01-03-2007, 09:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Quota in India Inc. </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Is this the thin end of the wedge?
Shortly after the UPA Government dropped its proposal to draft a legislation making reservation in the private sector mandatory following a veritable tsunami of public criticism, comes the initiative by the <b>Department of Industrial Policy and Planning that calls for compulsory provision of details in regard to lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees in the private sector. If the DPP were to have its way, the auditing of a company's financial performance during a year would be considered incomplete if it fails to provide the precise number of SC/ST employees on its rolls.</b> It is obvious that what the Government failed to achieve by way of legislation, it is now disingenuously trying to attain through prescribing coercive rules that are against the very spirit of affirmative action: Something that India Inc has repeatedly emphasised its commitment to. Clearly, then, it is a Government that believes in headcounts at the drop of a hat, and the country's business leaders are well within their rights to oppose such a harebrained proposal. Indeed, there is no need of such an "initiative" when the corporate sector has agreed to make voluntary disclosure of such information. Affirmative action is not a process that is supposed to deliver overnight results; indeed, its success depends largely on calibrated moves and decisions that do not upset the existing corporate structures. The success of affirmative action also depends on enthusiastic support and participation by the corporate sector, which is bound to take a dim view of the issues in question if the Government continues to send out diktats that are more like those coming from a nanny state than the one that believes in liberalisation. Indeed, the DPP's attempt at control shows that the<b> Government continues to believe in playing the "big brother" - the erstwhile maai-baap sarkar that brought the nation to virtual penury in 1991.</b>
It is still not too late for the Government to reconsider its so-called initiative for the simple reason that draconian orders are bound to make India Inc recalcitrant towards change. Public-private partnership involves a high degree of trust. If the corporate sector is led to believe that the Government does not have faith in its ability or willingness or both to deliver on affirmative action - subscribing to which will make it a part of a historical process in which the Government itself has been a most spectacular failure (after all, the Constitution had mandated the end of reservation after the unprivileged sections of society had gained more than a toehold in the system) - then it is obvious that they are working at cross-purposes. Ideally, the Government should leave the responsibility to produce results at the doors of the National Council for Affirmative Action, which in turn can create the office of ombudsman to oversee the implementation of the programme. Government must consider giving incentives against success stories; and not threaten the use of the rod for failures.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
Is this the thin end of the wedge?
Shortly after the UPA Government dropped its proposal to draft a legislation making reservation in the private sector mandatory following a veritable tsunami of public criticism, comes the initiative by the <b>Department of Industrial Policy and Planning that calls for compulsory provision of details in regard to lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees in the private sector. If the DPP were to have its way, the auditing of a company's financial performance during a year would be considered incomplete if it fails to provide the precise number of SC/ST employees on its rolls.</b> It is obvious that what the Government failed to achieve by way of legislation, it is now disingenuously trying to attain through prescribing coercive rules that are against the very spirit of affirmative action: Something that India Inc has repeatedly emphasised its commitment to. Clearly, then, it is a Government that believes in headcounts at the drop of a hat, and the country's business leaders are well within their rights to oppose such a harebrained proposal. Indeed, there is no need of such an "initiative" when the corporate sector has agreed to make voluntary disclosure of such information. Affirmative action is not a process that is supposed to deliver overnight results; indeed, its success depends largely on calibrated moves and decisions that do not upset the existing corporate structures. The success of affirmative action also depends on enthusiastic support and participation by the corporate sector, which is bound to take a dim view of the issues in question if the Government continues to send out diktats that are more like those coming from a nanny state than the one that believes in liberalisation. Indeed, the DPP's attempt at control shows that the<b> Government continues to believe in playing the "big brother" - the erstwhile maai-baap sarkar that brought the nation to virtual penury in 1991.</b>
It is still not too late for the Government to reconsider its so-called initiative for the simple reason that draconian orders are bound to make India Inc recalcitrant towards change. Public-private partnership involves a high degree of trust. If the corporate sector is led to believe that the Government does not have faith in its ability or willingness or both to deliver on affirmative action - subscribing to which will make it a part of a historical process in which the Government itself has been a most spectacular failure (after all, the Constitution had mandated the end of reservation after the unprivileged sections of society had gained more than a toehold in the system) - then it is obvious that they are working at cross-purposes. Ideally, the Government should leave the responsibility to produce results at the doors of the National Council for Affirmative Action, which in turn can create the office of ombudsman to oversee the implementation of the programme. Government must consider giving incentives against success stories; and not threaten the use of the rod for failures.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->