akrishnarao

Tag: women’s reservation

  • India at a Political Crossroads

    “Be extremely cautious while speaking about the theft of money from the donation boxes (hundis) at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. This incident has hurt the entire Hindu community and the BJP. It happened because of a few wrong individuals. The government will not spare the culprits,” BJP National President Nitin Nabin said two days ago at a meeting of key party leaders in Uttar Pradesh. His remarks themselves reveal how deeply the incident has shaken the BJP.

    In fact, the thefts in Ayodhya came to light just as Prime Minister Narendra Modi was preparing for a major reshuffle in both the BJP organization and the Union government, including appointments of office-bearers and changes in the Cabinet. Before the upcoming Parliament session, Modi had intended to give both the party and the government a fresh shape. Several rounds of high-level discussions had already taken place.

    The very fact that the Prime Minister was planning a large-scale Cabinet reshuffle suggests that he was not fully satisfied with the performance of several ministries. He held lengthy review meetings with Cabinet ministers and Ministers of State, both individually and collectively, signaling that changes were inevitable. Reports suggesting that key ministers—including the Finance Minister and the Education Minister—might be shifted indicate dissatisfaction with the functioning of their departments.

    It is also noteworthy that Morning Consult, which has consistently reported rising approval ratings for the Prime Minister, has now indicated a decline from around 75–78% to 68–70%. It is therefore understandable that Modi would want to proceed cautiously. However, whether because he felt the timing was not right or due to internal challenges, the proposed reshuffle now appears to have been postponed. According to official sources, several ministers who feared removal have, for the time being, breathed a sigh of relief.

    Ayodhya is not the only issue. One controversy after another continues to emerge across the country.

    A dispute has arisen over the University Grants Commission’s equity regulations. The prestigious NEET-UG medical entrance examination has been rocked by allegations of irregularities and repeated paper leaks. Supporting protesting students, a prominent educationist and environmental activist from Ladakh has been on a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar for the past eight days.

    The government’s E20 ethanol blending policy has also come under severe criticism. Opponents argue that the policy threatens food security and allege that certain ministers have vested interests influencing policy decisions.

    Meanwhile, the ₹90,000-crore Great Nicobar Mega Infrastructure Project in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands has become the subject of intense controversy between the Centre, environmentalists, and opposition parties. Critics claim that the project would require cutting down nearly 15 million rare rainforest trees, damage fragile coral reefs and marine ecosystems, and threaten the survival of indigenous tribal communities. Against this backdrop, the recent removal of several officials from the Union Environment Ministry has also attracted considerable attention.

    The opposition is likely to use all these issues to create disruptions during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament. But the question is: where is the opposition?

    Major constituents of the INDIA alliance—including the Trinamool Congress, Shiv Sena, and Aam Aadmi Party—have been weakened by large-scale defections, raising concerns about their political survival. In Tamil Nadu, after Congress aligned with TVK, the DMK has reportedly distanced itself from Congress. Sharad Pawar’s NCP is also facing an internal crisis. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha’s position has become uncertain after it supported the BJP-backed independent candidate in recent Rajya Sabha elections. The Aam Aadmi Party has already declared that it is no longer part of the INDIA alliance.

    In these circumstances, even if Congress and a few other parties manage to disrupt Parliament for a day or two, the BJP may face little resistance in advancing its legislative agenda afterward.

    Against this backdrop, the weakening of the opposition ahead of the Monsoon Session and the changing composition of Parliament represent significant developments in Indian politics.

    Even more important is the government’s reported intention to reintroduce the 130th and 131st Constitutional Amendment Bills. The opposition had successfully blocked these bills in April and again during a subsequent special session. But the situation is different now.

    If these two bills are passed, they are expected to bring significant changes to India’s political and constitutional framework. Alongside the Constitutional Amendment Bill providing women’s reservation, the government is also preparing to secure the required two-thirds majority for a delimitation bill.

    If passed, the delimitation exercise would proceed based on the previous Census rather than waiting for the ongoing Census. The bill may also specify the exact increase in the number of parliamentary seats. Furthermore, many observers believe that the Delimitation Commission constituted by the government could redraw constituency boundaries in ways that benefit the ruling BJP.

    The proposed 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill is equally significant. It would reportedly provide for the immediate removal of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, Union Minister, or State Minister from office if they are arrested in a serious criminal case and remain in jail for 30 days. Many believe this provision is primarily aimed at opposition chief ministers and ministers.

    If the government succeeds in establishing dominance in Parliament and securing passage of these constitutional amendment bills during the Monsoon Session, there may be few obstacles left to passing other major legislation. Most notably, it would pave the way for legislation enabling simultaneous elections under the “One Nation, One Election” proposal.

