assumed safely that nobody asked the Minister whether she is a feminist. Yet she asserts that she is not one. Are all the other parties and individuals supporting the bill feminists? Surely not.

The BJP, which provided crucial support to the bill and whose suave leader in the upper house forcefully argued in favour of women’s rights during the debate, has never disowned the manuvadi ideology of the RSS, which considers women as naturally inferior to men. We have not forgotten the glorification of Sati under the BJP rule in Rajasthan, the rape of innocent Muslim women during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat or the continued hooliganism of the Sangh Parivar outfits on Valentine’s day. The Congress President has been rightly hailed for her determined role in pushing the legislation within her Party and cajoling the Central Government to take a firm stand. Yet, why she preferred her son to be the heir apparent over her daughter, without any tested basis of political acumen, organisational performance or mass acceptance, is anybody’s guess. Even the Communists, with an enviable record in fighting for women’s rights since the days of freedom struggle, took well over six decades of existence to elect the first woman into their central leadership. The biggest contingent of the Left, the CPI (M), took longer. And even today, misogynist critics have not got tired of shamelessly alleging how women are promoted within the Left because of influential husbands rather than their own capabilities and contributions.

The long and the short of it is that no political party functioning within the Indian political system or elsewhere, can claim to be totally immune from the vestiges of patriarchy. Their ideological standpoint, however, in terms of whether they are programmatically committed to women’s empowerment and emancipation or not, is what counts, along with their political positions and day to day practice. And if a political party, or any individual for that matter, is committed to gender equality and women’s empowerment, why prevaricate on the women’s reservation bill for the fear of being called a ‘feminist’?

****

കടപ്പാട് : http://www.pragoti.org/node/3843

Women’s Reservation Bill—II

Nearly a hundred years ago, the truly path-breaking Russian social and linguistic theorist, Mikhail Bakhtin, had underscored how during moments of compelling historical transformation mono logical received wisdoms give way to the prose of multi-tongued contestation ( “The Politics of Language and Genre,” ).

At such moments when the deja donnees of old come to be unraveled for what they often are—ideological legitimations of sectarian power-grab—pathetic, comical, and so-obviously disingenuous defences of the status quo find themselves obliged to come forth rather nakedly.

Something of this now occurs in India with frenetic concern and energy with respect to the determination of the Congress-led coalition government to reserve 33% seats for women in parliament and the legislatures, a measure that saw historic adoption by the upper house (Rajya Sabha) of parliament just the other day (see my “A Parliament of Women as much as of Men,”.

Sensing that the measure, were it to become law, may spell more than merely reformist changes in the way in which Indian democracy and its institutions may come to be reconceived and redirected, a cacophony of rather frightened voices seek to embroil this deepening of representative democracy in doubts and distractions rather than in any worthwhile critique. A regressive enterprise that spans responses from downright honesty to insincere subterfuge.

II

First, the most honest. Put simply, a large enough number of male parliamentarians fear the loss of livelihood, indeed of existence. This because most do not come to politics from any flaming passion to set the realm right, but from a recognition that during the current phase of India’s democracy, success at the hustings translates often into power, pelf, and patronage (PPP). And when it is remembered that most lack any autonomy of skill or competence, the loss of a seat in parliament tantamount to a return to a boorishly undistinguished non-existence. Where politics is the only calling a man has, what else is there to go back to? Having tasted of sectarian adulation among captive constituencies, the loss of a seat denotes the extinction of what prestige they command.

Then there is the insistence on behalf of those who belong to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). They argue that unless a sub-quota within the stipulated 33% is fixed for OBC women, the measure will only lead to an influx of up-country, English-using women, relegating the socially and educationally deprived women further into oblivion.

Remarkably, these gentle males have never once thus far pressed for any overall reservation for OBCs within parliament and the legislatures where only Schedule Castes and Tribes have seats reserved for them in proportion to their population. Ergo, in the absence of any such provision, there is no way in which seats may be reserved for OBC women alone unless a Constitutional amendment is first separately adopted to introduce OBC reservations—something for which male OBC stalwarts have never yet striven. Nor do they tell us why it is that they may not put up OBC women candidates for the seats now proposed to be set apart for women if they so wish to do. Thus far, whenever they have put up any women in general category seats, they have invariably been close relatives of the presiding OBC patriarchs.

