Events & Issues
New Delhi, 12 May 2014
Indian Quota System
PERVERSION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director,
ICSSR, New Delhi)
The big verdict will be out shortly. Will the new incumbent in
Delhi usher in
a fresh vision or be bogged down by same old policies? Of particular interest
will be the country’s reservation policy. Many people in India are not
aware of the fact that its equivalents are in vogue in many countries in the
East and the West. They are known by different names.
The Supreme Court in the US,
by a majority of 6-2, practically ended the practice of “affirmative action” in
college admissions in Michigan.
By this verdict, it has upheld the constitutionality of the referendum result that
disallowed affirmative action in college admissions. The judgement upheld that
the States can disregard race as a factor in university admissions.
The referendum conducted in 2006 in Michigan, by a narrow
margin, voted in favour of prohibiting
the universities and schools in the State from “discriminating against or
granting preferential treatment” for any individual or group on the “basis of
race, sex, colour, ethnicity, or
national origin”. By upholding the validity of the referendum, the Supreme
Court has reversed the earlier decision of a lower court. The verdict is a blow
to the policy of “affirmative action”, but a pat to the freedom of the States
to decide the issue overriding the verdict of the courts.
The term “affirmative action” was first used in the US in the
National Labour Relations Act (Wagner Act) in 1935. It referred to equal
employment opportunity measures that had to be adopted by federal contractors
and sub-contractors. The object was to prevent discriminations against
employees and employment seekers on grounds of “colour, religion, sex, or
national origin”.
The need for affirmative action in the US, as in the case of
Reservation Policy in India, lay centred in the long history of exploitation,
discriminations, repressions, deprivations and marginalization of native
communities by the Whites, leaving the victims incapable of developing their
natural human potential. Apart from age and sex, population classification in America was
made on the basis of race, religion, and national origin.
Affirmative action, considered a means of correcting
historical injustices when it was formulated, became the principal subject of a
serious controversy in educational institutions in the US in the
latter part of the 20th century. It included steps, procedures,
policies, and programmes designed to overcome the current effects of past
discriminations on members of minority groups. A distinct link between social
injustice and minority status was perceived in the US.
Despite broad consensus among political parties on the
policy of Affirmative Action, there are also strong anti-affirmative action
lobbies working in the US.
They question the efficacy of the policy to benefit the really deserving racial
groups. Lack of a time-frame to achieve the objective of equality of
opportunity is unacceptable to them.
The verdict in the Michigan
case, however, is not unanimously welcomed in the US. Marginalized groups hold on to special
protection laws and support system that is still deemed necessary for
meaningful and genuine participation in various walks of life.
A similar verdict in India would have provoked nationwide
protests not just by the affected groups, but by their political patrons. A
basic element of the Reservation Policy of India is its political substance and
value. Political parties have developed a vested interest in playing the politics
of backwardness to befriend social groups, territorial groups, areas and so
on.
No wonder, the parties have been showing extraordinary and
sudden enthusiasm in the pre-election period to expand the list of Backward
Classes. Religion-based reservation for which no provision exists in the
Constitution is mooted as a possibility. Jats and Muslims, for example, are
among those picked up for reservation benefits.
Election manifestos of almost all parties address the
disadvantaged groups specifically. The
Congress has promised to create a national consensus on affirmative action for
SCs and STs in the private sector after facing stiff opposition for its sudden
proposition to issue an ordinance to immediately affect this. It has also
promised reservation for the backward minorities.
The BJP manifesto does not mention about the Reservation
Policy, but offers “priority” to SCs and STs and OBCs. It mentions a programme
named as “Van Bandhu Kalyan Yojna” to empower forest tribals. The BJP shows a
slight shift from caste-based quota to empowerment and opportunity. This party,
which promised job quotas on economic criteria for all economically weaker
sections other than SCs, STs, and OBCs now wants to identify 100 most backward
districts to lift them to the level of other districts.
The CPM has promised a Central legislation to extend
reservation for Dalit Christians and Muslim communities, and provide reservation
in the private sector for SCs and STs.
The AIADMK manifesto provides for extension of reservation
to SC converts. The JD(U) promises reservation in the private sector also.
The DMK, true to its ancestral ideology, has included in its
manifesto removal of the ceiling of 50% fixed by the Supreme Court and also of
the “creamy layer” concept. It has affirmed its stand in favour of separate
reservation for “the most backward classes” and opposition to introducing
economic criteria for identifying the backward. Incidentally, it must be
mentioned that identification of the “most backward classes” and separate quota
for them is an achievement of the PMK (Pattali Makkal Katchi) in Tamil Nadu.
The Nationalist Congress Party manifesto supports
reservation for Muslims and Marathas in education and jobs. Interestingly, the
Aam Admi Party boldly sings a different tune. It says “Those who have already
availed reservations should go back in the queue. Reservation should be religion-neutral. Majorities
who are minorities in other States should be treated as such.” There is an
element of novelty in its approach, but no basic change in the strategy to deal
with social and educational backwardness.
Recall the Communal Award of Ramsay Macdonald (1932) which
introduced separate electorates for the Depressed Classes. Though it was
rejected as a ruse of the British to “divide and rule”, it can be re-read for
the statement that, “His Majesty’s Government do not consider that these
special Depressed Class constituencies will be required for more than a limited
time.” A time-frame of 20 years was considered as the maximum period. Mahatma Gandhi said, “I am convinced that if
they are ever to rise, it will not be by reservation of seats, but will be by
the strenuous work of Hindu reformers in their midst…”
Affirmative action and its Indian version “Reservation
Policy” should be seen not as compensation for historic injustice, but as a
device necessary to ensure that past injustices do not become a permanent
feature of our future also, though in a modified form.
We have worked the Reservation Policy for several decades,
but nowhere near the goal of achieving equal opportunity status. Still, we
cling on to this policy and want to expand its application to the majority of
the population.
Malaysia is perhaps the only country which
covers the majority of the population – the Malays – under the affirmative
action policy. In India,
the Supreme Court has fixed that reservation should not exceed 50% of posts and
seats, but political parties are keen on adding groups.
It is time to think of better alternatives to the Reservation
Policy with sincerity to provide development opportunity for all. To get stuck
with an old policy is to admit bankruptcy of ideas, insincerity in the purpose,
and vested interest in politicizing the quota system. Indeed, perversion of affirmative action.
---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|