http://www.india-seminar.com/2005/549/549%...kar%20gupta.htm
<b>Limits of reservation</b>
dipankar gupta
OVER the years reservations have become the standard format for groups
demanding equality of results. There is a great degree of political pressure
to extend reservations to include communities other than Scheduled Castes
(SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). On the other hand there is little attempt
to reflect upon what reservations were meant to achieve and, indeed, to
review this policy which has been in operation for over 50 years. In order
to accomplish this task it is necessary to contextualize reservations within
the framework of democratic governance. Only then can we adequately finesse
it or plot its future.
With the gradual ascendance of primordial politics and the tendency to think
of vote banks along caste lines, the necessity for critically assessing
reservations has been put aside. No doubt, this requires a serious
intellectual engagement that does not quite fit in with the exigencies of
populist, short term politics. This is why, for the most part, reservations
have become a kind of holy cow in public circles. Nobody dare question its
relevance, and, what is worse, many are more than willing to extend
reservations to cover other groups by arguing that they had been victims of
some kind of historic injustice.
Without a doubt, while some classes, categories and communities in society
have enjoyed privileges, perhaps for centuries, there have been others that
have faced discrimination of one sort or the other, either in recent times
or in history. If one were to grant reservations to all of them, then it
would be very difficult to establish a democratic society where the
individual is paramount, and where rewards and social worth are judged on
the basis of individual accomplishment. The argument that is often put
against such assessments of individual worth is that when groups have been
downtrodden and exploited for centuries then the scope for considerations on
merit must make room for social equality. Before we talk of the individual,
is it not important to take care of poverty first?
At this point an important clarification needs to be issued. Reservations
should not be construed as an anti-poverty programme, as a stand in for
poverty eradication interventions. Programmes that attack poverty should
continue independent of reservations because there are poor people in all
castes and religious groups. Therefore, it is unjustifiable to either hold
back anti-poverty programmes for the sake of reservations, or to hold back
reservations for the sake of anti-poverty programmes. The two are indeed
quite distinct and should be kept that way.
At first sight, reservations may look like an anti-poverty measure. This is
because the target community is usually very poor. There is a strong
statistical correlation between being a member of a particular caste, tribe
or religious community, and being poor. For this reason the cultural mark of
ascription serves the purpose well for it is a ready reckoner in determining
who are to be the beneficiaries of reservations. If, in this process, a few
well to do families get an undue advantage, then so be it. This is a minor
matter in the light of the fact that an overwhelming majority of people
belonging to a certain group or community are wretchedly poor and, what is
more, this poverty is the result of grave historic injustices against them.
So poverty, as such, is not what reservations are contending against.
Reservations are to create a sense of confidence and self-worth among people
who, through history, had been victims of the most heinous forms of
discrimination. They are meant for those who have no socially valuable
assets whatsoever. Only an unrealist romantic might believe that skinning
leather, or scavenging, has a high social and moral content. A leather
worker or a scavenger suffers from no such illusions. These communities, and
some others too, were not allowed in tradition to develop social skills and
assets that would help them advance socially.
This handicap weighs heavily on them even today. Therefore, they need
positive discrimination to get that extra push to move up and claim their
rightful position in a democratic society. This is how reservations were
supposed to increase fraternity and broad-base democracy. As we all know,
liberty can be established by law, equality by dictat, but for fraternity to
happen it requires a substantial realization of citizenship. The founding
figures of the Indian constitution knew this problem only too well. In fact,
this was the subject of Dr. Ambedkar's famous speech on 26 November 1949.
As reservations are not meant to replace anti-poverty programmes but to
instill self-confidence and courage among those who had been historically
disprivileged, they should not be used loosely to address people and groups
who are simply poor. Reservations are really about fraternity and not about
equality of economic status. Therefore, this policy is best applied when
crippling poverty is accompanied by the historical dispossession of social
assets. As this is not true of peasant castes, as most of them possess
socially valuable assets, the policy of reservations should not have been
extended to them as the Mandal commission did. Mandal beneficiaries have
rural infrastructural assets, plus political power, and have never faced
discrimination of the kind that SCs and STs have.
