If you read my article you will see that I have specifically mentioned quota for Muslim women, and the problem of overall very low representation of Muslims, men and women both, in parliament and assemblies. Also, far from homogenising, I have made a distinction between Mulayam and Laloo who are raising a false bogey and using patriarchal and anti-women arguments, and various others who might possibly have genuine apprehensions about the Bill. regarding the latter, I have said that while the apprehensions are in my opinion unfounded, still one can accommodate them in the Bill. I can obviously speak only for myself and my organisation not for all others. Perhaps those who lump all critics of Laloo Mulayam and Co as "anti-OBC" or "anti-minority" are homogenising...
On 6 April 2010 11:08, Afthab Ellath <aftha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Kavitha, > > Why do you homogenize those who raised skepticism over the present > provisions of the WRB as a single category ? How can Mulayam Singh who is > going to oppose WRB even sub-quota is introduced will be equated to those > who argue for a more representative WRB and even general quota? > > While you argue that fair representation of OBC is already there in the > legislative bodies, why do you ignore the question of pathetic muslim > representation, though it was the very point raised in Ram Punyani's letter > and subsequent discussion? > > Is it not deliberate obfuscation? > > While one cannot homogenize those who oppose the present provisions of the > bill, equally it cant be done regarding those who support the bill in the > present form as well.... For you and many it will be OK even if sub-quota is > introduced... *But it is not, for BJP and CPM, who has pledged to oppose > the bill if sub quota is introduced...* And this may be true for Abdul > Rasheed as well... > > Afthab Ellath > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Kavita Krishnan > <kavitakris...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Abdul has correctly identified the politics of those opposing the Bill. >> That politics further stands proved by the fact that Mulayam has openly said >> he will oppose the WRB EVEN if sub-quota for OBCs and minorities is granted! >> And Congress' politics is that they can conveniently pose as champions of >> women's empowerment while letting Laloo Mulayam and Co do the job of >> ensuring that it is stalled and delayed. >> >> In my article >> http://www.tehelka.com/story_main44.asp?filename=Op030410opinion.asp I >> have argued, "Without the aid of reservation, OBC representation in >> Assemblies and Parliament has increased to form a sizeable contingent, >> proportional with their representation in the population. That is why the >> demand for an OBC quota has never arisen, unless in context of the WRB. >> Opponents of the Bill have argued that privileged upper caste women will >> steal a march over deprived OBC women, and that is how the Congress and BJP >> hope to reverse the post- Mandal OBC assertion in politics. Experience does >> not provide much basis for such fears: in the 14th Lok Sabha, of the 50 >> women MPs, 30 percent (15) were of the OBC category. In other words, once >> given a chance, the performance of OBC women in electoral politics seems to >> match those of OBC men, since politics is not a personality contest, and it >> is the position of candidate and party in the social balance of forces, >> rather than individual privilege alone, that is the main consideration in >> candidate selection, as well as in electoral victory. >> Notwithstanding the above arguments and evidence, the question of quota >> for OBC women within the women’s quota should not become a pretext for >> stalling the Bill, and no objection need be raised to the incorporation of >> such a quota as long as the 33 percent provision is not diluted.... >> ...The progressive women’s movement that has been the true pioneer of the >> Women’s Bill can call the bluff of the ‘pro- Women’s Bill’ camp as well as >> the ‘social justice’ camp. The question of quota-within-quota for OBCs and >> minorities should not be allowed to become an excuse for stalling the Bill. >> Specific provisions for quota-within-quota for these sections can be >> incorporated into the Bill, but the principle of 33 percent quota for women >> must not be truncated or diluted, and the Bill must not be indefinitely >> delayed on any pretext." >> >> Having recognised the politics being played with the WRB Bill, there is no >> need to oppose the demand for quota within quota either. After all, the >> latter can do no harm, and any genuine concerns or apprehensions in this >> regard should be addressed non-withstanding the insincerity of >> Laloo-Mulayam-Maya. And why should we allow this demand to hijack and stall >> women's reservation itself? >> >> >> On 5 April 2010 22:28, Abdul Rasheed <rasheed...