When Women Rule

The emergence of Hillary Clinton as one of the two potential Democratic Party nominees for President has kindled interest about women in leadership positions in the US. This is of course nothing new to India where Indira Gandhi ruled for 16 years and now, her daughter-in-law remains the most powerful person in the country. Nicholas Kristof, in his weekly column in the NYT, argues that women in many countries including India have been mediocre PMs/Presidents and have not done much to address the urgent needs of women in these countries (Q: was Indira Gandhi really a mediocre PM?). He thinks that democratic politics is responsible for the problem, the iniquitous treatment of women being fostered by public prejudice:

“In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.

In one common experiment, the “Goldberg paradigm,” people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man. In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.

This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts. The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.

“It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s world, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, also faces scrutiny on many more dimensions than a man — witness the public debate about Mrs. Clinton’s allegedly “thick ankles,” or the headlines last year about cleavage.

Clothing and appearance generally matter more for women than for men, research shows. Surprisingly, several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job. Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss.

Female leaders face these impossible judgments all over the world. An M.I.T. economist, Esther Duflo, looked at India, which has required female leaders in one-third of village councils since the mid-1990s. Professor Duflo and her colleagues found that by objective standards, the women ran the villages better than men. For example, women constructed and maintained wells better, and took fewer bribes.

Yet ordinary villagers themselves judged the women as having done a worse job, and so most women were not re-elected. That seemed to result from simple prejudice. Professor Duflo asked villagers to listen to a speech, identical except that it was given by a man in some cases and by a woman in others. Villagers gave the speech much lower marks when it was given by a woman.
Such prejudices can be overridden after voters actually see female leaders in action. While the first ones received dismal evaluations, the second round of female leaders in the villages were rated the same as men. “Exposure reduces prejudice,” Professor Duflo suggested.

Women have often quipped that they have to be twice as good as men to get anywhere — but that, fortunately, is not difficult. In fact, it appears that it may be difficult after all. Modern democracies may empower deep prejudices and thus constrain female leaders in ways that ancient monarchies did not.”(Click here to read Esther Duflo’s study.)

Women’s lack of killer instinct is often blamed for their failure to rise to prominent leadership positions. Political leaders in India have sometimes cited this reason for not allotting party tickets to women when faced with male opponents. On a related matter, a paper came out last month that looked at gender differences in competitive choices. A blog in the NYT that I reproduce in its entirety explains why it is interesting and how this one differs from the other run-of-the-mill studies on this subject:

“The conventional wisdom holds that men and women have different abilities when it comes to competition (a view that’s certainly being challenged in the current Democratic primary). Labels like “lacking the killer instinct,” “peacemaker,” and “avoiding confrontation” are commonly assigned to women in competitive environments, while the supposed male knack for thriving in competition is cited as a reason for the persistent wage gap between the sexes.

But is an enhanced or decreased competitive drive a result of biology, or simply a culturally instilled trait? University of Chicago professors Uri Gneezy and John List and Columbia professor Kenneth Leonard performed a controlled experiment to test this question, and published their results in the new working paper, “Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society.”

Their method consisted of studying two distinct social groups: the Maasai in Tanzania, a “textbook example of a patriarchal society” in which women and children are considered “property,” and the Khasi in India, who are matrilineal, meaning female-dominated through inheritance laws, household authority, and social structures — though still distinct from “matriarchal,” since, as the authors point out, “the sociological literature is almost unanimous in the conclusion that truly matriarchal societies no longer exist.”

Gneezy, List, and Leonard tested the competitive drives of 155 subjects, male and female, by gathering groups of men and women from both tribes, offering them money in exchange for participation in an experiment, separating them into individual rooms, and then giving them tasks like tossing a tennis ball into a bucket 10 times. Each subject was told that he or she was competing against an unnamed rival in another room, and was given a choice of payment options: receive either a) “X per successful shot, regardless of the performance of the participant from the other group with whom they were randomly matched;” or b) “3X per successful shot if they outperformed the other participant.” Their results are summarized as follows:

Our experimental results reveal interesting differences in competitiveness: in the patriarchal society women are less competitive than men, a result consistent with student data drawn from Western cultures. Yet, this result reverses in the matrilineal society, where we find that women are more competitive than men. Perhaps surprisingly, Khasi women are even slightly more competitive than Maasai men, but this difference is not statistically significant at conventional levels under any of our formal statistical tests.

