Bid to placate a caste group
BRP Bhaskar Gulf Today Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to provide reservation on economic grounds to poor persons belonging to the so-called upper castes is aimed at boosting his Bharatiya Janata Party’s prospects in the approaching general election. The bill to amend the Constitution for the purpose had a smooth passage because few parties were willing to invite the hostility of a powerful social group which constitutes about 15 per cent of the population. Reservation is the Indian form of affirmative action. It was introduced in the colonial period by the British in the Madras Presidency and by a few princes in their States in the wake of agitations by socially disadvantaged groups. The Constitution, promulgated in 1950, provided for reservation only for Dalits and Adivasis, the most disadvantaged groups officially classified as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively. When a member of a forward community challenged the reservation enjoyed by other backward communities in Madras on the ground that it violated the Constitutional guarantee of equality, the court struck them down. To protect the pre-existing reservations the government amended the Constitution to permit the making of special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes. The amendment opened the door to extend the benefit of reservation to socially and educationally backward groups across the country. However, neither the Centre nor any of the States did any such thing. In 1979 the Janata Party government set up a commission headed by BP Mandal to identify socially and educationally backward classes and go into the question of introducing reservation for them to mitigate the effects of caste determination. Since there was no data on the representation of backward classes other than SCs and STs in the services, the Commission gathered information from a few Central government offices. It found that they were poorly represented. The Commission recognised a caste or class as backward if the average value of assets of its families was 25 per cent below the State average and the number of families living in hutments and the number of households with consumption loans were 25 per cent above the State average. It recommended that 27 per cent of the jobs in the Central services and public undertakings be reserved for them. By the time the Commission concluded its labours the Janata government had fallen and Indira Gandhi was back at the helm. She and her son and successor Rajiv Gandhi did not act on its report. The National Front government headed by VP Singh, which was supported from outside by the BJP and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), decided to implement its recommendations. The BJP, which was against extension of reservation to more sections, immediately withdrew its support to the government. Its student wing launched a violent agitation which paralysed educational institutions in Delhi and the Hindi States. But implementation of the report, which survived judicial scrutiny, could not be stopped. The idea of reservation for the poor belonging to the forward castes was first mooted by CPI(M) ideologue EMS Namboodiripad. Many saw it as an attempt to undermine the concept of reservation as a social justice measure. Modi’s motive in pushing through economic reservation is to placate the BJP’s ‘upper’ caste constituency which has been adversely affected by his government’s failure to create jobs in adequate numbers. The criteria the government has laid down to identify the ‘upper’ caste poor are a clear giveaway. While the per capita annual income is Rs 113,000, it has decided to treat those with annual incomes of up to Rs 800,000 and landholdings of up to five acres as poor. The intention clearly is to extend the benefit of reservation to Modi’s ‘upper’ caste urban middle class supporters. Under a Supreme Court ruling, a backward class person with an annual income of Rs 250,000 belongs to the creamy layer and a second generation member of his family is not entitled to reservation. As against a job quota of 27 per cent for the backward classes who constitute 52 per cent of the population, the government has proposed a 10 per cent quota for the ‘upper’ castes, who constitute 15 per cent of the population. Another Supreme Court verdict has put a 50 per cent cap on reservations. The new 10 per cent quota will take reservations above that ceiling. Those who view reservation in terms of social justice are turning to the court to squash reservation based on economic considerations. The court may disappoint them. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, January 15, 2019.

The Hardik Patel phenomenon

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

An estimated half a million members of Gujarat’s powerful Patel community turned up at a rally in the city of Ahmedabad last week to cheer a young leader who has been in public life for just a few months. Sections of the media hailed him as the new Sardar, an allusion to Vallabhbhai Patel, the tallest Gujarati freedom-fighter after Gandhi and the most powerful minister after Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in free India’s first government.

Vallabhbhai Patel was not an instant hero. A barrister at law, he organised successful non-violent agitations by peasants of Gujarat before Gandhi conferred on him the title of Sardar.

Thanks to the social media and the vast resources he commands as the champion of the interests of a community whose members have made good in business at home and abroad, Hardik Patel, 22, who comes from a family of Bharatiya Janata Party loyalists, got to the top in a jiffy.

His sole demand is reservation for the Patels in educational institutions and government jobs. Under the Constitution, the government can make special provisions for “socially and educationally backward classes”. It is not easy to squeeze into that term the Patels who reportedly own 70 per cent of the state’s small and medium enterprises.

Chief Minister Anandiben Patel, herself a member of the community, said the demand could not be conceded as the Supreme Court had set a 50 per cent cap on reservations. As much as 49.5 per cent has been dished out to various communities already.

The Patel community was solidly behind the BJP when its student wing launched a violent agitation against the Central government’s 1990 decision to accept the Mandal Commission recommendation and extend reservation, which until then was limited to the Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and the Scheduled Tribes (Adivasis), to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) as well.

The Mandal Commission was appointed by the Janata Party government, of which the BJP’s earlier avatar, Jana Sangh, was a part. It estimated that the OBCs constitute 52 per cent of the population.

The Patel agitation turned violent following a wholly unwarranted police intervention, which resulted in nine deaths. The state imposed curfew on some towns and deployed paramilitary forces to restore order.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a televised appeal for calm. He said violence could not solve any problem and offered to find a solution through talks.

Political pundits are now trying to find answers to questions thrown up by the Hardik Patel phenomenon. How could he suddenly emerge from nowhere and hold the state to ransom? Has he been set up by unseen forces with an agenda of their own? Does he really want reservation for his community or is he queering the pitch for abolition of reservation?

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ideologue MG Vaidya and Vishwa Hindu Parishad President Pravin Togadia took the opportunity provided by the Patel revolt to call for an end to reservation.

Some powerful communities in other states were able to pressure governments into granting them reservation but the courts have blocked it.

The previous Central government classified the Jats, who are a big force in the states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi, as an OBC. The Supreme Court scrapped the order.

The Maharashtra government sanctioned 16 per cent reservation to the Maratha community, which owns much of the land in the state and has provided 12 of the last 17 chief ministers. The High Court has stayed the order, pending detailed examination.

The Gujjars of Rajasthan, who have one per cent OBC reservation, are on an agitation seeking five per cent reservation as a Scheduled Tribe.

One explanation for the demand for reservation from castes with political clout is that they find that children belonging to castes which enjoy the benefit of reservation are gaining a lead over their own children in the job market by acquiring professional education.

