<b>Increase in quota will divide nation: SC</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->âThe last caste census was done in 1931â and âall census since 1951 have break-up of population based on religion onlyâ not caste. Referring to the Constitution which provided reservation for only SC/STs and that too for a period of 10 years commencing 1951, the petitioner contended that the SC/ST reservation of 15 and 7.5 per cent respectively âhas been extended indefinitelyâ and now, another ânew sectionâ of the citizenry, OBC, not sanctioned by the Constitution, has been added âwith a political viewâ.
According to the petition, the OBC list has been increased further with some 3,200 castes being included.
âMandal Commission had fixed OBC population in India at 52% based on fictitious data. In case we add SC/ST (24.4 per cent), Muslims (13 per cent), Christians (2.4 per cent) and Sikh, upper caste population in India should be only 6 per cent which is quite ridiculous,â it stated. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tamil Nadu tops in OBC population with almost three-fourth of the entire population in the State falling in this category. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have heard many times that in TN there is almost 70% reservation. Is there a breakdown availble for each category wth their population percentages ? Also I saw a figure somewhere that talked about a probability of diff categories of students getting admissions - is that % available for TN ?
Also the kids leading the agitation have to be cynical about anything the govt or any of the SC justices say. Especially statements like..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On studentsâ demand for review committee, Union Minister Oscar Fernandes says âgovt has taken note of this demand and will get it examinedâ<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
need to be considered as pure BS. This statement from Chamcha #1 is like showing middle finger.
I don't understand, after 70% of reservation, and practically kicking out upper caste, why TN OBC still consider themselves backward class. If they consider birth is only critera to identify, then they are the one who encouraging this system and enjoying perks of victim syndrome.
More than half of population should be out of backward class based on reservation by now.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->TN is being shown as an example of how reservations work .<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why after decades of 70% reservation no change in percentage?
This 70% will stay forever. % should go down, if creamy layer are not getting benefits.
Do you think upper caste from non creamy layer had this advantage?
Tomorrow lower caste bad student fails to get proper job, his kids will be back in quota pocket. So where is the solution?
On paper show divorce and mother can get all benefits for children.
This quota nonsense should stop, with growing economy this will improve much faster than quota. Quota restricts some section of society to compete.
I don't understand how this will remove caste system. If economical backwardness is prime reason, benefit should be given to all economically backward class.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Karan Thapar</b>: <i>In which case, lets ask a few basic questions. We are talking about the reservations for the OBCs in particular. Do you know what percentage of the Indian population is OBC? Mandal puts it at 52 per cent, the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) at 32 per cent, the National Family and Health Survey at 29.8 per cent, which is the correct figure?</i>
<b>Arjun Singh</b>: I think that should be decided by people who are more knowledgeable. But the point is that the OBCs form a fairly sizeable percentage of our population. <i>This is an ok answer. AS is still AS.</i>
<b>Karan Thapar</b>: <i>No doubt, but the reason why it is important to know 'what percentage' they form is that if you are going to have reservations for them, then you must know what percentage of the population they are, otherwise you don't know whether they are already adequately catered to in higher educational institutions or not.</i> <i>Was he giggling when he asked this ?</i>
<b>Arjun Singh</b>: That is obvious - they are not. <i>There is a slight discomfort here.</i>
<b>Karan Thapar</b>: <i>Why is it obvious?</i>
<b>Arjun Singh</b>: Obvious because it is something which we all see. <i> OK he walks right in. </i>
<b>Karan Thapar</b>: <i>Except for the fact that the NSSO, which is a government appointed body, has actually in its research in 1999 - which is the most latest research shown - that 23.5 per cent of all university seats are already with the OBCs. And that is just 8.5 per cent less than what the NSSO believes is the OBC share of the population. So, for a difference of 8 per cent, would reservations be the right way of making up the difference?</i> <i> OK he walks right in. </i>
<b>Arjun Singh:</b> I wouldn't like to go behind all this because, as I said, Parliament has taken a view and it has taken a decision, I am a servant of Parliament and I will only implement.