While plenty of studies have contrasted the competitive drives of men and women, few, if any, have isolated subjects who’ve spent their lives blissfully free of Western (and Eastern, for that matter) cultural biases about gender. Now if we could only test how the Khasi women fare in corporate law firms…”

So is this then about nurture rather than nature? The final word on that is uncertain largely because a clear distinction between the two does not exist. The authors conclude as follows:
“…policymakers often are searching for efficient means to reduce the gender gap. If the difference in reaction to competition is based primarily on nature, then some might advocate, for example, reducing the competitiveness of the education system and labor markets in order to provide women with more chances to succeed. If the difference is based on nurture, or an interaction between nature and nurture, on the other hand, the public policy might be targeting the socialization and education at early ages as well as later in life to eliminate this asymmetric treatment of men and women with respect to competitiveness. Our study suggests that there might be some value in this second avenue...” In light of the women's quota debate, that is something to think about.

IPT on Torture Feb. 9 and 10

For those interested in criminal justice and torture there is going to be an Independent People's Tribunal on Torture, Extra-Judicial Killings, and Forced Disappearances this weekend (Feb. 9th and 10th from 9:00 to 6:00 and 9:00 to 4:30) at JNU (Life Science Auditorium) in Delhi. There are about 90 speakers coming from most of the states in India including a lot of victims or family members of victims, such as Dr. Ilena Sen, the wife of Dr. Binayek Sen the imprisoned PUCL Chattisgarh activist. I can't seem to find the schedule online, but happy to forward the soft copy I have to those interested.

Article on the Forest Case Controversy

EPW has an article on the ongoing forest case (T.N.Godavarman v. Union of India) and its implications. It traces how the SC, taking recourse to ‘continuing’ mandamus, has assumed complete administrative control over the day-to-day management of this issue. The authors say that the SC has embraced highly questionable ideas, its actions reflect a lack of proper understanding of the issues involved, some of its orders cannot be implemented, and in various instances, its directions have positively caused harm to the environment. They argue that the SC’s ongoing intervention has centralized authority in its hands at the expense of the states and the MOEF (Ministry of Environment and Forests) whose capacity to intervene has atrophied ‘as all their attention is diverted towards either circumventing or zealously anticipating the court’s orders’. They conclude that this ‘jurisprudence’ is faulty:

“The Godavarman case offers strong evi­dence to suggest that judicial overreach not only hurts the process of governance by undermining the role of the executive, but also the content of governance by pro­ducing flawed judgments, i.e., interpreta­tions of the law that are both unsound and impracticable. This happens for several reasons, including inadequate application of mind in the hurry to produce “land­mark” judgments, and the impossibility of a central court knowing the complexities of conditions and laws across such a di­verse country.”

This case has become a cause célèbre for all those concerned about the current trend of PIL cases. For those interested, one of the authors, S. Lele has written a commentary in June outlining the complexities of this issue.

In a somewhat related matter, the SC has come out with guidelines to ‘filter’ PIL cases. The news item suggests that it is an ad hoc exercise meant to check the case load. There is no mention of whether this is the outcome of J.Katju’s recent cri du Coeur – if it is, it is bound to come as a disappointment. It appears that the pronouncement will only relegate a few minor issues to a secondary status and does not signify any major change to the system as it operates today.

Update: Thanks to Tarunabh for providing a link to the official document of the Supreme Court regarding the new PIL guidelines (click here to open it).

Free speech, multiple proceedings and chilling effects

The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by painter MF Hussain 'for immunity from prosecution in any court in the country except in Delhi'. Multiple proceedings against Shilpa Shetty, Khushboo and MF Hussain recently have seen the abuse of a procedural loophole to punish them for speech acts even before the crime can be established.

Here is an argument why this procedural loophole is unconstitutional:

1. All criminal acts that have 'speech' or 'expression' as constituting actus reus need justification under Article 19(2) as a 'reasonable' restriction.

2. This applies not only to substantive laws but also procedural laws.

3. Irrespective of the content of the speech, the possibility of multiple legal proceedings against a person in several parts of the country (that the current law on criminal jurisdiction allows) has serious 'chilling effects' even before the speech is made [Chilling Effect - 'a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed or limited by fear of penalization at the hands of an individual or group']. This is a restriction on Article 19(1).