Hardik Patel went to Delhi on Sunday to meet Jat and Gujjar leaders. His reference to Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu as “our people” indicates that a broad national coalition of middle castes may be on his mind.

There are several regional and small national parties which draw support from such social groups. By and large, they are secular in outlook. They are unlikely to come under the spell of a wayward child of Hindutva like Hardik Patel. -- Gulf Today, September 1, 2015.

Problems of affirmative action

BRP Bhaskar

Gulf Today

The Supreme Court recently struck down the Centre’s decision to place the powerful Jat community of northern India in the “Other Backward Classes” category to make its members eligible for reservation in the services and in educational institutions. The decision was taken by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government last year with an eye to the Lok Sabha poll.

Also last year the Congress-led government of Maharashtra, through an ordinance, gave the powerful Maratha community of the state and the Muslims reservation of 16 per cent and five per cent respectively. The Bombay high court, acting on a writ petition, stayed the decision, pending detailed scrutiny. The BJP-led state government, which came to power last October, scrapped reservation for Muslims but retained it for the Marathas.

Reservation in educational institutions and government service for socially disadvantaged communities, introduced by Shahuji Maharaj, who was Maharaja of Kolhapur from 1900 to 1922, is the first known instance of affirmative action in the world. Under pressure from the South Indian Liberal Federation, better known as the Justice Party, the British introduced reservation for non-Brahmins in the Madras presidency. Princely states like Baroda, Mysore and Travancore also took affirmative action.

Initially the beneficiaries of reservation were determined solely on the basis of caste since social disabilities were a direct consequence of the caste system. The Constitution adopted after the country became free limited such privileges to Dalits and Adivasis. Two Brahmin petitioners from Madras challenged reservation for non-Brahmins in the court on the ground that it is against the equality provision of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld their contention. Thereupon the Centre amended the Constitution to permit special provisions for socially and economically backward classes of people.

Successive governments at the Centre and in most northern states took no steps in pursuance of this provision until Prime Minister VP Singh decided in 1989 to grant 27 per cent reservation to other backward classes (OBCs) on the basis of the Mandal Commission report, which had been gathering dust for a decade. The decision led to widespread protests by students belonging to the so-called upper castes and the BJP brought the government down by withdrawing its support.

The Supreme Court upheld the extension of reservation to OBCs. It frowned on caste-based reservation but said caste could be a factor in determining the backwardness of a group. While deciding other related cases, it set a 50 per cent ceiling on reservations and ordered exclusion of the creamy layer, comprising second generation of families which have benefited from reservation and families with incomes above a prescribed limit.

There are no data to determine the level of backwardness of any group. Since collection of data on caste was stopped after the 1931 census, even the number of persons belonging to different caste groups is not known. Following widespread demand, the UPA government ordered a caste count but its results have not been published.

In the absence of reliable data, it has been easy for leaders of caste organisations, which serve as vote banks, to make exaggerated claims either to secure benefits for themselves or to deny them to others. The grant of reservation to Jats, who are a major force in the politics of half a dozen states, and to Marathas, who have dominated Maharashtra politics since the state’s formation in 1960 and provided more than half of its 18 chief ministers, are examples of wrong decisions taken to appease large groups.

While reservation has helped disadvantaged groups to move forward, few communities have reached the level where they can do without the crutch. The primary responsibility for this rests on the lack of sincerity of the bureaucracy, which is still dominated by erstwhile caste supremacists.

In Tamil Nadu, where reservation has been in force for nine decades, Dalits have made remarkable progress by taking advantage of reservation in educational institutions, but intermediate castes which have achieved a dominant position through the anti-Brahmin Dravidian movement are denying them a legitimate share in the power structure.

The Judiciary is one limb of the state which has not come under the affirmative action regime. Some of its decisions have attracted criticism from supporters of reservation policy.

There is a legitimate fear among the forward castes that the beneficiaries of reservation may seek to perpetuate it. The remedy for the problem lies in gathering hard data periodically and progressively reducing the reservation quota of each beneficiary group in keeping with the social and educational progress it has achieved. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, March 24, 2015.

Lag in education

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

If India fails to realise the dream of becoming a global power by the middle of the century it may be due to educational shortfall, not to economic slowdown. Formulating schemes to improve the standards of education and pushing them through the complex political system are proving to be difficult tasks.

Education is on the Concurrent List of the Constitution, which means it is an area where both the central and state governments have authority. The states are under different political parties, and national interests suffer as each of them cynically pursues its narrow and selfish interests. Intervention by the courts has sometimes complicated matters.

Improvement of higher education, in both qualitative and quantitative terms, is high on the centre’s agenda. At present only 16 out of 100 students reach university level. The centre wants to raise the number to 40, which is the prevailing rate in the developed world, by 2020. This calls for raising college enrolment, which is now about 16 million, to 45 million.

To achieve this target, the higher education sector, which comprises a little over 600 universities and 30,000 colleges, has to be expanded considerably. The centre has drawn up schemes to set up some new institutions of higher learning, modelled after the acclaimed Indian Institutes of Technology. Lacking resources to do more, it is looking up to the private sector to fill the breach.

The results of early efforts at swift expansion have been uneven. While a few private universities and colleges have done well, the performance of many has been less than satisfactory and of some downright dismal.

Many rushed into the field lured by the prospect of quick money through illegal practices like levy of capitation fees. Political patronage protects the evildoers from the law’s arms. It also helps them to expand their activities even when the institutions’ record is poor.

A few years ago, with a view to improving the quality of education, the government permitted universities to run joint degree programmes with foreign institutions. Here, too, the record has not been uniformly good. Last month the University Grants Commission stipulated that only an institution given A grade by a national accreditation agency can enter into collaboration and that the foreign partner must be one of 500 institutions figuring in the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings or Shanghai Rankings.

Phil Baty, Editor of THE Rankings, has cautioned India against relying too much on the rather crude global ranking tables which reduce universities and their diverse missions and strengths to a single composite score in view of its need for institutions of higher education with different missions and social roles.

At a bilateral meet on higher education, held recently, India sought US investment in this sector. Given current economic realities, a practical proposition may be to envision trilateral projects with a cash-rich third country joining as both financier and beneficiary.

