Desicritics Category: Politics: Reservations

Counterpoint: Why Women's Reservation is a (Unreservedly) Good Idea

Dweep — Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:53:11 EST

Writing here on the Women's Reservation Bill, Sandeep Bansal provides us with the equivocal conclusion that "reservation is an easy shortcut," that while laudable in parts must have "proper backup steps to have any significant impact." As a counterpoint, I believe it is worthwhile looking again at the very valid questions he raises, viz:

Do we need reservation for women?
Is reservation really needed at the highest level?
Are reservations really going to make any difference?
Do we need sub-quotas?

Do we need reservations for women?

That, of course, is a matter of opinion. More important is the question of why we might want reservations. Two reasons come to mind.

At the level of principle, this might be because in an ideal, fair, and just society lawmakers would represent their consituents - in the ratio of the constituents. Ideally, that representation should emerge naturally - not by legislation. But as Sandeep points out, reservations are one way to empower women and to change attitudes, so as to lead to that natural order.

A second reason, often overlooked, is that such a policy is likely to increase the pool of talent needed at the top of our political class. Few would argue that India's politics suffers from a lack of credible leaders. To the extent that that is the result of limiting our talent pool to men only, this policy is likely to increase the number - if not the probability - of better leaders.

Is reservation really needed at the highest level?

Sandeep argues that reservations might be necessary at the lowest levels to "bring about social change", but perhaps at the highest level "merit should prevail." And he argues that there is a good reason for the lack of women at the top - their family duties.

This explaination is hardly satisfactory. Women may well have "family duties" but that is not why they do not reach the top. They fail to do so because they often have no opportunity to balance that "duty" with their professional aspirations. Where such opportunity is provided they manage to be both good mothers and good leaders. This is evident from a recent NYTimes article on India's banking industry:

HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS and Fidelity International in India are run by women. So is the country’s second-biggest bank, Icici Bank, and its third-largest, Axis Bank. Women head investment banking operations at Kotak Mahindra and JPMorgan Chase and the equities division of Icici. Half of the deputy governors at the Reserve Bank of India are women.

One in five of India’s big bank, insurance and money-management companies is headed by a woman, according to a study by the headhunting group EMA Partners. By contrast, there are no women leading major American or European banks, and no woman has ever run a Wall Street investment bank.

Are reservations going to make a difference?

Sandeep argues that a reservation policy brings with it the risk of extending that policy to perpetuity. Yes, that risk is certainly there - but do the immediate resulting benefits outweigh that possibility? And even if that risk remains, it is a risk derived not from the principle (of better representation) itself, but from how that principle is translated into policy. So, avoiding that risk is simply a matter of better policy design - for instance by having rotating quotas to avoid institutionalization of the positive discrimination.

Sandeep concludes his answer to this question by saying it is too early to tell. But is it?

Enough countries now have quotas of one form of another to provide indications of the impact - both on performance of politicians and on public attitudes to women at the top. Indeed, if the objective of this policy is to encourage greater female representation and change attitudes, India's own experiment with reservation at the panchayat and sarpanch levels offers substantial hope for a positive outcome:

Here, the evidence from a study of councils in urban Mumbai points to a positive effect. Women who have gained political office are more likely to run and to win in elections where there are no quotas.

Both men and women report a higher assessment of women’s performance as leaders once they have experienced it. A study of the state of West Bengal suggests that bias against women leaders remains, but is less likely to be based on the assumption they will prove incompetent.

Do we need sub-quotas?

For one thing, sub-quotas institutionalize into perpetuity exactly the kind of positive discrimination that Sandeep cautions against earlier in his post. Moreover, he argues that "real empowerment" can only happen at the bottom, but we need proper representation "across communities" at the top.

It is true that a women's reservation bill without sub-quotas will benefit certain sub-groups more than others. But is that reason enough for sub-quotas? Or, can that problem be overcome in other way?

Which groups benefit will depend very much on which seats are reserved. For instance, if a muslim-majority constituency is reserved for women it is extremely likely that most parties will field muslim candidates and the winner would be a muslim. Hence, again the problem of unequal representation against communities is one of design (i.e. which seats are reserved), rather than one of principle (i.e. having sub-quotas).

Finally, of course, we must also acknowledge that a single bill cannot solve all social injustices. It is useful, therefore, to remind us of why we should have a reservation policy. If the objective is to increase women's representation, then this bill should address that problem, regardless of others that exist in society.

Conclusion

Women's reservation has been a long-time coming. This bill may not be the best solution or only solution to empowering women. But let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The Women's Reservation Bill And Empowerment

Sandeep Bansal — Sun, 7 Mar 2010 06:37:38 EST

After nearly 15 years when the Woman's reservation bill was first discussed, it looks set to be passed in the Rajya Sabha. This is my second post on this issue. There were some broad questions that came to mind. I have tried to answer each of them in this post.

Do we need reservation for women?

Is reservation really needed at the highest level?

Are reservations really going to make any difference?

Do we need sub-quotas?

Do we need reservation for women?

A lot has already been written in the mainstream media about the importance that gender equality and empowerment of women plays in the overall development of any society. So I do not wish to repeat what has already been said and to a large extent well understood as well. Empowering women in a society where they have been treated like doormats for centuries is not an easy task. There is bound to be a internal resistance.

Moreover how do we achieve it within the constraints that democracy poses us.China had a cultural revolution from 1966-78, which was imposed on the entire population and was not at all peaceful. In India, any acceptable change has to be brought in an extremely careful manner.

Therefore reservation is one way to empower women. Since 1993, 1/3rd of the seats in panchayats have been reserved for women. This has been referred to as "the greatest social experiment ever". Upon adding the numbers, there are more women elected representatives in India than the rest of the world.

Skeptics might argue that it is still the men who take most of the decisions and women are mere proxies. Most probably it is true. But at least it has brought some amount change in the general attitude of the people towards women. This has got them an entry point, something that would not have been possible without reservation. Changing the rural mindset is not easy. A young boy in a remote village grows watching his father ill-treat his mother. He begins view this as acceptable and is more likely to do the same when he grows up. With such a system in place, it would at least stop such outdated ideas from percolating to the next generation.

Today there are a large number of NGOs that are helping women sarpanches in performing their duties These sarpanches are slowly making their presence felt. They known to focus much more on basic issues like drinking water, sanitation and education. They are much more honest. Since then, the reservations for women have been increased to 50%. I would go on to suggest that this number should be further increased to 75-100% in areas such as Haryana and some part of Punjab where Gender ratios are extremely poor and female infanticide is prevalent.

Moreover, reservation is important because it has been observed that once the seat is dereserved, almost 40% of woman choose not to contest. India's poor record on HDI index can expect to receive a boost in the long run. A professor(with over 25 years of teaching experience) of mine was once discussing this issue. He recalled, how over all these years the psyche of female students changed. While female students of the 80's and 90's would be vocal and aggressive about their rights, the present day female students almost expect equality.As they say, this is how democracy works, slowly.

