Congress MP Manickam Tagore
NEW DELHI: The defeat of the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha has triggered a political exchange over women’s reservation, with Congress MP Manickam Tagore on Sunday saying he was ready to give up his Virudhunagar seat for a woman candidate if 33 per cent reservation is implemented across the existing number of constituencies.In a post on X, Tagore also questioned PM Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah. “I am ready to give up the Virudhunagar seat for a Sister if 33% reservation is implemented across all 543 constituencies, as promised in the 2023 Women’s Reservation Act. But why aren’t Modi and Shah ready to give up Varanasi and Gandhinagar? Why this hesitation?””Instead, they talk about creating new seats—clearly avoiding real Social change. Women’s reservation cannot be symbolic or selective. It must be fair, immediate, and across existing constituencies not delayed through delimitation or diversion tactics. The fight is simple: genuine representation vs political convenience,” Tagore said. The Bill, which sought to implement women’s reservation along with delimitation-linked provisions, failed to secure the required two-thirds majority, receiving 298 votes in favour and 230 against. It proposed increasing the strength of the Lok Sabha from 543 to 816 seats, with 33 per cent reservation for women linked to delimitation based on the 2011 Census. Following its defeat, the government decided not to proceed with two other related bills.In his address to the nation, PM Modi criticised opposition parties for blocking the Bill, stating that they had “crushed” the dreams of women despite the government’s efforts. He described the defeat as a “blow to women’s self-respect” and said the electorate would remember the “insult to their pride.”The prime ,inister also said the proposed amendment under the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam aimed to expand opportunities for women and strengthen their representation in governance. He further accused the Congress of historically obstructing reforms, alleging its approach of “delay, diversion, obstruction” had slowed national progress.