Baty’s comment underscores the need for India to pay special attention to the needs of the people who bear the burden of centuries of social exclusion. A National Sample Survey conducted three years ago showed that while 27.7 per cent of those in the age group of 18-22 years attended institutions of higher education, some categories like villagers (18.7%), the Scheduled Castes (17.3%), Muslims (16.1%) and the Scheduled Tribes (14.1%) did not have equal access to them.

Analysts have pointed out that students belonging to the backward classes, who constitute 45 per cent of the population, would not have received more than 17 per cent of the seats if there were no reservation for them.

The judiciary’s narrow interpretation of the statute has blocked some measures taken by the government to help the socially and economically backward classes. Recently a high court struck down a government decision fixing a sub-quota for Muslims in the quota reserved for the backward classes. As the Supreme Court declined to stay the order the decision could not be implemented this year.

Social analyst Yogendra Yadav has pointed out that the national media’s biased coverage masks the harsh reality of inherited group inequalities.

Human resources remain grossly underdeveloped as large sections of people lack access to education and receive only poor quality of education when they manage to get to school. Determined efforts are needed to overcome this limitation and realise the nation’s full potential.-- Gulf Today, Sharjah, July 10, 2012.

Factors hindering progress towards Equality and Equal Opportunity

B.R.P.BHASKAR

Paper presented at the 36th annual conference of the Kerala Sociological Society held at Loyola College, Thiruvananthapuram, from November 20-22, 2009. The theme of the conference was “Social Exclusion and Inclusion: Policies, Perspectives, Response”

The terms Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion have been occurring frequently in Western discourse in the last two or three decades.

Many European countries use ‘social exclusion’ as a catch-all phrase to cover the plight of an assorted group comprising the homeless, the unemployed, the old and the infirm, disgruntled youth, immigrants etc.

In the 1990s, the Labour government in Britain set up a Social Exclusion Unit. It subsequently became the charge of a Cabinet minister.

Once governments began formulating programmes to tackle the problem of social exclusion, the concept of social inclusion gained currency.

Essentially the Western exercises are a delayed, post-modern effort to address iniquities resulting from the ruthless operation of the capitalist system. In India, social exclusion occurs not as a by-product of capitalism but as a legacy of feudalism, which is still very much with us. Sometimes it is quite visible; sometimes it is camouflaged.

In India, social exclusion has a religious dimension. All religions subscribe, at least in theory, to the principle of equality of men as the children of the same god. Hinduism is an exception. It has a powerful stream which subscribes to the view that men are born unequal.

Not that the equality principle is unknown to Hinduism. It is accepted at the philosophical level but rejected at the practical level. At the risk of oversimplifying the complex system of beliefs which originated in different times and among various peoples and were integrated under the banner of Hinduism at some point in circumstances which are not quite clear, we may attribute the inequality principle in it to the Vedic school and the equality principle to the Upanishadic school.

Following the decline of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which upheld the equality principle, social divisions solidified into a rigid caste system characterized by social exclusion. From time to time, reformers reiterated the equality principle, but the inheritors of the Vedic tradition, who dominated the social establishment, were able to maintain their sway. Successive rulers, including those of foreign origin, thought it prudent not to interfere in the social system, unless there were compelling reasons to do so, as in the case of practices like the sati.

The Constitution, promulgated in 1950, signified the first attempt in many centuries by an Indian state to enforce the equality principle.

While the effects of centuries of exclusion have been mitigated to some extent during the past six decades, not even the stoutest defender of the Constitution can claim that the goals of equality and equal opportunity have been realized.

Lately, there have emerged, all across the country, unmistakable signs of deep resentment among the victims of social exclusion at the tardy progress in the fulfilment of the constitutional promise. At some places the resentment has developed into violent challenges. The state and the society can ignore these signs only at their peril.

Why are we not able to get rid of this burden of the feudal past? Any inquiry in this regard must begin with a close look at the nature of the Indian system of social exclusion as well as character of the Indian state and the society.

Caste offers no exit option. The system has been a boon to some and a curse to others. While the hierarchical system that arose in other lands divided people into two broad categories, the privileged and the underprivileged, the caste system provided for graded inequality, which divided the underprivileged masses into numerous categories and subjected them to varying degrees of exclusion.

This prevented the victims from coming together and making common cause. Most victims also had the vicarious satisfaction that there were people who were worse off than themselves.

Such a system cannot be dismantled by a stroke of the pen. It is as natural for its beneficiaries to strive to hold on to the boon as it is for its victims to struggle to shake off the curse.

The state, which has to implement the constitutional mandate of equality and equal opportunity, is a colonial institution, which was created in the feudal era and has a record of safeguarding the interests of the privileged sections.

The peaceful transfer of power, which occurred in 1947, brought about a change at the top. It did not involve any changes in the structure itself. There was a change of rulers but the colonial apparatus, dominated by inheritors of the Vedic tradition, remained intact.

The inheritors of the Vedic tradition were able to maintain their supremacy in the limbs of the state even after Independence by virtue of the advantages which the caste system had bestowed on them for centuries.

An academic study published in 1971 showed that 34.18% of those recruited to the Indian Administrative Service between 1947 and 1956 and 36.32% of those recruited between 1957 and 1963 were Brahmins, who formed only four per cent of the population. (V. Subramaniam, “Social Background of India’s Administrators”, Publications Division, New Delhi, 1971. Table 7)

As many as 86.70% of those recruited between 1947 and 1956 and 88.45% of those recruited between 1957 and 1963 were Hindus. While these figures may suggest that Hindus, who constituted 84% of the population, received adequate representation, there is reason to suspect that those at the higher end of the social hierarchy appropriated the jobs at stake.

Of those recruited during 1947-56, only 0.63% belonged to the Scheduled Castes. During 1957-63, the Scheduled Castes’ share rose to 9.04%. This clearly was a result of the implementation of the constitutional provision of reservation. The table is silent on the share of backward classes.

Muslims, who accounted for 10.69% of the population, constituted only 2.53% and 1.28% of the recruits during the relevant periods. These figures suggest a decline in Muslim presence in the higher bureaucracy in the years of Independence.


To begin with, the Constitution provided for reservation only for the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, who were at the very bottom of the social pyramid. The Supreme Court ruled that the benefit of reservation available to members of other castes in some states since before Independence violated the constitutional provisions. To save such reservation, Parliament amended the Constitution to permit special provisions for all socially and economically backward classes.

