by Touria PRAYAG

The theme of the celebration of the International Women?s Day was, this year, even more ambitious: ?Ending impunity for violence against women and girls.? (Please don?t make me laugh). In some countries, it was a public holiday. Here, it was just another day. Well, not quite. It was commemorated by a series of debates, followed by debates and more debates. Congratulations and overstretched clean-shaven cheeks and subtly blushed ones. Neatly trimmed mustaches and glossy lips furtively touch unsweetened coffee and tea, in a flirting session with petits-fours whose calories cannot be afforded. Elegant saris and well-pressed Pierre Cardin trousers sweep the floor of the air-conditioned hall, leaving behind a whiff of expensive eau-de-cologne and after-shave. Body guards hustle, bustle and rush to open the doors of conveniently parked limousines. Drivers are already on the D gear.

Time for self-congratulations for the progress women have achieved in this country, while the plight of the ordinary woman remains unchanged. Our cynicism has, however, suffered a slight, almost imperceptible, tremor as we saw a shimmer of a dimmed light at the end of the interminable tunnel, in the form of minister Satish Faugoo?s intervention on the topic of abortion. While he did not go the full monty, we learn from ?l?express? editorial (9th March), that he, nonetheless, asked leading questions, which left little doubt as to his orientation.

While we are rejoicing at minister Faugoo?s pertinent, albeit shy, comments, we cannot help but feel concerned about the disconcerting silence of the ladies on both sides of the House. It is not my intention to suggest that the abortion debate is a feminist one or to overlook the effect of the motions of so many Adam?s apples in favour of granting women choice. I am also aware that the ladies in our Parliament were not voted in because they were women. But they happen to be women and we cannot help but expect some empathy on their behalf towards the less privileged ones. We are justified in having high expectations of Mrs Seebun who, at the very beginning of her mandate, expressed some understanding of the dilemma of women who are victims of rape or incest.

That seems a very, very long time ago. The last time we heard female voices on this topic, they were passing the buck: the ladies in the opposition ?taking the minister to task? by asking her how many meetings she had had with? socio-cultural organizations about the topic of abortion? Am I missing something here? How many victims of rape, incest and poverty do these organizations represent? I am grateful for the work they do, but the debate should not start and stop at their level.

If these meetings are a way of biding time, I suggest that the minister be asked how many meetings she has had with members of the legal profession to interpret the law. How many linguists have been consulted to try and explain the meaning of ?quick with child?, which exists in the current law? If more time needs to be wasted, she could do worse than hold discussions with our ambassadors to other countries to find out if women there are still being dragged to court for refusing to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

The ladies in Parliament are more privileged than most of us. It is their duty to set an example for the rest of us and be our role models. They cannot achieve this by merely giving their relatives free rides in government limousines or going on missions abroad to take photographs with Hollywood stars. With these privileges, legitimate or usurped, comes the responsibility of sticking one?s neck out and fighting for ideals, which might not be accepted by everyone. Abortion is such an ideal.