- 9 minutes ago
The Constitution Amendment Bill to implement 33 per cent reservation for women in legislatures in 2029 and increase the number of Lok Sabha seats to 816 was defeated on Friday.
Category
đź—ž
NewsTranscript
00:00I want to ask though the question that really needs to be asked.
00:03Women's reservation.
00:05How do you actually now fast track it?
00:07Because there is a consensus that you need 33% reservation.
00:11Why no quota on the existing 543 seats?
00:14Call it the Rajdeep formula, call it whatever you want.
00:16181 out of 543 existing number.
00:20Why can't you do it tomorrow morning?
00:21Is delimitation therefore essential for women's quota as it appeared that the government seems to believe?
00:28These are some of the questions I want to raise.
00:31Joining me now is Yogendra Yadav, co-founder Swaraj India.
00:34Dr. S.Y. Qureshi is former Chief Election Commissioner.
00:37And Rajat Sethi, political analyst joining me.
00:39I appreciate all of you joining us.
00:41I want to come to each of you and ask you,
00:44do you believe that there is a simpler way to implement women's reservation than what we've seen?
00:49Dr. Qureshi, why don't you start first?
00:58Dr. Qureshi.
00:59Yes.
01:01One second.
01:02Dr. Qureshi, one second.
01:05One second, one second.
01:07One second.
01:08Yeah, go ahead.
01:10Okay, we'll try and come to you later.
01:12Let me go to Yogendra Yadav then first.
01:14Yogendra Yadav, was there a simpler way to ensure 33% reservation for women
01:18on which in 2023 there was a complete all-party consensus?
01:24Absolutely, Rajat Sethi.
01:26We have, after a very, very long struggle, long dodging,
01:32finally this country agreed in 2023 that, yes, we need one-third reservation.
01:39Unfortunately, two qualifications were put in that legislation
01:44which had actually nothing to do with women's reservation.
01:47This was made conditional on one, census.
01:51I failed to understand what the census have to do with women's reservation.
01:55Do we want to find out if this country has more than one-third women or what?
01:59The second condition was delimitation.
02:03I still, I mean, I've studied elections for 20, 30 years.
02:07I cannot understand what, why do you need a delimitation,
02:12fresh drawing of boundaries, fresh allocation of seats for different states
02:18before you give one-third seat to women?
02:22So the simple answer, Rajat Sethi, is yes, it could have been done.
02:26It needed just a one-line amendment in Article 334A1.
02:32That is, and the amendment would simply read
02:34that the reference to delimitation and census is omitted.
02:40That's all you needed.
02:42You did not have to attach it to all other things.
02:44Sadly, just as it was done in 2023, two additional things were inserted.
02:50And this is exactly what has been, what has happened this time again.
02:54It has been made conditional on increase in the total number of parliament.
02:59Why? Why do we need to do that?
03:00Is it a scheme to compensate men for the loss that they would suffer?
03:05Why do you need delimitation if the government now acknowledges,
03:09as they did, that census was not necessary?
03:12So now the government wanted it to be done without census.
03:15All right, so you acknowledge half of your mistake.
03:18Why don't you acknowledge all the mistake and say you don't need it
03:21and write it honestly?
03:22And that's why I feel sad.
03:25You know, people are celebrating and saying great victory for opposition.
03:28I, for one, feel sad that we once again came this close
03:32to operationalizing women's reservation.
03:36Mind you, it's only about operationalizing now.
03:38Nothing else remains to be done.
03:39We came this close, and sadly, because of the devious
03:43and cynical designs of this government,
03:46once again, women's reservation was linked to things
03:49that it has nothing to do with.
03:51Once again, it has been postponed.
03:53Once again, it has been done in a devious way.
03:57Once again, women have been used as a shield for a design
04:00which is a devious design for changing the very structure
04:06and the very nature of our parliamentary democracy.
04:10Strong words there, that all we needed was actually to remove the words
04:14delimitation and census and thereby get the bill passed.
04:17Rajat Sethi, do you agree with that?
04:20Well, Rajdeep ji, it's easier said than done.