One reason for the tardy progress is the state’s tendency to continue in its state of rest (or uniform motion) unless compelled by forces acting upon it.

When it is compelled to act, the state limits its response to the very minimum required to buy peace and returns to the state of rest (or uniform motion) at the earliest. The lackadaisical approach to the Mandal Commission’s report is a classic example of this.

The Constitution accords primacy to social justice. This is evident from the way Justice, social, economic and political has been put in, ahead of Equality, Fraternity and Liberty, while enumerating the nation’s objectives in the Preamble.

The Judiciary has a fair record in the dispensation of political justice. In the matter of economic justice, its record is less lustrous, and in the matter of social justice even less so. A rich and powerful litigant can get judges to meet at night to dispense justice. That privilege is not available to a Dalit.

Quite often the Establishment approaches the problem of social exclusion from a wrong angle. Mahatma Gandhi, who put the spotlight on the Dalit situation, caused incalculable harm by placing it in the religious context. His solutions, which sidestepped the issue of equality and equal opportunity, betrayed elements of feudal patronage.

The formula evolved by the Congress and continued by other mainstream parties, while ensuring representation for Dalits in the limbs of the state, has remained at the level of tokenism. It has not led to equality or empowerment.

Kerala, which stands on par with advanced Western countries in social development, is also afflicted by social exclusion of the feudal kind, probably to a greater degree than even some backward states of the country.

The land reform in Kerala, which resulted from initiatives of the Communist movement, did not call for any significant change in the social structure. The tenants who benefited by it belonged to the higher echelons.

Land reform benefited some people at the lower levels too. They were people whom the Establishment was ready to accommodate. They did not include the Dalits, who were landless farm workers. They remain landless to this day. With farms disappearing, they are losing their means of livelihood. That is why they are crying for land to till.

Some among Kerala’s Dalits have found their way into the mainstream through education. When the nation was ready to accept a Dalit as President, this state supplied an eminently qualified candidate. Again, it was this state that provided the first Dalit Chief Justice of India.

The emergence of a couple of illustrious personalities must not blind us to the fact that the vast majority of Kerala’s Dalits are living precariously in shanties, with no land or assets of any other kind.

Dalit columnist Chandrabhan Prasad pointed out a few years ago that landlessness among farm workers in Kerala was higher than in Uttar Pradesh. According to the 1991 Census, which he cited, 53.79% of Dalit and 55.47% of Adivasi farm workers in the state were landless. The national average was 49.6% for Dalits and 32.99% for Adivasis. In Uttar Pradesh, only 38.79% of Dalits were landless. (Adivasis form only a negligible 0.1% of the state’s population).

Developmental activity of every kind brings hardships to some and benefits to some others. Such hardships are a price that has to be paid to obtain the benefits. It is the socially excluded who pay the price and it is the socially included who reap the benefits. The Adivasis of Madhya Pradesh have paid the price for the benefits that will accrue to the farmers of Gujarat from the Narmada Valley project.

Socio-economic advance often results in loss of traditional jobs and creation of new jobs. The jobs that are lost are almost always those of the socially excluded. The jobs that are created almost always go to the socially included.

In Europe, as the post-war economy grew, the demand for unskilled and semi-skilled labour rose. The needs of industry and the labour market combined to help promote social inclusion.

With the Indian economy booming, can we look forward to a similar development? Theoretically, yes, we can. But, in practice, this may not happen. Experience shows that the dominant sections, which have a vested interest in keeping the boon the caste system conferred on them centuries ago, will go to any lengths to prevent the emergence of a level playing ground.

Affirmative action is now limited to the state sector. There, too, it does not extend to some important areas like the Judiciary and the Armed Forces. Is it any wonder that the judges of the Supreme Court are overly fond of Manu, the mythical law-giver?

Thanks to painstaking research done by K. P. Jayaswal, a renowned scholar in Sanskrit and Law, in the early part of the last century, we know that Manusmriti is the work of one Sumati Bhargava, a member of the Bhrigu clan. It was written during the Sunga period (185 to 73 BC) to reinforce the Brahmin dynasty’s efforts to wipe out the equality norms of the Buddhist period and make the Brahmin the ‘lord of everything’.

A few centuries later, Yagnavalkya, another Brahmin, wrote a new code, which reduced the fanatical penances of Manu to very reasonable limits and raised the position of the Sudra.

According to Jayaswal, Yagnavalkya’s code bears the stamp of the kindly conscience bequeathed by Buddhism. It made penances and punishments less severe. Laws about women were brought in conformity with their social position, already immensely raised by Buddhism. Their right of inheritance was fully admitted.

All this certainly did not make the Yagnavalkya Code very modern. As Jayaswal puts it, “Yagnavalkya with his progressive tendency still retains orthodox conservatism.” He avers Yagnavalkya’s Code may be taken to have repealed and replaced Manu’s Code throughout the land of Aryan civilization.

Yet it is by Manu, and not by Yagnavalkya, that the votaries of Hindutva swear. The reason is simple. Manu offers the best chance of preserving their privileged position.

Why do Supreme Court judges invoke Manu’s name more often than that of Yagnavalkya, whose code stands closer to the Constitution that they are committed to uphold than to Manu’s?

We have to turn to history for the answer to this question. Faced with a spate of litigation involving local people, Warren Hastings set up committees to help the English East India Company with Hindu Law and Mohammedan Law. The experts on Hindu Law that he found in Bengal were all followers of the Vedic tradition. To them Manu’s word was law.

The way Manu overcame Yagnavalkya and holds sway over the Hindu establishment to this day deserves to be noted. It illustrates how the overwhelming desire to perpetuate their privileges finds expression even in the modern period.

Coming back to the present, we have to realistically take note of the deteriorating situation of the socially excluded.

Under the impact of globalization, the role of the state is dwindling. As the state shrinks in size, the area open to the socially excluded will also shrink. It is, therefore, necessary to open up new avenues for them.

Captains of industry have cold-shouldered proposals to extend affirmative action to the private sector. Their opposition is based on the vaunted principle of merit. However, it is to be noted that many among them, too, are inheritors of the Vedic tradition, which sanctified social exclusion.

Time is running out. So far the movements of the socially excluded to assert their rights of equality and equal opportunity have, by and large, remained within constitutional limits. If the upholders of the status quo fail to change their mind-set and confront the problem of social exclusion truthfully, the challenge may increasingly assume violent proportions.

