Just so we're clear, 33% is the minimum number of seats reserved for women candidates. Women can also contest more seats in the open category.
93
Chitr_gupt2 days ago
+18
Yes ofc. That is how any reservation works. Essentially, in 33% of seats, parties can only elect female candidates to contest elections, so the choice would be between women of different parties on the ballot(evm machine)
18
Lopsided-Weather64693 days ago
+129
I don't know anything about the Indian voting system, but isn't it up to the voters who gets into parliament? How do they make sure the voters elect 33% women?
129
MessiSahib3 days ago
+158
1/3rd of member of parliament seats are reserved for women. Parties can nominate only female candidates for these seats, and independent candidates needs to confirm to this requirement as well.
158
Lopsided-Weather64693 days ago
+97
I see, so it's quite similar to the laws two German states tried to enact a few years ago.
The laws would have required parties to nominate at least 50% women as candidates for the state parliament.
In both states, the laws were struck down as unconstitutional by the respective state constitutional courts.
97
Street_Soft79573 days ago
+118
The Germans clearly have more sense than us Indians. Such reservations are illegal and in India they are pointless because the politicians simply nominate their own wives to those seats instead of contesting themselves. So the whole thing is just a potemkin village.
118
DoLand_Trump_85322 days ago
+18
Pradhaan ji scenario
18
tuskofgothos2 days ago
+5
Shout out to Panchayat!
5
OkMaize97731 day ago
+3
Exactly how it works in Panchayat tv shows. Sarpanch and all ward members are reserved for women. Women are in name only, all the work and decisions are taken by the male members only
3
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
-7
The doomerism is wild. So a wife of a politician wins will she not expand the horizon of gender-equal social norms and laws?
And how is this illegal?
-7
noodlekhan2 days ago
+21
It's not doomerism to think that the wives of politicians - who have been legally prevented from running - might not be running on their own unique platform but rather their husband's.
21
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
-4
The wives would have the power in the system. not the politician. Maybe your perceived notion that wives would be subservient to the politicians is true, at least that would give a real choice to women to participate in the democratic process. How is that bad from what we currently have? If meritocracy doesn't already exist in politics why stop reservation?
-4
noodlekhan2 days ago
+10
One would hope, but I base my guesses on the reality I've witnessed, not hopes and dreams. Hopefully you're right. However, this is India we're talking about and I don't have any faith in them helping women in general, so I expect this law to be abused.
10
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
-9
How is this a dream? I just don't see a downside in reservations based on gender. You can't scam the system in any way. The women we have today in politics are themselves not even pro-women rights clearly showcasing your scenarios. At best this will maintain status quo.
-9
noodlekhan2 days ago
+9
If you truly believe the system can't be scammed in any way, you'll never understand. Literally what you write after asking the question is why I disagree with you. Maintenance of the status quo is not a positive development for women when the status quo is that women are almost universally oppressed compared to their male counterparts.
9
Top_Cow_7662 days ago
+5
My god are you for real? You're calling nepotism doomerism?
5
Street_Soft79572 days ago
+9
Her argument boils down to 'v***** good, p**** bad'. She doesn't care what the brain attached to the v***** is doing or not doing. She thinks that simply having vaginas in the room is a good in itself. That would be great if the vaginas belonged to random independent women drawn from all walks of life. But these are not random vaginas. These vaginas are proxies for the husbands. They are essentially vaginas-in-name-only lol.
9
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
Reading is tough. Hypothetical worst case scenario where only wives of politician win is still better than current situation.
0
Top_Cow_7662 days ago
+2
It gets easier with practice mate.
2
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
+2
Work harder bro. U already know the deal.
2
[deleted]2 days ago
+2
[deleted]
2
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
+2
Well the politician is going to do that anyway.
2
Street_Soft79572 days ago
+1
"will she not expand the horizon of gender equal social norms and laws?" Uhh Nope. They won't. Because indian MPs and MLAs do whatever the party decides. There are very very few who vote against the party in the parliament and when they do they pay for it. The only thing that will change with 33% women is idiotic behaviour like color matching sarees during navratri. Nothing else will change. In the end the party decides and for the foreseeable future, men are the party.
1
Professional-One9722 days ago
+1
Illegal? How?
1
500Rtg2 days ago
+4
Seat reservation for women was already passed by the previous government and this government. But the procedure was not decided.
Also, India already reserves seats for SC/ST/OBC groups. Women also have reserved seats in village local bodies.
