tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post8430608700470042456..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: WRB: The logic behind the seemingly illogical demandsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-7775286706318699562010-04-26T19:26:13.188+05:302010-04-26T19:26:13.188+05:30Dear Tarunabh,
I am not in principle against the ...Dear Tarunabh, <br />I am not in principle against the sentiments expressed by PBM and you. The alternative proposals do interest me, and I don't question the motives of their makers. Personally, given an option, I would suggest we could experiment with one or the other of the alternative proposals. But we need to understand why the political class,by and large, rejected the alternative proposals in the first place, and what explains their stand on the sub-quota. That was the purpose of my post.V.Venkatesanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08138846925562952785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-33542461805802439222010-04-25T14:03:52.050+05:302010-04-25T14:03:52.050+05:30Dear VV, there are good reasons to oppose the Bill...Dear VV, there are good reasons to oppose the Bill, and I think the most powerful case against it has been made by PB Mehta (see <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/588516/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/our-wonderful-quotocracy/590788/0" rel="nofollow">here</a>. few question the need for greater representation for women in politics, but assuming that all counter-proposals are motivated by a desire to scuttle reform is unwarranted (i am not suggesting that you made this assumption, but some people in this debate do).<br /><br />an internal party reservation with a rider that women should only be given tickets in a constituency which that party has won at least once in the last 3 elections, to my mind, takes care of most worries that Mehta has. At the same time, it will be genuine reform, for women will not be assigned unwinnable seat. And it will retain some flexibility and discretion with the party - not something we must be fearful of. The argument is not on numbers - whether it is 33% or 38%, they remain arbitrary numbers. The question is one of mechanism, and the values underlying these mechanisms. All we need is a simple proportionality analysis, where we examine each proposal on the basis of the degree to which it achieves its stated objective (political empowerment of women) and the degree to which it harms our other values (liberty, democracy, choice). The proposal that achieves the objective to the greatest degree while harming our values least must win. The current Bill, I am afraid, is not a proportionate proposal.Tarunabh Khaitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07234574402062317396noreply@blogger.com