Myths about reservation

Nearly six decades after the Constitution of India came into effect, its proclaimed goal of equality and equal opportunity remains a distant dream.

Measures taken in furtherance of the constitutional provisions have not borne fruit primarily because those charged with the task of implementing them have not acted with due diligence.

Lately, provisions designed to help Dalits and other backward classes to catch up with the rest have come under attack on the ground that they work against the interests of the advanced sections.

The arguments against these provisions run as follows:
--The only way to create a casteless society is to adopt casteless policies.
--Reservation tends to undermine the self-esteem of the backward classes
--Support for reservation means support for procedures that favour unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.

The affirmative action policy in the United States, designed to help the non-white peoples, has also attracted similar criticism.

At the root of such criticism are bias and intolerance resulting from deep-rooted prejudice.

UnderstandingPrejudice.org, established in 2002 with funding from the National Science Foundation and McGraw-Hill Higher Education, has been offering educational resources and information on prejudice, discrimination, multiculturalism, and diversity, with a view to reducing the level of intolerance and bias in the society.

It provides more than 2,000 links to prejudice-related resources, as well as searchable databases with hundreds of prejudice researchers and social justice organizations.

One of the documents featured at the website, titled “Ten Myths About Affirmative Action”, although produced in the US context, is quite relevant in the Indian context too.

Academic untouchability?

If passed, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation in Posts and Services) Bill 2008 will bar reservations at the faculty level for SCs, STs and OBCs in 47 premier institutions, including the IITs and IIMs . Why is there no opposition to this proposal to close the doors of our premier institutions to the historically oppressed, asks Subhash Gatade in the article below, distributed by InfoChange News and Features.

SUBHASH GATADE
InfoChange News and Features

The historic Jantar Mantar in the capital city of New Delhi, which has become a sanctioned abode of protest, was witness to a dharna or sit-in protest in the first week of February which, at first glance, was indistinguishable from the many such protests held at this venue on the same day. However, the protest was of great importance because it pertained to the entitlements of dalits, tribals and Other Backward Castes (OBCs) in higher education and the manner in which the government is pushing legislation that will do away with reservation at faculty level in institutions of “national importance”. Not surprisingly, the protest was a non-event for the media. And that raises the question of why the articulate sections of our society who yearn for justice, peace and progress, have joined the conspiracy of silence about this particular issue.

The return of “academic untouchability” with the due sanction of parliament and the further legitimacy it would provide to the ‘merit’ versus ‘quota’ debate needs to be questioned and challenged uncompromisingly.

Nature of the Bill

What do Professor Sukhdeo Thorat, the present chairperson of the University Grants Commission (UGC), Dr Mungekar who is a member of the Planning Commission, and Professor Ramdayal Munda, the ex-vice chancellor of Ranchi University, have in common? The obvious answer is that all of them happen to be masters in their respective fields of work. Less well known is the fact that if newly independent India had not instituted affirmative action programmes in the form of reservation for the socially oppressed sections at various levels, it would have been very difficult for this triumvirate to prove its mettle.

If the proposed Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation in Posts and Services) Bill 2008, which was tabled and passed in the upper house, the Rajya Sabha, becomes law, then many such meritorious students coming from similar backgrounds would not be able to even think of occupying any important position on the faculties of eminent educational institutions. For the Bill talks of doing away with reservation at the faculty level for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and OBCs in institutions of “national importance”.

Close watchers of the reservation debate in our country will say that the proposal was very much in the air and there is nothing surprising about it. In fact the directors of the various Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) have been campaigning hard for the human resource development ministry to drop its proposal to reserve posts for SCs, STs and OBCs in faculty recruitment. Directors of the Indian Institutes of Managements (IIMs) have also expressed their resistance in no uncertain terms. The sole argument peddled by the directors of these prestigious institutions revolved around the supposed negative impact reservation would have on the quality of the faculty. The prime minister, during a visit to the IIT in Guwahati a few months ago, had dropped enough hints that the “concern” expressed by the various directors would be given sympathetic consideration.

It is difficult to comprehend the silence even among the self-professed champions of dalits, tribals and OBCs over this disturbing development. Is it a sign of an emergent consensus among all political parties? In the absence of any national uproar over this legislation, there is a strong possibility that the Bill, moved by the Department of Personnel and Training in the Rajya Sabha in December 2008, will be passed by the Lok Sabha. And the long cherished demand of the “institutes of national importance” that they be exempted from reservation in teaching posts will be fulfilled.

The 47 institutes that will be exempt from faculty reservation once the legislation gets parliamentary approval include the seven older IITs, the seven IIMs, Aligarh Muslim University, Allahabad University, and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Also excluded from reservations are 19 National Institutes of Technology (NITs), the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research in Pondicherry, Banaras Hindu University, Delhi University, the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, the Indian War Memorial in New Delhi and in West Bengal, Visva Bharati, the Victoria Memorial, National Library, and the Indian Museum.

Issues around reservation

Apart from closing the doors of these 47 institutions to the historically oppressed, this legislation will drive under the carpet many issues around reservation.

The non-filling of reserved seats and the rampant use of false caste certificates by non-dalits and non-tribals to snatch posts reserved for dalits and tribals, have emerged as key issues of the social movement. We have been witness to actions at the individual and collective level which have not only questioned the non-implementation of reservations but have also brought forth innumerable cases of phony dalits and fake tribals enjoying the fruits of reservation at various levels.

Vacancies in reserved posts is a serious issue. One has been witness to the strange phenomenon of reserved posts for class four jobs getting filled with “eligible candidates” but as one moves up the hierarchy one notices a reduction in filling reserved posts.

A case in point is Delhi University. In 2001, out of a total strength of 6,500 teachers, a minimum of 1,500 teachers should have been from this section of society. However, merely 100 teachers were from the reserved category at the time of the survey (which later shot up to 400). The Delhi School of Economics, which once had Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen on its faculty, fared no better; it had only one dalit teacher out of a sanctioned strength of four (1999).

