“You may be disappointed if you fail, but you are doomed if you don’t try.” - Beverly Sills
Friends, as we talk about the 33% reservation, it is truly necessary for our generation to ask ourselves seriously given the number of women we have in politics or in this case, leadership amongst council, municipalities. And perhaps where women around the world are seeking and calling to increase representation with better, efficient methods, we too need to look into our corners of society and raise concerns amongst ourselves.
Now, especially to women folks, I encourage to speak out. If you do not share your mind, who will and unless you do, our men doesn’t seem to bother that much. In saying so, I am very glad to write something that has been on my mind on behalf of our Naga women folks! Not that there is none, but in respect to who our women are, as one God has made it clear to be ‘companion’ to us, “Men”. So with a positive attitude, as a concerned Naga, I felt compelled to share my piece to support our women and so that women empowerment be not be shelved into the history of oblivion. I believe this is the opportune time when the world is moving forward, that we on our part must also move forward.
Now, in my personal view this whole thing has to do with the failure of our leaders to open this kind of forum amongst our society, disregarding age, gender, leaders or not leaders, young and old; but bringing into our common platform every representative from within our society, most especially our women, to share opinions and deliberate our future collectively.
I, therefore tend to think that our biggest problem lies in the failure of leadership amongst us. Keeping in mind that leadership comes with responsibility. Responsibility comes with accountability. Accountability comes with accessibility and opportunity.’ And right now, sadly, we see none of this well exercised. (Bravo to some of our politicians who have voted for the 33% to move on as awarded.)
My Facebook friend Among Kupa mentions that had we not received the Schedule Tribe opportunity from the Indian government where do we think Nagas would be? Perhaps one or two, here and there, but honestly, where would we be in a population such as our population in India. Another friend Rozelle Mero in our discussion writes, “Every tribal who enjoys a representation in the government based on an ST quota and backward tribe quota should be the LAST PEOPLE to be against reservation!!! It is a privilege we have been enjoying and continue to do so and why would you be so selfish that you refuse women that privilege to bring them to a social and ECONOMIC equality?”
Vishii Rita expresses, “Seriously, it’s funny because everyone’s involved with politics one way or the other and still, women get the worse deal! Talk about women empowerment and whether it’s politically, socially or economically, we have a longer way to go if we are to be stuck with the same old mindset.”
Ato Rhakho has suggested, “Very honestly speaking, we never treated our women as equal in deed, maybe in words only. There is nothing wrong to give some space for a period of time and let them contribute. Some people perform better when given a chance, so why not 33% for women. This reservation won’t last forever.”
Vesho Akivi lamenting has surmised, “Today, I express my deep hurt at the open opposition of women’s reservation bill. Women Empowerment has always been our favorite topic; a year had also been dedicated to women empowerment in Nagaland. But in the end these empowerment lies un-utilized by denying us the opportunity to rise to the highest level as leaders. Even if you did not support the Bill, what was the urgent need to declare it in the open for everyone to see? We have been made a mockery in front of everyone. Women do not ask to become the head of the family, or henpeck their husbands, but we want a platform to exercise our leadership skills and capability. Women has helped, motivated and supported men in all their endeavors and we still would continue to do so. But we are not lesser than men.
These comments are genuine, serious expression from our young professionals that tells us how the decision of few, so called leaders, are affecting the core heart of many young Nagas, especially women. Come to think of loving our women folks, an understanding/translation paraphrase of Ephesians 5:25 says, ‘A progressive society is defined by the way it treats women. And a Christian man displays his love for Christ & the church by the way he treats his wife (Ephesians 5:25). If we paraphrase this verse by inserting this meaning of agape love, we arrive at something like this: “Husbands, purpose and do those things that are best for your wives, whether you like them or not, without regard to the way they treat you, following the example of Christ as He loved the Church and gave His life for it.”
Now, likewise, when women have not been given the opportunity to exercise their God given gifts just because it is a ‘time tested tradition’ to keep women in the corner of the house, how and when are we going to ever find out if women has the ability to lead? And how do we apply the teachings of the Scriptures we dearly believe with all our hearts, soul and mind; since Nagas are Christians and we are followers of Christ. Aren’t we?
Sadly, when we look at our situation, be it politics, freedom movement, women empowerment, we can clearly see, “WE” lack courageous leaders. Leader’s whose conviction can stand stronger than their fears. Why are our leaders so afraid to step out of this ‘time tested tradition box’ as some of our town council leaders say? Fear that they will be undermined. Fear that their voice will not be heard. Fear that their influence will diminish. Unless our conviction becomes stronger than our fears we aren’t going anywhere.
Our leaders lack the courage to take risk. John Maxwell says that risk-taking must become stronger than safety-keeping. We are so afraid to take risk and push/support our women folks to the road greater than them and therefore sitting stuck. Unless we risk to we go nowhere.
