The Prime Minister Has Proved He Stands for the Women of India, says Nirmala Sitharaman

 The legislation seeking to implement reservation for women did not receive the two-thirds votes required for a constitutional amendment. Is this a setback for the government?

Not at all. It is a setback for the women’s cause. But I hope it will be temporary. The government’s intention has come out very clearly. I don’t think the defeat of the legislation is a loss for us. It is a loss for women. In that sense it is a loss for the government as we genuinely wanted to see this through. What it has done is reinforce a pattern we have seen right from the 1990s. Anyone genuinely on the side of women, including those in the opposition, would have made an attempt to understand and work out a solution with the government. The prime minister did ask every­body to come together for the sake of women’s reservation. He said the opposition could take credit; he wouldn’t have any problem with that. But we needed this to go through.   

 So, I don’t see it as a failure for the government. It acted in the belief that women needed this. But the behaviour of those who opposed the Women’s Bill continues unabated. They were the ones who denied it in the 1990s. They were the ones who denied it again in 2010 when Sonia Gandhi wanted to bring it in. It is clear that they are seeking every technical reason to not support the legislation the government has brought to Parliament.

So, the stance taken by the opposition did not surprise you.

No, not at all. Because these are parties that have, time and again, shown their disgust for any reform. When the issue concerns wom­en, this attitude is even more shocking. It can be the case that you are against reforms as such. That was pointed out by several speakers in Parliament. Every step forward for this country, whether for a social reason or an economic reason, or administrative or governance reasons, has been made to go through a suffocating process in Parlia­ment, committees, blockades, and disruptions. And if it does survive all of this, the political opposition to reforms moves to the judicial forum. Thank God India’s judiciary has stood with a good cause and therefore reforms have happened. But when it comes to women, I would have thought things could be different. You could be against many things, many reforms, but on a matter that is important in a social context, you could have stood in favour of women.

The political battle over the vote in Lok Sabha will continue. But what is the loss for the women’s rights movement?

I don’t see any loss. I am a bit wary of using terms like ‘women’s rights movement’ as such terms are often hijacked by the Left as if no one else bothered about the issue. Indian women from all sections have always articulated the need to empower women. So, when it comes to the cause, the women’s cause, you will see it is articulated even more. It needs to be kept in mind that passing this legislation, important as it is, was not the end. It would still be necessary to keep standing by women. You will find that even before bringing these legislation to Lok Sabha, and going forward too, BJP and the Modi government repeatedly proved that we have stood by women. We will establish this whether by way of various schemes that involve not just money transfers but also by initia­tives to make women aware and capable and putting them at the centre of decisions. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has shown this in his track record in Gujarat an d at the Centre. Prime Minister Modi is with the women of India.

Do you see this not just in the rising participation of women in voting and the confidence with which they air their opinions and choices but also in their preparedness to seek newer opportunities?

Absolutely. People have seen the government’s outreach. No just in the name of benefits or subsidies. Many schemes are seen as women-centric but they impact the entire household. Let’s take cooking gas. This is essential for women to lead healthy lives in a smoke-free environment. But it helps the entire family. All ‘women schemes’ improve the conditions for the family. It helps children’s education as women save time in the kitchen. Time saved also helps women to sit down and think about what else they can be doing. The prime minister has done well to look at the issue from the time a girl child is born, healthcare for mothers, and schooling thereafter. Women have realised that this government puts them at the front and centre of its priorities.

Parties like Congress and DMK have argued that the proposed delimitation disadvantages the south. This can also be seen in the context of ‘north versus south’ arguments with regard to sharing GST revenues, NEET, or NEP. There is a pattern here.

They have sought to build a false narrative that there is a Central government that looks at the south in a step-motherly fashion and that as a result the south is at a disadvantage. I have been sur­prised by the common citizen’s interest in this matter after the vote in Lok Sabha. Citizens have come out with data. This has challenged a narrative based on incorrect data. A social media user has shown that whichever argument you use—whether Rahul Gandhi’s “jitni aabadi, utna haq (rights in proportion to population)” or the claim that the proposed delimitation would hurt the south—things just don’t add up. Whether it is about population or claims of contribution to GDP, a striking compari­son was made between Kerala and Haryana taking into account parameters like population, per capita income, etc. The compari­son shows that despite comparable features, Haryana has 10 MPs and Kerala has 20. During the debate in Lok Sabha, a lot of data was put out and explained by Home Minister Amit Shah. Together, the south has 129 seats. He made an on-the-spot offer to write a guar­anteed 50 per cent increase in seats to all states into the legislation after which the south would have 195 seats. Now, absolute num­bers can be deceptive. You could think about some other state’s gain, but use percentage representation to get a balanced picture. You are getting the same representation if not a little more. But it is not even a fraction less. The delimitation proposal offered a very good deal to the south. Were you opposing the legislation due to a stubborn hatred of Prime Minister Modi and BJP or did you choose to blindfold yourself? When the UPA government was there and a law was passed against Tamil Nadu’s Jal­likattu, did you [DMK] not blindfold yourself even while being a partner in government? Now when good things are happening to Tamil Nadu, it’s the same attitude. I’m sorry to use the word but you [DMK] are a curse on the people of Tamil Nadu. The discussion on the Katchatheevu island also reveals that dur­ing the time a decision was taken, M Karunanidhi was consulted.