Why is it that those who press for extending the scope of reservations never
really raise issues that relate to economic development? After B.R.
Ambedkar, rarely do we come across Dalit activists who demonstrate any
concern with problems relating to the structure of economic relations. They
are more interested in the issue of identity and, consequently, their
energies tend to focus around the politics of reservation (Vora 2004: 283;
see also Shah 2001). Rarely, if ever, have they voiced strong opinions
regarding capitalism, globalization, agro-industrial development and, sadly,
about the quality of education and training available to Dalits across the
country. In fact, quite often, some of the Dalit activists tend to believe
that these are matters that take attention away from their major concern,
viz., reservations. That it is important to enable Dalits to acquire skills
and assets that are socially valuable so that they can compete as equals, in
the not too long run, is not seriously entertained.
The beneficiaries of reservations so far have been across different classes.
There is no doubt that there are today a much larger number of Dalits in
Grade I services than what was the case after Independence. According to
current estimates Dalits occupy a little more than 12% of Grade I positions
in the public sector. As one goes down the ladder the number of Dalits keeps
increasing till we come to the Grade IV level where they are actually
over-represented.
<b>These figures are very interesting and most striking is the increasing
presence of Dalits in Grade I services over the past 50 years. Soon after
independence the proportion of Dalits in Grade I services was hovering
around 1%. Today it is over 12% (Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, 2002-3) and before long it will become 17%, which is roughly
equivalent to the proportion of their population in the country.</b>
In terms of finessing reservations so that the policy is just and fair and
is not easily shot down by its detractors, it is necessary that the 'creamy
layer' among SCs and STs be taken off the list. If these positions are
blocked in perpetuity by those families that have succeeded in coming to the
top, then there is no room for further upward mobility among SCs and STs who
have not been as fortunate so far. The criteria for deciding who among SCs
and STs are in the 'creamy layer' can be the same as for OBCs, but perhaps
with greater objectivity (see Report of the Expert Committee 1993). This is
because unlike many OBCs who own land, SCs and STs, in the main, do not own
agrarian property. So the criteria will primarily be based on incomes from
urban jobs in the public sector.
Different communities and classes have different sets of aspirations. Now
that the elite among SCs have experienced what it is to be among the better
off in the public sector, their outlook has undergone a change. Like other
well to do classes their ambition is now to be in the private sector which
has all along been rather exclusivist in its recruitment policies. The
private sector is not a homogeneous unit. There are numerous enterprises,
big and small, that constitute the private sector. Obviously, when referring
to the private sector, the reservationists are aiming their sights at high
end jobs in major multinational and other Indian listed companies.
The fact is that most private sector companies have serious problems
regarding their hiring policy. Very few of them have a transparent system of
recruitment. In most cases it is the network that counts. This network
excludes certain people rather than discriminates against them. In other
words, regardless of one's caste background, if the network is not
supportive of the applicant then the chances of making it to the post are
extremely limited.
Rarely does one see regular advertisements for jobs in the private sector.
This is primarily because employers in these companies generally prefer
applicants that are recommended. They are reluctant to go to the open market
to search for prospective employees. This smacks of a lack of
professionalism, which is why their plea of upholding standards sounds
hollow to many. Most private sector organizations choose only between those
who are network recommendees. This excludes a vast majority of potential
applicants from any active job consideration in such organisations.
So it is not as if SCs and STs are purposively discriminated against.
Perhaps SCs and STs do not make it to the private sector because they lack
those critical network connections. Otherwise, in a large number of major
private companies, particularly the transnationals and multinationals, there
is no real interest regarding the caste background of a person. In fact, if
anything, there is a strong possibility that Muslims would be discriminated
against, especially in family run private organizations.