4. The restriction is unreasonable because -
(a) no state interest is served by having the same act tried in several jurisdictions. Because no person can be convicted of the same act twice, even if two courts find him/her guilty, only one punishment will sustain. Therefore, in reality, the speech acts only amount to procedural harrassment.
(b) multiple proceedings waste precious judicial time. what 10 different courts can do, one court can do equally well. Public resources are also wasted because such multiple proceedings inevitably lead to a case-by-case Supreme Court intervention (like for Shilpa Shetty and Hussain) ordering transfers - a one time solution will save precious judicial time.
(c) all this, of course, besides the harrassment of the speaker EVEN BEFORE THE SPEECH IS FOUND TO BE CRIMINAL, and the chilling effects of such restriction.

Remedy:
An exception to be carved in the jurisdiction clauses of the Criminal Procedure Code for all crimes that are constituted by 'speech or expression'so that a criminal case in such crimes can be filed only at the defendant'splace of ordinary residence (if in India), or in Delhi (if outside India). This must be irrespective of the content of the speech.

The Bird Flu Attack: Focus on a less-talked about Bill

The bird flu attack in West Bengal has raised the question as to who was responsible for not taking prompt steps to contain the epidemic - Centre or the State Government. The State Government has admitted that the local people did not take much notice and report it to the proper authorities when it started happening. Anisur Rahaman, West Bengal Minister for Animal Resources has said in this interview that the moment the Government got to know of it on January 8, it initiated action. But he attributed the delay to procedural formalities that have to be observed. The State Government began the culling operations only on January 16. The delay of eight days appears to have taken its heavy toll.

Indeed, there is a Bill pending in Parliament, precisely to address such situations. The Prevention and Control of Infectious and Contagious Diseases in Animals Bill, 2005, was examined by the Standing Committee on Agriculture (2006-07), which has recommended its adoption with certain amendments in its 31st Report, presented to both the Houses of Parliament on May 16, 2007. Curiously, the Bill has not yet been passed in the subsequent sessions of Parliament despite its urgency. The Bill's summary, prepared by the PRS, is here.

According to the Bill, as infections and contagious diseases are not restricted to specific state borders, and can spread across the country, a Parliament legislation applicable to the length and breadth of the country alone can meet the needs of the situation. Ineffectiveness of the legal and other measures to control animal diseases also has, in many cases, a human health angle. The Bill aims to create awareness about the diseases and popularization of vaccination. The law would help notify infectious diseases and to implement control measures in the entire country. The Bill has been drafted by virtue of Article 253 in order to fulfil the requirements of International Animal Health Code.

The Standing committee report says there are more than 100 diseases which are communicable from animal to man and some of them are very dangerous. Therefore, it is important to set up containment labaratories at regional levels. But there is only one at present: the High Security Animal Diseases Laboratory at Bhopal. It is one of 10 such labs ranking 6th in the world. The Bill fixes the responsibility to identify the diseases from which the animal is suffering on the Veterinarian. The minimum requirement, according to the report, is one veterinary surgeon for 5000 animals. But India suffers from very poor infrastructure.

Had the Bill been enacted in time, it would have been possible to test its effectiveness in containing the ongoing epidemic.

The mystery of Sethusamudram affidavit unravelled

Everyone knows how the Union of India had to withdraw its own affidavit in the Sethusamudram case in the Supreme Court, as the Government felt embarrassed by Paragraph 20 of the affidavit, which averred that there is no scientific basis to the claim that the Adam's Bridge was a man-made structure, and that the epic Ramayan, which the petitioner cited in support of his claim, was just a mythology. Following the withdrawal, two of the ASI officials, who drafted the affidavit were suspended. The Government implicitly admitted that the way the two officials drafted the affidavit was contrary to the Government's stand on the issue, though no one knows what is the Government's stand.

Intrigued by this, I filed an application under RTI seeking to get from the Culture Ministry, a copy of the order by the Secretary, Union Culture Ministry directing an enquiry into the matter; a copy of the report submitted by the Director General, ASI, after the enquiry, and a copy of the suspension order.

The Culture Ministry, duly forwarded my application to the ASI, the competent authority. The ASI's Central Public Information Officer (HQ) replied to me that the matter is still under investigation, hence excemption, under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, may apply.