Most interestingly, endorsement of the 33% measure has come from a Hindu organization whose constitution stipulates that women cannot acquire its membership, namely the male and military RSS. Work that out for a switch.

The fear within the RSS as always is that breaking the 33% into sub-quotas will not but fracture the monolithic consolidation of India’s Hindus—something the RSS holds fatally necessary for the preservation of Indian “nationhood.” Thus, if you cannot enforce within the Indian Constitutional system the same blanket refusal to admit women into the fold as you practice within your own organization, then the next best must be to prevent sub-quotas based on casteist (read divisive) considerations.

What of the Muslim minority? A shout has gone up that the 33% measure will surely spell doom for minority representation. We don’t know why. Especially since thus far Muslim patriarchs have practiced a studied refusal to foreground Muslim women in electoral politics. However sanctimonious this shout may seem, the reality appears to be best captured in the statement made to an electronic channel the other day by a Muslim cleric to the effect that “god intended women primarily to produce a race of good and proper men, and that it was not god’s wish that Muslim women should be seen shoulder to shoulder with men in public/political life making speeches” (Nietzsche/Nazis close ideological mentors there?). Indeed, the experience thus far has been that Muslim women—and there are any number—who have made a mark in public/political life in post-colonial India have more often than not been seen as threats to Muslim culture and identity.

En Passant here, do note that a bill has been introduced yet again in the Jammu & Kashmir Assembly that proposes to take away the rights of Permanent Residency (which include the right to acquire property within the state and the right to vote) from Kashmiri women who marry outside the state. Kashmiri men of course may do so without fear of such loss. Did you say Patriarchy rules the roast? Well, it does. On this rather brazenly discriminatory measure we still have to hear from spokespersons of the Muslim leaderships who live outside Jammu & Kashmir. Especially those who seem so concerned that the 33% Bill will relegate Muslim women!

Remarkably, all that in the full knowledge that exclusively Islamic states like Pakistan and Afghanistan already have mandated provisions for women’s reservation in their legislative bodies! How effective those are in the matter of defeating gruesomely misogynist laws in those countries is of course another matter, although the prospects of achieving those victories in the years to come can be envisaged, if at all, only because women do have an assured voice there in the first place—a fact that must be considered historically preferable to not having any women at all positioned to strive so.

Then there is the argument that given the rotationary provision in the Reservation Bill, only those women will be put up by Party supremos who they can rely upon to keep the seat warm for their return. Thus, we may see only daughters and daughters-in-law being accorded tickets for the women constituencies.

The argument is adduced to caution the polity about a prospect, namely, cronyism, that has characterized Indian democracy for years on end. That such cronyism disfigures the Indian representative system regardless of gender is an argument readily admitted. Yet we are not told why this prospect may be especially lethal now when women of any sort are slated to enter parliament?

Perhaps the most disingenuous argument is the one that is preferred by sundry “successful” women. They seem mortified at the thought that women should at all require a leg-up from the system, and thereby be demeaned as a sub-species that cannot stand on their own.

The presumption here is that any “successful” men or women within the scheme of things have made it or can make it all on their own. Alas, if only this were the case.

The fact is leg-ups come in various modalities. The fact that most are adroitly managed out of sight and in back rooms is too well-known a feature of career advancement in India across genders to need iteration.

Thus the further argument that India adopt a system where political parties allot a percentage of seats for women remains a pseudo-rationalist argument. Had this been as self-evidently possible and painless a recourse, it might have been adopted freely by parties thus far. That this has not happened testifies to the fact that patriarchy rules the party system, to a lesser or greater degree. And, were the measure to be adopted, we are not told why this measure would not lead to one or both of those prospects which are otherwise decried—tickets given either to daughters, daughters-in-law, or to dispensable women in losing constituencies. The consequence then might be that either crony winners enter parliament and the legislatures or most women lose out in hopeless constituencies, defeating the very purpose of enhancing women’s representation.

An overarching skepticism is also to the fore (and, interestingly, voiced by many “successful” women in various areas of public life). To wit, that there is never any guarantee that women in power necessarily either espouse or push concerns that afflict women as citizens.

To this there is an obvious truth. Yet, the obverse of that argument is to say that men alone may thereby be trusted to do so. And when we remember that male legislators often enough do not pursue the interests of the voting communities which endorse them as strong support bases, why this infirmity again seems lethal only in the case of women begs more than a question.