4
jpfed1 day ago
+1
Partitioning seats by a particular characteristic is commonplace when that characteristic is geographic. Do I want 1/50th of the U.S. Senate to come from Wyoming? Not particularly- Wyoming makes up much less than 1/50th of the U.S. population. But people seem to feel like it is fairer if seats can be reserved for geographic regions (in the U.S. case, this was a strict requirement for the states to unite at all). I’m under the (potentially mistaken?) impression that the Bundestag also reserves some seats on a geographical basis.
I am guessing that other people’s sense of fairness does not extend the partitioning of seats by non-geographic categories. To me, that seems somewhat arbitrary. Geography is just one way that people’s interests, circumstances, and experiences can align.
1
Jack0713 days ago
+10
Whats stopping the parties from nominating women in their own?
10
MessiSahib2 days ago
+23
Parties select candidates based on:
1. Who is their daddy? Basically nepo babies abound.
2. If they can finance most of their election expenses. Most politicians do it by using black money (unaccounted money).
3. If they belong to the right caste/tribe/religion, based on demographic of the constituency.
4. If they blindly follow and support leaders of the party, who are mostly nepo babies themselves.
Women aren't as keen to join politics as it's a boys club till recently. And given the amount of corruption, crime and bad behaviour, women aren't as suitable for the task.
23
Jack0712 days ago
-15
An actual important policy would be to ensure that all castes are equally represented but we all know Indian politicians will never allow that
-15
joshrealer2 days ago
+26
There are also reservations for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes of around 24% of the Indian parliament.
26
Skychu7682 days ago
+19
That already exists for decades
Seats are 25% reserved for historically marginalized castes too
19
Street_Soft79573 days ago
+39
Nothing stopping them. The boys don't want to give up power and even after this they won't give up power because they will have their wives contest the elections and remote control from the sidelines.
39
Lopsided-Weather64692 days ago
+3
Most of our parties have way less than 50% female members, so the pool of candidates is way smaller.
3
phantom-firion2 days ago
+4
As stated by another commenter the whole system is corrupt as the intent is to prop up the wives of prominent politicians to give individual politicians more voting power by giving them an extra proxy
4
Street_Soft79573 days ago
-1
Nothing stopping them. The boys don't want to give up power and even after this they won't give up power because they will have their wives contest the elections and remote control from the sidelines.
-1
Then-Understanding852 days ago
-1
Endemic patriarchy, mostly.
-1
i_am_adithya2 days ago
+1
What if Congress and BJP pick different 33% to pick women, and in those places men win, then we can't guarantee 33% women in parliament right?
1
ihatewonderwall993 days ago
+15
Certain seats are announced as reserved under female quota seats on a rotational basis. Candidates for that seat have to be female. So 33% seats in the parliament will be declared reserved under female quota and only women will be eligible to compete for those seats.
15
mangalore-x_x3 days ago
+8
The goal of parliament is to represent the people. There are many ways to do that.
You know what mathematically is the fairest causing the best reflection of representing all the people? Drawing lots and assigning citizens into office for a time. The Ancient Greeks actually did that because voting can be biased in itself.
The MPs also do not get assigned, just that besides all already existing prequsites to become a MP these 33% of candidates must be female. You still can vote for anyone you like among the candidates.
8
Lopsided-Weather64693 days ago
-8
But setting a gender quota for the candidates still doesn't guarantee that 33% of the seats in parliament will end up being held by women, does it? In order to guarantee that, you'd have to legislate the outcome of the election. Or am I getting this wrong?
-8
DeepResearch70712 days ago
+8
Basically, in 33% of districts pre-designated as per various parameters, parties can only nominate female candidates and Independents can also only be females.
8
dodopatodo3 days ago
+12
They have reserved seats in Pakistani parliament for a long time now. They are given to political parties in proportion of their representation after elections. They can nominate any women to these seats.
Typically, these women represent the political families and vote according to party wishes. They don't "represent" women.
12
Lopsided-Weather64692 days ago
+7
What's the point then of having seats reserved specifically for women?
The very argument by which proponents of a women's quota for parliaments defend their position is to have better representation for women and women's issues.
7
dodopatodo2 days ago
+9
Don't think there is a point except giving lip service to liberal movements. Same story for board of directors of companies where you have 'quota' for gender or other diversity areas.