    BJP chief ministers across the country have already declared their readiness for simultaneous elections. Party strategists reportedly believe that implementing women’s reservation alongside simultaneous elections would significantly strengthen the BJP’s prospects of returning to power once again.

    If that happens, it would mark a major transformation in Indian democracy. BJP circles also reportedly view this as an opportunity to postpone the Assembly elections due in Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan in 2028 until the next general election.

    This raises an important question: what will elections look like by 2029?

    The Congress does not appear to be taking seriously the possibility that the BJP could further consolidate its dominance in Parliament as several regional parties split or decline. Congress leaders seem to believe that if regional parties disappear, Congress itself will fill the vacuum.

    If that were to happen, India could gradually evolve into a two-party system. Whether the BJP or Congress, other parties could steadily weaken. Is such a development healthy for democracy? Would regional aspirations lose their place in Indian politics? These are questions that deserve discussion.

    The decline of Odia, Bengali, and Dravidian regional identity politics in electoral politics has contributed to these concerns. At the same time, another question must also be asked: have regional parties genuinely safeguarded regional aspirations? Or have parties willing to compromise anything for the survival of their leaders lost their credibility in the eyes of the people?

    It should not be forgotten that India has always functioned as a pluralistic democracy. Even when the Congress was the dominant political force, it was never the only one. During Jawaharlal Nehru’s tenure as Prime Minister, Congress won 364 seats with about 46% of the vote, but opposition parties together secured 54% of the vote and won 125 seats. They represented a wide variety of social groups.

    From the second general election onward, the number of regional parties steadily increased. Even Congress recognizes that this happened largely because of its own arrogance and overconfidence during its years of dominance. As a result, Dravidian parties, socialist parties, and various regional and identity-based political movements emerged, becoming symbols of India’s diversity.

    At one stage, coalition governments at the national level appeared to be the country’s permanent political reality. Leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee viewed regional aspirations as an essential expression of India’s pluralism and federal spirit.

    Today, however, history appears to be moving in the opposite direction.

    Whether this trend is dangerous or healthy is not the central question. More troubling is the fact that the number of voices willing to ask difficult questions is steadily diminishing.

  • The Great Women’s Reservation Show: Reform or Electoral Strategy?

    Illustration of a woman ascending steps labeled Reservation, Quota, and Reservation in a legislative chamber with supporters holding signs for empowerment and equality and opponents debating.
    “Will this bill pass? My boss is asking me again and again,” a friendly-party MP asked Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju last week. “Why do you have that doubt? As long as Narendra Modi is Prime Minister, whatever he decides will be achieved under any circumstances. A lot of efforts are happening behind the scenes. Many people will lean towards us. Just wait and watch,” he told that leader. “Not only that, I myself will speak to your boss,” he said, personally calling him and assuring, “There are no obstacles for the bill to pass.” Following this, arrangements were made in that state to gather large numbers of women and celebrate.

    In fact, it did not appear that even the Prime Minister had any apprehension that the bill might not be approved. From the second week of April, women from across the country were being brought to Delhi. BJP national president Nitin Nabin called state presidents and key leaders and instructed them to organize women’s conferences in the states and hold press meets on women’s reservation. A large conference with women was held at Vigyan Bhavan, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke. Key women leaders from the party were brought to the central office and trained to go among the public and speak to the media. Documents were prepared and distributed showing how many seats would increase in which states. Eventually, the Lok Sabha galleries were filled with women representatives. The national capital and Parliament premises were vibrant with women. Many women dreamed that they too would soon enter the House; some even identified their prospective seats.
    However, on the very first day of the Parliament session on April 16, it became clear that the opposition was united. Behind-the-scenes efforts intensified to win over or ensure the absence of opposition members. Modi even had to warn, “If this bill fails, women will not forgive the opposition.” Doubts were raised about whether opposition MPs from states going through elections would attend the session. In West Bengal, Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee is facing unusually tough competition this time, and her party MPs were deeply engaged in campaigning. Despite efforts to stay united, seven Trinamool MPs had to be absent during voting. Even so, since there was a significant gap between the two-thirds majority required in the Lok Sabha and the NDA’s strength, the constitutional amendment inevitably failed.