III

The fact is that be it men or women, the genders are everywhere riven by intersecting loyalties—of class, caste, ethnic identity, linguistic affinity and so on.

Given that macro-sociological reality, it remains unforgivably discriminatory that a half of the population should remain outside the ambit of decision-making at the highest levels of national life.

Even as it is agreed that there is no guarantee that gender justice necessarily issues from gendered leaderships, it is a probability of the highest order that when men and women are pitted together in law-making, preposterous blatancies of policy must receive their due rectification and come-uppance. It is a monstrous argument to say that a good number of women in legislative bodies will not in due course have the effect of critiquing social and economic decisions inimical to women as a whole, and to offer correctives, more than a wholly male-dominated dispensation might.

The simple point is that if at some point the world did acknowledge that democracy without women’s franchise was a sham after all, the time to acknowledge further that democracy without women’s assured representation as well is equally a sham has arrived.

It is in the fitness of modernity that entrenched Neanderthals who often masquerade as exemplars of equality persuade themselves to push the species forward.

After all, if political moralities and democratic convictions do not evolve to keep pace with strides made in other spheres of human attainment, the world can relapse into crude authoritarianisms of a lethal kind, given the extent now of access to frightening instruments of control and repression.

We firmly believe that democratic victories scored on behalf of or by women do not redound to the benefit merely of women. These victories promise a better life for all mankind.

Let India’s parliamentarians then not be caught on the wrong side of history. As the Bill comes up in the Lok Sabha (the house of the people) for adoption, it is our hope that the frightened and the disingenuous will yield to the enlightened and the selfless.

The future of India’s democracy is a much larger issue than the future of male constituencies.

*
Badri Raina
കടപ്പാട്: Zmag

സംവരണം തുടരേണ്ടതിന്റെ ആവശ്യകത

കോൺസ്റിറ്റുവന്റ് അസംബ്ളി മൂന്നു വര്‍ഷത്തിലധികം നീണ്ട ചര്‍ച്ചകളിലൂടെയാണ് ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ഭരണഘടനയ്ക്ക് രൂപംനല്‍കിയത്. ഡോ.അംബേദ്കറും ജവാഹര്‍ലാല്‍ നെഹ്റുവും ഡോ. രാജേന്ദ്രപ്രസാദും അടങ്ങുന്ന പ്രഗത്ഭര്‍ ഉള്‍പ്പെട്ട സമിതിയായിരുന്നു കോൺസ്റിറ്റുവന്റ് അസംബ്ളി. സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യവും അവസര സമത്വവുമാകണം ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ഭരണഘടനയുടെ മൌലിക മുദ്രാവാക്യം എന്ന് നിശ്ചയിക്കപ്പെട്ടു. സ്വാഭാവികമായും കോളനി ഭരണത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി ദരിദ്രവല്‍ക്കരിക്കപ്പെട്ട ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ജനതയില്‍ ഭൂരിപക്ഷവും നിരക്ഷരരും ദാരിദ്ര്യരേഖയ്ക്കു താഴെയുള്ളവരും ജാതി ഉച്ചനീചത്വങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് വിധേയരായവരും ജന്മിത്വത്തിന്റെ ഭീകരമായ അടിച്ചമര്‍ത്തലുകള്‍ ഏറ്റുവാങ്ങേണ്ടി വന്നവരുമായിരുന്നു. ഇത്തരം ജനതയ്ക്ക് അവസര സമത്വം ഒരുക്കിക്കൊടുക്കുക എന്നത് ഭരണഘടന രൂപീകരിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ ഏറ്റെടുക്കേണ്ടിവന്ന പ്രധാന വെല്ലുവിളിയായിരുന്നു.