9
No_Tree_81443 days ago
+4
thats what I was wondering too. maybe if theres a 100 seats up for elections for example, they expect 33 of them to be reserved for women? maybe it pushed the political parties competing to reserve a chunk of their seats for women candidates?
it could also be more of a heavy push for 33%. they probably aren't expecting that number to be hit anytime soon, but just passing it alone and forcing *some* change will artificially push the % of seats gone to women from like 15% rn to maybe 20% or more. after that they could be banking on some kind of snowball effect over the next decade or so.
I could also be speaking out of my ass tho so idk
4
Time-Weekend-86113 days ago
+16
33% is the minimum number of seats that are reserved for female candidates. Only women can be nominated to these seats.
On top of that women can also contest additional seats in the general category but they'll have to compete with men for those.
16
GoatFunctor2 days ago
-1
The government is trying to force delimitation along with the bill, which is why the bill is being tabled - to push delimitation in a way that the opposition is caught in a crossfire. Delimitation would put the next elections in BJPs hands by causing a severe imbalance of power between the states ass-rap\*ng democracy for the n-th time in the country, this time in the name of women reservation.
-1
No_Tree_81443 days ago
+88
apparently this bill has been debated for almost 25 years now. it would honestly be pretty impressive if modi pulls it of
88
Time-Weekend-86113 days ago
+73
Modi gets a lot of flak on Listnook but the reason he keeps getting elected is because his party has done a lot of grassroots work in regions that were ignored by the opposition party for decades.
73
OkFix40743 days ago
+76
Its cos opposition is completely led by incompetence , One of the main the reason Modi keeps winning is also cos alternative looks very bleak !
76
RossTheLionTamer3 days ago
+15
That's only half the truth.
This bill has been ready to go for years and Modi could have made it law anytime during his 10+ years tenure. He's just been waiting for the most opportune time to make sure he benefits the most from it.
There is a good article in today's Dainik bhasker why they're trying to rush out of nowhere now.
As for why he keeps getting elected - it's because his main rival Rahul Gandhi has zero knowledge of how to work the votes on ground.
If you look at last Maharashtra election which was a 'magical' win for Modi, 4 out of 10 people still voted for opposition. And that's same for pretty much every election.
Modi just does better job in managing things, knowing which elections are close and how to make people turn on his side. Like at recent bihar election they transferred cash to females right before the election, which was actually wrong rule wise but nothing is gonna happen since he has all the power.
This is not to say opposition is any better. Just that Modi is just as much a politician as the other and you shouldn't idolize him any more than you do others
15
Time-Weekend-86113 days ago
+37
Modi always positions his most high profile legislations close to critical elections. In this case the West Bengal elections where the BJP actually might have a chance for the first time in decades. If BJP wins even a single term in WB, it's game over for TMC.
But the grassroots work is real.
37
kaladin_stormchest2 days ago
+5
As much as I'm sick and tired of the BJP, Bengal is one state i hope they win.
TMC goons breaking into RG Kar to destroy evidence of r*** while there is a mass protest going on right outside, while there's press and police right outside....that just didn't sit right with me. Plus the more I hear about their shenanigans the more disgusted I am.
Its not that I want BJP to win there, I want TMC to lose
5
yaaro_obba_3 days ago
+14
It's not rushing it out of nowhere. The previous amendments in 2003, freezing the whole process until the year 2026. Because of that amendment, the government, irrespective of which party heads it, had a constitutional mandate to do the delimitation before the 2029 elections but it could be done only after the first census conducted post 2026. The more they delay it, the less time they get to implement it.
14
DeepResearch70712 days ago
+4
If this was under any other EC, it would have been a blatant violation of the MCC. Previous Amendment was in 2001 btw
4
RossTheLionTamer3 days ago
-1
I'm talking about the Women's reservation bill not delimitation bill
-1
yaaro_obba_3 days ago
Ah my mistake. Been engaging in too many delimitation posts today.
0
blackhawkq8203 days ago
+3
He is the one who has solved long pending issues..
3
Medical-Concept-21902 days ago
+6
Really? Please enlighten us
6
Naive-Sir45102 days ago
+13
He has solved a lot of terrorism issues, states like Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh are way more safer now compared to a decade ago. A ton of government systems have also been moved online so that it's more efficient and there is lower chance of bribery.