Is reservation really needed at the highest level?
Reservations at the bottom is needed to bring about social change but is it really needed at the top. Or should merit prevail as we should be more bothered about who is more qualified to lead the country?

India's biggest strength is its democracy and diversity. The idea of India is unique because of its unity in diversity. It has been a tradition in India since the very beginning to have representations of all communities and regions. So all Union Cabinets formed till date have ensured that all communities are well represented. With its abysmally low 10% of elected women representative doesn't goes well with its idea of World's Largest democracy.

"Ninety countries have some kind of quota..That's half the countries of the world. On one level you might have a political party adopting its own informal quota—in the UK —on the other level you can have a legislative quota. You can see combination of those in different countries." (Source)

One of the major reasons why women are so under-represented is because they have their family responsibilities. This has been well recognized by nearly half of the world and it is time that we also consider this option seriously. Let us not forget that even in the best and most admired companies in the world, the female representation in the boardrooms is extremely low despite good gender ratios at lower levels. The most important reason for this that is again the family responsibilities. In something as important as nation building, it is important to give women their due representation.

Are reservations really going to make any difference?
Reservations are not a panacea and mere reservation is not going to solve everything. Furthermore, just looking around at women politicians Most of them are from political families. Women Empowerment does not means election of such women from political families. In fact such reservations could reduce merit. Wives, daughters, mothers, daughters-in-laws of politicians could be running the show. Another option is that a certain tickets from political parties are reserved for women. The counter-argument given to this suggestion is that women shall be given only losing seats.

Another risk is that this reservation may extend to perpetuity. The caste based reservations introduced in 1950 were supposed to last only 10 years. They have been extended regularly. It is quite possible that the women reservation might take a similar course. Presently this reservation has been made for 15 years, but most probably it shall be there for a long time. In my opinion, there should be a clear road-map to gradually reduce the % of seats reserved for women to around 15%. This would make a balance between merit and social inclusion.

At this point of time, it is impossible to predict whether reservations can bring about any major difference.

Do we need sub-quotas?

Some of the parties like JD(U) and RJD are calling sub-quota for minorities and OBC's. Even though reservations are supposed to eliminate differences, they actually end up doing exactly the opposite. Caste based reservations are a classic example of the same. Reservations based on religion is therefore a dangerous territory.

However, this suggestion mustn't be rejected outright without examining whether there is a need for such a reservation. There is no doubt that women across all communities face numerous hurdles to rise. However, it is incorrect to assume that this is homogeneous across all communities.Women in some communities face much more hurdles than other because some communities are more orthodox than the others. The following statistics clearly indicate this.

(Source: 1, 2)

So while women reservations bill will benefit the women in SC's and ST's, Muslims and OBC women are not likely to benefit much and their representation in Parliament is likely to remain low. For e.g., presently out of 543 members in Lok Sabha, there are only 3 Women Muslim members. If one tries to think of prominent active Women Muslim Politicians, the only name that comes to mind is Mehbooba Mufti. But even she comes from a Political family and she is more likely to take up issues on Kashmir rather the empowerment of Muslim Women.

Furthermore, reservations for OBC's and Muslim women is not easy because there aren't any seats reserved for these communities. Moreover, Muslim population is varies across the country and hence the formula cannot apply across all states. One possible solution is increasing number of seats in Rajya Sabha and nominating members from these communities. Another important thing is that with 33% reservation, the total reserved seats would go upto 48% (22.5%+33%-(22.5/3)). Any further increase to reservation would mean that less than 50% seats are available in the unreserved category.

While the real empowerment of Women can take place at the grassroots level, women leadership across all communities needs to be created at the highest level so that they can take up women issues. Therefore, I believe there is a need to examine the feasibility of sub-quotas within quotas.

Conclusion

There is an old adage, when you educate a man you educate an individual when you educate a woman you educate a whole family. However, reservation is an easy shortcut. Without proper backup steps, it is unlikely to make any significant impact.

Happy Woman's Day

Women's Reservation Bill: Lottery System to Replace Democracy in India

Sumanth — Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:38:43 EST

Italy was a fascist country before and during World War II. Edvige Antonia Albina Maino (Sonia Gandhi) like a Monarch feels like giving a special gift to Women on International Women’s day on March 8th. She wants the sacred Constitution of India to be amended just for that wish. (Gift)

On 8th March, 2010 the puppet Government at New Delhi controlled by Sonia plans to introduce a special bill in upper house (Rajya Sabha) of Indian parliament for amending the sacred constitution. This amendment is to stop 110 million Indian Men from contesting elections in their own constituencies, so that women can win these elections. Sounds ridiculous? Is not it? Yes. That’s where the Indian democracy has degenerated into.

If this fascist action succeeds, then the Indian democracy will be reduced to a Lottery. Yes, you heard it right. According to Abraham Lincoln “Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people”, but according to Sonia Gandhi democracy is: Lottery.

Imagine, Manjunatha Gundappa(name changed) wants to contest in Mandya and he heads towards the local election commissioner office (or registrar office) for filing his nominations. As he reaches to the office, Manjunatha is told by the officials, “Sir, please wait. In another one hour there will be a Lottery and then we all will know whether you have the right to file your nomination or not. If the Lottery does not favour you, then you can get lost and come back to us after 5 years”.

WTF?!!

If constitution is amended according to the current women’s reservation bill, then the democracy in India will be governed by this Lottery System. The main opposition party BJP also has joined this drama and wants to mutilate the constitution written by Dr. Ambedkar.

It seems “Women’s Reservation “is very close to Sonia Gandhi’s heart. Sonia Gandhi is a member of parliament and she went to people last year for votes so that she gets a chance to serve the people. She should keep the matters of her heart to herself. Being a servant of the citizens, she has to follow not her heart, but the hearts of the citizens of India. (link)

Now, what does the citizens of India say? A poll conducted by NDTV has more than 89% opposing the “women’s reservation bill”, while 10% supported it. (NDTV Poll)

Does Sonia Gandhi, having Italian origin respect the verdict of the people? It does not seem so. May be she feels her heart’s desire is more important than the people’s wishes.

Now, it is claimed that Sonia’s Congress Party, BJP and the Communists (CPI/CPM) want 33% seats be reserved for women in parliament and state Assemblies. These parties fielded 40,42 and 5 women candidates respectively in last Lok Sabha elections for 544 seats. (detailed article).

Now, if women’s reservation is so important and no one can wait any longer, then I have a much better solution. Sonia Gandhi of Congress, Sushma Swaraj of BJP and Brinda Karat of CPM can tell 30% of their existing male Parliament members to resign based on a lottery on Monday, March 8th. In 2 months, we will have bi-elections, where Sonia, Sushma and Brinda will field only female candidates. So, we get 30% representation of women in parliament in just 2 months instead of waiting for another 4 years.