    Just as there are many reasons behind Karna’s death, there are many reasons behind the failure of this bill. Why did what was considered a historic moment ultimately turn into a farce? When all parties unanimously approved the constitutional amendment bill for women’s reservation in 2023, why was it opposed now? Why was there a need to modify that bill? If it had to be changed, why were efforts not made to build consensus on it as well? If women’s reservation is to be implemented in 2029, there is still three years’ time—then why extend budget sessions and hold special sessions during ongoing assembly elections? In the Bengal elections, which Modi has taken very prestigiously, was the women’s reservation issue used as a move to attract women voters? If so, why link reservation with an increase in seats through a constitutional amendment? Since an increase in seats would also benefit the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, was this strategy aimed at drawing that party closer? Did the government not anticipate that basing delimitation on population, the absence of a proposal for a 50% seat increase, and rising concerns about North–South disparities would lead to suspicion? Even though Home Minister Amit Shah said at the last minute that the bill would be modified, the opposition did not agree—this shows the deep mistrust between the ruling party and the opposition. It also did not appear that the government anticipated criticism that using the 2011 census as a basis would ignore OBCs.
    In our country, politics driven by short-term gains and excessive publicity sometimes pushes back even necessary decisions like women’s representation.

    The job of an MP or MLA is to enact new legislation. They have to perform legislative functions. An MP may represent a single Lok Sabha constituency, but when they sit in the Lok Sabha, they are responsible for the 1.4 billion people of the country. They are part of the law-making process. The laws made by their votes apply to every citizen of the country. They determine each citizen’s fate. The Constitution provides for the executive to handle citizens’ daily needs. The executive is responsible for implementing laws made by the legislature. If Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies make good laws and the executive implements them effectively, citizens’ problems will be resolved.

    Therefore, there is a need to work on improving the quality of laws made in Parliament and the state legislatures. There is a need to work on improving the quality of debate and discussion in Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies. Then, arrangements must be made for better implementation of those laws. Increasing the number of MPs or MLAs will not change anything.

    If there is a water, electricity, or sewage problem in an MP’s constituency, the local administration must resolve it. If there is a law and order problem, the police will address it, not the MP. Therefore, it is essential that the number of police stations be increased in proportion to the population growth, the number of police personnel be increased and they be better trained, and the number of civil service staff and officers be increased so that citizens’ problems can be resolved.

    As the population grows, the number of schools and teachers should be increased. As the population grows, the number of hospitals and doctors should be increased. As the population grows, civic amenities should be developed. As the population grows, infrastructure should be developed. While this is not to say that work is not being done in this direction, it is not being done in proportion to the population growth. No one can deny the fact that the quality of civil services is continuously deteriorating.

    Therefore, the entire delimitation debate is a ‘misplaced priority’. It could also be called ‘barking on the wrong tree’. It will not bring any qualitative change to the country’s current legislative or executive system. On the contrary, it will deepen the division between North and South India.
    If, as Modi hopes, women in large numbers shift toward the BJP in the Bengal elections, the party is bound to achieve a major victory. This time, 200,000 more women voters have been added in Bengal. Out of 67.5 million voters, 34.4 million are women. Moreover, in the last elections, more women than men voted—88% of women cast their vote. Not only in Bengal but across the country, women’s voting percentages are rising faster than men’s. In many states, schemes targeting women have benefited ruling parties in elections. Therefore, there is little doubt that Modi used women’s reservation as a strategic move to attract women voters away from Mamata Banerjee. In fact, compared to all parties, Mamata Banerjee has provided greater representation to women—about 33% in her party. Of 29 Trinamool MPs, 11 are women; 20% of her cabinet are women. This time, the party has given tickets to 52 women, more than any other party. Welfare schemes like Kanyashree and Lakshmi Bhandar have also gained popularity. So whether the BJP can attract women voters through the reservation bill remains debatable—but if the BJP wins, it will have the opportunity to claim that women made the difference.
    More than women, the BJP has focused this time on Hindu-majority seats. In West Bengal’s 294 seats, only 234 have less than 40% Muslim population. The BJP had won 77 of these seats in the last election. Before 1977, Muslims supported Congress; until 2006, the Left; and since then, the Trinamool Congress. They have been a key factor in Mamata’s success.

    The BJP, which had virtually no presence in West Bengal until 2014, secured 17% votes in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections and increased it to 40% in 2019. This percentage hasn’t changed much in the last seven years. The gap between Trinamool and BJP is about five percent. To bridge this, consolidation of Hindu votes is necessary—and within that, Hindu women’s votes are crucial.
    Ultimately, increasing the number of MPs and MLAs may create more political positions and even increase women’s representation numerically, but without deeper institutional reforms, it is unlikely to bring meaningful change on the ground.
     

  • From Masterstroke to Misfire: The Amendment That Backfired

    The failure of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 marks a significant political and constitutional moment. It demonstrates that even a strong executive cannot always secure its will, and that institutional checks within India’s parliamentary system remain robust. For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose style of governance has often been described as decisive and minimally consultative, this episode represents a rare but important setback.

