Hindustan Times
A mixed doubles game
Parliament is a forum for debate, not a boxing arena it threatened to become before the passage of the women’s reservation bill in the Rajya Sabha. But who’s to be blamed for the plummeting standards, the government or the Opposition? The Members or Presiding Officers?
Well, the responsibility is collective. But it devolves more on the Treasury whose task it is to get matters debated and legislations passed. At times, its intent is pious and at times it isn’t. The same is true of the Opposition that walks out for the sake of impact in the media at the cost of an informed discussion.
In the 1990s that used to be the case in Pakistan’s national assembly that once debated in the PM’s absence the cooperative banks scam in which big businessmen and politicos swindled millions out of public savings. The Sharif brothers Nawaz and Shahbaz merrily traveled abroad while the legislature discussed the issue.
It was a mockery of democracy at the plinth of which is the government’s accountability to parliament. On witnessing that, I’d proudly tell the Pakistanis of Indian parliamentary ethos. That they too had a sneaking admiration for it manifested in references to established practices in our elected Houses by such star debaters as Benazir Bhutto, Aitzaz Ahsan and former Attorney General Yahya Bakhtiar (better known in India as actor Zeba Bakhtiar’s father) who then sat in the Pak Senate.
Particularly etched in my memory is Ahsan’s speech in the lower House after the demolition of the Babri Mosque, in which he lambasted the hardliners for retaliatory destruction of Hindu places of worship without caring about what happened to mosques on a daily basis in neighbouring Afghanistan. The Indian parallel I can think of is Arif Mohammad Khan’s speech on the Shah Bano case before resigning as a minister from the Rajiv Gandhi government.
But these silver linings were few and far between. The Pakistani MNAs of the time included the likes of Sheikh Rashid, then a close associate of Nawaz Sharif, who’s obscene heckling once drove Benazir’s mother Nusrat to tears. His most shameful conduct however was reserved for the daughter of the east when she stood defending her husband against the charge of breeding horses in the prime minister’s bungalow. The MNA from Rawalpindi would laugh suggestively each time the PPP leader uttered the word ghoda (horse).
Unfortunately, our own MPs have at times come close to such lowly conduct in recent years. An SP leader who mumbles when he speaks, once used such derogatory language against a woman leader of the BJP (who isn’t in the party any more) that she went on a dharna in the House without actually being able to state openly the cause of her outrage.
There are innumerable other examples of MPs – including George Fernandes who used his erudition to defend rape in a debate on the post-Godhra Gujarat riots— crossing limits of decent parliamentary conduct. At their Nadir, the politicos know no bounds. Male chauvinism cuts across party lines.
One only hopes things will change when (and if) one-third of the seats in parliament and state legislatures get occupied by women. Meira Kumar’s elevation as first woman Speaker has brought order in no small measure in the Lok Sabha. But Pakistan did that ahead of India by electing Dr Fehmida Mirza and reserving seats for women in the national assembly. Their Parliament is a relatively better place today when compared with the early 1990s.
On the ground, however, women’s empowerment is tangible in India but rare to find in Pakistan where tribal customs keep the fair sex shackled. Or else Mukhtar Mai who fought for her rights on being gang-raped wouldn’t have become such a celebrity. She succeeded because she had a politician-jurist of Aitzaz Ahsan’s caliber on her side.
Moral of the story: Women’s empowerment is a mixed doubles game. Get men to push their bandwagon.
(4 votes, average: 3.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Idiotic 
. Your quisitiveness is very just, I feel honored and would like to explore the answers and bring it to you even if i dont know.
vinod sharma Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Ishwar,
You are under-educated on the Bill. Parliament hasn’t yet passed the enabling law (with rotation concept) as it will only come after the basic constitutional amendment for 33 pc quota is endorsed by the Lok Sabha. There is scope therefore for finetuning enforcement.
For your information, the amendment is the joint work of the Congress, BJP and the Left. So it is you who’s giving Sonia— perhaps rightly— the full credit. Thank You.
[Reply]
ishwar Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Dear Mr. Sharma,
Thanks for the reply. Unlike you, I don’t support everything that BJP does. Can you also at times question the government in power run by the dynasty? I have never noticed you criticise any of their decisions.
