For the sake of maintaining some amount of homogeneity in the issues I am going to talk about, I confine myself to reservations to SC/STs and OBCs.
Reservations are part of affirmative action by the State to ensure equal opportunities for growth and to protect the citizens from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Constitution of India has clear provisions empowering the state to take affirmative action. Articles on fundamental rights were amended repeatedly to make sure they do not come in the way of affirmative action by state. The whole Part IV having Directive Principles of State Policy, though not justiciable and enforceable in courts, nevertheless reflects the responsibility the constitutional makers have put on the State. Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4) and 46(not justiciable) have explicit provisions for reservations.
However constitution identifies only Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes as the ones eligible for reservations. After Champakam Dorairajan Case(1950) and subsequent 1st amendment to constitution, reservations to SC/STs was never contested. It was reservations to backward classes that had increasingly became central to the politics of Independent India.
Rise of backward castes by the end of 1980s marked a watershed in the Indian political scene. Reservations were first implemented in govt. jobs after Supreme Court approval in the famous Indira sawhney case(1992) (popularly known as Mandal case). Later it was only in 2008, after Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India case(2008) that they were extended to educational institutions.
The policy of reservations is a great idea designed to create an equal society out of the hugely stratified traditional Indian society. But, as opposed to many pro-reservationists, it is not a solution. It can never be a solution. One cannot hope for an equal society while repeatedly treating the people as unequals.
The problem with the policy of reservations is the way they are implemented. They were supposed to be reviewed every 10 years(for SC/STs , constitution need to be amended every 10 years, and every 5 years for OBCs as per Supreme Court's order in Mandal commission case(1992) and in Ashok Kumar Thakur case(2008) ). But no such thing is done till now. Every time, after 10 years they were extended like a holy ritual. It is undeniable that most of those who enjoyed the benefits reservation in these 60 years are relatively well off both socially and educationally in their own communities and by any standards, can not be classified as Socially and educationally backward. Due to lack of review of the policy of reservation, there arose an elite group within each community to which reservations are available, which is cornering most of the benefits of reservations. So the benefits of reservations are not truly going to socially and educationally backward. Today, as far as I have seen, almost 80% of those entering into IIT under reserved category are the ones who do not deserve the benefits of reservation under the criteria of backwardness.
Another controversial issue was the use of castes as basis to identify backward classes. Here also, reservations to SCs on the basis of caste were never contested. In the case of backward classes, the constitution only said socially and educationally backward classes, it never talked about castes(in fact Articles 15(1) and 16(1) prohibit discrimination of citizens on the basis of caste). But India's peculiar conditions of caste system gives sufficient ground for using castes to decide backward classes. Even Supreme Court repeatedly changed its stance on this issue. In Balaji v. State of Mysore(1963) case, it rejected specification of backward classes on the basis of caste, commenting that though the caste of a group may be relevant in identifying the backward class status, the importance of caste should not be exaggerated. Same court in Rajindran case(1968) said "a caste is also a class of citizens", and then in Periakaruppan case(1973) said that "a caste has always been recognized as a class". In the subsequent cases, though it expressed concerns about inherent drawbacks in using caste for the classification of citizens into classes, nevertheless accepted it with some modifications. Anti-reservationists argue that, caste based reservations are dividing the society and only furthering the evils of caste system. This argument is not exactly true, because the very aim of reservations involve dividing citizens and give emphasis to certain divisions. It is true to a large extent, thought there are some distortions in some cases, that a large portion of population in castes classified as backward castes indeed are backward. Practically, there is no other way to classify citizens to better reflect the social backwardness.
Most anti-reservationists talk about emphasizing economic backwardness than social or educational backwardness. But they fail to understand that social backwardness is not always synonymous to economic backwardness. Though it may be that the social discrimination(based on caste) has almost disappeared in urban areas, in rural areas, caste discrimination still exists.
Another argument of anti-reservationists is regarding merit. It should be noted that merit is an outcome of socio-cultural and educational environment one experiences since birth. Merit need not be the sole criteria for admissions into educational institutions and appointments to jobs. The criteria should be something that will benefit the society at large in the long run, and not just increasing the efficiency or productivity. Tamilnadu, the only state in which reservations for appointments are more than 50%(exact figure is around 67% if I am not wrong), is one of the best administered states in the country.