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> By raising the issue of seperate OBC/minorites reservation, the aim of >>> its propagators are to stall the WRB indefinitely. Since there are no >>> reservations for OBCs in general seats, why they demand such reservations >>> only among WRB. So their purpose is very clear. >>> >>> >>> regards >>> Abdul Rasheed >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Kavita Krishnan <kavitakris...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM >>> Subject: Re: [GreenYouth] Fwd: Women's Reservation Bill- Reservation >>> forDalit/OBC/Minority women- pl endorse >>> To: greenyouth@googlegroups.com >>> >>> >>> I have made it very clear in my statement as well as in published >>> writings that I and my organisation are not opposed to reservation within >>> reservation. It seems you are so busy abusing me as an 'upper caste >>> feminist' that you can';t see that I am an ally of anyone genuinely >>> concerned about representation of women among dalits/OBCs/minorities. But in >>> that zeal, it does not help to give wrong facts. You weer arguing that the >>> WRB will lead to fewer dalit women in parltt - I was proving otherwise. >>> >>> >>> On 2 April 2010 08:26, ranju radha <ranjura...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> i havent done a calculation. but it seems that these caste hindu women >>>> seem to be cleverer than we thought. so how many seats for handful of >>>> "upper" caste women? and how many for the majoritarian rest? let there >>>> be populationwise distribution. Why not? >>>> >>>> and pls do enlighten me abt the provisions, if not a burden. >>>> >>>> And pls tell me how reservation within reservation is going to dilute >>>> it? >>>> >>>> aslo delighted to see this sudden "upper" caste love for reservation. >>>> >>>> On 4/1/10, Kavita Krishnan <kavitakris...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > It seems Ranju Radha is unaware of the provisions of the WRB. It does >>>> > already have provision for 33% quota to apply for the already existing >>>> quota >>>> > for SC/STs. So SC/ST women will automatically get more seats (at least >>>> 40) >>>> > in Parliament if the WRB is passed. >>>> > I feel that we should call the bluff of Mulayam Laloo and even >>>> Congress and >>>> > say: include a quota for OBCs and minorities to address any genuine >>>> > misgivings about the lack of representation of these sections - but we >>>> will >>>> > not allow the WRB to be indefinitely stalled or diluted on this >>>> pretext. >>>> > >>>> > On 1 April 2010 09:48, ranju radha <ranjura...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> "First of all, the SC and ST will automatically have their quota (of >>>> >> reservation) within (women's) quota." >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> How come? unless u make provisions within it? why are u scared of >>>> giving >>>> >> space to Dalit/obc/minority/adivasi women? >>>> >> >>>> >> What make one ignore the issue representation of >>>> Dalit/adivasi/minority >>>> >> women? >>>> >> shear casteism. nothing else >>>> >> one should have atleast the openness shown by mulayam? >>>> >> it s shame that these "upper" caste feminists and politicians do not >>>> >> possess it >>>> >> tragedy ! >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Sukla Sen <sukla....@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> The "demand" for sub-quota, by no stretch, is a "demand". It's just >>>> an >>>> >>> alibi. A pure and simple "alibi" to block women's reservation. >>>> >>> First of all, the SC and ST will automatically have their quota (of >>>> >>> reservation) within (women's) quota. to ask for it is a mere act of >>>> >>> deception. >>>> >>> There is no such reservation for OBCs or Muslims in state or central >>>> >>> legislatures, so there will be none here either. Till some other >>>> >>> amendments >>>> >>> are made. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> These selfsame worthies, it is pertinent to note, had no problem >>>> with >>>> >>> women's reservation in Panchayats. Because these are too >>>> insignificant >>>> >>> from >>>> >>> their point of view. >>>> >>> Nor they are known to ever have raised any women's issues other than >>>> >>> this. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sukla >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On 31 March 2010 18:38, <womce...