Coupled that with the fact that growth rate of India is at an incredible height and that infrastructure is increasing at a rapid pace, the government doesn't leave much to complain about
13
Medical-Concept-21902 days ago
-3
I can’t even. IT cell does pay well. LMAO
-3
Realistic_Flan6312 days ago
+3
Ohhh u said logic, Ohhh u must be paid well, Lol. What a Joke
3
speespyy1 day ago
+1
yeah right. this bill has more to do with delimitation than women's reservation. manipulative af. thank god it failed, saying this as a woman
1
Medical-Concept-21902 days ago
-16
Like? Because all I know Is they’ve built mandirs. No focus on education or health or anything to get people to a better standing in life. They have not solved for anything except fooling people to believe that they are some religion’s protector. Also which is bullshit.
-16
Time-Weekend-86112 days ago
+7
That's what happens when you spend all your time in echo chambers like USI.
[Read](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/from-awas-yojana-to-scrapping-of-article-370-11-big-achievements-in-11-years-of-pm-modi-government/articleshow/121782628.cms)
7
Medical-Concept-21902 days ago
-4
Yeah any one can do PR when your friends own the media. Name one thing that BJP started and finished or is implementing in reality not changed name or continuing from previous govt. Nothing. PM care fund maybe.
https://www.newslaundry.com/2026/03/31/follow-the-money-inside-modi-govts-rs-15-crore-a-day-ad-spend
-4
Time-Weekend-86112 days ago
+2
Those are advertisements *for the government schemes and public awareness.*
You know, so that the public actually knows that those schemes exist.
2
Medical-Concept-21902 days ago
+1
What are the MLAs jobs if they need 1.5 crore a day for advertising
1
Chitr_gupt2 days ago
+5
Well then you have been either living under a rock or too priveleged to see anything. Go on a roadtrip and compare the roads from 10 years ago. If you have ever visited a village, go to said village again and see the conditions.
5
Medical-Concept-21902 days ago
Roads? Seriously? That’s the biggest talking point for Modi? Oh you mean roads that peel off in a day and bridges that collapse in a month. You can live in your bhakt echo chamber but No, Modi has not done shit for the country except fill the pockets of his puppeteers.
https://youtu.be/_W0qcPHNfAc?si=O1YHleMePOcUVFp3
https://youtube.com/shorts/ueK5KF6tIyk?si=3h1AkT50TjottKo8
0
Chitr_gupt2 days ago
+5
lmao what an idiot. Both those videos are about projects by state government not national highways, both in non BJP run states(at the time of the video).
And you would get your answer of how good the roads are if you ever travel on any major national highway across India, the quality has become insane. Road connectivity to villages has increased exponentially as well. For my own city, it used to take 8 to 10 hrs from my city to Delhi in 2015, now it takes 2.5 hours. The difference could not be any clearer unless you choose to keep your eyes shut not notice.
If you have ever been to a village before, the difference between villages 10 years ago and today is night and day. But you wouldn't know none of that because you can't bother leaving your own bubble.
5
Medical-Concept-21902 days ago
-1
You’re the exact mass propaganda they cater to. False sense of being educated so you think you know answers and are good enough to be fed the propaganda. When was BJP not in Rajasthan? Enjoy the mental gymnastics that you day in and day out. So final question is - you are in support of the delimitation and women’s reservation bill right?
-1
Chitr_gupt2 days ago
+3
Oh yah you know that much about me? I can flip it around and say you are one of them jackasses qho thinks qho gets a kick out of being a contrarian, thinks he is smarter than everyone cause he does not believe in backward ideas like he thinks others do. Met many of your kind across the years, along basic lines of questioning and debate, you lot crumble like cards.
As for your points, a basic undwrstanding of polity would tell you that a village road comes under the perview of the respective mla and not the national govermment. Now I am not saying BJP does not have its faults but only idiots make blanket statements like you are making here.
As for delemitation, well depends on the mechanism. Obviously the can has been kicked down for a long time and needs to be done to accodomate the fact that the polulation has more than doubled and number of seats in parliament are the same. Now if they increase seats proportional to population alone then I can see the concern southern states are raising but if its going to be a flat 50% increase across states or some adjustment mechanism based on gdp I think all those issues get addressed
3
keepsake_lilac1 day ago
It didn't pass coz of the opposition
0
Historical_Yak21483 days ago
+36
Tbh, I don't like how people use 'equality' as a facade for imposing 'quotas', especially for leadership/law-making positions in the country. Society should operate on the principle of putting the right person in the right job instead.
Quotas should only be used to provide access to education. Of course, that will somewhat reduce opportunities for those who are truly deserving, but at least it can shorten the disparity between different groups in society.