We lack vision. We are not able to see where we are now, and to look ahead to where we strive to be in the future. Our leaders are thinking about the ‘now’ rather than what they can offer for the future of their children.
Our leaders lack the desire to see our people reach their fullest potential. Instead, don’t you think their desire is to please their colleagues and keep themselves well situated? We probably need to grow into maturity as visionary leaders!
Also, why do we try to rationalize the situation by saying this is against our belief system? A stagnant culture is no culture at all. Every culture has either one way or the other progressed to become better contextual as future progressed. Nothing is ever going to get accomplished when we try to find every nitty-bitty reasons to keep the craze of power within our grip. Unless we focus on the goals for future we aren’t going to go anywhere but be ‘stuck in the rut.’
As I mentioned Among, we and some of our networking friends, sometime in February, when opposition to women reservation began to make headline news in the local media had quite an interesting discussion on the social network site Facebook. I personally found Among’s comment to be very informative, resourceful and enlightening, and I quote:
Women reservation issue has always been controversial. Time and again the issue generates a seemingly endless passionate debate between proponents and opponents, with fence-sitters keeping a close tab... A fundamental argument against women reservation is that women are asking for reservation not because they are competent and capable but because they are a woman - Merit Vs Gender issue. Thus there must be equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of result. Hence it is discriminatory. Conversely, proponents argue that gender representation (or, equal representation) must be adequately reflected in polity, in decision making bodies. After all, females comprise about half of total population. Thus it is not discriminatory but rather compensates for an already existing deep-seated discrimination.
Interestingly, women representation in legislatures around the world has been uneven, ranging from as high as 56% in Rwanda, 45% in Sweden to as low as 0% in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar. India stands at a mere 11% (59 women out of 545 seats in the current parliament). Four women candidates (6.67%) contested in the last Nagaland 60-seat General Assembly election 2008. None won.
Women reservation (33%) in Panchayats and Municipal bodies is mandatory under 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments respectively. Recently, the Union cabinet and some State governments have passed legislation to increase women quota from 33% to 50% in Panchayats (Village bodies, VDB in Nagaland). Similar efforts are underway for the municipal bodies, too. In Nagaland context, Article 371(A) circumvents legislative acts of the union government from having effect unless the State Legislature so decides.
Interestingly the state cabinet in a December 2009 decision had decided to “indefinitely” postpone elections to Municipal/Town Councils due in January 2010. They justified this stand on the pretext that such elections have potential to create tension and undesirable situation in the state and also because several representations were made to the government opposing one-third reservation for women. This, the government did so, despite the fact that Article 243 T (3) of the constitution and section 23 A of the Nagaland Municipal (First Amendment) Act 2006 clearly provide from one-third seats for women. However in a landmark judgment (October 21, 2011), following a tenacious legal battle by Naga women (NMA, Naga Women Hoho, Watsu Mungdang, ENWO), the Guwahati High Court ruled in favour of 33% reservation for women.
So, what does this imply? But first, consider the statement of the Pfutsero Town Council opposing one-third reservation for women on the flimsy grounds that it is “against the ‘time-tested’ tradition of the Nagas”. Juxtapose this statement with the statement - that women reservation is “pre-mature” - earlier made by the Naga Hoho. Connect it further with the similar opposition by the Ao Senden. What do we see? Simple: a reflection of patriarchal mindset not yet open to the idea of encouraging women to play a fuller and more meaningful role beyond ‘time-tested’ traditionally “perceived” roles. Women making inroads into spaces hitherto occupied by men can be an unsettling image for most power-laden men. At the same time, let us honestly introspect: to what extent do women show interest in politics and running of state apparatuses such that it elicits a demonstrably pro-active part from them. What do women usually talk about when they meet casually/informally? Statecraft? Politics? Politicking? It is often said that one would simply not be in a place where one is not interested.
Again, it must be acknowledged that there invariably has been some sort of discrimination against women folks, all around the world, since conceivable past. Going beyond mere acknowledgment, corrective steps, therefore, ought be taken to encourage women to engage in a broader role. Perhaps this representation of women in local bodies is a small step towards that.
Which brings us to the deliberation that the PTC, the Naga Hoho, or the Ao Senden can oppose only so much in ‘principle.’ In practice, their opposition is “legally untenable” in the wake of the Guwahati High Court ruling. Rather than risk inviting “contempt of court” the above bodies should work along with the state government in conducting the long overdue municipal/town councils elections, keeping in mind the court judgment on women reservation.
Perhaps, we can argue to any length and become square face with debates on the 33% women’s reservation. In the first place, if our society would take a forward stand towards the development of citizens both economically and intellectually, we wouldn’t have to be protesting against some of the decisions of our frontal organizations. Whichever the case, there is nothing such as ‘END’ of the topic. As long as we are living in a community of people, we are privileged to discuss, deliberate and move on, and to which some countries has been trail blazers for women.
