There is no unanimity among the MPs on this controversial measure. Nor is this surprising because the support expressed for it in public by politicians has been accompanied by deep reservations voiced in private. Yet, if the measure is sought to be pushed through, forcing the country virtually to take a leap in the dark because no one knows what kind of social and political impact such a law will have, it is because few politicians can summon up the courage to speak their minds lest they be accused of being anti-women. Even those who are opposing the Bill are doing so for the wrong reasons, for they want quotas for OBCs, Muslims, etc. within the overall 33 per cent quota for women. However, their stance underlines the basically flawed nature of the measure ... Parliament is not a forum for accommodating pressure groups working for various sectional interests, but for enacting laws for the whole country formulated by men and women of high calibre and guided by an inspiring vision.

... The suggestion for ensuring that the political parties nominate a certain percentage of women candidates is a good one, for then the parliamentary system would have been gradually transformed instead of being given a violent shock. What the reservation or rotation of seats for women would mean is that no one would care to nurse a constituency, thereby introducing more irresponsibility into politics. The choice of voters will also be restricted by excluding capable male candidates from constituencies reserved for women while a capable woman in a general constituency may face undeserved animus. Above all, such gratuitous tinkering with Parliament's composition at a time of social and political ferment can have unforeseen consequences which the country call ill-afford,