അവസര സമത്വം നല്‍കുക എന്നതിന് ജനതയുടെ മത്സരശേഷി തുല്യമായിരിക്കുക എന്ന മുന്‍ ഉപാധി അനിവാര്യമാണെന്ന് മനസ്സിലായി. അടിച്ചമര്‍ത്തപ്പെട്ടവര്‍ക്കും സാമൂഹ്യ പിന്നോക്കാവസ്ഥ ഏറെ അനുഭവിക്കുന്നവര്‍ക്കും അവസര സമത്വം ലഭിക്കണമെങ്കില്‍ ഭരണഘടനാപരമായ മറ്റു സംരക്ഷണങ്ങള്‍ നല്‍കേണ്ടിവരും എന്ന തിരിച്ചറിവില്‍നിന്നാണ് ഭരണഘടനാനുസൃതമായ സംവരണം നിലവില്‍ വന്നത്. സ്വതന്ത്ര ഇന്ത്യയിലെ എല്ലാ ജനവിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ക്കും ഭരണപങ്കാളിത്തം ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തുമ്പോള്‍ പരമോന്നത ജനാധിപത്യ വേദികളിലും ഈ പങ്കാളിത്തം ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തേണ്ടതുണ്ടെന്ന് നിശ്ചയിക്കപ്പെട്ടു. അതിന്റെ ഫലമായി ഭരണഘടനയുടെ 331-ആം അനുച്ഛേദപ്രകാരം പാര്‍ലമെന്റിലും 333-ആം അനുച്ഛേദപ്രകാരം നിയമസഭകളിലും പട്ടികജാതി/പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ സംവരണം ഏര്‍പ്പെടുത്തി. എന്നാല്‍, എത്രകാലം ഇതു തുടരണം എന്നതായിരുന്നു അടുത്ത ചര്‍ച്ച. ഒടുവില്‍ 10 കൊല്ലത്തേക്ക് നിശ്ചയിച്ച്, സാമൂഹ്യ പിന്നോക്കാവസ്ഥ സംബന്ധിച്ച് അവലോകനം നടത്തിയശേഷം ഈ സ്ഥിതിയില്‍ മാറ്റം വരുത്തേണ്ടതുണ്ടെങ്കില്‍ അത് ചെയ്യാമെന്നും തീരുമാനിച്ചു. ഇതനുസരിച്ച് ഭരണഘടനയുടെ 334-ാം അനുച്ഛേദമനുസരിച്ച് 10 വര്‍ഷത്തേക്ക് നിയമ നിര്‍മാണ സഭകളില്‍ സംവരണം ഏര്‍പ്പെടുത്തി.

തലമുറകളായി അനുഭവിച്ച വിവേചനവും മറ്റു സാമൂഹ്യ അടിച്ചമര്‍ത്തലുകളും സൃഷ്ടിച്ച പിന്നോക്കാവസ്ഥ ചുരുങ്ങിയ കാലത്തെ സംവരണ ഇടപെടലുകള്‍കൊണ്ടുമാത്രം പരിഹരിക്കാന്‍ കഴിയില്ല എന്നാണ് പിന്നീട് നടത്തിയ പരിശോധനകളില്‍ മനസ്സിലായത്. ഇങ്ങനെ കഴിഞ്ഞ ആറ് പതിറ്റാണ്ടായി തുടര്‍ന്നുവരുന്ന സംവരണത്തിന്റെ കാലാവധി 2010 ജനുവരി 26 ആവുമ്പോഴേക്കും അവസാനിക്കുകയാണ്. ഇപ്പോഴും അധഃസ്ഥിത ജനവിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ കടുത്ത സാമൂഹ്യ വിവേചനം അനുഭവിക്കുന്നുണ്ട് എന്നതിനാല്‍ തുടര്‍ന്നും സംവരണം നീട്ടണമെന്നുതന്നെയാണ് കേരള സര്‍ക്കാരിന്റെ നിലപാട്.