Some years ago Drude Dahlerup addressed the Swedish parliament on the title called ‘Women in the Parliament, Stockholm’ and I quote:
“Quotas for women entail that women must constitute a certain number or percentage of the members of a body, whether it is a candidate list, a parliamentary assembly, a committee, or a government. The quota system places the burden of recruitment not on the individual woman, but on those who control the recruitment process. The core idea behind this system is to recruit women into political positions and to ensure that women are not isolated in political life. Previous notions of having reserved seats for only one or for very few women, representing a vague and all-embracing category of “woman”, are no longer considered sufficient. Today, quota systems aim at ensuring that women constitute at least a “critical minority” of 30 or 40 per cent. Quotas may be applied as a temporary measure, that is to say, until the barriers for women’s entry into politics are removed.”
Perhaps this is a step our leaders can take. Birgitta Dahl, Speaker of Parliament, Sweden addressed the Parliament in 2002.
“One cannot deal with the problem of female representation by a quota system alone. Political parties, the educational system, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), trade unions, churches all must take responsibility within their own organizations to systematically promote women’s participation, from the bottom up. This will take time. It will not happen overnight, or in one year or five years; it will take one or two generations to realize significant change. This is what we are working on in Sweden. We did not start with a quota system. First we laid the groundwork to facilitate women’s entry into politics. We prepared the women to ensure they were competent to enter the field; and we prepared the system, which made it a little less shameful for men to step aside. Then we used quotas as an instrument in segments and institutions where we needed a breakthrough.”
Sweden has come a long way and I can tell from the way a personal Swedish friend has shared that they take equal responsibility according to their ability and compliment each other through the given strengths they have as Man and Woman. If they can, why can’t we compliment each other? We are no lesser than them or are we?
33% reservation does not mean, women must live up as Men. If Men expects that, then perhaps Men should also bear child as women does, nurture children for 18 years as they do; maybe 25 years for Nagas? God has indeed made man and woman differently, but that doesn’t mean women can’t do so much as men does, but men must not forget that men cannot do so much as a woman does. Don’t talk about climbing mountains, although before any Naga men has ever climbed Mt Everest, the first woman, named Junko Tabei from Japan climbed Mt Everest on May 16, 1975. What can woman not do? Surely they can.
I am sure Naga women folks are not asking for their rights to heir or own what belongs to a specific clan etc. Our women know very well their roles as women. What our women needs is a voice, to raise opinions, to help with decisions for the betterment of our society. All they want is to contribute themselves towards the future of the Nagas. Is it wrong for them to do so?
To end, let me, with permission from the author, borrow some points and highlight what could be profitable to read and discuss with our local bodies.
Pros
• Quotas for women do not discriminate, but compensate for actual barriers that prevent women from their fair share of the political seats.
• Quotas imply that there are several women together in a committee or assembly, thus minimizing the stress often experienced by the token women.
• Women have the right as citizens to equal representation.
• Women’s experiences are needed in political life.
• Election is about representation, not educational qualifications.
• Women are just as qualified as men, but women’s qualifications are downgraded and minimized in a male dominated political system.
• It is in fact the political parties that control the nominations, not primarily the voters who decide who gets elected.
• Introducing quotas may cause conflicts, but only temporarily.
Cons
• Quotas are against the principle of equal opportunity for all, since women are given preference.
• Quotas are undemocratic, because voters should be able to decide who is elected.
• Quotas imply that politicians are elected because of their gender, not because of their qualifications and that more qualified candidates are pushed aside.
• Many women do not want to get elected just because they are women.
• Introducing quotas creates significant conflicts within the party organization.
Now, to all my sisters out there and brothers who support them, ‘Take Courage!’ Speak out! Express what’s inside you! Let your voice be heard! Audre Lorde says “When we speak we are afraid our words will not be heard or welcomed. But when we are silent, we are still afraid. So it is better to speak.” Write it down in newspapers! Say it loud! Because this will be the first step to tell our elders, “Step out for a while and let us show what we can offer to our society!”
Here is something to encourage our women. Read this somewhere. President Franklin led his country from his wheelchair. He was stricken with polio but that did not deter him from giving his best for his country. Beethoven composed his finest music when he couldn’t even hear that music he was writing. He was Deaf. John Milton wrote the best poetry on nature when he couldn’t even see the beauty he was writing about. He was blind. So why can’t our women lead us? Ruth Gordon said, “Courage is like a muscle. We strengthen it with use.”
Lastly, to you/us, Men! If you are a good and able leader, you will not be intimidated by the presence of women in your committee, council, organization. You’ll rather be happy they are there.
Humbly!
Vesekhoyi Tetseo