For that, no constitution amendment is needed and men will not lose their right to contest in elections and democracy is saved. Can the Monarch have some mercy on us, the citizens of this country?

The 1818 Battle of Koregaon - The Beginning of a Casteist War?

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:26:58 EST

I received the following email on new year’s day:

ON 1ST JANUARY 1818, MERE 500 BAHUJAN SOLDIERS COURAGEOUSLY FOUGHT AGAINST 50,000 TYRANNICAL FORCES OF MANUWADI PESHWAS AND GAVE THEIR LIVES TO END THE OPPRESSIVE MANUWADI REGIME

EMPIRICAL RULE OF BRITISHERS IN RECOGNITION OF THE GREAT BRAVERY OF BAHUJAN SOLDIERS UNDER THE CAPTAINCY OF SIDNAK MAHAR, ERECTED A MONUMENT AT KOREGAON-BHIMA, PUNE ON THE BANK OF RIVER BHIMA.

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR, THE BODHISATTVA WHO FOUGHT THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE AGAINST THE AGE OLD MANUWADI OPERATIONS, INVARIABLY USED TO VISIT AND SALUTE THE "VIJAY STAMBHA"- MEMORIAL OF BAHUJAN WARRIORS

LET BAHUJANS NOT FORGET THEIR MARTYRDOM AND OFFER THEIR SALUTATIONS TO THE GREAT MEMORIES OF THOSE GREAT BAHUHAN SOLDIERS WHO RELENTLESSLY FOUGHT TO BREAK THE SHACKLES OF OUR AGE OLD SLAVERY.

LET'S NARRATE THE HISTORY TO FUTURE GENERATIONS SO AS TO MAKE THEM STRONG ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND MANUWAD.

Very impressive. I had never heard of this before, so went looking for more information. Here’s another site where there is more background. Hmmm, fascinating stuff. So if I understood the essence, it was a group of 500 Dalit soldiers who fought approximately 25000 Brahmins. And why is this important? I quote:

First, the British army fought this battle with a minuscule army expecting the worst, especially after their experience of the Pune Regency. Secondly, the battle of Koregaon was one of the most important events which helped tear down the Peshwa Empire and subsequently the Peshwa had to abdicate. Thirdly and most importantly, it was an attempt by the untouchables of Maharashtra to break the shackles of the age-old caste order.

That sort of didnt really jibe with what I had read about the Maratha Wars. So I went to do a bit of poking around.

1. The Maratha Wars:

While I can understand the desire of Dalits to home into that skirmish and claim that to be the be all and end all of all, skirmishes like this have to be grounded in the greater framework. The Maratha Empire brought to life by Shivaji attained its greatest strength by 1760 as shown in the image below.

And I should point out that Shivaji was not a Brahmin. While they claimed Kshyatriya status later on, there are some arguments that he was originally a Dalit, a Shudra to be precise. See here for an overview of this argument. Finally, Shivaji’s army was largely composed of people like him, so it was a Dalit Army anyway which got promoted, so to say. Then comes the first Anglo Maratha War 1777-1783 where first the Maratha’s won and then the British won. In both cases, native soldiers were far too frequently Dalits. Anyway, more land was captured by the Brits and the power of the Maratha’s was further reduced. Peshwa Baji Rao II and his father basically got up to no good. In 1802, BajiRao went and sucked up to the British after being defeated by Holkars in the Battle of Poona. This pissed off the other Maratha warlords and they got into a bit of a fight with the British which ended with more loss of territory for the Marathas. Then comes the crucial 3rd War which our Dalit friends might now appreciate.

This relates to the 3rd Anglo Maratha War 1817-1818 or the Pindari War. The Pindari’s were highly mobile cavalry units which were not on the payroll of any ruler but associated with rulers in return for protection and permission to plunder. Guess what? These Pindari’s were low caste, Ladul and also had quite a lot of Muslims (mainly Afghans and Pusthun). Anyway, all this plundering was not good for the British and a really very big army of 120,000 men and 300 artillery pieces was put into gear by Lord Hastings to exterminate these Pindari’s. The attacks happened from the east in Bengal, from the South in the Deccan and from the west from Gujarat and Bombay. Look at the map above and see who is the nut in this 3-way nutcracker? The Marathas.

2. The immediate predecessor to the 1st Jan 1818 Battle of Koregaon.

Once the British invaded Maratha territory to go after the Pindari’s, there were skirmishes between the Peshwa’s forces and the British forces such as the sack of the British Residency in Pune, and then the British routed another Peshwa force at Khirki. Then the main battle was fought in the Battle of Khadki on November 5, 1817 where the Peshwa Baji Rao was routed pretty much comprehensively and then the British took over the Peshwa’s seat at Shaniwarwada by November 17, 1817. The Peshwa, by this time, was running ragged. There was another battle between the Nagpur forces and the British at Sitabalsi on November 27 1817. The next battle to be fought was the Battle of Mahidpur on 20th December where the Holkar’s fought and lost to the British, after being betrayed by one of the Pindari (who killed Tulsibai).

3. The Battle of Koregaon:

A good description of the battle can be found here. This is a book by WC Taylor, A Popular History of British India published in 1847. See page 268-269 for details of the battle. Sounds like a pretty good bash. Taylor says that the Peshwa’s forces numbered about 25,000 although it should be noted that counting was pretty vague at that time. Still, it wasnt 50,000. But here’s the crucial thing, the Peshwa’s forces then retreated not because they were defeated by Captain Francis Staunton’s forces, but because they got to hear that British reinforcements were coming over. The British forces lost 200 soldiers out of 500, and 6 out of 7 British officers. Good defensive battle without food or water at this village. You can see the layout of the land here although there are no records extant of how the battle actually went, the defences and the lay of the land.

4. The soldiers.

The soldiers who did most of the dying were Mahars. And again ironically, they got their start in being soldiers by no other than Shivaji to become scouts and fortress guards. They were highly mobile light infantry, which is the reason why they were in the 2nd Battalion, 1st regiment of ‘Bombay Native Light Infantry’ as part of the Maratha Light Infantry. The Peshwa’s soldiers were also by and large lower caste soldiers including Mahars, in any case, not Brahmins. So the fighting basically was between lower castes, only the people who were ordering them around were the British and the Peshwas. This Mahar Regiment still exists and has provided two of the most brilliant Indian Army Chiefs: Gen (Retd) K V Krishna Rao and Gen (Retd) K Sunderji. Also, there is no caste element to the regiment from 1963 onwards and it is now a fully mixed regiment.

5. The aftermath of the Battle of Koregaon:

There was another fight between the fleeing Peshwa’s forces and the British at Ashti on February 20th 1818 and he remained under pressure till he surrendered to Sir John Malcolm on June 3, 1818 and was given the pension of an annual payment of 8 lakhs rupees. The Battle of Koregaon was celebrated by raising of an Obelix which commemorated this.

