What were their ostensible purpose in seeking political power? For Jayalalitha, it is primarily relief from corruption cases and to regain power in Tamil Nadu. For Sonia, it is to perpetuate the dynastic power of the Nehru-Gandhi family and to safeguard herself and friends from the Bofors case. For Mayawati it was to teach the BJP a lesson for what happened in UP though she conveniently forgot to add that she went back on her initial agreement to step down after six months.

In spite of being women, they differ very little from their male counterparts. None of them is driven by considerations of national issues or interests. Their politics is personalised. None of them has done much for the cause of women even though they are in an extremely advantageous position to do so. This is in sharp contrast to the impressive performance of women inother spheres.

One of the most important achievements of independent India has been an improvement in the status of middle class women. Women have been ambassadors, ministers. There was even a woman prime minister. They account for 20.5 percent of the professional technical jobs.

However, in spite of so many women in important positions in South Asia in general and India in particular, women's impact in politics has been marginal. They constitute 9 percent of central ministers. They continue to remain in the minority in spite of the fact that they constitute the single largest numerical majority. This asymmetry is due to inequities in power and status. Their token representation in the political sphere is because they are part of a political culture that is patriarchal and non-participatory.

Their qualifications to a public office has been the fact that they are somebody's wife, daughter or relative which is why most of them have hardly made any impression in the legislatures or have initiated anysignificant legislation that would improve the lot of women. Political parties are to be blamed for this for they have failed to induct women of substance.

In order to remedy this situation the Committee on the Status of Women, set up in 1971, proposed that each political party set aside a quota for women candidates. It is close to three decades but not much has been done with regard to the first. The Women's Reservation Bill has run into many problems.

Many fear, and rightly so, that quotas would lead to proxy representation on behalf of women and the possibility of women developing a ghetto mentality. Which was why most women's groups were not in favour of quotas, both inside and outside India. However, looking at the spectacular changes that quotas have effected in the Scandinavian countries, Britain, Brazil, among others, many feel that the quota is the stepping stone for empowering women politically and would transform the democratic system.

Furthermore, the women's movements have to step outsidethe confines of urban middle class homes and reach out to the underprivileged and under-represented sections of society. This would mean giving more support to women leaders like Mamata Banerjee who, in spite of her humble family background, has made it to the top. Even when she speaks of a Bengal package she has the interests of her state in mind and in that sense differs both in substance and style from Jayalalitha, Sonia and Mayawati.

The latter three undermine the claims of those who argue that if women leaders are inducted into the political arena then it would qualitatively and substantially change the nature of debates and the issues. Of course, actions of aforesaid individual women leaders do not dilute the import of such a contention for they are perpetrators of a traditional patriarchal culture. If the latter is to change it would only be possible with greater and broader representation. Broadening of the base is as much important for women as for men, otherwise the present scenario of thepersonalised rule of a coterie would continue.

The writer teaches political science in Delhi University