Women have had a long history of being discriminated against and exploited in Indian society. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment introduced measures to reverse these indignities. Yet, there remains strong resistance against their participation in the public sphere.
Democratic decentralisation expands the space for political participation of the subordinated and the excluded. Scholars have cited it as a process of empowerment of the depressed classes to reach the mainstream of social, economic and political life.
As Abdul Aziz, in his 1996 publication, ‘Decentralised governance in Asian countries’ and Mathew George in his 1995 work ‘Status of panchayati raj in the states of India’, have pointed out, it becomes even more significant and critical for women who are politically excluded. In fact, the one notion that is gaining universal acceptance, even in the context of neo-liberalism, is that governance needs to be increasingly gendered through state intervention. Such a policy process must ensure political and statutory mandate to elected women representatives (EWRs) and empower them to stamp their collective political identity in society.
A silent revolution
The last two decades (1993 to 2014) witnessed a silent revolution towards decentralised governance in the country, especially after the 73rd and the 74th Amendments to the Constitution of India. One of the more radical and liberal aspects of these amendments is the provision of reservation to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (in proportion to their population) and reserving one-third of the seats and positions of authority in all tiers of the panchayati raj institutions (PRIs).
Incidentally, many states—Bihar, Uttarkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Tripura, are providing 50 per cent reservation.
This highly progressive measure brought more than one million women as elected representatives, including many from socially disadvantaged groups, into the political decision-making process of the panchayat.
Situation analysis
Available literature on the participation and performance of women in rural governance presents both positive and negative aspects.
On the positive side, several micro-level studies, one such done by Bidyut Mohanty in her 2001 work, ‘The daughters of the 73rd Amendment’ point out that about 80-90 per cent of women now attend panchayat meetings. Given their sheer numbers, one might conclude that democracy has become more participatory, at least at the grassroots level.
In fact, a 2001 study by Jos Chathuculam and M S John, on ‘Empowerment of women panchayat members: Learning from Kerala (India)’, notes that despite numerous problems, the performance of women as per qualitative and quantitative indicators is in no way inferior to that of men. A sizable segment of society, too, has come to accept that women are, perhaps, better at running the village panchayat than men.
As Dharam Singh Pal has pointed out in his 2005 paper, ‘Women in grass-roots democracy in India: Experiences from selected states’, presented in the 3rd International Conference on Women and Politics in Asia in Islamabad, Pakistan; and Kot Lokendra Singh indicated in his published 2007 work, ‘Women in rural democracy: A changing scenario’,, women elected to the panchayat have shown startling results, particularly in the sectors of health, education, and basic services and ensured a significant change in the living conditions of their respective communities. Even in strong patriarchal cultures, reservation has encouraged women to demonstrate their leadership skills.
Notwithstanding these positive aspects, patriarchy and social strictures inhibit women’s participation in local governance through the panchayat. These include restrictions on freedom of movement, hegemonic inequalities like caste and patriarchal norms, all of which render them inaudible and invisible in the public sphere. Ample instances have been recorded by empirical studies of women being removed often from legitimate positions of power by deploying the ‘no-confidence’ motion.
B S Baviskar, in a 2003 study, ‘Impact of women’s participation in local governance in rural India’, indicates that the targeted women had challenged power centres; hence, the politics of conspiracy and co-option were used for petty political manipulations to bypass them. Thus, what is given by law and the Constitution is taken away by intrigue and chicanery. The experiences of elected women panchayat members since 1993 reveal a large number of problems in the course of their work, as pointed out by Mohanty in her 2001 study, cited above.
Thus, despite increased participation in decision-making bodies, women remain ineffective since their participation remains negligible in implementation mechanisms. Though people have now accepted women in politics, differences in power relations between men and women prevail with respect to ownership rights mainly since women’s intervention in political activities are perceived to be a threat to the male power centre.
However, many women are challenging the traditional/ patriarchal power centres. Some have confronted the systemic variables by entering the political domain and openly challenged the moralistic gaze women are subject to. Others have resorted to using male family members to enter the public domain giving rise to the notion of proxy governance. Unfortunately, a few have altogether shunned public domain and retreated to their private domains. These moves have also created myths about women’s passivity toward politics and about how female relatives of influential politicians from affluent sections merely occupy these seats, allowing men to carry out their tasks. Research, though, has disproved these myths. The work of younger, first time women entrants from economically weaker sections indicates a high level of participation and performance. Public patriarchy, of course, is hindering their progress, with women being included but not allowed to participate, hence undervaluing their work.
Obstacles to women’s participation
The rotation of reservations and especially, the mandatory rotation of the chairwoman’s post, is another obstacle in the effective delivery of services by EWRs. This hampers long-term interaction with the electorate and affects the confidence of EWRs. For effective and sustained women’s leadership at the grassroots level the concept of rotations needs to be revisited, as has been opined in the 2009 article of Nirmala Buch, ‘Reservations for women in panchayats: A sop in disguise?’ . The Tamil Nadu government has opted for two terms per EWR to combat this issue, notwithstanding the continuation of this practice elsewhere in the country.
Women, one finds, are also unable to lobby with other members and officials, owing to lower levels of articulation and, perhaps, lack of sufficient and timely information. This could be overcome by organising training programmes that provide them with relevant information and impart skills in articulation and lobbying. Thus, for making the most of the Amendments to the Constitution that has brought women into the panchayat, it is important to diagnose the intricacies that prevent the real empowerment of women and plan likewise.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.