04:231996, exactly 30 years back, was this simple formula of what you're calling
04:28the Rajdeep version, was floated.
04:31Why haven't the parliaments led by all kinds of parties,
04:35right from H.D. Dewey Gaula to Atalji's time, to UPA's time,
04:41and back to Modi's time,
04:42why haven't they been able to address this core issue?
04:46You know, there could be multiple reasons.
04:48Could there be a formula where you create a win-win scenario
04:50where no sitting member of parliament feels dejected
04:53or says that my share of representation has gone away
04:56or my claim to represent my people has gone away?
05:00Possibly somebody would have thought in the current government
05:04that let's try to formulate in a way
05:06that no sitting member of parliament feels
05:10his or her right has been taken away.
05:12I mean, tomorrow, let me tell you, hypothetically,
05:15if he were to divide the existing 543 seats
05:19and gave away one third,
05:21what if Mr. Rahul Gandhi's seat would have gone away?
05:24It could have very well been the case
05:26that several prominent leaders of Samajwadi Party
05:30would have lost their seats to Women's Reservation
05:31and then they will go out and cry wolf
05:34that, see, this is the reason why Women's Reservation
05:36was brought away and my representation has gone away
05:39from the Lok Sabha.
05:40So what was the better solution?
05:42I'm looking now for solution.
05:43What was the better solution in your view?
05:46So my limited understanding is that
05:48where BJP's intention has always been clear,
05:52not just now, but right from 2024,
05:54when Prime Minister and Home Minister
05:56both have articulated this,
05:58that the representation of the southern states
05:59will not go down,
06:00it should have seen reflected into the bill.
06:03The problem is more legal.
06:05And I have been speaking to certain lawyers.
06:09You know, you couldn't have put in a ban
06:11that UP is going to get, say, 120 to 125 seats,
06:14southern states, individual states will get X to Y seats
06:17because each of these could have become ultra-wires
06:19and could have gone into and fallen flat
06:21in the Supreme Court itself.
06:24Because now you are getting into a wise 50% increase
06:27and a proportionate representation
06:29should not be considered arbitrary.
06:30Tell me this thing,
06:32that the core basic structure of the constitution
06:34is centered around the fundamental pillar
06:36of proportional representation in Lok Sabha.
06:38Now you are taking away
06:39the basic constitutional structure
06:42which requires the Constitutional Assembly
06:44to be reconstituted.
06:45At least there could have been
06:46a theoretical challenge to it.
06:47My problem here is that BJP tried to steer away
06:51with these kind of legal questions
06:53which could have ended up in the court
06:54by giving assurances.
06:56I agree with Yogendraji repeatedly
06:58over the past two days.
06:59He has said that this should have been reflected
07:01in the bill.
07:01And I believe some kind of a legal way
07:04should have been found out.
07:05And there is still time.
07:07I mean, BJP being the big brother in the politics
07:09should take this bitter pill,
07:11go back to the drawing board
07:12and come up with this bill again.
07:14With the concerns of southern states
07:15I take your point, Rajat.
07:17The simple way would have been
07:18at least to call an all-party meeting,
07:20have a broad consensus.
07:21These are very contentious issues.
07:23You can't stand in the middle of parliament
07:24suddenly and say,
07:25give me one hour,
07:26I will now add 50% per state
07:29and bring a fresh amendment bill.
07:31It showed a certain ad hocism
07:33that seemed to unfortunately
07:35prevent this bill from becoming reality.
07:37Dr. S.Y. Qureshi,
07:38I read an article by you
07:39where you had an interesting formula
07:41of proportional representation
07:43that you were suggesting.
07:44Do you want to elaborate
07:45how do you break this logjam?
07:47A quick answer.
07:48Yes.
07:49First of all,
07:49I agree with Rajat
07:50in the sense that
07:53reservation within 543
07:55is not possible
07:56because for the last 30 years
07:57it has not been possible
07:58for the same reason
07:59that the men would not like
08:01to part with their seats.
08:03Therefore,
08:03we have to think of another solution.