    The Bill, widely expected to pass, fell short of the required two-thirds majority. While 298 members voted in favour and 230 against, it did not meet the threshold of 352 votes out of the 528 members present and voting. In response, the government chose to shelve not only the amendment but also the Delimitation Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, arguing that these measures were interconnected. Notably, this is the first time in over a decade in power that such a major legislative initiative has been blocked.

    The Opposition’s coordinated resistance played a crucial role. What initially appeared to be a foregone conclusion turned into a rare moment of unity among diverse political parties. Critics argue that the government’s approach itself contributed to this consolidation, as a top-down style of decision-making left little room for dialogue or consensus-building.

    Rahul Gandhi sharpened the political attack by likening the Prime Minister to a “magician” who had been “caught,” suggesting that the push to expand the Lok Sabha was driven by political calculations rather than genuine reform. According to the Opposition, the proposal sought to reshape India’s electoral map while simultaneously projecting a pro-women image through the reservation component.

    This episode raises a broader question: can strong, centralized leadership consistently deliver effective governance? While such leadership can accelerate decision-making, it may also limit consultation and erode consensus. The perception of “bulldozing” policies—whether accurate or not—can undermine democratic legitimacy. At the same time, it is important to recognize that this pattern is not unique to the current government. Indian political history offers several examples of unilateral decision-making, from the Emergency under Indira Gandhi to the Shah Bano legislation under Rajiv Gandhi.

    The proposal to introduce 33% reservation for women in legislatures is, in itself, a landmark reform. It addresses a long-standing structural imbalance in political representation and has the potential to significantly enhance women’s participation in governance. However, the timing and method of its introduction have raised legitimate concerns. Convening a special session of Parliament during ongoing assembly elections, rather than building broader consensus, invited suspicion about political motives.

    From an electoral perspective, the move is understandable. Women voters now constitute a decisive segment of the electorate, often turning out in greater numbers than men. Welfare policies targeting women have already proven electorally effective across several states. Expanding political representation could further consolidate this support. Even opposition resistance could be framed politically to mobilize women voters in favour of the ruling party.

    Yet, the linkage of women’s reservation with delimitation proved to be the most contentious aspect. Home Minister Amit Shah attempted to reassure critics by offering verbal guarantees that southern states would not lose proportional representation in an expanded Lok Sabha. He even proposed a temporary pause to revise the Bill. However, the Opposition rejected these assurances, pointing out that such safeguards were absent from the Bill’s text.

    As drafted, the proposal relied on the 2011 Census for delimitation, which would likely reduce the representation of states with lower population growth—particularly in southern and northeastern India—while increasing the share of the Hindi heartland. This raised serious concerns about federal balance and fairness.

    The urgency with which the government pursued the amendment further fueled criticism. With the 2026–27 Census still underway, many questioned the need to rush such a significant constitutional change. Linking a broadly supported reform like women’s reservation with a highly divisive issue like delimitation was seen by critics as a strategic miscalculation.

    The Opposition’s unified stance, particularly within the INDIA bloc, proved decisive. Parties such as the Congress, Trinamool Congress, DMK, and the Left coordinated effectively, setting aside differences. In contrast, regional parties like the TDP and AIADMK faced criticism for supporting the Bill based on assurances rather than textual guarantees, despite potential implications for their states.

    The defeat of the Bill has been framed by the Opposition as a victory for constitutional principles. Rahul Gandhi described it as a rejection of an “attack on the Constitution,” while Priyanka Gandhi Vadra emphasized the importance of separating women’s reservation from delimitation. These reactions highlight the broader political narrative that has emerged from the episode.

    Procedurally, the outcome underscores the strength of constitutional safeguards. Amendments of this nature require not only a majority of the total membership but also a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, along with ratification by at least half of the state legislatures in certain cases. These high thresholds are designed to ensure that major structural changes are enacted only with broad consensus—and in this instance, that safeguard functioned as intended.

    Looking ahead, the proposal to expand the Lok Sabha remains contentious. Critics argue that such a move, especially if based on outdated Census data, risks deepening regional imbalances and straining the federal structure. While women’s reservation enjoys wide support, delimitation is likely to remain a politically sensitive and divisive issue.

    Ultimately, the episode highlights a fundamental principle of democracy: process matters as much as outcome. Even well-intentioned reforms can lose legitimacy if they are perceived as unilateral or politically driven. The challenge for any government lies not only in pursuing reform but in building the consensus necessary to sustain it.