36
velocitybytime3 days ago
+14
That would be fine and well if the people controlling everything werent also oppressing others and making it more difficult for them to grt ahead
14
VladimiroPudding3 days ago
+14
Voters tend to vote more for people with characteristics they see on politicians all the time. It is a self-confirming mechanism. Meaning, if people never see women in parliament, they will never see a chance. On top of that, parties allocate fund for promoting their candidates on those they see have largest changes of winning. By this mechanism, women candidates would also be running in disadvantage.
Quotas *are* a mechanism to enable right people to be elected.
But, sure, there must be something on the water of these 130 countries that have some kind of affirmative action for women in their legislatures. Even Saudia Arabia, that we would say is not very "political correct", automatically made 20% of their legislative council seats for women only when they granted them the right to run for office.
14
Lilybaum2 days ago
+2
If a system is biased against a certain group though, by not having a quota you are not putting the best person in the job. If a person in charge of hiring for a company is a misogynist, a highly qualified woman will be overlooked for a position in favour of an underqualified man. If you selected randomly from a pool of equally competent people, half of them would be women. If <33% of MPs are women in the current system that is statistically very unlikely and almost certainly represents systematic biases against those women.
Also, when it comes to parliament, it is important for the MPs to be at least somewhat representative in order to properly bring forward the concerns of the citizens. So even if some of these women could be replaced by a more competent man, the benefits of having female voices in parliament probably outweighs that. A good MP will passionately represent all their constituents but that is an ideal which is rarely reached in reality.
These quotas are also usually temporary measures to break the initial glass ceiling of getting women into positions of power. Once momentum is gained, they are no longer needed.
I think overall it's a very good idea.
2
TeaSharp31542 days ago
-4
On the practical level, 50% of the Indian population is represented by 14% of the government on the basis of gender. Yes, it would be better if people could organically increase that percentage through voting for the 'best possible' candidate (of course, the assumption that people vote for the best possible person for the job is questionable to begin with). But this is a pretty efficient practical measure to speed up the number of representatives that women have in the parliament. Increased representation is a good thing, if just for the sole reason that it encourages women that may otherwise not be interested or motivated to pursue politics to try and do so.
-4
Lain_Staley3 days ago
+37
Kinda wild that this is necessary granted that Indira Gandhi was elected PM literally 60 years ago.
37
BodybuilderUpbeat7863 days ago
+81
She was elected because her daddy was the PM.
81
Lain_Staley3 days ago
+38
First female US congressperson wasn't even elected (far lower prestige than a PM), she assumed the role after her husband died during office. Yet still, tremendous amount of women followed within 60 years thereafter
38
No_Tree_81443 days ago
+26
to be fair. I think india has like 15% of one parliament filled with women and the other at like 13%.
in america the house is 28-29% while the senate is 25%.
when you account for the education levels, poverty level, and the cultural lag india has compared to america, it's not like that crazy of a difference when you think about it
26
Vladimir_Putin_4203 days ago
+8
But after this bill passes, India's %age will cross USA's.
8
LethargicDemigod3 days ago
+14
US has never elected a woman Pres. ever. US has 29% woman in the HoR. Certainly a lot better than India but no where close to 50%. This bill with 33% guaranteed is a huge progress.
[Vital Stats](https://prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/vital-stats/women-in-parliament-and-state-assemblies)
14
ronweasleisourking3 days ago
+3
Literally
3
MessiSahib3 days ago
+11
Indira Gandhi became PM, because she was only child of Nehru, India's first Prime Minister.
Nehru, himself was a nepobaby, his parents were good friends of Mahatma Gandhi, and they used their influence and connections to push their son for the national leader of the party and then PM position. Nehru, consolidated power over his party once he became PM, and made sure that his only child is on path to become the leader of the party and country.
India's ascent to top, is not a reflection of women's rights and representation in indian politics or of the people. It is a reflection of the deep rooted and rotting practice of nepotism.
India's grand son was president of her party till couple of years ago, and was their PM candidate in previous two elections.
11
DeepResearch70712 days ago
+14
No, there's zero evidence he wanted Indira to hold any top-level posts. In fact, he was quite wary of her after the debacle in Kerala in 1959. It's extremely clear that at one point, he was keen on JP as his successor, and by the end strongly indicated his preference for Shastri.
