Women's Reservation Bill - A Murder of democracy
Minorities and Women's reservation Bill
Women Reservation Bill against The Constitution?
Democracy: A Myth of Modern World
The Women’s Reservation Bill has been at the center stage of debate since over a decade. Having introduced for the first time in 1996, the bill has undergone several layers of criticism. And in the last general elections, every political party promised the bill just to garner votes from the women lobby. But still, the political parties failed miserably in displaying integrity as no political party could cross the 10% “glass-ceiling” limit of fielding women candidates.
And now, in order to set record straight, the Govt. is headed to make the 81st Constitutional Amendment to make way for the bill. In layman words, the constitutional amendment reserves 1/3rd of Lok Sabha seats for women candidates and each constituency would be reserved once in every three election terms on a rotation basis.
Put other way round, men in the reserved constituencies will not be allowed to contest elections i.e. their choice to contest elections would be trampled upon only because of their gender. This is nothing but direct discrimination against men and that too those men who never stopped any woman from contesting elections nor have raised any objection to election tickets being given to women by the political parties. Not only that, the citizens of that particular constituency would be forced to select their political representative from a group of women only i.e. their choice to have their own representative will also be done away with.
Now the political parties, allowing them to be hijacked by fund chasing gender obsessed radical feminists, are infringing on the Constitutional Right of men to stand up in elections from their constituency. But the real problem does not lie with the men whose constitutional rights are being attacked. The real problem lies with the political parties and the stubborn old male politicians. The stubborn old male politicians (currently comprising 90% in the power circles) are simply not ready to give up their “Power Positions” to women and this deficit is not being filled by disallowing male politicians to continue in politics but by sabotaging the future prospects young potential male politicians.
It is analogous to a doctor performing by-pass surgery for knee fracture only because a heart surgeon is available and the orthopedic is too stubborn to perform the surgery or just because I do not have an underwear, I will take another person’s shirt. Does that make any sense?
When Sonia Gandhi herself is not ready to risk a major revolution inside Congress parties by fielding 100 women candidates, why are the citizens, especially men, being told to risk a mutilated constitution. This act cannot be termed anything short of “Broad daylight murder of democracy” in order to retain power positions.
Moreover, even the Upper House of the Parliament – the Rajya Sabha has only 10% representation of women. What is stopping the Rajya Sabha members to imbibe more women into their cabinet when the Rajya Sabha is independent of the national elections and the electorate? It is clearly evident that the favorite activity of subverting men and their rights is actually being piggybacked in the name of this Constitutional Amendment under the carpet of Women’s Reservation bill and being labeled as “Women Empowerment”.
Is “Women’s Empowerment impossible without Male Entrapment?”
When Kiran Majumdar Shaw can contest elections from any constituency of Bangalore, then even Vijay Malaya should be able to, but with the current constitutional amendment, if the constituency of Bangalore South gets reserved for women, then still Kiran Majumdar Shaw would be able to but Vijay Malaya would not be able to. Why should men put up with such bias?
Some more points worth noting:
1. Even after tabling the bill twice, the Congress party failed to inspire any confidence of higher representation of women [1], what is the guarantee that they will not fail again, after mutilating the Constitution?
2. If truly and actually they have the will to increase the participation of women in mainstream politics, why do they need a bill for that?
3. If the old male politicians are not allowing increased women participation why the price should be paid by the citizens?
4. Why should the future unborn generations of men, for all time to come, suffer from a raped Constitution and be disallowed to have their choice to contest in elections or select their representative only because of their gender?
5. Are women being considered any less capable than men that they cannot live without reservations and extra-concessions? And if that is so, then any amount of concessions is not going to work. In such a scenario how long are men being forced to live life like second-class citizens?
Earlier, the Govt. could easily pass another unconstitutional anti-male law and satisfy the fund chasing gender obsessed radical feminists in order to retain the power positions of the stubborn old male politicians. But, now things have changed. Now, citizens have launched a powerful tirade against such biased anti-male laws and thus, now the Govt. has come up with another sinister master-plan to retain power positions for stubborn old male politicians.
It is going forward to amend the Constitution so that all future generations of men pay the price of the stubbornness of this current generation of old males who cannot forego power even in their dusky days.
It is very clear, that under the barb and paradoxical veil of “Women Reservation Bill”, actually the Govt. is murdering democracy in order to satisfy the greed and power hunger of stubborn old male politicians.
The onus now lies on citizens. Do they accept a mutilated constitution and allow democracy to be murdered in broad daylight or voice their opposition against “Reservation of Constituencies”?
If you feel you should speak up against this proposed murder of democracy and rape of Constitution, feel free to spread this article everywhere and to all and sundry.