@bom7.vsnl.net.in> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Dear Ram, >>>> >>>> Am rather surprised to see this posting by you, that too asking for >>>> >>>> endorsement. I thought there had been a meeting by WRAG etc at the >>>> Press >>>> >>>> club and sub reservation had been rejected. Which Muslim women's >>>> groups >>>> >>>> (or >>>> >>>> other women's groups have you consulted before asking for >>>> endorsement? >>>> >>>> Please do let me know. (Though I have refused to be a vociferous >>>> >>>> advocate of >>>> >>>> the Women's legislative bodies reservation bill, the goings on in >>>> >>>> parliament >>>> >>>> and the SP leader's absurd behaviour and statements have really >>>> offended >>>> >>>> many of us.) >>>> >>>> This statement makes a point about Dalit reservation being >>>> implemented >>>> >>>> in >>>> >>>> Muslim majority areas. Why raise it in relation to the bill for >>>> women's >>>> >>>> reservation? And why does a what sounds like a mainly Muslim male >>>> group >>>> >>>> of >>>> >>>> upper or middle class professionals (never mind if some women are >>>> there >>>> >>>> too) >>>> >>>> speak on behalf of other minorities? Which other minority women or >>>> >>>> women's >>>> >>>> groups have they consulted? I ask because I have not heard of any >>>> such >>>> >>>> demand from any Christian women's groups for example. If you have, >>>> >>>> please do >>>> >>>> let me know. >>>> >>>> �with warm regards, >>>> >>>> Ammu Abraham >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> From: ram puniyani <jhan...@yahoo.com> >>>> >>>> Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:08 pm >>>> >>>> Subject: [indiathinkersnet] Women's Reservation Bill- Reservation >>>> >>>> forDalit/OBC/Minority women- pl endorse >>>> >>>> To: Ram R Puniyani <ram.puniy...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > Striving for Muslim Empowerment >>>> >>>> > Association of Muslim Professionals >>>> >>>> > 68/69 Umar Manzil, 5th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400052 >>>> >>>> > www.ampindia.org � >>>> >>>> > i...@ampindia.org >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Women's Reservation Bill: Seeking Muslim Representation >>>> >>>> > Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP), a not for profit, non- >>>> >>>> > political and non-sectarian organization, endeavours to promote >>>> >>>> > social welfare, community spirit, and economic prosperity through >>>> >>>> > education and knowledge augmentation, in the society. AMP had >>>> >>>> > taken the initiative to provide an unbiased platform, where >>>> people >>>> >>>> > were invited to come and share their opinion on the Women's >>>> >>>> > Reservation Bill, which was recently passed in the Rajya Sabha, >>>> >>>> > and will be introduced to the Lok Sabha, very soon. AMP had >>>> >>>> > conducted discussions and debates on this Bill at various places >>>> >>>> > in Mumbai, and other cities across the country, and based on >>>> >>>> > conclusions reached, and feedback from various luminaries, >>>> >>>> > intellectuals, and the general masses AMP presents its stand as >>>> >>>> > follows: >>>> >>>> > 1. The proposed legislation to reserve 33% percent seats in >>>> >>>> > Parliament, and State Legislatures for women which was first >>>> >>>> > introduced in the Lok Sabha on September 12, 1996 would only help >>>> >>>> > women of the elitist groups to gain seats, therefore causing >>>> >>>> > further discrimination and under-representation of the poor, and >>>> >>>> > backward classes. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > 2. Reservations for Dalit seats have been made specifically in >>>> >>>> > areas where Muslims are in substantial numbers, often 50% or >>>> more. >>>> >>>> > So no Muslim can get elected from those constituencies, as Dalit >>>> >>>> > Muslims have not been granted the 'Dalit' status, in spite of >>>> >>>> > Ranganath Mishra Commission having recommended it, firmly. AMP's >>>> >>>> > apprehension is that with women's reservation, the total number >>>> of >>>> >>>> > such 'reserved' seats will further mitigate the chances for >>>> >>>> > Muslims to get elected. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > 3. Despite having a population of around 16 per cent, Muslims >>>> have >>>> >>>> > only 5.52% representation in the Parliament. Currently there are >>>> >>>> > 29 Muslim MPs in the country in the 15th Lok Sabha which includes >>>> >>>> > only three Muslim women MPs (approx 5% ). If 33 % reservation for >>>> >>>> > women is added to the existing 22.5 % for scheduled castes and >>>> >>>> > tribes, more than 50 per cent of seats in Parliament would be >>>> >>>> > reserved. This will result in drastic reduction of the already >>>> >>>> > ridiculously low representation of the Minorities, especially >>>> >>>> > Muslims in the Parliament. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > 4. The Sachhar Committee Report, and recently the Ranganath >>>> Mishra >>>> >>>> > Commission have elaborated upon the poor socio-economic condition >>>> >>>> > of Muslims in the country. As per the Sachhar Committee >>>> >>>> > recommendations Muslims of the country need pro-active support >>>> >>>> > from the government for upliftment. The government needs to re- >>>> >>>> > analyse the Women's Reservation Bill, and make necessary >>>> >>>> > amendments, keeping in mind the dismal status of Minorities, >>>> >>>> > especially the Muslim community, in the country. