Indian Politicians Set Bait for Women’s Vote

8673757635_1904302a2d“Why don’t they have general elections every year, even every six months ?”

That’s Mohana being cheeky as she listens to the day’s news items being read out to her by a member of a nongovernmental organization in Bangalore, in south India.

The women sitting with her, all slum dwellers and mostly illiterate—whose surnames represent caste, which is why they aren’t used here—laugh, because she has a point.

With general elections set for early 2014, just a few months away, politicians seem to be scurrying to announce measures for empowering women. Meanwhile, a bill for reserving one-third of seats in parliament for women has been languishing since 1996, tabled by successive governments.

But this year, politicians know that the country’s female voters—estimates of their numbers vary between 300 million and 350 million as the voting rolls keep getting updated—could mean the difference between winning and losing.

The two leading political parties are in a close race. The Indian National Congress party, which is now in power, is led by Sonia Gandhi, who also leads a coalition known as the United Progressive Alliance. Congress faces tough competition from the rightist opposition party, Bharatiya Janata.

Mohana, 32, is excited because a historic Food Security Bill, spearheaded by the Congress party, was approved by Parliament in late August. The bill, which promises a major expansion of subsidized grains (rice, wheat and millet) is expected to take effect in 2014 after the technical implementation details are worked out.

It was not specifically intended to promote gender equity, but a clause in the law makes it mandatory to have ration cards in the name of the “women head of the beneficiary family.” All state governments have been asked to begin reissuing ration cards in the names of the women of the household. If a household has no adult women or only a female who is below 18, the card can be in the name of the male, but only until the woman in the family turns 18.

This promises a couple of big bonuses for women. First, there is the psychological one of being listed as “head of household.” Then there’s the practical ability to wrest control of purchasing subsidized grains each month.

Mohana’s husband, a daily wage earner, regularly pawns the family’s ration card to pay for liquor, so his wife and children often go hungry until the card is redeemed (with money she earns by taking on additional work as a cleaning maid). If the ration card were in her name, she could ensure that the family’s food needs took precedence over her husband’s weakness for stopping at the local arrack shop to buy liquor.

Shopkeepers interviewed for this article weren’t happy about reissuing the cards to women. “Women will make trouble,” says one shop owner, adding that women are more careful about ensuring that the grain is properly weighed out. They will also complain about the poor quality of grains, he adds, pointing out that the men do not bother since it is the woman’s job to clean the grain and cook it.

A backhanded compliment if ever there was one, since he implies that putting women in charge will curb malpractices and shoddy quality.

Another bonus in the run up to the elections came from an August 30 directive from a parliamentary committee to all state governments mandating that employees who are single women be posted closest to their hometowns or places of their choice. The needs of mothers with small children, the directive adds, have also to be addressed “with empathy.” It suggests flexible work hours to accommodate family obligations.

This piece was excerpted from Women’s eNews. Read the full article here.

Photo courtesy of  bokage via Creative Commons 2.0.

2006091601060301

Sakuntala Narasimhan is an award-winning Indian journalist-columnist-author with a Ph.D. in women’s studies. She has also taught journalism at the university level.

 

 

 

 

Comments

  1. Sumitra Shah says:

    Thank you for a most encouraging news! Feminists have known always that giving women control over material resources has definite positive results for the family’s and society’s well-being. I was struck by the exuberance of the women in accepting the challenge. I am sure the actual operationalization at the family level will not be smooth. One only hopes that it does not lead to increased domestic violence.
    The directives listed at the end of the article are not only “sympathetic” to women, bur truly progressive!

Speak Your Mind

*