08:05And what I had proposed was
08:07that create additional seats
08:09for which the capacity
08:11in the house is now available.
08:12and cabinet has already
08:14passed its decision
08:15that 272 new seats
08:17will be created.
08:18And I have suggested
08:19that all of them
08:20should be given to women
08:21and that will make it
08:2233% reservation for them.
08:25And every party...
08:26So, you are saying...
08:27How would you...
08:27No, no.
08:28Just a minute.
08:28You are saying
08:29543 seats of the Lok Sabha
08:31add 272 more seats.
08:33Correct?
08:34Yes.
08:35And give those seats
08:37exclusively for women.
08:39Exactly.
08:40How would you decide...
08:41How would you decide
08:42on which state
08:43gets how many seats?
08:45Yeah.
08:46Correct.
08:46No.
08:47My formula has been
08:49that you give it
08:49to the political parties
08:51even in the current house
08:52on the basis
08:53of their vote share
08:54and if vote share
08:56is not able to
08:57on the basis
08:57of seat share
08:58which is the existing
08:59seat share.
09:00So, you don't have to
09:01bother about the census
09:02to 2011
09:03or the current census
09:05delimitation.
09:06Why?
09:06And I have said
09:07that why hold
09:08women in the reservation
09:10hostage
09:10to controversial issues?
09:12Bypass them
09:13and take a safer route.
09:14Okay.
09:15You know,
09:15effectively you are saying
09:16you could have had
09:17a mix of proportional
09:18representation
09:19and of course
09:20first passed the post
09:21as a system
09:22and thereby created
09:24women's reservation
09:25without any need
09:26necessarily
09:27for either delimitation
09:28or a census.
09:30Exactly.
09:30Yogi Nair Yadav?
09:31Yes.
09:31Yogi Nair Yadav?
09:32I have also mentioned
09:33that even if it is considered
09:35as an interim measure
09:36but let us try it out
09:38because in the long run
09:39when the delimitation
09:40commission is formed
09:41these may be merged
09:42with the delimitation mandate
09:44and the territorial
09:46constituency could be created
09:47but that is to follow
09:49but if you want
09:50women immediately
09:50in parliament
09:51this is the way out
09:52what I have suggested.
09:53Okay.
09:53Very interesting idea again.
09:55Yogi Nair Yadav?
09:56You know,
09:57at least
09:57there is something
09:58an attempt made
09:59to break the logjam
10:00that 543 MPs
10:03let us be honest
10:03the men don't want
10:04to give up
10:05their 181 seats.
10:09Rajdeep,
10:09I will not get into
10:10alternative formula.
10:11The fact is
10:12that I had myself
10:13floated an alternative
10:14about 15 years ago.
10:16The fact is
10:17that I have not been
10:17a votary
10:18of geographical
10:19seat reservation
10:20but all that
10:21is history Rajdeep.
10:22In 2023
10:23this country
10:24came to a consensus.
10:26The parliament
10:27of this country
10:28unanimously said
10:29we want
10:30one third seats
10:31for women.
10:32We want it
10:32based on geography.
10:33We want it
10:34we want a rotation
10:35of it.
10:36So people like me,
10:37people like
10:38Professor Qureshi
10:39who have had
10:39different formula
10:40I think we should
10:41wait for some years
10:42now.
10:43The only question
10:44we should be looking at.
10:44Even 2023 law is
10:46sir with due regard
10:47Yoginder,
10:472023 bill is also
10:49linked to delimitation
10:50and census.
10:51Yeah.
10:52So the basic
10:53mechanism was settled
10:54by the country
10:56about whether it's
10:57geographical or
10:58something else.
10:59That I think
10:59I have at least
11:00started relaxing
11:01after that.
11:02Alright,
11:02the country has
11:03made up its mind.
11:04It's not for me
11:04to suggest changes
11:05right now.
11:06The only question
11:07should be
11:08operationalization.