So all in all, I am afraid what my research threw up was in sharp variance with the mythology is being provided. It was frankly a small battle / skirmish in a much bigger war, the Peshwa’s forces were not defeated in this skirmish, the British Army did not fight this battle expecting the worst because they had been winning every battle in this war, this battle of Koregaon was not really that important as fighting kept on happening for months after this battle and I am afraid there is absolutely no evidence that any kind of caste based ideology was involved in the fight.

So all in all, good myth but a rather more calm reading of the historical record tells differently. I can also see why the Dalit hotheads want to use this battle to burnish their credentials. After all, all revolutions need their battles. Google for “Battle of Koregaon” to see how this myth is being built up, but I am afraid the reading is slightly different. If they do want to celebrate the success of lower caste soldiers, they should celebrate Shivaji, the Indian Soldier, the bravery that these soldiers showed to whoever paid them. See here for the campaigns that the Maratha Light Infantry got involved in. But to bring this casteism into the Indian Army? Not really cricket, old chaps. But I am very happy to be corrected if I have not referred to any other source or documentation. Happy to learn more.

Are Reservations Justified?

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:03:29 EDT

Prominent blogger Amit Varma recently published a brief and succinct post on why he thinks reservations based on caste are unfair, According to Varma, reservations perpetuate caste rather than do away with it.

When I was a student, I used to feel exactly the same as Amit does even now. However, after I started working in the late nineties, I began to have second thoughts and asked myself: Why should people who come from very disadvantaged backgrounds be treated on par with those born with a silver spoon? My antagonism towards reservations totally melted away after I came to the UK. Compared to the UK and other European countries, India is a very unfair society with a rich-poor divide that can’t be justified by any stretch of imagination. Middle class Indians seem to able to tolerate a degree of poverty around them that would be unacceptable to most Europeans. Most Indians living below the poverty line come from the lower castes and it cannot be denied that there is an undeniable link between poverty, social backwardness and caste. In other words, caste is the best or the most efficient yardstick for measuring social and economic backwardness. Granted there are Indians from the lower castes who are no longer poor or even socially backward, and there are some backward castes which are no longer backward, but on an all-India level, such people and castes are very few in number.

Social backwardness is something that is very different from financial poverty. To give an example, a businessman who goes bankrupt may be poor. He may have to live on handouts from relatives or send his kids to a government run school. However, he is not socially backward. He will be able to talk to people on equal terms anywhere in India, especially in his home territory. He will know how to work the system and will, with some luck, bounce back in life. His children will have their education paid for by family members. Even if they struggle through college, they will have necessary soft skills to do well later on in life.

Now take the case of a dalit from a village where untouchability is still practised, who manages to go to college on the strength of reservations. Even after he goes to college, he is still a dalit. He stands out from the college crowd on account of his shabby clothes and lack of confidence. After he gets a good job (once again thanks to reservations), he is still a dalit, though he will have started to acquire some social graces by then. However, when sends his kids to the best school in town, they will not be treated as dalits. Let’s assume the kids are smart, but not smart enough to get admission to a good engineering or medical college on merit. However, they are very likely get admission to the college of their choice, since they have reservations. By the time those kids pass out, they have as much social standing as any of their classmates.

Most jobs require soft skills that are not taught at school or colleges and are available only to those from the upper crust of society. In fact I know of many sensible organisations that keep away from applicants with a sterling academic performance but without any extracurricular ribbons. In other words, a socially backward individual is very unlikely to bag a job that requires soft skills. We all know that such jobs are the highest paying ones in the market.

To be fair, the main reason why so many upper class Indians hate reservations not because they are nasty people, but because of India’s extremely high population. There are too many Indians who want to join the IITs, IIMs or top medical colleges like AIIMS and too few seats available at such institutions. Gaining admission to such an institution virtually guarantees a comfortable living for the rest of one’s life. Mind you, once admission is secured, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to clear the course, though it must be admitted that in general those admitted on merit pass out with better grades when compared to those who got admission through reservations.

There are some like Mr. Narayana Murthy who say that reservations should be based solely on economic criteria. I do not agree with this stand. For one, it ignores social backwardness which is, in my opinion, a bigger handicap than economic weakness. Secondly if reservations are made available to all those below the poverty line, you can be sure that a brisk trade will develop in fake income certificates. In a country where very few of those liable to pay income tax do so, policing a system of reservations based solely on income will just not work. Even if it can be made to work, I feel that reservations ought to target social as much as economic backwardness.

I will not dispute that caste is not a perfect yardstick and the presence of a creamy lawyer prevents reservations from benefiting those who most deserve it the most. A few months ago, I was having a chat with a friend and the discussion moved to reservations and caste. ‘Oh when do you think will we be able to do away with reservations altogether?’ my friend wondered aloud. ‘Just as how they stopped giving free milk in schools here.’ There was a time when British school children were given free milk in schools. Then one day in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher decided to stop giving it away free to older children and to be honest there were lots of complaints.

Milk is available cheaply in the UK, as in the rest of the developed world, and even the poorest of the poor can afford it. Despite all that many Britons cribbed. One can only imagine the hue and cry that will arise if the Indian government were to announce an end to reservations. More importantly, the government that ends reservations is bound to get trashed in the next general election.

In my opinion, purely caste-based reservations do perpetuate caste divisions in the short term. However, they also uplift untouchable and backward castes, to a large extent, though it is at the expense of the upper castes. If (social and economic) upliftment of the lower castes is the sole objective behind reservations, rather than doing away with caste altogether, then caste based reservations do work. Tamil Nadu is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Since many decades, Tamil Nadu has had up to 69% reservations for admissions to colleges and in state government jobs. There has been a great degree of social and economic mobility as a result of this. Sadly the Tamil Brahmin community has been largely driven away from the state as a result of this reservation policy (coupled with the vehement anti-Brahmin rhetoric of various Dravidian parties).

Can it be said that if caste based reservations continue for some more time, caste divisions within society will disappear? In my opinion, it will take many, many decades of reservations before the lower castes achieve some degree of prosperity and parity with the upper castes. It is very likely that many upper castes will end up a few notches down on the social and financial ladder as a result. However, caste divisions can disappear only when such social equalisation is matched by a tremendous increase in the overall prosperity within society. Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan managed to create societies with very little class distinctions (as compared to India) only because they achieved a great degree of prosperity. There was so much around for everyone that some of it trickled down to even the poorest individual.

India has got so many more people than all these countries I have just mentioned and so much fewer resources. Also, Indian has even now, more poverty and social backwardness than any of these countries ever had in the last hundred years. Which takes us back to a very basic question – if reservations are likely to only sharpen caste distinctions in the short run and if they can work in the long run only if there is an overall increase in prosperity, should India persist with reservations? What if India can achieve a critical mass of prosperity (that will make it possible to push every Indian out of poverty) faster than it will through reservations by moving to a purely merit based regime right away?

