Should the Government Go for the Real Thing?

The Hindu's editorial position on the Women's reservation bill appears to have hardened over the years in favor of its passage. I quote excerpts from its 2003 editorial on the subject where it notes many drawbacks of this proposal:

Of course, the Bill is not without its infirmities. The provision for rotation of constituencies reserved for women could alienate the elected representatives from the voters when they know their constituency would be reserved or dereserved in the next election. The alternative of permanent reservation of constituencies is equally unattractive, as that would deprive men in a reserved constituency the chance of getting elected for all time. In such a context, the demand for a debate on alternative proposals, including the one that stipulates a quota for women in party nominations, needs to be taken seriously. The shifting of the onus for providing reservation on the political parties holds the added advantage of not requiring a Constitutional Amendment, as an amendment of the Representation of the People Act would do.

It goes on to say that given the repeated stalling, 'it is better to look for consensus on alternative proposals than endlessly repeat the taking up and stalling of the present Bill.' Later editorials in 2005, 2008 and the latest one have insisted on its passage as is. The 2008 editorial explicitly rejected the proposal to provide for a quota in party nominations:

The suggested alternative — that political parties be mandated to nominate women candidates to at least one-third of the seats contested — is equally flawed.

The latest editorial again pushes for its passage simply saying that the benefits of reservation in a profoundly inequitable society such as India's are evident to all. So what happened to all the concerns expressed earlier? Are they no longer valid? Besides, I have seen no systematic studies showing that reservation for women leads to overall gender empowerment. Unlike with education and employment, the purpose of electing representatives is not so much about individual empowerment but that they can and will do things that men are unwilling to do. Empirical reports have shown that women may have priorities different from men but that does not automatically imply superior results. Also, a recent paper showed that a quota for women initially brings them name recognition that can help them win elections later on without it. The trouble though is that these changes, if enacted, are going to become permanent features. Even if women are later able to win on their own in sufficient numbers, reservations are unlikely to go away. Altogether, there are sufficient reasons to doubt the advantages of this bill. The fact that The Hindu has shed its earlier skepticism does not mean that we should.