11:09I agree with
11:10Rajat in one
11:11thing that no
11:13party can claim
11:14to be
11:14If you look
11:17at the time
11:18when Gita Mukherjee
11:19the late Gita Mukherjee
11:20started speaking
11:21about it,
11:22the fact is that
11:23every single
11:23party must
11:25carry some
11:25blame in not
11:26being able to
11:27do it,
11:28must carry the
11:29guilt and the
11:30sin of allowing
11:32patriarchy not
11:33to not to
11:34operationalize
11:35this thing.
11:36However,
11:37I disagree with
11:38one thing that
11:38Rajat is saying
11:39that you and
11:40Mr. Kureshi
11:41also seem to
11:42agree.
11:43Oh, men will
11:43not agree.
11:44How can we
11:45do that,
11:45Rajat?
11:46Why can't,
11:46how can that
11:47be a constraint?
11:48No, I'm not
11:49saying it's a
11:49constraint.
11:50I'm giving the
11:50reality.
11:51No, no,
11:51Sir,
11:52Yogendraji,
11:53I believe there
11:53should be 181
11:54seats out of
11:55543 reserved
11:56for women,
11:56but I'm saying
11:57the men will
11:59resist it.
11:59I've seen it
12:00happening and
12:00therefore it's
12:01impractical.
12:03Rajat,
12:04Rajat,
12:07when scheduled
12:08caste reservation
12:09came,
12:09a lot of
12:10people didn't
12:10want it,
12:11they resisted
12:12it.
12:12When OBC
12:13reservation
12:13came,
12:14people resisted
12:15it.
12:15Whenever a
12:16measure of
12:17social justice
12:18is brought
12:18about,
12:19those who are
12:20in power
12:20do not like
12:21it.
12:22Rajat says,
12:23what if Rahul
12:23Gandhi's seat
12:24is reserved?
12:25All right,
12:26he should go and
12:26find another seat
12:27for himself.
12:28If Akhlej
12:28Yadav's seat is
12:29reserved,
12:30if these people
12:30claim to be
12:31state and
12:31national leaders,
12:32they should be
12:33able to find
12:33another seat for
12:34themselves.
12:34Why should
12:36that constrain
12:37us?
12:39I'm glad that
12:40Rajat has spoken
12:41openly and
12:42frankly, the
12:43fact that there
12:44was something
12:46that held the
12:46BJP back
12:48from actually
12:50incorporating
12:51what the
12:52promise was
12:53being made to
12:53the country
12:54into the
12:55pit.
12:56For three
12:56weeks, we
12:57heard every
12:58state will get
12:5850% proportion.
13:00People like me
13:01were saying
13:01after the bill
13:02came, show
13:03me where is
13:04it, and
13:04the fact
13:05is it
13:05was not
13:06there.
13:06What prevented
13:07that?
13:08Rajat thinks
13:08that this
13:08would have
13:09been a
13:09constitutional
13:10issue.
13:10I beg
13:11to disagree,
13:12Rajat.
13:12If 50
13:13year freeze
13:14of delimitation
13:15has not
13:16been a
13:17constitutional
13:18issue, has
13:19not been
13:19declared
13:20unconstitutional
13:21by the
13:21Supreme
13:22Court, and
13:23if in the
13:24present bill
13:25and the
13:26existing
13:27provision
13:28in
13:29Northeastern
13:30states
13:30that whatever
13:32the new
13:32allocation,
13:33it cannot
13:34reduce the
13:35number of
13:36scheduled
13:36tribe
13:37seats.
13:38All these
13:39have been
13:39existing
13:40provisions.
13:41If that
13:42can pass
13:42muster
13:43with the
13:43judiciary,
13:44I see
13:44absolutely
13:45no reason
13:46why a
13:47reference to
13:481971 and
13:50maintaining the
13:51ratios could
13:52not have been
13:53put in the
13:53Constitution.
13:54Unfortunately,
13:55all this is
13:57just bad
13:58faith.
13:58I really do
13:59feel that it
14:00was a cynical
14:01move.
14:02the whole
14:02idea was to
14:03push
14:04delimitation
14:04through somehow
14:05and to use
14:06women's
14:07reservation as
14:08a shield,
14:09as always.
14:09Okay, you
14:10made the
14:10point.