<b>Karan Thapar:</b> <i>Absolutely, Parliament has taken a view, I grant it. But what people question is the simple fact - Is there a need for reservations? If you don't know what percentage of the country is OBC and if, furthermore, the NSSO is correct in pointing out that already 23.5 per cent of the college seats are with the OBC, then you don't have a case in terms of need.</i> <i> I am sure he was giggling here - he couldnt have said it with a straight face. </i>
<b>Arjun Singh:</b> College seats, I don't know. <i> Can you spell A-S-S ? </i>
<b>Karan Thapar:</b> <i>According to the NSSO - which is a government appointed body - 23.5 per cent of the college seats are already with the OBCs.</i>
<b>Arjun Singh:</b> What do you mean by college seats? <i>Â Boss I am HR minister onlee - I am responsible for developing human resources of 1 billion people - such trivial matters as 'college seats' dont bother me. </i>
<b>Karan Thapar:</b> <i>University seats, seats of higher education.</i> <i> He aint giggling here - he must be on the floor. </i>
<b>Arjun Singh:</b> Well, I don't know I have not come across that so far.
<b>Karan Thapar:</b> <i>So, when critics say to you that you don't have a case for reservation in terms of need, what do you say to them?</i>
<b>Arjun Singh</b>: I have said what I had to say and the point is that that is not an issue for us to now debate. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At this point, it is apparent that no one from the garbage UPA or leftist scoundrels or lefttist scoundrel journalists are interested in any facts. They want to browbeat and insult people into submission by slander and agree upon reservations.
See the following nonsense by loser b*astard Ninod Mehta from outlookindia:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My purpose is to point out that the passion-charged street power and the virulent rhetoric against reservations should be seen as part of a larger, disturbing pattern. India's smug, selfish, self-centred, satiated middle class, fattened on the fruits of the booming economy, is positively hostile to any policy which sets out to empower the poor.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have no facts. As soon as you ask them questions such as
What is OBC?
How much % of OBC is there?
What do you wnat to achieve by giving seats in IIT/IIM/AIIMS? How do you uplift them?
Do you jeopardize these instittions?
How does this help half a billion poor in miserable conditions by giving them 5 or 10,000 seats in research institutes?
How come even with 22.5% of SC/ST reservation, we have millions of them in poverty?
How come those SC/ST seats are all not filled even in Delhi Univ?
How does this help them get quality education upto high school?
What percent of people in higher institutions are OBC?
By spending 100 billion rupees for increasing seats without any planning, what will you do to investment in primary education?
How will you get staff in one year to support 50% seat increase?
They know the purpose of reservation. It is symbolic. They know they can achieve nothing by giving 1000 seats in IITs. It is to divide Indian society especially Hindu society further to pit caste against caste to destroy BJP. It is to maek sure UPA wins in UP. They know once reservation is approved, no party can take it away. A majority of them want to do this to build Gandhi DIE-NASTY.
Once they successfully achieve this, they will come with a big stick to kill Indian private sector. That is their BIG target for next general elections. If this reservations goes through smoothly, ITALIAN SONIA will pursue PRIVATE SECTOR reservation a year before general elections to destroy India totally. All these MORNOS such as VINOD MEHTA will villify industry leaders such as Narayana Murthy to destroy the liberalization. It is their main target.
We will see how successful Indian students will be in fighting because no one can fight the Govt. for private sector.
05-31-2006, 01:32 AM (This post was last modified: 05-31-2006, 06:24 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
I also don't understand how this is "empowering the poor", how many OBC's are actually in dire poverty?, as far as I know in most cases OBC's are actually the dominant castes in many states and own most of the land, for example I think Patel's come under OBC category but how many of them are actually in dire poverty?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Medicos unhappy, refuse to call off agitation
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
<b>Govt hardens stand after SC directive</b> ---- After the Supreme Court's directive and the Health Ministry's strong words failed to convince medicos to call off their strike, in a sudden late night development, a heavy police force was sent to AIIMS to end the deadlock.Â
According to sources, as many as 500 police personnel reached AIIMS on Tuesday night to force out agitating doctors from its premises. Senior officers were also present at the spot.
Late night television reports said the police removed the striking medicos' tents from AIIMS premises. These include the parallel OPD tents.
"We will not call off our strike. We are in consultation with legal experts to decide what our next move would be," said Dr Vidya Nair, Youth For Equality.