The 1999-2000 report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes provided details of the total number of posts and the number of people working in the reserved posts, which provides for 15% reservation for scheduled castes and 7.5% for scheduled tribes:

Professor: BHU 1/360 (one post filled of 360), Aligarh 0/233, JNU, 2/183, Delhi University 3/332, Jamia 0/80, Visva Bharati 1/148, Hyderabad Central University 1/72

Reader: BHU 1/396, Aligarh 0/385, JNU 3/100, Delhi University 2/197, Jamia 1/128, Visva Bharati 1/70, Hyderabad Central University 2/87

Lecturer: BHU 1/329, Aligarh 0/521, JNU, 11/70, Delhi University 9/140, Jamia 1/216,
Visva Bharati 16/188, Hyderabad Central University 13/44

Even a cursory glance at the figures makes it clear that despite 50 years of the University Grants Commission, the more than 250 universities and innumerable colleges under it have not bothered to fill the 75,000 posts meant for scheduled castes. Moreover, it has turned a blind eye to the fact that people belonging to the upper castes, or other non-dalits, have occupied these positions.

There is general disapproval in varna society (that is a society based on hierarchy whose essence is purity and pollution and which has divine sanction as well. Dr Ambedkar rightly described it as a multi-storeyed structure where you are condemned to live and die in the same ‘storey’) about providing reservation to historically oppressed peoples. While in formal discussions they will praise the virtue of tolerance practised in their age-old civilisation, in practice they stick ruthlessly to the graded hierarchy preached by the lawgiver Manu.

Affirmative action in the US

Considering the fact that these practitioners of varnadharma often look to the United Sates of America as their model, it would be opportune to know how US society views its own affirmative action programme.

The affirmative action programme was launched in the US in the 1960s to provide equal opportunities to minorities, especially blacks. Its aim was to maximise the benefits of diversity in all levels of society, and to redress the disadvantages due to overt, institutional, and involuntary discrimination. It was not a gift by the US ruling classes to the blacks and other minorities, but was a fall-out of the civil rights movement led by the legendary Martin Luther King.

The year 2002 witnessed the biggest challenge in recent times to this policy when two white students who did not get admission to Michigan University went to the US Supreme Court to challenge the policy itself. They contended that they were refused admission because of the ‘discriminatory’ policy of affirmative action and therefore asked that it be scrapped. The case divided American society. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favour of continuing the policy. Interestingly, many corporate leaders, ranging from the mighty Microsoft to smaller ones, had clearly taken pro-affirmative action positions. For instance, 65 of these companies (boasting a collective revenue of well over a trillion dollars) jointly filed an amicus curiae (friends of the court) brief in the Supreme Court in 2003 in which they maintained that a racially and ethnically diverse student body is “vital” to maximising the potential of “this country's corporate and community leaders of the next half-century”.

What is “national importance”?

The debate around denial of entitlements to dalits, tribals and OBCs in higher education would be incomplete if two issues remain unaddressed.

First, one needs to expose the various mythologies around merit, which the varna society keeps peddling to buttress its case.

Second, it is important to take a hard look at the whole definition of institutions of “national importance” and show how people’s hard-earned money made available to these institutes by the public exchequer (at the cost of basic educational needs of the deprived sections) ends up creating doctors, engineers and other learned professionals, a majority (more than 50%) of whom have no qualms in immediately moving to greener pastures, especially the USA, for good. The Economist (September 26, 2002) cited an Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) survey that found that over 80% of Indian students in the US planned to stay on after completing their studies. The survey also revealed that Indian students were more likely to remain in the US after higher studies than students from any other country.
The Media Studies Group, a Delhi-based group of media professionals and social activists studied 42 batches of students who had passed out of AIIMS since its inception in 1956. It looked at where these students worked or had worked. The findings, carried in The Telegraph (December 26, 2006), revealed that more than half the graduates worked abroad, mostly in the US. Of the 2,129 students who passed out in the first 42 batches of the MBBS programme at AIIMS from its inception in 1956 to 1997, the researchers could trace 1,477. Of them, 780, or 52.81% were working abroad.

A similar picture emerged in an article in Frontline (‘The IIT Story’ by Kanta Murali, February 1-14, 2003) pertaining to IITs. The article pointed out that a glaring failure of the IIT system is that it has been unable to attract scheduled caste/tribe and women students in a progressive way. Close to half the seats reserved for SCs and STs remain vacant and of those admitted, a significant proportion, perhaps up to 25%, is obliged to drop out. Moreover, close to half the annual undergraduate output of the seven IITs, that is anything between 1,500 and 2,000 young men and women, go abroad every year — overwhelmingly to the US. It is estimated that there are some 25,000 IIT alumni in the US.

Unfulfilled promises

When the Congress-led UPA government came to power five years ago, it made all sorts of pro-social justice noises to distinguish it from the earlier dispensation. It raised the question of providing reservation in the private sector and also talked about making the atrocity laws more stringent and even announced that it would make reservation a statutory right.

The proposed Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation in Posts and Services) Bill 2008 is being projected as elevating the provisions of reservations to a statutory right and supposedly instilling a greater sense of confidence in members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. However, as discussed earlier, the Bill is based on the unreasonable presumption that those belonging to the scheduled castes and tribes are incapable of handling higher posts. It thus bars them from making any claims for adequate representation in appointments to such posts.

One can see that the Bill lacks the constitutional spirit of providing equal opportunities to all citizens. It has the potential of undoing in one stroke what has been done so far for improving the representation of SCs and STs in service by successive governments and is certainly a retrograde and regressive piece of legislation.

Subhash Gatade is a social activist, translator and writer whose writings appear regularly in Hindi and English publications and occasionally in Urdu publications. He edits a Hindi journal 'Sandhan'

How Rahul Bajaj built his empire

A few days ago, I made a reference here to a Dalit group’s call for boycott of Bajaj products. What prompted the group to issue the call was Rahul Bajaj’s opposition to reservation for Dalits and other socially and educationally backward classes of people, which is sanctioned by the Constitution of India.

"Anonymous", who posted a comment, asked, “How honest are these Great Guys in their business dealings?”

As far as Rahul Bajaj is concerned, we have his own words to go by. Returning to India with an MBA from the famed Harvard Business School in 1964, he entered the family business. Four years later, at age 30, he became CEO of the Bajaj Auto Limted, founded by his father in 1945.

Rahul Bajaj was one of five distinguished alumni whom Harvard honoured in 2005. A document in which the Harvard Business School narrates his achievements. It says the company had a licence to manufacture 20,000 scooters a year. It goes on to quote Rahul Bajaj as saying: "Ignoring a government regulation, I increased my volume by more than the permitted 25 percent of my licensed capacity. If I had to go to jail for the excess production of a commodity that most Indians needed, I didn't mind." (Italics added).