Have they done no wrong in at least last 6 years? Or, your job profile as a a p—d journalist doesn’t allow you to do that?
[Reply]
vinod sharma Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Ishwar appase bachaye. What gives you the right to convert my views? What qualify’s u to question my integrity, Sir.
Better stop being personal and argue the case on merit. I have questioned your understanding of the bill. U defend yourself on that score rather than calling others names. The Bill was passed by a thumping majority in the upper house. How can u question that in a democracy?
Akhilesh Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Dear Vinod Ji,
I was not contesting the fact that the Women’s Reservation Bill has been passed by support across party lines.
What I was contesting was the fact that just because a majority in parliament has passed a certain bill does not necessarily make that bill sound and reasonable. Also it does not matter what was the colour of the support for the bill or who made up the majority.
Indeed, this is not just hypothetical postulation – Indian constitutional history bears out the fact that majority in parliament has been used variously to pass pernicious bills.
Indira Gandhi used her majority to destroy the fundamentals of the constitution during 74-77. Rajiv Gandhi used his majority to overturn Shah Bano verdict of SC – a case which lost to India, Arif Mohammed Khan – possibly the promising Mulsim leader who emerged post India. Tragically Congress and its policies made him irrelevant.
Similarly the manufactured consent for Women’s bill is not something to be gloated about. The desirabilty of empowering women should not lead us into adopting far reaching and denagerous remedies.
Rajeev Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 2:50 am
I want to make a movie called “Strange Case of Arif Mohammad Khan”.
This will sexpose secularism practiced by congress and its lackeys.
Akhilesh Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Rajeev,
Please go ahead. You will have my full support.
As I have said above, Arif Mohammed Khan is possibly the most promising Mulsim leader to have emerged in post Independence India. He was and is a fierce nationalist, very well educated and versed in Islamic studies and very articulate too.
But this is the history of Congress and its bogus secularism. They don’t want independent and thinking politicians to develope in the party lest they challenge the family. All they want is stooges from the Muslim community – people who will serve toen value but will have no mass appeal. This way they will always be dependent on the leadership for doles and crumbs and will never challenge the monopoly of the elite.
This is how Congress has systematically sidelined all nationalist Muslims over a period of time. It did this with Jinnah, who at one time was a staunch critic of Muslim league. It did this with Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, who was a staunch Kashmiri nationalist in the sevneties. Only when congress sidelined him did he reinvent himself in present avtaar to survive.
Of course Congress supports Muslim cleric of Bareilly who has been involved in rioting for 14 days and it supports families of terrorists from Azamgarh.
And Vinod Sharma spends his valuable time defending Congress secularism and attacking BJP !!!!!!!!!!!
vinod sharma Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Also, make a film on Shah Nawaz Hussain, the former Union Cabinet Minister denied a party post but made a spokesman of the BJP. Tokenism at its best. No?
Rajeev Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Vinodji,
I’ll defintely take your advise and also add you as one of the character in the film.
This character will get all emotional at the very mention of Nehru/Gandhis.
Vinodji, I guess you are not a neutral honest journalist but a propagandist for Nehru/gandhi.
Vir Sanghvi ne chamcho ki fauz ikatthi kar rakhi hai.
Rajeev Reply:
March 17th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
I’ll call your character Moti.
Anil Reply:
March 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 am
Tokenism so is it written in constittuioon thou shall must get party post before being gven spokesperson’s job..
Don;t you soudn like congress lackey here
(Dr.) B.N.Anand Reply:
March 16th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Dear Sharma Saheb
Irrespective of the merits of the women reservation bill, your thanking Mr. Ishwar for giving credit for this bill to Mrs Sonia Gandhi indeed exposes you for your biased writings. You are always seen very often defending , the PM , Mrs Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi for any crticism they are subjected to by the commentators in response to your blogs which definitely does not allow us to see you as one being an impartial in your political comments. That is especially so when a slanging match starts between you and the commentators as and when they comment critically about these VIPs and then your labelling them as the BJP/RSS stooges. Is it a must to be sympathiser of either BJP or RSS for anyone to comment against these leaders?
Wished you had adopted an independent approach as a an honoured journalist in supporting and appreciating political leaders of any politcal party rather than being seen as media defender of only congress leaders.
Regards
BNA
[Reply]