"Even if we are pressurised to call off the strike in the name of crippling medical services, we would find an alternative to continue the strike. Under no circumstances the strike would not be called off, we are fighting for a cause," said another medico.
Meanwhile, Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss said, "medical services will not be affected at any cost. We are asking Army and railways doctors to step-in to meet the contingency." But he ruled out further negotiation with the students or invoking ESMA to rein in the erring doctors
Congress vs Congress
Posted online: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 0000 hrs Print Email
Rajiv asked the right quota questions; crudely brushing them aside is sabotage from within
The Congress â both party and government â have been at the receiving end of some searching queries ever since HRD Minister Arjun Singh decided to experiment with the politics of quotas. It has now fallen upon the Supreme Court to raise two important ones: One, will not these OBC reservations divide a nation along lines of caste? Two, on what basis has the government arrived at the norm of fixing 27 per cent for OBC reservations? Two basic questions that the UPA government should have asked itself.
Soniaâs wake-up call to her ministers: Help build the partyIts team in tatters, Cong scores own goals in Punjab to give Akalis the lead After his exit, Natwar wants old leaders to make way for youngJogic posturesSonia confidence halts anti-PM move
Itâs a pity it chose not to do this. In one of those strange coincidences of history, it appears that these two questions are the very ones that Rajiv Gandhi had raised when the V.P. Singh government frog-marched the nation into the Mandal I mess. An Express report has just pointed out that Rajiv Gandhi â as Leader of Opposition â had emphatically come out against the attempt being made by V.P. Singh to divide the country in order to rule it. While committing himself to affirmative action, Rajiv Gandhi had argued that such action should be so designed as to reach the poorest and weakest within the socially and educationally backward classes. Like the Supreme Court today, he also had wondered whether the data and information behind the Mandal recommendations were sound and credible. If the UPA government had shown a little more deliberation, or had even cared to acquaint itself with the concerns raised by one of its prime ministers 16 years ago, it may have perhaps trodden a more circumspect path on OBC quotas.
The irony is that even the political dividend the Congress Party hopes to garner out of its latest move may prove fatally counter-productive. Social scientists have often pointed out that the Congress became the centrepiece of the post-independence political system in the country because of its distinctive âhold-allâ appeal. The Nehruvian consensus, which had once informed the core of the Grand Old Party, meant that it could hold variegated ideas and ideologies together; that it could be all things to all people. In fact the partyâs most significant decline was coterminous with the rise of the twin-forces of Mandir and Mandal I. Today, as it attempts to ride the Mandal II juggernaut, it risks unleashing the very forces that had once driven it into a political cul-de-sac.
Quotas are not the issue
Donât worry about a shortage of seats in higher education, but about the quality
Everyone flags or rather flogs Indiaâs demographic dividend now. Populations in developed countries are aging. China is also graying. Where in the world will you get a population with a median age of 24? The dependency ratio will drop by another five percentage points in the next few years. Even if Indiaâs savings (and investment) rates are below East Asian levels, this human capital will propel India into the 8 per cent-plus growth trajectory. In some countries in East Asia, this demographic transition added two incremental percentage points to GDP growth. Why canât India replicate this? However, for this demographic dividend not to turn into a demographic deficit, we need literacy, skills and lower levels of morbidity and mortality. We need health and education, the kinds of targets set out in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In addition, most of this demographic dividend will accrue in the Hindi heartland, where present health and education indicators are the worst. Forget health for the moment and let us focus on education, in all its three variants â school, vocational and higher, with an emphasis on the higher segment.
Is higher education desirable? Of course it is, although not everyone gets into higher education, provided a sensible exit point exists at the vocational and school-leaving stage. Returns to higher education are considerable, in the 20 per cent-plus range. Based on enrolment ratios in some countries in East Asia, the targeted official enrolment figure in higher education seems to be 10 per cent and we are at 8 per cent now, up from 6 per cent at the beginning of the Tenth Plan (2002-07).