14
Puzzleheaded_Ask55383 days ago
+15
Nehru was a leader who came from affluent family, yes. But he had a pivotal role in Indian freedom struggle and he has contributed to so many resolutions of Congress before independence. Please read freedom movement before labelling him as just a nepobaby.
15
Time-Weekend-86113 days ago
+21
13 out of 15 Congressional Working Committees voted for Patel as prime Minister. 2 recused themselves. Exactly zero voted for Nehru.
The reason why he became the first Prime Minister of independent India was because Gandhi threw a tantrum and had his way.
21
DeepResearch70712 days ago
+1
A very interesting claim- that I have researched extensively. In short, it is not an absolute claim,
This theory finds its origins in a claim made by the journalist Durgadas in the 60s- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durga\_Das](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durga_Das)
>
It was further promoted in the acclaimed book Patel: A Life by Rajmohan Gandhi- The claim of '12 of 15' PCCs nominated Sardar Patel emanates from here- interestingly, no source is provided here- Furthermore, the rest of the text quotes the book written by Durgadas as the source. Furthermore, Rajmohan Gandhi actually contested the LS election in 89 against Rajiv Gandhi from Janata Dal- and lost. The book was published a couple of years later. I am not diminishing him in any way though; the book is regardless a great read.
It is also alleged that Gandhi 'preferred' Nehru; However, Maulana Azad (who was president from 1940-46, and was in the thick of selecting the next president) actually wrote in his autobiography (India Wins Freedom) that Gandhi had a slight preference for Patel.
To be clear, **there is no archival evidence**, minutes of meeting, resolutions, or even private correspondence or entries from the people involved (Patel, Nehru, Azad, Gandhi), that suggest this. We only have accounts from 2 (rather 1 originally) secondary sources whose own biases offer an impediment to making objective assessments and is largely based on hearsay. Of course, anything can be true, so exercise your own judgement in how much you choose to believe
**Edit:** Downvoted for stating facts with proofs lol. Sorry to bust your long running fake narrative ig
1
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
-2
The disrespect towards Gandhi shows how little you know.
-2
Time-Weekend-86112 days ago
+6
Uh huh.
Did you know that Gandhi slept naked next to his underage neices?
6
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
Same idiotic argument. Next one will be that Sarojini Naidu quote.
Read the wikipedia section of the incident if not his autobiography.
That was an exercise in celibacy. Every participant was atleast 18 and agreed to with their own free will. Gandhi was a literal skeleton by that time and constantly asked his peers why it was wrong? Ofc no one had answer because those actions are way ahead even for our times. He wqnted to test if he had even a bit of carnal desires left. He literally admits to having sex when his father is on his deathbed and vows to remove them completely someday. Those exercises were his final test.
0
Time-Weekend-86112 days ago
+6
Jesus f****** Christ just reading your comment makes me want to throw up.
6
BodybuilderUpbeat7863 days ago
+3
Two things can be true at once, his commitment to non alignment and to India's nuclear programme is why India exists today, for that I will be forced grateful.
3
MessiSahib3 days ago
-2
None of what you said, changes the fact that Nehru was a nepo baby. And the fact that he pushed for his daughter to gain benefit from his power and fame.
There were many leaders to India's freedom movement, many that sacrificed their lives or sacrificed more than nehru. Most of them are forgotten.
Nehru's contribution is lauded, because his party and family were in control of the nation, when history was written. Unsurprisingly Nehru's contribution is exaggerated, his follies are downplayed, and him being a nepo baby isn't mentioned in the history books at all.
-2
Puzzleheaded_Ask55383 days ago
+4
I think you should read history than whatsapp forwards.
4
zaplinaki3 days ago
+1
Jawaharlal Nehru, the freedom fighter, and India's first PM was a nepobaby y'all
Let's go have a look at this listnookors posting history
1
Zontromm2 days ago
+3
from what I have heard from indians, if not for nehru, Gilgit Baltistan wouldnt have been a contested territory
which was a huuuuge lose to India, even though they won the war. Why did it happen? Nehru went to the UN and thus forced Indias had to the negotiations, whereas militiritically, it would have been an easy win
now the region is in limbo and completely fucked coz as usual, Pakistan disnt follow a single point of the treaty or such signed
3
zaplinaki2 days ago
-8
Before Nehru and Gandhi, there was no India. He is one of the reasons why India even exists. So like whatever..
-8
jungle_jungle2 days ago
+6
Sure. There was no India - therefore Greeks called the subcontinent - India
People past the Indus were called Hindus for no reason.