14:10Rajat, you
14:11want a quick
14:11response?
14:12Give me an
14:12idea.
14:13I hope to
14:15see women's
14:15reservation in
14:16my lifetime.
14:17time.
14:18So I want to
14:19know, how is
14:20that going to
14:21be achieved?
14:21Give me the
14:22simpler, you
14:23know, the
14:23idea.
14:24We have
14:24now discussed
14:24the alleged
14:26cynicism on
14:27one side,
14:28opportunism.
14:28These words
14:29can be used.
14:30But give me
14:30an idea, a
14:31big idea to
14:31do it, which
14:32will be
14:33immediately
14:33acceptable
14:34tomorrow morning.
14:36I think
14:37being apolitical
14:38as much as
14:39I can, I
14:40can tell you
14:40that both
14:41the parties
14:41will, both
14:42UPA or
14:43India Alliance
14:44on one side
14:44and NDA on
14:45the other
14:45side, will
14:46try and reap
14:46political benefits
14:47out of it.
14:48Let them do
14:49that.
14:49Let the
14:49test settle
14:50and let the
14:52core promise
14:52around delimitation,
14:54some back
14:54channel conversations
14:55because publicly
14:56speaking, I
14:57don't think
14:57southern states
14:58and the
14:58parties which
14:58are currently
14:59in power
14:59there have
15:00any incentive
15:01to agree to
15:01any formula,
15:02even with the
15:03right intention,
15:04it is being
15:05tabled.
15:05Because their
15:06entire politics
15:06gets called
15:07into question
15:08and I don't
15:08foresee the
15:09kind of
15:10political
15:10immaturity that
15:11DMK and
15:12other parties
15:12have been
15:13consistently
15:13showing.
15:14I mean, I
15:15can tell you,
15:16Rajiv, tell me
15:16today, there
15:17is a parliamentary
15:18constituency in
15:18Bengal where
15:19representatives of
15:2048 lakhs in
15:21one parliamentary
15:21seat.
15:23I mean, are
15:24they, why are
15:24the people from
15:25UP, Bihar,
15:26Bengal not on
15:27the streets the
15:28way you expect
15:28southern state
15:29people to be on
15:30the streets?
15:30Even their
15:30representation is
15:31getting impacted.
15:35Which is
15:36exactly why I
15:37say you can
15:37delink delimitation
15:38from women's
15:39reservation.
15:40Delimitation is
15:41a hot potato.
15:42You could have
15:42delinked it and
15:43as a first step
15:44focused on women's
15:45reservation.
15:46That's the point
15:46I keep making.
15:48Delimitation has
15:49to happen but it
15:50can happen
15:50subsequently.
15:52See, fine, I
15:53mean, post facto,
15:54you can come up
15:55with all of these
15:55propositions but I
15:56think what BJP's
15:57intent here was
15:58that there are
15:59a lot of issues
16:00centred around
16:01creating new
16:02seats, creating a
16:03win-win formula.
16:03You might disagree
16:04with a lot of
16:05hindsight benefit but
16:06BJP's intention was
16:07that let us not
16:08get into dividing
16:09the pie into
16:11multiple small
16:13small shreds.
16:13Let's look at
16:14increasing the
16:15size of the pie
16:15itself and
16:16therefore go and
16:17try and address
16:18all the issues
16:19because it is
16:19already bending.
16:20By the way,
16:21delimitation...
16:21But that was
16:22already...
16:22Sir, Sir, Rajat,
16:24I take your
16:24point but that was
16:25already there.
16:26It built into the
16:272023 bill itself.
16:28My point is
16:29fast-track that.
16:30Ensure the census
16:31is over by
16:322027.
16:33Do delimitation in
16:34a clean and
16:34transparent manner
16:35and we could
16:36still potentially
16:37meet a 2029
16:38deadline.
16:39I appreciate my
16:40guests joining me.
16:41Dr. Qureshi
16:41throwing up an
16:42idea.
16:43Yogendra Yadav,
16:43Rajat Sethi,
16:44appreciate you
16:45joining us.
Comments