It is tempting to say that India should ditch reservations and pursue pure merit at once without waiting for reservations to uplift the downtrodden castes. However, I doubt if our politicians will want to take the risk of trying to persuade India’s long suffering populace of the efficacy of such a measure. I have a feeling that reservations will be a fact of life for Indians for at least a couple of generations to come.

Reservations for Women: In Parliament, Judiciary, Corporates and Government Jobs

Sumanth — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:58:12 EDT

In recent times, there has been a lot of noise over the issue of reservation of women's seats in Parliament. Some existing male parliament members even went to the extent of threatening suicide in Parliament, if the women's reservation bill is passed. The male parliament members are sure that many of them will lose their seats and become politically irrelevant, if the women's reservation bill is passed. Some smaller parties consider it as a conspiracy to finish up smaller regional political parties.

What do men's rights activists think about women's reservations in parliament? From their perspective, they have no trust in any woman parliamentarian. For them, if some fifty women in parliament can bulldoze an extremely biased and badly drafted domestic violence law into being enacted into law, then 200 women in parliament will lead to many more biased laws and serious discrimination of men, which can result in a complete gender war. Such a conflict will not only harm men, but also harm women, children and entire the society.

In spite of Supreme Court warning about Legal terrorism due to dowry law misuse, the so called democratic parliament has taken no steps to prevent misuse of this law or punish the people, who abuse the process of law. The entire legal system is dysfunctional even as more and more people are encouraged to file divorce. This is not at all the right time to make some serious constitutional changes, which can cripple the democratic process itself. For example, as many as 300 parliamentary constituencies out of 543 will get reserved, if women get 181 seats reserved for women. There are already about 100 seats reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. In democracy, every citizen must have a choice to stand in an election to get elected to parliament. If 300 seats in parliament are reserved, then this democratic choice to citizens gets denied. The solution to any problem must not get bigger than the problem itself.

At present, women do have a choice to stand in elections and form political parties on their own. In fact, the women candidates have a better success rate than the male candidates. Its a different matter that the Indian political process involves money, muscle and bogus voting, which makes most women stay away from politics. So, the need of the hour is to clean up the political process and unleash political reforms so that everyone, not just rich and powerful, gets a chance to participate in political process.

At present, the whole argument in favour of women's reservation is based on "male dominated patriarchal society" theory. However, is reservation the best way to break this so called "male dominated" society? For example, statistics show that three times more men compared to women die in accidents, suicides and murders. [ED: UNSUBSTANTIATED] The so called dominant gender has comparatively more violent lives as 87% of all crimes committed are against men. The society certainly reserves the dangerous side for life for men in the name of responsibility and commitment. Now, men do have a choice to walk out of this as well, when they are pushed to the wall.

Instead of reserving seats in the parliament for women and disfiguring democracy by denying citizens rights to stand in an election, the Government should in stead start empowering women in different domains of the society. After all, according to World Economic Forum Gender Gap Index, India has a rank of 24 in Political Empowerment of women, which is way ahead of countries like Spain or Italy. This rank will improve further and can cross United States (at 19) this year, as we have a female speaker and more female parliament members. So, it is necessary to balance other areas, where women are lagging behind due to discrimination. For example,

1. The Government can seriously consider reserving 50% of the positions for women in higher judiciary, ie High Courts and Supreme Court. There were only 3 women judges ever in Supreme Court in last 63 years of Independent India.

2. This can be followed by reservation of 50% of seats in bureaucracy, ie IAS, IPS, IFS positions.

3. The Government can also pass a law to reserve 50% of seats in board or senior management for women in Corporates.

4. Diversity can also be enforced by reserving 33% of all Government and Private sector Jobs for women. After all, many American MNC companies in Bangalore already reserve 33% of positions for women.

It is easy to criticize the men in parliament of being selfish and they denying women of appropriate representation. But, what about men is judiciary, bureaucracy, Government and private sector jobs? Its important for men in Government jobs and corporates to "walk to talk" and allow at least 33% positions and promotions for women.

Instead of making women complain about discrimination in a so called male dominated society for next 10 years, its better to give them their share in all these jobs in Government and Private sector.

In the meanwhile, the Government must start electoral reforms, so that people other than rich and powerful can contest elections and win. The Government has to modify all laws, which consider men guilty till proven innocent, before attempting to bring any bill on women's reservations in the parliament.

Elections in India, 2009: Vote for Moderation and Maturity?

Vivek Sharma — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:57:03 EDT

Elections in India present outcomes which require an analysis encompassing divergent rationals that co-exist in our bouquet society.

Each state, each constituency decides in its own way. The reasons are emotional, historical, economic, caste-based, and rooted in aspirations as well as fascinations of voters. Hence cricketers, movie and TV-stars get elected, sons and granddaughters of erstwhile Rajahs win, political dynasties win and lose, and occasionally you find a maverick rookie like writer/diplomat Shashi Tharoor win.

I was not in India to vote this time, but I waited for the outcome. Here are my thoughts, random thoughts of a chaotic being, which show that I love and hate all the political parties. Yet, I am Indian, optimism never deserts me, and this election gives me hope.In this election, we see an economist, academician, soft-spoken, PhD, the erudite but restrained Manmohan Singh return to the Prime Minister's chair. The policies and practices of the Congress and its allies have their flaws, yet it is the ability to nurture men who have depth and substance, that allows this grand old party to stay in power at national and state level. With Manmohan at the helm, and Rahul's much publicized role in the 'victory' in Uttar Pradesh, the Congress party promises the next generation of reforms as well as next generation of leadership.While BJP provides mercurial leaders of its own, who boast of no dynasties or grand births, leaders like Advani and Atal Bihari Vajpayee outlive their productive years, before they find themselves as potential candidates for the country's most important post. I am amazed that they have not realized it yet that unless they have leaders who are well-established by the age of forty-five or so, groomed to lead the country before they cross the age of sixty-five or so, they will always appear to be led by old, power hungry leaders.

I have enormous respect for these leaders and yet I cannot understand what logic tells them that leading a nation like India must be trusted to an eighty-one year old. Age brings wisdom, but grand old age brings senility, or at least health problems, spiritual crisis and so on. In any case, India has far too few voters above the age of fifty, and I cannot see the justification for keeping middle-aged, mature and sensible leaders away from ministerial berth to accommodate people who used to be cult figures, much before many the voters were even born. If you had only read my satire on age based reservation, you'd know how skewed the age distribution in India is right now. The age of the leaders is a significant problem, it is only one of many problems that plagues BJP's pursuit for power.The most promising outcome of this election was the defeat of parties and leaders with a caste-based agenda. The so called saviors of a certain caste or religion put every effort of Indian democracy towards harmony and progress in danger. I really envision a moral code, enforced strictly, that prevents leaders from making pro- or anti- caste remarks.