പാര്‍ലമെന്റിലും സംസ്ഥാന നിയമസഭകളിലും സംവരണം ഉറപ്പാക്കുന്നതുവഴി മാത്രം ഇന്നത്തെ പ്രത്യേക സാമൂഹ്യ സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ പട്ടികജാതി പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് സാമൂഹ്യ സമത്വം ഉറപ്പാക്കാന്‍ കഴിയുകയില്ല എന്നത് തര്‍ക്കമറ്റ വിഷയമാണ്. സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം ലഭിച്ച് 60 വര്‍ഷം കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടും പട്ടികജാതി പട്ടികവര്‍ഗക്കാരുടെ സാമൂഹ്യ പിന്നോക്കാവസ്ഥയില്‍ ഇന്ത്യാരാജ്യത്ത് വലിയ പുരോഗതിയോ കുതിച്ചുചാട്ടമോ ഉണ്ടായതായി പറയാനാവില്ല. സാക്ഷരത, തൊഴില്‍, ഭൂവുടമസ്ഥത എന്നീ മേഖലകള്‍ പരിശോധിച്ചാല്‍ പട്ടികജാതി- പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങളുടെ സ്ഥിതി ദേശീയതലത്തില്‍ തുലോം പിന്നോക്കമാണ്. കാര്‍ഷികമേഖലയില്‍ പണിയെടുക്കുന്നവര്‍ മൊത്തം ജനസംഖ്യയുടെ 26.5 ശതമാനം ആണെങ്കില്‍ പട്ടികജാതി- പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങളുടേത് 46.5 ശതമാനമാണ്. പട്ടികജാതി -പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങളുടെ സാക്ഷരത, ദേശീയ ശരാശരിയായ 64.8 ശതമാനത്തേക്കാള്‍ കുറവാണ്. ഇത് പട്ടികജാതി വിഭാഗത്തിന്റേത് 54.77 ശതമാനമാണെങ്കില്‍ പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗത്തിന്റേത് 47.1 ശതമാനം മാത്രമാണ്. പരമ്പരാഗത തൊഴില്‍ മേഖലകളില്‍നിന്ന് പട്ടികജാതി- പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് വിടുതല്‍ നേടാന്‍ കഴിയുന്നില്ല എന്നതാണ് സെന്‍സസ് കണക്കുകള്‍ കാണിക്കുന്നത്. മാത്രമല്ല, ഈ വിഭാഗങ്ങളുടെ സാമൂഹ്യ ചാലകത ഇതര വിഭാഗങ്ങളെ അപേക്ഷിച്ച് വളരെ പിന്നോക്കമാണുതാനും. ഈ വിഭാഗങ്ങളെ സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ മുഖ്യധാരയിലേക്ക് കൊണ്ടുവരുന്നതിന് വളരെയധികം ദൂരം ഇനിയും പോകേണ്ടതുണ്ട്.

കേരളത്തിലെ ആദ്യ കമ്യൂണിസ്റ് സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ കൊണ്ടുവന്ന ഭൂപരിഷ്കരണ നിയമംമൂലം അതുവരെ നിലവിലുണ്ടായിരുന്ന ജന്മിത്ത വ്യവസ്ഥ തുടച്ചുനീക്കപ്പെടുകയുണ്ടായി. പട്ടികജാതി -പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങളടക്കമുള്ള സമൂഹത്തിലെ പിന്നോക്കം നില്‍ക്കുന്ന വലിയൊരു ജനവിഭാഗത്തിന് അവസര സമത്വം ലഭിക്കുന്നതിനും ഇത് ഒരു അടിസ്ഥാന കാരണമായിട്ടുണ്ട്. പക്ഷേ, ഈ ഭൂപരിഷ്കരണ നിയമം കേരളത്തിലെ അടിസ്ഥാന വര്‍ഗങ്ങളുടെ ഭൂരാഹിത്യം ഇല്ലായ്‌മ ചെയ്യുന്നതിന് പര്യാപ്തമായില്ല. ഇതിനു പ്രധാന കാരണം ഈ വിഭാഗത്തില്‍പ്പെട്ടവരില്‍ ഏറെയും കര്‍ഷക തൊഴിലാളികളായിരുന്നു എന്നതാണ്. കുടികിടപ്പ് അനുവദിച്ചുകിട്ടിയത് ഈ വിഭാഗത്തെ സാമൂഹ്യ മുഖ്യധാരയിലേക്ക് നയിക്കാന്‍ സഹായിച്ചെങ്കിലും കാര്‍ഷികവൃത്തിയില്‍ ഏര്‍പ്പെട്ട പട്ടികജാതി- പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ ഭൂരഹിതരായി തുടരുന്ന സ്ഥിതിയാണ് ഉണ്ടായത്. പ്രധാന തൊഴിലുകളില്‍ ഏര്‍പ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളവരില്‍ കൃഷിക്കാരുടെ ശതമാനം 7.12 ആണെങ്കില്‍ പട്ടികജാതി വിഭാഗത്തില്‍പ്പെട്ട കൃഷിക്കാരുടെ ശതമാനം 1.6 മാത്രമാണ്. കര്‍ഷക തൊഴിലാളികളുടേത് ശരാശരി 12.04 ശതമാനമാണെങ്കില്‍ പട്ടികജാതി വിഭാഗത്തിന്റേത് 29.48ശതമാനവും പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗത്തിന്റേത് 41.12 ശതമാനവുമാണ്.