But to get back to the earlier point about caste based discrimination, it
must be said that private sector executives, in general, are wary of
employing anyone who has not come to them through their networks. So even
those who are not SCs or STs, but lack network connections will be
discriminated against. To think that private sector employers go out of
their way to ascertain the caste of their prospective employees is,
generally, wide off the mark. <b>The rule of thumb for private sector
recruitment in most cases is: no network connections, no jobs.</b>
Nevertheless, is it proper to enforce reservation quotas in the private
sector as well? To recall Ambedkar, reservations for SCs and STs were meant
to enlarge the scope of fraternity. As we mentioned earlier, fraternity is a
collective project, quite unlike equality and liberty. The state has to be
the prime mover in all attempts to shore up fraternity for it can neither be
established by law nor through unmediated market forces. Given the onus on
the state to get fraternity off the ground it is necessary that the public
sector takes the responsibility for reservations and for affirmative action.
Affirmative action includes policies that advocate representation of
different communities and groups, and not just caste. In addition,
affirmative action also encourages and rewards those companies and
institutions that get state funding when they show a satisfactory mix of
communities on their employment rolls. The ingredients of this mix are
generally left open which is why the quota system, as in reservations, is
resisted in affirmative action. Thus, even though affirmative action is not
the same as reservations, in this case too it is the state that plays the
lead role for the policy applies only to the public sector and those who
depend on state funding. This version of affirmative action is best
exemplified in America.
Those who have had the benefit of reservations in the public sector acquire
socially valuable assets in a generation or two. Subsequently, it is not
fair for them to seek further reservations anywhere else. That would go
against the spirit of the policy of reservations. It is possible to suggest
that reservations should be continued in the public sector to make sure that
a critical number of SCs and STs have truly benefited from them. But after
that the rationale for reservations simply disappears.
To argue that as long as there is prejudice there should be reservations is
simply incorrect. Prejudice can never be fought with policies. Prejudice can
be contained when there are proper laws that are intolerant of
discrimination. But most significantly, prejudice is best combated when its
victims are strong enough to take the battle up to the victimizers in the
court of law. Reservations were meant to create this strength and confidence
among SCs and STs.
Unfortunately, prejudice lurks everywhere. If some people are able to escape
prejudicial and discriminating treatment against them it is because they are
strong enough to hit back. There are prejudices against linguistic groups,
against regional backgrounds, against religious communities, against sects,
and against those who have different dietary preferences, and so on. In most
of these instances there is no need for special social policies as the
people concerned are both willing and able to stand up for their rights.
Likewise, the SC and ST elite should set the trend in their communities and
fight back against discrimination with all the legal and constitutional
means at their disposal. This is ultimately how attitudes against Dalits
will cease to be expressed in social practice, whether or not prejudice
exists at multiple personal points.
Instead of asking for reservations in the private sector, <b>Dalits would do
better to call the bluff of reservationists</b>. They should make clear that
they refuse to be fobbed off with the standard reservation format <b>but would
want better training and education standards for that would be their most
trusted guarantor for success. This would not only help to fill the reserved
posts that are lying vacant for want of qualified Dalit candidates, but
would also open up more avenues for members of these communities in their
drive to live better and more fulfilling lives.</b>
<b>References</b>
Report of the Expert Committee for Specifying the Criteria for
Identification of Socially Advanced Persons Among the Socially and
Economically Backward Classes, Ministry of Welfare, New Delhi, 10 March 1993
.
Ghanshyam Shah, 2001, 'Dalit Movements and the Search for Identity', in
Ghanshyam Shah (ed.), Dalit Identity and Politics: Cultural Subordination
and the Dalit Challenge, vol. 2, Sage, New Delhi.
Rajendra Vora, 2004, 'Decline of Caste Majoritarianism in Indian Politics',
in Rajendra Vora and Suhas Palshikar (ed.), Indian Democracy: Meanings and
Practices, Sage, New Delhi.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->âeither directly as in the case of Diana Eck or through Raju Rajagopal in the case of Mike Ghouse.