Women in Parliament

The debate on the participation of women in the political process beginning from popular grassroots movements has raised several questions about awareness, impact, leadership, priorities, and so on. It has also led to many analyses on the nature of a political struggle, on mechanisms of mobilisation, strategies and perspectives on micro issues in relation to larger political processes, and ideological dimensions.

Some scholars have argued that political participation of women depends largely on the historical tradition of women’s participation in political and social movements, and on the political milieu. To understand the political behaviour of women and the constraints of their participation, it is important to define both the concept of political status and political participation. ‘Political participation’ is understood generally as the voluntary participation in political affairs through the act of voting, membership and other activities related with political parties, legislative assemblies and socio-political movements. ‘Political status’ has been defined by the Committee on the Status of Women in India as “the degree and equality of freedom displayed by women in the shaping and sharing of power and in the value given to women’s role in the society.”

Annie Besant, the pioneer
Indian women have been contesting elections from the pre-Independence era. Annie Besant, who accelerated the process of women’s association in 1914 with her entry into Indian politics, was the first woman to be elected as President of the Indian National Congress. Sarojini Naidu too became active in the Indian national movement. In the 1930s, Jawaharlal Nehru made Uttar Pradesh a showcase province for women’s active participation in politics. The Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly had 16 women members. The most prominent among them were Begum Aizaz Rasul, the deputy speaker of the Legislative Council, and Vijayalakshmi Pandit, who held a cabinet post. But one must note that both these women came from highly politicised, elite families, who had no first-hand knowledge of the political situation and were not in touch with the masses. After the first general elections in 1937, almost every province had a sprinkling of women legislators.

Every election from 1967 to 1984 in the post-Independence era was dominated by the towering personality of Indira Gandhi. Till 1984, among the 28 women members of the Lok Sabha, two-thirds came from well-known political families and had no independent base of their own. Now, one finds that the family connection has percolated down to regional politics also in quite a big way. Not all of them are elite or Western educated, but the filial connection is too obvious to be brushed aside.

One unique aspect of high-profile women in Indian politics is their political family background. Women not necessarily from elitist backgrounds, such as Ahilya Rangnekar, were from politically conscious families. A few women like Mrinal Gore came directly from the grassroots. Political power for most Indian women who rose to prominence in politics, such as Indira Gandhi, Shalinitai Patil, Sucheta Kripalani, Jayalalithaa and Laxmi Parvathi is the direct outcome of their close relationships with politically important men. In journalese, we often call this ‘widow-cracy’ or ‘daughter-cracy.’ All these women have successfully extracted emotional mileage from these relationships. The situation has remained the same. Examples are – Sonia Gandhi, Maneka Gandhi, Meera Kumar, Supriya Sule, Agatha Sangma, Shruti Chaudhary, Jyoti Mirdha, and the list goes on.

A relatively recent addition is the introduction of celebrities from the film, sports and cultural worlds into Parliament. They already have fame, popularity and money. So why do they fight the elections? It gives them a sense of power their work fields do not permit indefinitely. It offers them a dream to pursue, the dream of participating in the developmental growth of the nation at first hand and to test their charisma among their millions of fans across the country.

The star presence
Hema Malini, contesting for a Lok Sabha seat for the first time on a BJP ticket from Mathura, moved around in a white Audi with an orange umbrella and a lotus in her hand! Yet, in a recent interview, she said her complexion had completely changed because of the rallies. Do these people have the faintest idea about ‘development’ for the masses? Has Hema Malini returned to Mathura to take care of its “bumpy roads” that have given her “back pain”? Hema Malini defeated the Mathura incumbent Jayant Chaudhary (JLD) by 3,30,743 votes, and was elected to the Lok Sabha.

Actress Rekha, nominated to the Rajya Sabha, records a below-average attendance of 5 percent, which other MPs objected to. She was sworn in as an honourable member of the Upper House in 2012. Her highest attendance at the winter session was a mere 10 percent, and she did not release any statement in her defence.

Elected in 2010, the Samajwadi Party member Jaya Bachchan is an exception, as the actor is seen taking her role as an MP (Member of Parliament) more seriously than the other celebrities. As per MP track by PRS Legislative Research, Jaya Bachchan has a 58 percent attendance record from 2010-2013. Her attendance has improved greatly over the last three years. She has even spoken up for raging issues like the Delhi gang-rape of December 2012 and the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. She has also spoken up vehemently about her reservations about the working of the Ministry of Women and Child Development on the floor of the House in August 2014. But whether she actually worked towards the goals is not recorded.

Sushma Swaraj and Smriti Irani, now high level ministers in the Central Cabinet of the BJP government, are famous (infamous) more for their high decibel voices on the floor of the House and media interviews than in action. Irani specially, rises on every occasion to counter every allegation made against her ambivalent comments in public space, and is less interested in the working of her Ministry of Human Resource and Development, where she confines her actions to interfering in every high-powered educational institution in the country.

Maneka Sanjay Gandhi is the Union Minister for Women and Child Development. But she continues to focus on her role as a leading environmentalist, animal activist and a crusader for vegetarianism. She entered active politics in 1984. Since then she has won parliamentary elections six times starting with the Janata Dal, and has served as minister in four governments. However, she is often criticised for her explosive comments on important issues. Recently, responding to the Supreme Court’s observation on the need for harsher punishment for child rapists, she ruled out chemical castration as a form of punishment, calling the step “regressive” and a form of “revenge”, rather than punishment with a view to reform the offender. She was also pulled up for her proposal to record the sex of the foetus and monitor pregnancies, by several civil society groups opposed to the idea, who felt this would lead to a terribly negative impact on the girl child in the country.

To the world outside, women in India might appear to have total freedom and opportunity to participate in nation-building activities, politically speaking. But is this a true picture? For every Mrinal Gore, Maneka Gandhi, Sushma Swaraj and Smriti Irani, there are thousands of faceless, anonymous women with political aspirations, who are losers in the political race even before they have arrived on the political landscape. The road to political success for women right across the world, one must admit, with their merits and demerits, is paved with thorns.

According to Anuradha Chadha’s Political Participation of Women: A Case Study in India, (OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development 2014), “Today, there is considerable increase in the percentage of women as voters. The participation of women as voters is almost equal to men. But the political participation (as a whole) of the women is not equal to men. They are still not able to get a share equivalent to men in organisations that require decision making. Still, politics is dominated by men at every level of participation, and women have not been regarded as a significant part of the political arena.”

---