Creamy layer must be excluded from benefits of reservations in the case of OBCs. In the case of SC/STs it may not be a good idea to use the criteria of creamy layer, without conducting a detailed study of effect of reservations on SC/STs . The case of ST/STs is different because, as the Supreme Court puts it, historically they faced social exclusion in contrast to social deprivation faced by OBCs.
As I already said, reservations alone can never be a solution. Mandal commission's other recommendations such as progressive land reforms, special educational facilities to upgrade the cultural environment of students such as special emphasis on vocational training and separate coaching facilities for students aspiring to enter technical and professional institutions, creation of adequate facilities for improving and upgrading the skills of village artisans, subsidized loans for setting up small scale industries, setting up a separate chain of financial and technical bodies to assist entrepreneurs were practically ignored by successive governments.
Reservations are a temporary arrangement to correct the historical mistakes of Indian society. In the long run, at some point of time, we have to remove things such as reservations which emphasize divisions among society. Otherwise it becomes difficult to develop a sense of commonness and nationhood. State must treat all its citizens equally. Moreover reservations as they are already, are increasingly becoming a cause of social unrest. The lower sections of forward classes and certain sections of Minorities are already discontent with policy of reservations. The number of castes in reserved categories are only increasing, which again questions the efficacy of reservations as a tool for social upliftment.
New classes are demanding reservations and governments are increasingly under pressure to extend reservations to them. Yesterday it was for SC/STs and OBCs, today it is for Minorities, tomorrow it will be for economically backward in forward classes and day after tomorrow it will be something else. On the whole population to which benefits of reservations are available is only increasing. Politically it is very hard to remove castes/classes from the quota of reservations.
93rd amendment empowering the state to extend reservations to private educational institutions is already raising questions regarding fate of competence of Indian institutions in this era of Globalization.
So, it is time to review the policy of reservations and look for better alternatives that would suit the fast changing socio-economic conditions of citizens of India.
Reservations are part of affirmative action by the State to ensure equal opportunities for growth and to protect the citizens from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Constitution of India has clear provisions empowering the state to take affirmative action. Articles on fundamental rights were amended repeatedly to make sure they do not come in the way of affirmative action by state. The whole Part IV having Directive Principles of State Policy, though not justiciable and enforceable in courts, nevertheless reflects the responsibility the constitutional makers have put on the State. Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4) and 46(not justiciable) have explicit provisions for reservations.
However constitution identifies only Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes as the ones eligible for reservations. After Champakam Dorairajan Case(1950) and subsequent 1st amendment to constitution, reservations to SC/STs was never contested. It was reservations to backward classes that had increasingly became central to the politics of Independent India.
Rise of backward castes by the end of 1980s marked a watershed in the Indian political scene. Reservations were first implemented in govt. jobs after Supreme Court approval in the famous Indira sawhney case(1992) (popularly known as Mandal case). Later it was only in 2008, after Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India case(2008) that they were extended to educational institutions.
The policy of reservations is a great idea designed to create an equal society out of the hugely stratified traditional Indian society. But, as opposed to many pro-reservationists, it is not a solution. It can never be a solution. One cannot hope for an equal society while repeatedly treating the people as unequals.
The problem with the policy of reservations is the way they are implemented. They were supposed to be reviewed every 10 years(for SC/STs , constitution need to be amended every 10 years, and every 5 years for OBCs as per Supreme Court's order in Mandal commission case(1992) and in Ashok Kumar Thakur case(2008) ). But no such thing is done till now. Every time, after 10 years they were extended like a holy ritual. It is undeniable that most of those who enjoyed the benefits reservation in these 60 years are relatively well off both socially and educationally in their own communities and by any standards, can not be classified as Socially and educationally backward. Due to lack of review of the policy of reservation, there arose an elite group within each community to which reservations are available, which is cornering most of the benefits of reservations. So the benefits of reservations are not truly going to socially and educationally backward. Today, as far as I have seen, almost 80% of those entering into IIT under reserved category are the ones who do not deserve the benefits of reservation under the criteria of backwardness.