I preferred an appeal against this decision, saying that the enquiry has already been completed, and the two ASI officials Chandra Shekhar and V.Bakshi had been suspended only after the enquiry. Therefore, S.8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot apply if the enquiry is already complete. I also said that even if the enquiry/investigation was incomplete, the information which I had sought could still be given as it would not impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

The first appellate authority, R.S.Fonia, Director, ASI, accepted my stand that information sought by me was not covered under the Section 8(1)(h) exception of the RTI Act, and directed the CPIO(HQ) to provide the information requested by the me within seven days under intimation to him. The appellate authority's direction was issued on December 13, 2007.

In a clear violation of the RTI Act, the CPIO (HQ) and the Culture Ministry not only failed to furnish the information to me as directed by the first appellate authority to date, but appear to contradict the appellate authority's stand that my application was not sub-judice. In the ongoing case in the Supreme Court, the Court has not issued any direction to the Union of India not to reveal the reasons for the suspension of the ASI officials. The UOI has only sought further time to file its revised affidavit.

While the doors are open to me to approach the Central Information Commission for an appeal against the non-reply within the stipulated time by the ASI and the Culture Ministry to my application, I think it is possible to read into this non-reply the following things:

1. The Government has certainly something to hide in this, as if in its view, the suspension of these two officials was justified, then nothing prevents it from sharing the reasons for the suspension.

2. It also raises a fundamental and disconcerting question on how the Government resolves the conflict between professionalism, rooted in a secular-scientific philosophy and a standpoint born out of populism. As the suspension shows the Government sacrificing the former for the sake of the latter, the reluctance to share with the public the reasons for the officials' suspension is quite obvious.

Symposium on SEZs

The Seminar's latest issue is on SEZs, a subject which has engaged the attention of our contributors recently.

In the Problem, posed by Aseem Shrivastava, an independent economist in Delhi, (who himself is a critic of SEZ) it is said: " The SEZ story cannot be grasped in the fullness of its implications unless and until it is placed in the wider context of policies for rapid urbanization and upgradation of Indian cities.... There are large loopholes in the SEZ law which leaves the door wide open for land being acquired for real estate speculation... The diversity of resistance to the SEZ policy across the country offers encouraging conclusions for the resilience of democracy in the country."

The package includes answers to FAQs on SEZs, an interview with Commerce Minister, Kamal Nath (who says SEZs have nothing to do with land acquisition) and a few insightful articles, mostly critical of SEZs. Of these, Kannan Kasturi(independent researcher and writer on law)'s article on "Of Public Purpose and Private Profit" will be of interest to us. The author agrues that when powers of eminent domain are exercised, we need to ensure that the law looks at the entirety of loss of rights of all the affected people, not just of those owning or occupying property. Further, the loss of rights because of an acquisition needs to be compensated by the granting of new rights through resettlement and rehabilitation, not just by monetary compensation.

The article by Manshi Asher and Patrik Oskarsson, who are currently researching the implications of SEZs in different states of India, is based on their recent field investigation in Gujarat, where the SEZ experiment has been ostensibly successful, without any murmur. The authors suggest that a fragmented society polarized around caste, religion and class makes the possibility of opposition by the 'losers of resrouces' even more difficult in a business-oriented Gujarat.

Aseem Shrivastava observes that by shifting the very mode of governance towards the corporate sector, they will render unaccountable and opaque decision making which will have long-lasting and widespread consequences for the citizens of the country.
Jonathan Jones, a doctoral candidate at the Department of Political Science, University of Florida, Miami, has included a Tableon some key social movements against SEZs across India in West Bengal, Goa, Karnataka,Maharashtra and Orissa.

Vasudha Dhagamwar, Founder and former director, MARG, Delhi, says there are two separate and two seemingly contradictory lessons to be learnt from Goa. First, activists may not always represent the people; so, go slow on the opposition. Second, if the idea behind a SEZ is to convert land to non-agricultural use and provide non-agrarian employment, Goas has done it already by having a sizeable tourist industry and absorbing people in the non-agrarian sector. So, go slow on SEZ. 15 SEZs in a state as small as Goa appears an overkill. Even if a SEZ in Goa employes only an average of one lakh or even 50000 people each, they will open up so much employment that Goa will be swamped out of recognition (Goa's population is only 9 lakh). If a single industry SEZ is allocated 250 acres of land and a multi-industry SEZ is allocated 1000 acres then the landscape of Goa will change beyond recognition and it will no more be a top tourist destination, the author observes.

All in all, the issue is a must-read for us, who are keenly interested in the SEZ controversy.