If inciting people in name of religion violates the code of conduct, I see no reason why a castist remark be left out of the purview of this code of conduct. While the reservation of certain seats itself identifies the candidates as belonging to a certain community, everywhere else, the mention of caste must be made crime punishable by law. There must be no room for candidatures that rely on caste, color, creed, birth, and yet, it is easier said than done.
My liberal view tells me that we need not make any new rules, for in time, the farces, the fallacies, the fascists, will self-destruct. Yet, the danger posed by these forces is real and too imminent to be ignored.

The erection of statues and memorials of living leaders at the expense of state treasury must be dealt with strict penalties on the responsible party, no matter how ludicrous the leader looks in this enterprise, the joke must not be staged on public money.There are a few questions on which I do not agree with many of my friends and so called liberals. I think religion has a role in politics, and religion itself is not a demon. A personalized belief system protects the leader from various corrupting influences. A personalized belief system, like that of Mahatma Gandhi, when practiced properly, also serves as the lighthouse for the others.

Do we need to build temples at particular sites? I don't know, but we need to ask those interested to at least look after and care for the temples that already exist. I will trust their devotion more, if it is used in providing help where the need exists. Also, I want my Ram back, I want my Lord back. I want him clean of every stain the politicians have inflicted in his name. I also want to see Mathura cleaner, Nashik, Haridvar and Varanasi made into properly managed, maintained, cities of pilgrimage. The filth there shows that the corruption of our within has spread into every street and public place, even the places where Gods once lived.

Also, I believe that if in certain ways, Hindus or certain castes, exploit others, democracy allows minorities to exploit the rifts in the majority to their advantage as well. The Hindutva issue is not misplaced, some anger is justified, and need to be addressed. It is about time that equality of religion and caste in eyes of law provide neither discrimination nor reverse-discrimination to any sect, faith, group, community. Voters must see to it; in my ideal world, they will.If any party believes that locals are not able to find jobs, I want those parties to help in education and employment efforts. If any community thinks their language is being ignored, I want to see great literature emerge from the mouths or pens of those who know only to burn others and not the hate within.

If any leader makes his life's aim to get justice for his people, let him start by empowering his people with opportunities for education and enlightenment. If any party wants to distribute free televisions, sell rice that exceptionally low price, distribute funds to families of terrorists while not caring for the lives of army men or jawans, let the politicians of these parties sit out of elections. If a man has murdered, raped and killed, has a criminal background, let us not judge him too harshly, and allow him to stand in elections only after he has done twelve years of community work, and shown to himself, and society, that 'every sinner has a future, every saint has a past.' No shortcuts to redemption exist, and even if the voter faults once or twice, over democratic system has to be mature enough to keep the criminals and the corrupt at bay.

Did India or Bhaarat vote for moderation? Yes, but not everywhere. Did we vote for harmony and maturity in places where religious and caste agendas were defeated by progress bandwagon? Yes, not everywhere. Has Indian democracy matured? Not yet, not quite, but the journey, it seems has taught it a few lessons, and will teach it many more. We have a lot of issues to resolve, economic hardships, coupled with terrorism and Naxal movement, religious and regional rifts, compounded by the pervasive hydra of caste system.

Let us gather all forces together, hope next five years take us to a better socio-politico-economic situation. Let us applaud the peaceful completion of another election. Even though it is hard to know what everyone among the seven hundred million voters thought, lets assume that we saw the victory of moderation, maturity, progress, erudition and harmony.

Fighting Fundamentalism With Fundamentalism

Sujai — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:18:31 EDT

One of the reasons cited by the proponents of aggressive brand of Hindutva is that their aggression is a reaction to the Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism, forced conversion of Hindus into alien religions, unpatriotic actions by non-Hindus, followed by a big list of issues they have against other religions.

These proponents will tell you again and again that Hinduism is a peaceful religion and that Hindus are peace-loving people. The only reason why they condone certain excesses perpetrated by certain Hindutva brigades against Muslims, Christians or Communists is because they think that a mild antidote to the poison that is vitiated by the latter groups is sometimes necessary though unpleasant.

Pseudo-secularists

Some of us who oppose the growing menace of Hindutva are branded ‘pseudo-secularists’. What they mean is that while we denounce every action of Hindutva groups, we tend to condone and support many fundamentalist actions of Muslim and Christian groups however ridiculous they are.

In reality, secularists like us do not support fundamentalism of Muslim or Christian groups. We do not believe in Sharia Law or its interpretations. We do not believe in Christian prerogative to proselytize everyone to save us all from eternal damnation. We do not believe in protecting the places of worship constructed on public property that cause inconvenience to everyone. We do not believe that school going children should be taught religion, and definitely not with an aim to promote one’s religion while denouncing the others.

And yet, secularists like us seem to support the cause of Muslims and Christians many a times, as clearly indicated by many articles and comments here. Also, we seem to be targeting only Hindutva group consistently and vociferously. Doesn’t that make us pseudo-secularists?

Blindness does not fight Blindness

We do not believe that growth of one religious fundamentalism is an answer to the menace of the other. We do not believe that chanting ‘Ram’ is an antidote to chants of ‘Allah-O-Akbar’. We do not believe bigotry of one kind can counter bigotry of another. Hatred cannot be fought with hatred.

If ever, we believe that reason, debate, rational discussion, where logic prevails over blind belief, transparency, a fair judicial system that guarantees protection to all individuals and safeguards their rights, are the only tools that can be employed to fight fundamentalism either it is coming from Hindus or Muslims. Blindness of one religion cannot be fought by blindness of another religion. Only light is the cure for blindness and that light does not come from any religion, not even the most liberal ones – because at the heart every religion is a blind belief – in the form of ‘because it is so’, ‘because God said so’, or ‘because our ancestors said so’. That light comes in the form of rationality, where blind belief, superstition or orthodoxy has no place.

No support for fundamentalism

It’s not like secularists like us are in love with Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. We do not believe in imposition of Shariat either on Hindus or on Muslims. It is an antiquated system of law, and a complete anathema to the modern society. Instead we would like to embrace the modern system of law that suits us in our current context which relies on principles of fair judgment, equal treatment, the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that a punishment is not to deter future criminals from committing crimes but as a equitable justice appropriate to the severity of his actions.

We also believe in separation of state from the church. We believe in a jury consisting of ordinary humans where evidence is paramount to incriminate someone. We do not believe in hearsay, blasphemy, sin, heresy, dreams, or miracles when it comes to meting out justice.

We do not believe in a system where a child carries the burden of father’s sin or where a certain authority sitting in heavens dictates morals through a chosen interpreter. We do not believe in a system that criminalizes immorality – we leave that out of legality as a matter of taste.

And yet, many of us are called pseudo-secularists. Here’s a snapshot of my stand as a secularist on some of the controversial issues.