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > 5. AMP is not opposed to women's reservation, but the case of >>>> >>>> > Muslims, and other religious minorities should not be overlooked. >>>> >>>> > There should be reservation within reservation for women from the >>>> >>>> > Muslim and other minority groups. The bill in its current form is >>>> >>>> > a mockery of the pursuit of societal equality that the great >>>> >>>> > founding fathers of our nation had envisaged, as it will only >>>> >>>> > benefit the already dominant classes of the society. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > 6. Women's Reservation Bill was a big hope for Muslim women whose >>>> >>>> > presence is almost negligible in the Indian political system. >>>> >>>> > Those hopes have been dashed, because if the Women's Reservation >>>> >>>> > Bill in its current form becomes a law, there are fair chances >>>> >>>> > that the number of Muslims may go down. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > 7. This Bill exposes the negligent, and callous attitude of the >>>> >>>> > major parties towards Muslims, the biggest minority group of the >>>> >>>> > country. These parties make tall claims about wishing the >>>> >>>> > involvement of all religious sections of the country in politics, >>>> >>>> > but when it comes to the reservation of Muslims, they backtrack. >>>> >>>> > This attitude of the political parties should change if there has >>>> >>>> > to be any palpable improvement in the development index of the >>>> >>>> > Muslims, and other marginalized communities. Taking the above >>>> >>>> > points into context, we, the undersigned, strongly oppose the >>>> >>>> > existing Women's Reservation Bill in its current form. We appeal >>>> >>>> > to the political leadership of this country to take cognisance of >>>> >>>> > the above points and facilitate the representation of Minorities, >>>> >>>> > especially Muslims in the Women's Reservation Bill, and not >>>> >>>> > overlook the interests of the marginalised sections of the >>>> society. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> __._ >>>> >>> Peace Is Doable >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups >>>> >>> "Green Youth Movement" group. >>>> >>> To post to this group, send an email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com >>>> . >>>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> >>> greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>>> <greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>>> > >>>> >>> . >>>> >>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> " The so called caste-hindus are bitterly opposed to the depressed >>>> class >>>> >> using a public tank not because they really believe that the water >>>> will be >>>> >> thereby spoiled or will evaporate but because they are afraid of >>>> losing >>>> >> their superiority of caste and of equality being established between >>>> the >>>> >> former and the latter. We are resorting to this satyagraha not >>>> becasue we >>>> >> believe that the water of this particular tank has any exceptional >>>> >> qualities, but to establish our natural rights as citizens and human >>>> >> beings." >>>> >> >>>> >> - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups >>>> >> "Green Youth Movement" group. >>>> >> To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. >>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> >> greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>>> <greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>>> > >>>> >> . >>>> >> For more options, visit this group at >>>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups >>>> > "Green Youth Movement" group. >>>> > To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. >>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> > greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>>> . >>>> > For more options, visit this group at >>>> > http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> " The so called caste-hindus are bitterly opposed to the depressed >>>> class using a public tank not because they really believe that the >>>> water will be thereby spoiled or will evaporate but because they are >>>> afraid of losing their superiority of caste and of equality being >>>> established between the former and the latter. We are resorting to >>>> this satyagraha not becasue we believe that the water of this >>>> particular tank has any exceptional qualities, but to establish our >>>> natural rights as citizens and human beings." >>>> >>>> - Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Mahad Satyagraha Conference, December 25th , 1927 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. >>>> To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Green Youth Movement" group. >>> To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "Green Youth Movement" group. >>> To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Green Youth Movement" group. >> To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Green Youth Movement" group. > To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<greenyouth%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to greenyo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
