Women's Reservation Bill in India

I started learning this week about the women's reservation bill in India, an attempt to reserve 1/3 of the seats for female representatives in Lok Sabha (also called "House of the People," the directly elected lower house of the Indian Parliament) and state Assemblies.  First introduced in 1996, the bill remains largely controversial to this day, despite its historical passing this week.  Among the dissensions is the question whether the bill would really improve the representation of all women (including those in lower class and minorities), or simply move more elitist women into Parliament without changing the plight of the voiceless.

An article from The Economist last week talks about gendercide in several countries, where the birth of boys is valued much more by society than their female counterparts, resulting in large-scale selective abortions, willful neglect, and even infanticide.  Parts of India are among those societies.  Though I am not familiar enough with the present historico-political situation to decide with certainty where I stand on the reservation bill debate (From what I have learned so far, I am more on the opposing side at this point), it is certain that the issue of female representation must be addressed with a more comprehensive approach.  Ending gender preference in some areas would be part of that approach, as would increasing education for women (literacy rate is much lower among women than men), improving access to primary health care, ending violence against women and sex trafficking, etc.

All of this boils down to the chicken-and-egg question: Which comes first--increased representation of women in the government?  Or increased effort to empower women at all levels, so that they can fight with their own merit in all sectors, including in the government?  Do lasting impacts come trickling down or building up, or both simultaneously?

Above image from http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/03/08/some-questions-on-the-womens-reservation-bill/