Another controversial issue was the use of castes as basis to identify backward classes. Here also, reservations to SCs on the basis of caste were never contested. In the case of backward classes, the constitution only said socially and educationally backward classes, it never talked about castes(in fact Articles 15(1) and 16(1) prohibit discrimination of citizens on the basis of caste). But India's peculiar conditions of caste system gives sufficient ground for using castes to decide backward classes. Even Supreme Court repeatedly changed its stance on this issue. In Balaji v. State of Mysore(1963) case, it rejected specification of backward classes on the basis of caste, commenting that though the caste of a group may be relevant in identifying the backward class status, the importance of caste should not be exaggerated. Same court in Rajindran case(1968) said "a caste is also a class of citizens", and then in Periakaruppan case(1973) said that "a caste has always been recognized as a class". In the subsequent cases, though it expressed concerns about inherent drawbacks in using caste for the classification of citizens into classes, nevertheless accepted it with some modifications. Anti-reservationists argue that, caste based reservations are dividing the society and only furthering the evils of caste system. This argument is not exactly true, because the very aim of reservations involve dividing citizens and give emphasis to certain divisions. It is true to a large extent, thought there are some distortions in some cases, that a large portion of population in castes classified as backward castes indeed are backward. Practically, there is no other way to classify citizens to better reflect the social backwardness.
Most anti-reservationists talk about emphasizing economic backwardness than social or educational backwardness. But they fail to understand that social backwardness is not always synonymous to economic backwardness. Though it may be that the social discrimination(based on caste) has almost disappeared in urban areas, in rural areas, caste discrimination still exists.
Another argument of anti-reservationists is regarding merit. It should be noted that merit is an outcome of socio-cultural and educational environment one experiences since birth. Merit need not be the sole criteria for admissions into educational institutions and appointments to jobs. The criteria should be something that will benefit the society at large in the long run, and not just increasing the efficiency or productivity. Tamilnadu, the only state in which reservations for appointments are more than 50%(exact figure is around 67% if I am not wrong), is one of the best administered states in the country.
Creamy layer must be excluded from benefits of reservations in the case of OBCs. In the case of SC/STs it may not be a good idea to use the criteria of creamy layer, without conducting a detailed study of effect of reservations on SC/STs . The case of ST/STs is different because, as the Supreme Court puts it, historically they faced social exclusion in contrast to social deprivation faced by OBCs.
As I already said, reservations alone can never be a solution. Mandal commission's other recommendations such as progressive land reforms, special educational facilities to upgrade the cultural environment of students such as special emphasis on vocational training and separate coaching facilities for students aspiring to enter technical and professional institutions, creation of adequate facilities for improving and upgrading the skills of village artisans, subsidized loans for setting up small scale industries, setting up a separate chain of financial and technical bodies to assist entrepreneurs were practically ignored by successive governments.
Reservations are a temporary arrangement to correct the historical mistakes of Indian society. In the long run, at some point of time, we have to remove things such as reservations which emphasize divisions among society. Otherwise it becomes difficult to develop a sense of commonness and nationhood. State must treat all its citizens equally. Moreover reservations as they are already, are increasingly becoming a cause of social unrest. The lower sections of forward classes and certain sections of Minorities are already discontent with policy of reservations. The number of castes in reserved categories are only increasing, which again questions the efficacy of reservations as a tool for social upliftment.
New classes are demanding reservations and governments are increasingly under pressure to extend reservations to them. Yesterday it was for SC/STs and OBCs, today it is for Minorities, tomorrow it will be for economically backward in forward classes and day after tomorrow it will be something else. On the whole population to which benefits of reservations are available is only increasing. Politically it is very hard to remove castes/classes from the quota of reservations.
93rd amendment empowering the state to extend reservations to private educational institutions is already raising questions regarding fate of competence of Indian institutions in this era of Globalization.
So, it is time to review the policy of reservations and look for better alternatives that would suit the fast changing socio-economic conditions of citizens of India.
1 comment:
i differ with your thoughts regarding reservation...........reservations are must to uplift the backward classes, otherwise really they will remain backward forever.Reservations should not be based on caste/group........there should be some other means to choose THE REAL POOR FAMILIES who lack of minimum needs to survive.
Post a Comment