No reason for mountains to be called Hindukush.
Ramayana and Mahabaharata talk about Bharata from Himalayas to Sri Lanka for no reason.
There was no India - so Columbus was looking for the moon, reached America, and called the natives "Indians"
Ashoka and Gupta's empires were on Mars.
If you are talking about current borders - USA and China also did not have their current borders in 1800s. Mauryan Empire border was 80% of modern Indian border. Every nation has been unified and broken into smaller kingdoms many times. So not sure what you are talking about.
6
Zontromm2 days ago
+4
whaaaaaa???? another who knows nothing about history
the first Indian independence struggle was in the mid 1800s, a whole 100 years before actual independence. there were 100s of high profile people not on the political side fighting against the British in all corners of india
so you are very very wrong about that and there was an India before Nehru and Gandhi
4
zaplinaki2 days ago
-3
I'm Indian. The first freedom struggle was the sepoy mutiny which happened in my city. You're educating me on the history of my city. Who the f*** are you? And where do you get this kind of confidence to this big of a know-it-all?
And you're educating me on the freedom struggle of my country which I'm taught in school and I have to pass exams with that as that the subject for 4 years at the very least?
-3
Zontromm2 days ago
+5
yes, that is the one I am refering to, didn't remember the exact name of it
and it doesn't matter where I am from. the fact that you said there was no India before Nehru and Gandhi was soooooo horrendously incorrect, that it needed to be corrected
5
zaplinaki2 days ago
-4
You don't even know it's name and you're trying to teach me?
I've literally researched it and gone to the physical locations where it happened for my report.
Like why are you trying to teach me something whose name you don't even know. Maybe your knowledge on the subject is insufficient if you don't even know it's name.
Edit: its time to stop taking listnook seriously. There's too many of THESE people around now.
No knowledge but an opinion on everything.
The gall on this person. Doesn't even know the name but has an opinion on it.
-4
Zontromm2 days ago
+3
I don't know why you are arguing and not agreeing that you were wrong in the first statement
also, never said I was an expert or anything. if you have researched it food for you. you should know more than many, that your first statement was wrong
3
LethargicDemigod2 days ago
+1
Wild to call Nehru a nepobaby. Next up call Gandhi corrupt as well. He is the one who pushed for Nehru. Only thing Nehru consolidated was democracy. In a region troubled with democratic backsliding, Indian democracy is quite an achievement. A boon of Nehru imo.
1
Rich_Housing9713 days ago
+1
What happens with the head of government has nothing to do with how the rest of the country operates. Some people also thought that electing Obama "defeated racsim".
1
SloppityMcFloppity2 days ago
+6
Sooo does no one know that this bill has nothing to do with women, and instead aims to solidify the hold Modi has on the loksabha?
6
Ok_Instruction47342 days ago
+11
They have merged the reservation with delimitation to label the opposition as misogynistic when the bill inevitable fails. The title is missing a lot of context
11
MadErection2 days ago
+2
Yep and these IT cell morons are upvoting and obfuscating the truth
2
nota_is_useless2 days ago
+5
Modi is trying to solidify his hold in parliament/lok sabha by giving all Indians the same voting power. The horror! How dare he?
5
A_random_zy2 days ago
+6
No. By punishing states that prioritized family planning, GDP growth, QOL of people and rewarding states that kept on popping babies like they are candies, and depending9n populationfor GDP growth.
6
Realistic_Flan6312 days ago
+1
Delimitation was planned long back, Tht wasn't brought by Modi lol
1
A_random_zy2 days ago
+1
It was postponed long back because it was flawed and the people then thought there would be smarter people in future who can improve it but it was brought back by Modi.
They probably didn't expect people like Modi to be head of the state
1
nota_is_useless2 days ago
-6
I had no clue that states were popping babies. My limited understanding of biology was that people have babies, not states. In India, people have representatives, not states. Article 14 and 15 of Indian constitution talks of right to equality between citizens, not states.
Also does this not rewarding people who pop babies like candies principle also apply on religion basis?
-6
A_random_zy2 days ago
+5
It's a metaphor. Don't worry, I didn't expect people like you to understand it anyways. If you could you wouldn't be supporting Modi...
5
nota_is_useless2 days ago
+1
Ah yes, ad hominem. Common argument fallacy by losing sides.
By the way, that is not a metaphor.
1
[deleted]2 days ago
+2
[removed]
2
nota_is_useless2 days ago
Please use English, not gibberish.