Of course, the grandson of Jamnalal Bajaj, who, apart from being a businessman, was a freedom-fighter and friend of Mahatma Gandhi, did not have to go to jail for breaking the law. On the contrary, the nation rewarded him with a Padma Bhushan in 2001.

The document from which the Rahul Bajaj quotation has been taken can be seen at the website of the Harvard Business School.

Dalit group calls for boycott of Bajaj products

A Dalit website, DalitforDalits.com, which describes itself as “Global home of Dalits,” has called for boycott of Bajaj products.

A notice at the website quotes Bajaj Group chairman Rahul Bajaj as having said, "I don't know if reservations are the ultimate goal or not but I can tell you that I am completely opposed to mandatory reservation."

It goes on to add, “As Bajaj Group chairman Rahul Bajaj is opposing ALL forms of Reservations SC/ST/BC/OBC, he will spend his money and power against reservations.

“If you buy Bajaj bike (Pulser,etc), Scooter, bulb, iron box, anything that has the symbol above( Bajaj Logo)...Remember You Are Voting Against Reservations. Join Hands by taking Oath that We Will Never Buy A Bajaj Product....Let Us Save Ourselves from Bajaj.”

About reservation and creamy layer concept

By Satinath Choudhary

Justification of quota on the basis that weaker segments need a helping hand to get up is a very weak argument in favor of quota system. It immediately begs questions like how much helping hand and for how long. Possibly that is the reason why the opponents of quota system like this premise for quota system, and have popularized it so that it can be shot down any time they have enough political will and strength.

In a segmented society, even if somehow power were equitably distributed at a certain point of time, statistical perturbation is likely to cause some increase in power of one or a few segments compared to that of others. These segments with greater power would be in a position to recruit more of their own in positions of power, thus increasing their advantage over the stragglers -- power begets more power. Soon the harmonious democracy with equitable power to all segments is going to look more like a squabbling oligarchy-cracy dominated by a couple of oligarchies. Current situation in India is more like oligarchy-cracy than democracy, with most of economic, bureaucratic, judicial and educational power concentrated in the hands of upper caste segment; so much so that even in the States where political power has gone into the hands of OBC, and in one State where currently political power appears to be in the hands of an SC leadership, behind the scene it is the upper castes who wield maximum power.

The only way to ensure peace, harmony and associated ambience for rapid development is an agreement on the part of various segments to "equitably share power" by whatever means necessary. Setting equitable quotas (in proportion to population of various segments) for seats of power and learning opportunities is one of the means of equitable power sharing for positions to be filled by selection rather than election. Unless someone comes up with a better way of equitable power sharing, we are going to be stuck with the quota system.

As for positions to be filled by election, the right way to do the same is via a suitable version of list-Proportional Representation system of election. In the interest of brevity, we would not elaborate on this part.

Many people pooh-pooh quota system without giving any convincing reason for their scorn for the same. All that they have to say is that it leads to inefficiency. They have to be asked if the atmosphere of constant squabbling and strife is more conducive to rapid progress of the society. Is an atmosphere of hate, derision and ridicule on account of existing disparities more conducive for "efficient" progress in the society?

"Efficiency" is nothing but a ruse for those enjoying ill begotten goodies and privileges. Yes, their forefathers have accumulated wealth and advantages over others by depriving the latter of fair opportunities in gaining ability to read, write and understand things, with the help of "the most unfair religions practiced on the earth". Enjoying these advantages is nothing short of the heirs of bandits enjoying the loot collected by their forefathers. Progeny of the victims do not ask for the heirs of the bandit to be penalized for the misdeeds of their forefathers. However, are the latter justified in continuing to enjoy the advantages associated with the spoils of their forefathers' plunder? Instead of seeking justice for the children of the deprived by letting them have their due share of power, the inheritors of the plunderers appear to be hell-bent over increasing their ill-gotten advantages. When their opposition to just demand for quota cannot be sustained, their agents sitting various positions of power come with things like "creamy layer" concepts.

First of all justification for quota has to be rooted in the imperative need for "power sharing" in the interest of peace and harmony and progress based on such harmony. Quotas must not be equated with doles for the destitute. It must be considered to be right rather than charitable hand-out. Existence of groups with greater power than their equitable share has to be considered to be bane (a source of disharmony, conflict and obstacle on the road to progress) and equalized as soon as possible, by any means possible! Once this position is accepted, there is no justification to 50% bar for total reservation, leaving 50% for the so called "general" category, to be monopolized by the inheritors of the ill-gotten wealth and privileges. The general category must be reduced to the percentage of people who claim to have no caste. The upper caste is likely to claim that they have no caste, that they must not be burdened with a caste tag that reduces their share compared to what snatch today. In such a case, the percentage of people claiming to belong to the upper caste is likely to reduce to almost nothing, with corresponding increase in the percentage of persons without any caste – the general category.

As far as creamy layer concept is considered, there are two kinds, and we should not confuse one with the other. There are (1) creamy layer castes like Jats, Kurmies and some others who are economically and educationally close to the upper caste group. Then there are (2) creamy layer individuals (based on economic criteria) among OBCs whose economic and educational condition is reasonably better off compared to the rest of their compatriots. For example, individuals who may be MPs, MLAs, IAS officers, 1st class & 2nd class government officials, doctors, engineers, and so forth, have been defined to constitute economic creamy layer.

The proper way to prevent creamy layer OBC castes from gobbling up share of power allocated to OBC, thus preventing the benefits to accrue to lower level OBCs, is sub-categorizing of OBC into a number of sub-categories. Keeping practicality in mind, the larger the number of sub-categories the better will be distribution of power over OBC or any other category like SC or ST. For example, each of the castes bigger than, say 2% of the society could constitute a category by itself. Numerically smaller castes could be put together with others with similar educational status until their net size comes to more than 2%. Then each category of OBC may be allocated reservation in proportion to the size of the category. Additionally, we could have the provision that if the quota for a particular category is not filled up due to unavailability of qualified candidates, the position will be open for filling, starting with the lowest sub-category of OBCs, if they do have qualified candidates. Unfortunately, this kind of logical solution to the problem is not promoted even by the OBC leaders because most of them belong to their creamy layer castes, and would be prevented from gobbling up their brethren's shares. Even the educated EC/ST individuals do not wish to air such thinking, as most of them belong to the creamy layer castes of SC/ST.

