Reserva-shun: Part I

It's all the rage these days, and brave Sissyphus can hardly resist the temptation! This week, we saw a clear escalation of the standoff between the pro and anti reservationists. Our most honourable HRD minister hardens his stance and now appeals to Parliament to stand firm on the issue. Meanwhile, students now campaigning against the move have graduated from simple vigils and boycotts, to door-to-door campaigning and hunger strikes. The pro-quota lobby amongst students now rallies to the fore as well, adding its voice to the din.

Somewhere in the middle of all this hard-nosed politicking, frightened protesting and all round assertiveness the basic issue seems to be getting lost. Is this just about reservation in educational institutions, or is there a bigger question about fundamental social endowments and a distinction between equal opportunity and appeasement that underlies this confrontation?

To many, Arjun Singh's latest maneuver seems chillingly akin to VP Singh's moves in 1990. In fact there is very little difference in the motivation behind these moves. Perhaps Arjun Singh and the Congress hope to cobble together an OBC plank to replace the SC/ST-Upper caste-Muslim coalition they traditionally commanded - whether this works remains to be seen, but if history is any indicator, this is hardly going to be a solution.

At the foundation of each such initiative is the Mandal Commision report. The report, submitted in 1980, didn't see the light of day till VP Singh ignited the reservations powder-keg a decade later. The report itself, indeed its author, has become a by-word to describe all divisive casteist initiatives. It is sad that the report itself has never been the subject of a serious debate. Perhaps by succumbing to our desire to paint everything in black and white, the mainstream press chose to demonize this document rather than debate it seriously. I myself can't say I'm fully acquainted with its contents, but even a little bit of googling provides some interesting insights. First, that the Mandal commission made about a dozen recommendations, of which only the issue of reservations was picked up. Second, that the commission recognized reservations to simply be a temporary palliative. Third, that it suggested extensive socio-economic measures to address the fundamental causes of inequality rather than mere tokenism. It's interesting that none of the other recommendations were ever implemented, and worse, that we didn't, and aren't even debating these recommendations. Personally, I thought that these recommendations, along with some kind of system of qualification criteria and periodic review could well be a genuinely worthwhile initiative in social reengineering. The problems arise in ensuring equitable and just mechanisms. Dinakar Sakrikar provides in this opinion-piece, a list of the criteria that the Commission used. At first glance, these seem to quite reasonable, and indeed, extremely objective (barring the one regarding classes/castes considered backward by others, which is extremely subjective). Unfortunately, there are also several drawbacks/shortfalls I think are worth thinking about:

1) Do the measures/criteria defined constitute an adequate description of the characterestics of "backwardness". If not, do more criteria need to be evolved?

2) Individuals may satisfy certain criteria but not others. What configuration of criteria will an individual need to meet in order to continue being described as backward? For example, does a person satisfying any 8 of 11 criteria qualify? 2/11??

3) Is there any way to create a secular definition of backwardness meriting affirmative action? A backward/disadvantaged person suffers irrespective of religion, caste, or geography. Is there any way to enable all disadvantaged members of society a helping hand?

I think we're at an important juncture, and that despite their devious intentions, Arjun Singh and the Congress Party have atleast provided us with an opportunity to seriously re-examine issue.

The fact that reservation has always been the silver bullet for politicians with different spots is something worth analyzing as well. The political imperative seems sadly divorced from the social needs that merit intervention. While our political class has hardly given us any reason to hope for more, there is, to my mind, a real opportunity to reorient the public discourse in a more worthwhile direction.

What if, instead of screaming themselves hoarse that reservations be rolled back, the agitating students campaigned instead that:

1) The Commission's recommendations be implemented in toto, and in a timebound manner.
2) The Goverment evolve objective, secular criteria for candidacy based on the Mandal criteria or some subset/superset thereof.
3) The Government conduct a periodic review of both the demographic (through a more regular census perhaps) to review and update the candidate set.

To my mind, this would genuinely set the cat amongst the pigeons. First, it'd force the Government to reconsider its stonewalling attitude, and break the "us-versus-them" dynamic that has pitted the middle class against a vast majority of this country. Most political parties depend on a local feudal heirarchy of some sort to perpetuate their existence. It is this fundamental conflict of interest that has prevented meaningful governmental intervention towards improving the lot of the socially disadvantaged in the last 60 years since we embraced "democracy". At the very least, this would be a unifying discourse, seeking only objectivity and fairness, while genuinely championing the legitimate interests of the downtrodden masses.

This of course, does not address the specific issue of reservation in educational institutions and in the private and public sector. As usual, I do have a good deal to say about that too... so stay tuned for Part II... coming soon!