ദാരിദ്ര്യരേഖയ്ക്ക് താഴെയുള്ളവരുടെ സ്ഥിതി ഇന്ത്യയുടെ മൊത്തം അവസ്ഥയുമായി താരതമ്യം ചെയ്യുമ്പോള്‍ കേരളത്തിലെ സ്ഥിതി മെച്ചപ്പെട്ടതാണെങ്കിലും കേരളത്തിലെ പൊതുസമൂഹവുമായി താരതമ്യം ചെയ്യുമ്പോള്‍ ഇവരുടെ സ്ഥിതി പിന്നിലാണെന്നു കാണാം. ഗ്രാമീണ മേഖലയില്‍ ദാരിദ്ര്യ രേഖയ്ക്ക് താഴെയുള്ളവര്‍ കേരളത്തില്‍ ശരാശരി 9.4 ശതമാനം ആണെങ്കില്‍ പട്ടികജാതിയുടേത് 14.6 ശതമാനവും പട്ടികവര്‍ഗത്തിന്റേത് 24.2 ശതമാനവുമാണ്. ഇന്ത്യയിലെ ദാരിദ്ര്യരേഖയ്ക്ക് താഴെയുള്ളവരുടെ പൊതുഅവസ്ഥയുമായി താരതമ്യം ചെയ്യുമ്പോള്‍ (ഇത് പട്ടികജാതി വിഭാഗത്തിന്റേത് 36.2 ശതമാനവും പട്ടികവര്‍ഗത്തിന്റേത് 45.8 ശതമാനവുമാണ്) കേരളത്തിലെ സ്ഥിതി മെച്ചപ്പെട്ടതാണെങ്കിലും ഇക്കാര്യത്തില്‍ ഇനിയും മുന്നോട്ടു പോകേണ്ടതുണ്ടെന്നാണ് കണക്കുകള്‍ സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്.

നിയമനിര്‍മാണ സഭകളിലേക്കുള്ള സംവരണം ഭരണഘടന ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തുന്നതിനാല്‍ മാത്രമാണ് ഇന്നും നിയമനിര്‍മാണ സഭകളില്‍ ജനസംഖ്യാനുപാതികമായ പ്രാതിനിധ്യം ഈ വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് ലഭിക്കുന്നത്. സ്ത്രീസംവരണം നടപ്പാക്കേണ്ടതിന്റെ ഒരു പ്രധാനപ്പെട്ട ആവശ്യകതയും ഇതുതന്നെയാണ്. 2010 ജനുവരി 26ന് ശേഷം 10 വര്‍ഷത്തേക്ക് സംവരണം നീട്ടാന്‍ പാര്‍ലമെന്റ് 109-ാം ഭരണഘടനാ ഭേദഗതി അംഗീകരിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഈ ഭരണഘടനാ ഭേദഗതി നിയമമാകണമെങ്കില്‍ പകുതിയോളം സംസ്ഥാന നിയമ നിര്‍മാണ സഭകള്‍ അതിനെ പിന്തുണക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. സാമൂഹ്യ പിന്നോക്കാവസ്ഥയിലുള്ള ജനവിഭാഗങ്ങളെ മുന്‍ നിരയിലേക്ക് ഉയര്‍ത്തിക്കൊണ്ടുവരാന്‍ ഇടതുപക്ഷ ജനാധിപത്യ മുന്നണി സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ എന്നും പ്രതിജ്ഞാബദ്ധമാണ്. അതുകൊണ്ടുതന്നെ ഈ ഭരണഘടനാ ഭേദഗതിക്ക് കേരള സര്‍ക്കാരിന്റെയും നിയമസഭയുടെയും ഏകമനസ്സോടുകൂടിയുള്ള പിന്തുണയും അംഗീകാരവും നല്‍കാനാണ് തീരുമാനിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്.