This can be seen as a reflection of regional and identity politics and the question is: Has it run its course or is it still relevant?

It is always invoked when the hold on power of parties like DMK is at stake.

The proposal to delink delimitation from the ongoing Census has been questioned. It is evident that linking delimitation purely to a population count would mean the trend of Census 2011 would continue in 2026 and result in fewer seats for the south. Does it not mean delimitation simply cannot be based only on a population count?

The opposition’s criticism is very short-sighted. It is just that ‘I have to oppose everything the Centre says.’ Congress brought the current freeze on seats to suit its political agenda. It was the 1970s when Congress adopted policies of appeasement dressed up as ‘secular and socialist’. This was extended for various reasons by the Vajpayee government and that freeze is now ending. Now the constitutional provisions with regard to the latest Census will kick in. The delim­itation will be dependent on the Census. By this reckoning, the 2026 data will have to be relied on for the next delimitation. Tamil Nadu or South India’s population, having been stabilised, is un­likely to change from 2011 to 2026. Prime Minister Modi’s offer said “from evidence the delimitation [on basis of Census 2021] is not going to help you” and therefore proposed delinking the Census data and delimitation. The question then is: Who will decide on the number? The House will decide and it will say what the ceiling is. The upper limit is 550; delimitation commissions set it at 545 and the current strength is 543. A simple solution that included 33 per cent reservation for women was to increase the ceiling to 850. No one would lose.

After the proceedings in Parliament, the vote and the Bills have become an issue in the elections in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. Usually, regional or local issues seem to matter in state polls. Will the vote and its defeat have any resonance?

It will have some impact. I agree that local issues matter and by now people have considered all of that. But there was a sense of anticipation before the Bills were taken up that something we have been waiting for a long time could be happening. There is now a sense of severe disappointment.

At various points in time, women’s reservation has faced intense resistance. Arguments of merit have been raised or it has been said sitting MPs would lose their seats. Given your own experience in politics, what are the hurdles women face at entry level and later that suppress their representation?

Take my own example. I had come up to a level without any res­ervation. But my entry into BJP was because of reservation as the party was an early mover—it said it would provide 33 per cent reservation in office-bearer posts. As a result, I was brought into the BJP national executive in the women’s category. Otherwise I would not have been in the reckoning. Many women aspiring to serve in politics benefitted because of this policy. Another ex­ample: Congress always says, in the context of the 73rd and 74th Amendments, that these were done by Rajiv Gandhi. Of course, it was PV Narasimha Rao who did this and Congress claims credit. But after that what was done to help women entering panchayats and local bodies to move to the next stage? As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi was actively engaged with all local bodies and said that while one-third seats were reserved, if you elected an all-women panchayat or had a unanimous election, additional incentives would be given by the state government. Give women concrete incentives and say that “I have this slot, come in.” As chief minister, Narendra Modi ensured more women participated. Ac­tually, despite the amendments for women’s reservation in local bodies, the narrative was hurtful—that women would be ‘proxies’ for husbands or would be from among the elite. What happened in 2010 was about short-haired women (par-kati mahila) getting the benefits! That attitude has not gone.

Is it possible that once the heat of elections is over the proposed laws might be considered afresh and become reality by the 2029 Lok Sabha polls?

I wish! But I think you will see women protesting that this time too it was not done. There is an expectation that Prime Minister Modi would get the legislation through. Before this, not one had been defeated. But on a matter of women, the opposition played foul. It built false narratives. In 2010 a pretence was made and the Bill for women’s reservation was passed in Rajya Sabha. But they could not bring it to Lok Sabha as those who made the ‘short-haired women’ jibe would not allow it. n