Right after the International Women’s Day, the Indian Upper House took a great step toward gender equality by approving a bill that proposes an amendment mandating that a third of legislative seats be reserved for women for the next 15 years. The quota bill, despite being a fairly crude way of increasing women’s participation in the state legislature, constitutes significant progress toward the goal of gender equality in India; nevertheless, in the future, similar bills should be refined so as not to lead to corollary discrimination toward other groups.

The quota bill constitutes progress toward eradicating the barriers that prevent gender equality because it would directly address the party boss-controlled electoral system that helps foster gender-based discrimination. The bill will allow women to enter the political realm and actively work to change a society that, despite having had a few female political leaders in the past, is still widely unequal.

Leaders of the three parties opposing the bill raised the concern that women would not vote independently, instead serving as proxies for male family members. This argument seems both condescending and misplaced: First, it implies that all elected women will become unaware pawns susceptible to coercion from close family members; second, it doesn’t take into account the possibility—and hope—that elected women will ultimately cast their own votes, no matter the outside forces attempting to sway their decisions.

Despite the possibility of external influence over the elected women’s votes, the quota bill still encourages a long-lasting culture of gender equality. The legislative effects of the quota bill will expire in 15 years, but in that time the bill will allow women’s decision-making power to be present in Indians’ everyday lives, thus helping entrench the concept of gender equality in Indian culture.

However, despite these benefits, the bill presents a much deeper problem than that of the vote manipulation. Some fear that it might distort the fragile equilibrium concerning the parliamentary representation of the different religious and ethnic groups that constitute Indian society. Former Member of Parliament Syed Shahabuddin argues that the quota bill might cut Muslim representation in half; if that is the case, the legislation might, in the long run, undermine the ethnic and religious stability of the county. The Indian Parliament should therefore consider refining some aspects of the bill to prevent against discrimination.

India’s decision to bring a larger number of women into its legislature is commendable—it represents a move toward greater gender equality in India. However, any future reforms similar to the quota bill should aim to minimize the detrimental effect on the non-involved groups. If not, raising the condition of one minority could hurt another—an unintended and detrimental side effect that undermines the aim of otherwise positive legislation.