First ask, is there a shortage of seats in higher education? The temptation is to believe there is a shortage, since at this time of the year there is a scramble for seats. But in a macro sense, there is no shortage, there is excess supply. Ignoring polytechnics and other institutions that award diplomas and certificates, there are 217 universities, 74 deemed universities, 13 institutions of national importance, 85 research institutes, 9,427 general colleges, 1,068 engineering, technical and architecture colleges, 783 medical colleges, 900 teacher training colleges and 1,991 other colleges. The enrolment in higher education is 10 million. Assume any reasonable figure for capacity in these institutions of higher education and work backwards. You will find that we can easily handle an enrolment of 15 million, without adding a single institution of higher education or a single seat. Obvious points are often missed and so is this one. Because most of these institutions offer junk, there is no demand for seats there. And there is excess demand for a few that offer quality. Thatâs where the scramble is.
Most producers produce services that have no demand. And there is a shortage of producers for services the market wants. Didnât we confront a similar problem for manufacturing before 1991? Didnât we have a shortage economy then, thanks to licensing, resulting in lack of competition, bad quality, high costs and inferior service? Traditionally, the response to shortages was to impose price controls, quotas and rationing. This deterred fresh investments and reinforced shortages and the vicious cycle went on. The world of manufacturing has changed since then. When we think of higher education, we must recognise that more than 80,000 Indian students have headed for the US and many more elsewhere. For obvious reasons, these students come from richer sections of society. We canât insist that US embassies have an OBC quota for student visas. Indian institutions are setting up shop abroad and not all of them require permission from HRD ministry. We canât insist they have an OBC quota when they function in Dubai. In calendar year 2005, FDI out of India exceeded FDI into India and this was largely because of higher transaction costs of doing business in India. Indian institutions of higher education have a comparative advantage. Do we want them to set up shop abroad instead of in India? Through WTO negotiations, higher education will eventually be opened up. Donât we want domestic providers to be equipped to handle the competition?
This isnât quite a digression. The point is that whenever we think of higher education, we tend to think of it as a public good that must be provided by the state, because there are market failures. Economists have a technical definition of a public good. By no stretch of the imagination is higher education a public good. Nor is this sector one where there is market failure, with private sector entry and provisioning impossible. The problem lies in licensing restrictions that constrain private sector entry through HRD ministry, UGC, AICTE, Medical Council, Bar Council and so on, barring a few areas. Given asymmetry of information, one does need regulation, but licensing is not the same as regulation. If one is interested in broadening access, improving quality and providing services linked to what the market wants, the appropriate policy response is to trigger supply-side responses, instead of presuming the public sector has to deliver higher education. Expenditure on education may very well need to be 6 per cent of GDP, and that on higher education 3 per cent, but who has said this has to be public expenditure? Even if higher education is a merit good that warrants subsidies for the poor, the private sector, in India and elsewhere, does offer cross-subsidies. And there are better ways of routing public subsidies also. In this entire quota debate, we are not attempting to solve the root of the problem.
Consider, for example, data on entry into IITs, which shouldnât be too difficult to process, since it already exists. Let us look at cross-classification of entrants based on their caste backgrounds and as functions of whether their schooling was in government or in private schools. I am prepared to bet that deprivation and inequity of access will be higher for government schools. If we are rational, that should tell us something not only about correlates of backwardness but also about how public policy should be formulated. Instead, we will be preoccupied with quotas in public institutions of higher education and eventually, when we realise this hasnât worked, we will want to extend such quotas to private institutions.
05-31-2006, 06:16 AM (This post was last modified: 05-31-2006, 06:17 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Patels are not OBC in Gujarat. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rajesh I was going by the news reports I read, for example this one:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This time too, the BSP has fielded an OBC, Pradeep Patel, and is expected to improve on its performance.
<b>Delhi docs end anti-quota strike, resume duties</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Faced with a stern warning from the Supreme Court, resident doctors of four premier medical colleges of Delhi on Wednesday night called off their 20-day-old anti-quota strike and resumed duties immediately.
They, however, will continue to support the agitation waged by medicos against the Government proposal to provide 27 per cent reservation to OBCs in elite educational institutions.
"We welcome the pro-active judgement by the Supreme Court and reaffirm our full faith in the judiciary. The RDAs of AIIMS, MAMC, Safdarjung, Lady Hardinge, RML, DDU and IHBAS hereby resume duties with immediate effect in the interest patients care," AIIMS RDA President Vinod Patra said.
<b>Students of many medical colleges, however, have decided to continue with the agitation, called to oppose the introduction of 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in elite educational institutions.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->