Uproar in LS over Women's Bill; House adjourned twice

The issue of Women's Reservation Bill created uproar in the Lok Sabha for the fourth day on despite government seeking to mollify its opponents offering to explore "various ideas and possibilities" by consulting them before bringing the bill to the House.

The government failed to break the deadlock on the issue despite Leader of Lok Sabha Pranab Mukherjee assuring the Yadav trio that there was "no harm" in having an all party meeting and "various ideas and possibilities" could be explored.

He also cited instances of certain bills that were passed by one House but rejected by the other. Not satisfied with the assurance, the members of the SP, RJD and JD(U) once again stormed the well forcing two adjournments.

As the House assembled for the day, the issue generated heat with SP, RJD and JD(U) members storming the well demanding inclusion of OBCs, Dalits and Muslims in the quotas for women.

Speaker Meira Kumar allowed SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, JD(U) chief Sharad Yadav and RJD supremo Lalu Prasad to air their views on the bill.

The three leaders wanted separate quotas for OBCs, Dalits and Muslims in the bill and demanded that it be amended before being introduced in the Lok Sabha. They also wanted an all-party meeting to arrive at a consensus on the issue.

"Before the bill is introduced in the Lok Sabha we will consult you," Mukherjee said pointing out that "all these issues can be raised, debated and decided by this House only."

"There are instances, one House had passed the Constitution Amendment Bill and the other House had rejected it," he said seeking to pacify the agitating members. Noting that there were divergent views on the issue, Mukherjee said there were debates and discussions but no consensus could be reached.

"I myself held several rounds of talks. Then Home Minister Shivraj Patil took meetings. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took meetings. Various attempts were made during UPA-I and NDA regimes to arrive at a consensus. "But certain political parties took a particular view, some others took a different view. There was no convergence of views," Mukherjee said.

"There is no harm in calling an all-party meeting. This is a Constitution Amendment Bill which has to be passed with special majority and ratified by half of the states," he said.

"Various ideas can be explored to narrow down divergence and bring convergence. So let the House transact normal business. Nothing can be achieved by stalling the proceedings. Financial business has to be completed and there is a time schedule for it," he said.