I denounced the Supreme Court verdict against Afzal Guru because it sentenced a man to death to satisfy ‘collective conscience’. That is irrational. Each crime and criminal has to be judged by his actions and punishment should be measured against that crime alone. It cannot be retributive to include the factor of satisfying the grievance of the suffering people.

I supported certain Muslims right not to sing Vande Mataram. That’s because I believe no Indian should be forced into a singing a song to prove his patriotism. And moreover I believe patriotism is not a prerequisite to live in a country.

At the same time, I denounced madrassa education where children are taught Koran, and also blamed Muslim parents for indoctrinating a vicious form of religion into their kids. Also, I ridiculed Indian government for paying Haj pilgrimage subsidies to Muslims.

It is true that more of my articles and comments target Hindutva group than the fundamentalist positions of Muslims or Christians. That’s because I believe, right now, the biggest threat to modern India is Hindu fundamentalism. It is the biggest threat not only because Hindus are in majority and hence pose a bigger problem, not only because the number of incidents coming out of Hindutva brigades are more than that of rival religions, not only because I am a Hindu and hence more concerned that my way of life would change if they ever win, but mostly because Hindu fundamentalism is equated with patriotism taking higher moral ground while Islamic fundamentalism is equated with terrorism falling into a contemptible position.

To almost everyone, patriotism is considered good. Most Hindutva brigands take the superior stance of being patriotic. Ram Senas of the South, Bajrang Dals of the east or VHP of the North believe they are more patriotic than those who they vilify and target. Even when apprehended while doing criminal acts, they walk proudly, head high, knowing very well that they are the heroes to a million other patriotic Indians.

However, to almost everyone in India, terrorism is considered bad. Only bad people become terrorists. Members of SIMI and other related outfits fomenting Islamic terrorism are not hailed as heroes but paraded as villains and traitors. There is no heroism in it.

This dichotomy is what bothers secularists like us the most. We fear Hindu fundamentalism because of their association with patriotic symbols puts them in seats of power, making them the political leaders of this country, giving them the legitimacy they need. On the other hand, Muslim groups along with the rest of Muslim population are be demonized to the outer fringes of the mainstream society.

Hindu fundamentalists are poised to affect my life more than any other because they come with this position of strength – riding on top the high horse called patriotism. The day Shariat is on its way to become the law of the land, I would be opposing Muslim fundamentalism more ferociously than Hindu fundamentalism, but I don’t see that happening, though Hindutva brigades would like me to believe that it is the case. Hindutva cause makes a case for its existence by instilling fear amongst ordinary Indian Hindus against many illusory problems- exorbitant population growth of Muslims, their propensity for terrorism, and the explosive problem of conversion.

Hindutva is not an antidote but it is the poison itself. It does not fight Islamic fundamentalism and the conversions alone but it actually reverses the arrow of our civilization promising to take us back to the so-called Vedic times. That path demands that we surrender our rationality, our logic, our science to take up the Hindu elements of ignorance, blind belief and superstition. It would then go ahead and rationalize casteism, untouchability and sati. After mankind has struggled for thousands of years to emancipate woman, the goons in Karnataka want to roll it back – they want women indoors, cooking and covering their faces with purdah.

We have seen Dark Ages when Christianity spread around Europe extirpating every rational thought of Hellenistic Ages from the continent. We have seen Inquisition, persecution of people based on religion, hunting of witches, and heretics burning at stake. For nearly thousand years, there was no investigation into Nature, Earth stood still while heavens moved around us, priests held sway, and whole of humanity was held under servitude, bonded labor, and slavery.

Rise of Hindutva demands that allegiance and that irrationality to prevail once again. We don’t want that. We are NOT enamored by the promises of Hindutva. We reject it completely.

We are told that Hindutva has a certain good side to it – with a different interpretation. We are not interested in taking pains to look at your good interpretations while ignoring bad interpretations because we don’t want any belief system that holds anything sacred. The way we reject Shariat and all its good and bad interpretations, we reject Hindutva along with its good and bad interpretations. We don’t want any systems where only certain selected groups get to interpret just because they happen to be more irrational than others.

We have struggled hard as humans to wrest this civilization away from such religious zealots, autocrats, and monarchies to win our freedoms. We are not going to surrender them, not even for a lofty cause called Hindutva which promises Sanatan Dharma and a pan-Indian empire under Ram Rajya.

I will define Hinduism the way I want. No thanks, we don’t your interpretations. Sorry. And we will fight tooth and nail before we surrender freedoms to you.

Gaddar, a Legend

Amitabh Mitra — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:47:07 EDT

Hundred Flowers was a literary organisation aligned to a Maoist group which sprang up in Delhi in the seventies. The socio-political changes along with literary and cultural aspirations of that time brought me close to a feeling that was even closest to my heart and mind. Protest poetry, Protest ballads and Protest street theatres was the order of the day.

I look back and wonder, yet each poem recited, each theatre performeD, each irregular underground paper we brought out and distributed did make some dent in the routine flow of ideas of the common man. Was it really worth it?

Somewhere we lost the rage and urge in an urban jungle and melted into an everyday mediocrity. Gaddar instead carried on with the movement that we all once dreamed of.

Gadar popularly known in Andhra Pradesh as Gaddar is the Balladeer Extraordinary who has survived assassination bids, his songs and performance poetry has extolled millions of dalits and the underprivileged.

‘No death for the song of people’s war’
- A Slogan condemning the attack on Gaddar.

Gummadi Vittal Rao, popularly known as ‘Gaddar’ established himself as a household name in Andhra society. Vittal Rao changed his name to Gaddar as a tribute to Gadar Party of Punjab under the leadership of Hardayal who gave a stubborn resistance to British colonial exploiters between 1913 and 1930 From mid seventies to eighties he wrote songs on martyrs of revolutionary struggle.

One of his popular songs that he sings with gusto –
‘in spite of being born into a blacksmith's family I don’t have sickle and hammer...’

Another song –
‘this village is ours and every work is done by us .Then, who is this Dora (landlord)? What is his greatness? What right does he have to exercise power over us? ‘

Another song in Hindi
Jago re…
Jagore jago jago
Duniyame-majuduro
Ekvo-ekvo
Duniyaka dushman hain Amerika Rashya
Unke dalal hain Tata Birla
Unkee gulam hai deshkee netha
Unkke chenche hai gavkee jalim
Inke ladana hai jagore’

Gadar and his Jan Natya Mandali (JNM) used folk lores, folk tunes, dholak and dappu. He gripped his audience through his powerful tunes. On February 18, 1990 at Nizam College Grounds in Hyderabad, a staggering 200, 000 people came to watch Gaddar and his group performing.

Since then he has travelled fearlessly to Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and Maharashtra and recently to Pune where he was given a hero’s welcome. At a press conference in Pune, accusing the Left parties of straying from their original philosophy, he said, “Communistonka jhanda lal hain lekin unka dil kala hain”

A salute to a people’s hero at a time during the elections when the common man is made to believe by the ruling establishment and the so called opposition that they are the best to lead them, a man wearing a shawl, dhoti and wielding a stick gives them hope by singing and asserts to a nonviolent struggle for their just rights.