0
A_random_zy2 days ago
+4
I did. But as I said, I don't expect you to understand it...
4
nota_is_useless2 days ago
+1
Nope, you made illogical arguments.
1
talyaatmalyaat2 days ago
+1
nota_is_useless is useless :*
1
talyaatmalyaat2 days ago
+1
f*** off. south india will demand a separate country if the uneducated northies who breed like rabbits get more representation than educated states that actually were able to implement functional policies
1
neutrinome2 days ago
+2
This is an excuse that the ruling party (BJP) is using to increase seats in the states where they have stronger hold (the northern states of India). The northern states have higher population, lesser income and poor education.
BJP has faced huge challenges in breaking into the more educated and prosperous southern states of India. This is a move to be in power for many more terms.
2
talyaatmalyaat2 days ago
+1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
gree22 days ago
+4
to outside observers of the news, this is not what it sounds like. you need a lot of background context to understand that this is not related to women empowerment in any way.
4
KerashQSA2 days ago
+3
It is lil bro
3
A_random_zy2 days ago
+1
It isn't. The bills main motive is to strengthen BJP's foot hold in Parliament. They just clumped the women issue to make opposition look like anti-women.
1
richie-richie-rich12 hr ago
+1
male or female doesn’t matter, just missing the time period when politicians were educated
1
Live-Atmosphere-1343 days ago
-9
No bills make sense if it’s mostly only token women getting elected. Once elected, their husbands or fathers run the actual show.
-9
LethargicDemigod3 days ago
+17
The social norms will start to bend/brake only when we put pressure on them.
17
MessiSahib3 days ago
+6
It will require time for people to adopt to the change.
India already had many powerful female politicians who rose up on their own, including chief minister, president, key cabinet ministers positions like finance and defense.
6
Thick-Ad-41683 days ago
+16
lmao no , maybe some cases but that isn't the norm.
Have you heard of mamta? indira??
16
Environmental_Bus5072 days ago
+2
For every Mamta, there's also a Rabri Devi.
2
IntelligentHoney69293 days ago
+6
How many Mamata are there? Most seats held by women at bottom levels are run by their family. Corporators are the prime example.
6
Live-Atmosphere-1343 days ago
+1
Yes I have. You can a count a handful of them. Have also heard of many others who are just holding the position and taking orders from their male family members.
1
Thick-Ad-41683 days ago
+8
the law isn't about sarpanch level but higher level government bodies
8
amitkoj3 days ago
-14
Can this government do anything meaningful like control inflation, improve employment, reduce pollution, control crime ? Any of these will do.
-14
FirstAccGotStolen3 days ago
+16
No, sorry, for that we would need 100% women. At 33% best we can do is less wars and stop protecting rapists and pedophiles.
16
wickedGamer652 days ago
+1
We've literally had too low inflation post Covid. That is one of the reasons for slower economic growth than predicted.
1
ampotpot2 days ago
-8
How dare you ask real questions in this Vishwaguru era.
Who cares about pollution or inflation or minimum wage, when we got ram mandir.
-8
Rationalist401502 days ago
-9
BJP could care less about women rights. The PM is a known stalker (Google "Mansi Soni") and the party regularly defends their members accused of r@pe. They are using the 33% quote as a guise and facade to push the Delimitation bill which would give the northern states disportionately more parliamentary seats as compared to south India. The logic here is that South Indian don't support BJP as much. So this in effect is an elaborate scheme of Gerry Mandering. If they want to pass the 33% Women's quote, they could do that right now without linking it to the delimitation bill.
Source: BBC https://share.google/XFb8A6vYrVk9QVr0w
-9
[deleted]3 days ago
-20
[removed]
-20
scottiedagolfmachine2 days ago
-10
Lol representation based on gender but not competence.
Thats gonna work realllllll well.
👍
-10
Lilybaum2 days ago
+1
Do you think that a system where only 14% of a 'representative' parliament are women is one that is not based on gender?
Just for context, the probability of getting this parliament if you selected people randomly is about 1 in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1
AndyKJMehta2 days ago
-6
So 1/3rd women, 1/3rd for men (you know for equality i guess), and 1/3rd for LGBTQRST+?!
-6
[deleted]3 days ago
-11
[deleted]
-11
Vladimir_Putin_4202 days ago
+2
Yes. They should make it 48.5% for females and 48.5% for males and 3% for others.
150 Comments