സംവരണത്തിനു പുറമെ നിരവധി ക്ഷേമപ്രവര്‍ത്തനങ്ങളാണ് ഈ വിഭാഗങ്ങളെ മുഖ്യധാരയിലേക്ക് കൊണ്ടുവരാന്‍ നടപ്പാക്കിവരുന്നത്. ഇതിനുവേണ്ടി ഓരോ വര്‍ഷവും ചെലവഴിക്കുന്ന തുക വലുതാണെങ്കിലും നേട്ടങ്ങള്‍ ആശാവഹമായ രീതിയില്‍ കൈവരിക്കാന്‍ കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. ഇതു സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നത് സംവരണം കൊണ്ടുമാത്രം നാം ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്ന നേട്ടം കൈവരിക്കാന്‍ കഴിയുകയില്ല എന്നാണ്. സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ സര്‍വീസിലും സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ നിയന്ത്രണത്തിലുള്ള വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിലും മാത്രമായി നിലനില്‍ക്കുന്നു എന്നതിനാല്‍ സംവരണത്തിന്റെ പ്രസക്തി കുറഞ്ഞുവരുന്ന അവസ്ഥയാണ് ഇന്നുള്ളത്.

ആഗോളവല്‍ക്കരണത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമായി തൊഴില്‍മേഖലയും വിദ്യാഭ്യാസമേഖലയും അതിവേഗം സ്വകാര്യവല്‍ക്കരിക്കപ്പെട്ടുവരികയാണ്. പട്ടികജാതി- പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് സ്വകാര്യ മേഖലയില്‍ അവസരം ലഭിക്കുന്നില്ല. സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ നേരിട്ട് ശമ്പളം നല്‍കുന്ന എയ്‌ഡഡ് സ്കൂള്‍ മേഖലയില്‍പോലും സംവരണം ഉറപ്പാക്കാന്‍ കഴിയാത്തത് വലിയൊരു വീഴ്ച തന്നെയാണ്. ഈ മേഖലയില്‍ പണിയെടുക്കുന്ന 1,09,000 പേരില്‍ പട്ടികജാതി- പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ വിഭാഗങ്ങളുടെ പ്രാതിനിധ്യം 296 മാത്രമാണ്. അതായത് വെറും 0.25 ശതമാനം. വിദ്യാഭ്യാസമേഖല വാണിജ്യവല്‍ക്കരിക്കപ്പെട്ട അവസ്ഥയില്‍ ഈ വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ ഉന്നത വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ മേഖലകളില്‍നിന്ന് പൂര്‍ണമായും ഒഴിവാക്കപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുകയാണ്. സംസ്ഥാന സര്‍ക്കാര്‍ ഈ സ്ഥിതി ഒഴിവാക്കാന്‍ കൊണ്ടുവന്ന സ്വാശ്രയ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ നിയമം അടക്കമുള്ള നടപടികള്‍ കോടതി ഇടപെടലുകളിലൂടെ തടസ്സപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുകയാണ്. ഈ സാഹചര്യത്തില്‍ സാമൂഹ്യ സമത്വം ഉറപ്പാക്കാന്‍ ഭരണഘടനാപരമായി വ്യവസ്ഥചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ള സംവരണത്തിന് പരിമിതികളുണ്ട്. സ്വകാര്യ /എയ്‌ഡഡ് തൊഴില്‍ മേഖലയില്‍ പട്ടികജാതി പട്ടികവര്‍ഗ പ്രാതിനിധ്യം ഉറപ്പുവരുത്തുന്നതിനും സ്വകാര്യ / സ്വാശ്രയ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ മേഖലയില്‍ ഈ വിഭാഗങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് അവസരം ഉറപ്പാക്കുന്നതിനും വിപുലമായ നിയമ നിര്‍മാണം ആവശ്യമുണ്ട്. ഇതിന് കേന്ദ്രസര്‍ക്കാര്‍ മുന്‍കൈ എടുക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. സംവരണകാലാവധി ദീര്‍ഘിപ്പിക്കുന്ന ഈ സന്ദര്‍ഭം അത്തരം വിപുലമായ നിയമ നിര്‍മാണം സംബന്ധിച്ച ചര്‍ച്ചകള്‍ക്ക് തുടക്കംകുറിക്കാന്‍ തികച്ചും ഉചിതമാണ്.

****

എ കെ ബാലന്‍ (പിന്നോക്ക പട്ടികസമുദായ ക്ഷേമമന്ത്രി)