India's Post-Independence Fight For Freedom

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:55:37 EST

Let me cut right to the chase here. This is unacceptable. Let me say it again for emphasis. It is not just bothersome or even upsetting. It is unacceptable. In the 21st century, in a democratic, secular nation, what has been going on, festering like a recurrent lesion, sprouting in every part of India, is just, simply unacceptable and will not do.

In case you are wondering who it is that's going to stand up to it: we are. We will not allow our freedom to be violated and we will make sure we protect the independence we fought long and hard to get the first time around. We have come a long way. We have seen the change and been the change. So who better than our pioneering, hot-blooded breed to stand up to the revolting and shockingly regressive acts of a few who feel threatened by progress.

They are just acting out of fear. It is obvious, isn't it? They attack in packs, afraid to be the lone ones incriminated. They target women and assault safely from behind the vague curtains of culture. But we all know that it isn't their culture that is in grave danger. Their position, their power and the extent of their bullying is in great peril. The places where they once ruled the roost are now turning into big, bustling cities making them feel like small, insignificant fish in a big sea.

Institutions and companies have transported the educated, smart crowd into the vacuum in which these bullies once enjoyed unfettered omnipotence. Now, in place of the void, there is a young, vivacious bunch of professionals, men and women who work hard and party hard and do so shoulder to shoulder. These people are harder to manipulate. This crowd has not just taken over, they threaten to pull into their growing ilk, the younger ones too. Business are bending over backwards to accommodate the needs of this new species and everything that once belonged to the bullies is now up for grabs. So they are retaliating. They are like petulant little children who couldn't have all that they demanded, hated sharing and so now are acting up. Therefore it is up to us, the educated class to teach these spoiled little brats to grow up and stop reacting so bizarrely to change. We must do it in a manner that is as different from theirs as is humanly possible.

So now comes the big question: how do we do it? How do we make our presence known? The answer may seem too simplistic because it sits smack in front of our faces. Think about it: we travel through these cities like one stream of blood, flowing steadily, keeping the city alive, stuffed in trains, piled into buses, walking along the teeming streets. Even partying and a trip to the movie theater is all the more fun with a group. We work in teams and are all the more effective for that. We discuss films, fashion, clothes, the economy, the job market and even our health problems. Yet this fear of walking out on the streets of a free country seems like a personal problem, like we were alone in that walk, like when a bully arrived with his little gang and punched us in the face, we would be all by ourselves and the world around us would just suddenly go blind. What we forget is that in this lonely fear too, we are still together. In this anger against the unfairness of the situation, we are together. We can if we decided, be together in the one resolute determination of not letting a handful of insecure men undo all that we have put into making our cities. So the answer is simple. Whatever it is we do, we do it together.

We celebrated Valentine's Day battling fear and took the threats in our stride defanging the demons with the pink disarming humor of our proud underwear. With the International Women's Day approaching, it is time to get serious. In our busy, routine lives we have underestimated the power of silent, non-violent protests. All it takes is for people to stand at a side-walk with banners to get word around. Some major struggles were won with this strategy and somewhere along the line we just shrugged and rolled our eyes at the quiet potential of public demonstrations and satyagrahas. Maybe we started taking our precious freedom for granted and needed to be reminded that we simply cannot. We have to earn it and when someone tries to snatch it, we fight for it.

It is important, I feel, in today's world to use media smartly. Instead of constantly criticizing media's inadequacies, we could use it as a tool. Find a niche and throw yourself into the swift current of this ever growing medium. Find a female leader in your area who is looking to make an arrival on the political scene. Do a little research. If one political party is making your life difficult for wearing jeans and celebrating Valentine's Day and there damn well must be another party that will fight for your votes, or can be persuaded to do so.

Find a celebrity who is willing to make your cause their own or give your movement their support and voice. Find a television network, a newspaper or a magazine that will run your story and provide your opinions with a voice. Find an artist who will put your thoughts into a slogan or a creative, riveting poster. Write to your city officials, your ministers and drown their offices in letters of your indignant protest. Just remember that one or two voices are easy to be ignored. If you are fuming over a coffee mug at your kitchen table, take that rage to a medium that will express it in the most noticeable manner possible.

Haven't we whined about a dysfunctional system for too long? When has this "system" ever worked? Maybe we just don't realize that we are one of the appendages of this faulty system. If the system is not working, we, as a group could propel in into motion. What will it take for us to get off our bums and make a placard with a strong message on it? This is not a women's liberation movement at all. Genders cannot be fighting alone in a battle such as this one. It could be your sister wearing jeans, coming home from work. It could be your teenage daughter walking back from school or college, the neighborhood aunty who brought you food when you were sick, a dear friend or your colleague. Most importantly, it is them today and it could be you next.

Let us review what the odds are of your being targeted next. You have a very high chance of being next on the hit-list if you answer 'Yes' for any of the following questions. Are you considered an "outsider" in Bangalore or a non-Maharashtrian in Maharashtra? Do you party? Do you meet up with friends at pubs? Do you wear jeans or clothing that may not be considered "Indian"? Do you eat pizza or meat? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Does your religious persuasion always match that of the political party currently raging a mini-war in the nation you know of as secular? Do you send children to convent or English medium schools? Do you have a spouse of a different religious persuasion than yours? Do you have friends of the opposite sex? Are you married to the girl you are driving home from work or who you happen to be having dinner with? Are you non-conversant in Marathi in Mumbai or in Kannada in Bangalore? Are you a blogger or a journalist who expresses their opinions about politics, culture, media and religion? In spite of your qualifications and the six figure salary, do you have no clout with the local law enforcement or political activists? Before you fall asleep at night you should take a moment to wonder which one of these labels will be tagged onto your identity and turned into a vice or a disqualification; which one of these labels will plant nagging fear into your routine as you go about working to make a living, partying to rid your stress and walking on the streets of a country whose freedom you celebrate once a year on a public holiday. India did fight a freedom struggle years ago and it is high time that yet another quest for independence begins.

As a civilized society, we must remember that curbed freedom is a disease, an epidemic that does not spare a gender or a certain religion. It has uprooted saplings of modern, free thinking from Afghanistan and left it barren under the regime of the Taliban school of thought. This disease feeds on your fear and on the social inertia that has settled over our generation. An active, proud and independent public cannot let this inertia set in. Let it be known that this disease feeds most of all on the little disabling voice in your head which tells you that this is not your struggle, that it isn't your battle to fight. Sadly, this malady spreads, swallowing in its wake our hard-earned progress, until the feeble voice in your head is one day replaced with the grim realization that your own struggle has arrived. The assailant and his prejudice have changed form and you are the next prey. And there is nobody left to fight for you or with you.