To prevent the economic creamy layer from gobbling up all positions of power allocated to OBCs, what could be done is to agree that the economic creamy layer would not occupy more than, say, 10 or 20% of the seats allocated to OBCs. Rest of the OBC quota could go to non-creamy layer, if they have enough qualified persons available. If the latter does not have enough qualified persons among them, it should be backlogged and should go to the creamy layer. However, any such provision should apply to the general category as well, be that 10% per earlier arguments, or 50% as currently improperly imposed by the unjust High Court Supreme Court judgments. When economic creamy layer provision is applied to OBC and not to the general category, the selected OBC candidates would be weaker in "connections" and ability to retain their job and get promotion compared to those coming from the creamy layer, and they would have harder time keeping pace and facing off the "dream de cream" upper caste colleagues. So, if economic creamy layer concept is applied to OBC, the same must also be applied to the general category.

Throwing the creamy layer OBC into the general category is improper, as argued below, with fictitious numbers. Possibly 0.01% of OBC community may belong to the creamy layer who constitute about 50% of the society. Thus creamy layer of OBCs would constitute barely 0.005% of the society. Let us assume that nearly 5% of the upper caste community (which may be assumed to be about 10% of the society) belongs to the creamy layer. Thus creamy layer of the upper caste will be about 0.5% of the whole society. Thus by throwing an OBC candidates in the general category, the justices are getting these OBCs to compete against a vastly large number of creamy upper caste candidates, in the ratio of 5:500 = 1:100. Thus the chances of the OBC creamy layer candidate competing for a position will be 1/100th the chance that the position would go to an upper caste individual. Further, the seats reserved for general category is open to the non-creamy layer of the society, which also has some chance of bagging the vacant position. So the chance for the OBC creamy layer candidate competing for the position will further reduced to a value less than 1/100th. Thus putting an OBC candidate (belonging to a caste other than their creamy layer castes of Jat, Kurmy, etc.) into a general bin is as good as denying him/her the sought position, and hence it is improper.

Considering an OBC person who gets a Bachelor's degree to metamorphose into a creamy layer is even more ridiculous! In their definition of creamy layer they have not bothered to declare all bachelor degree holders as belonging to creamy layer, and yet, to prevent such a graduate from entering post-graduate institutions they declare him/her to be part of creamy layer. These strictures have been put up by the inheritors of ill-gotten wealth and privileges without caring to see the consequences of their strictures – severe reduction of the OBC candidates from getting into graduate programs. Today they test these unjust strictures on OBCs for acceptability only to impose the same on SC/ST candidates as well, tomorrow.

By the way, there are a number of other countries that use quota or semi-quota system. The best one among them is Switzerland, which uses the most comprehensive quota system under their "power sharing" concept. They have four linguistic groups:

German speaking: 75%
French speaking: 20%
Italian speaking: 4%
Romasch speaking: 1%

They share power equitably at all levels of their Federal Government, including judiciary, armed forces, all kinds of other scientific, economic as well as cultural institutions, including even their sports federations without any ifs and buts like creamy layer and so forth!

Way back in 1830s, they decided to share power equitably, lest they will be bickering and squabbling among themselves and unable to face the enemies from outside their border. To this day they are guided by their beautiful concept of equitable power sharing! It has not punctured their efficiency!!

We need to study and learn from their system!

Dr. Satinath Choudhary used to teach Computer Science at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, the USA. Now a days I spend most of my time as an activist in Delhi. He can be reached at satichou2@yahoo.com

An earlier article by Satinath Choudhary, “The Only Solution To
Reservation Imbroglio” can be accessed at countercurrents.org site.

Significance of SC verdict on reservation in institutions of higher learning

by Indira Jaising

The judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Constitutional validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admissions) Act 2006, was delivered today by a bench of five judges, unanimously upholding the validity of the Act.

This means that the government will now be able to reserve 27 per cent of seats for candidates from 'Other Backward Classes' in IITs and IIMs (and other central educational institutions).

The judgment is a resounding vindication of our Constitutional values and is rooted in the history of the struggle for Independence and the major concern of our Constitution for the abolition of discrimination based on caste, which characterised our society.

What was at stake was future directions in a country beset with caste prejudice and social stratification. The judgment gives a clear signal that the future lies in inclusive growth, inclusion of SC/ST and backward classes in the halls of higher learning.

What is more important, it rejects a facile notion of 'equality' as requiring equal treatment of those unequally situated. Rather, it is based on a notion of equality that recognises the vast inequality that exists in Indian society, an equality of status and opportunity in all fields of life.

This interpretation of 'equality' holds great potential for social change in the matter of distribution of national resources, based on need and historical disadvantages, rather than on market forces. It also has important implications for women who have been demanding reservations in Parliament, in state legislatures and will put to rest any argument that any such reservations will result in inequality of
results.

Considering the law was unique, in that it actually increases capacity in these institutions, by increasing the number of seats, one wonders, what was behind the objection to the law. The forward classes stood to lose no seats, something that is commonly objected to.

This was a law that created an additional 27 per cent seats to be filled in by the backward classes. It actually proposed the building of a new capacity in the institutions to be made available to OBC candidates. Clearly therefore, the petitioners were demanding that this newly built capacity should also go to the open general capacity.

Though dressed in Constitutional rhetoric and political cynicism, the bottom line was a fight over national resources and how they should be distributed. It was a battle to defend class and privilege closing the doors to those other excluded, to enter the realm of higher education.

Those who opposed the law argued that what was important was basic and primary education and not higher education! What after all, is basic education meant for, if not to enable a person to aspire to the highest attainable standard of education, employment and enterprise? Or were they perhaps suggesting that education for them must be confined to A B C -- enough to enable a SC/ST and OBC candidate to be a peon in a government office, or a clerk, or worse a domestic?

Crocodile tears were shed in court for children on the streets and on child labour, suggesting basic education as the solution to the problem. The other major argument was that to take caste into consideration as a factor to determine social backwardness was unconstitutional, since the mandate of the Constitution was to abolish caste.

The argument was convenient to say the least and legally inaccurate. What the Constitution attempts to abolish is the discrimination and disadvantage attached to caste, not caste. Caste cannot be abolished with a magic wand or with a Constitutional mantra. What it need is strategies to benefit excluded cases including the provision of higher education.

The combined effect of these arguments was to project their petitioners as progressive people, who believe in the need for primarily education for all and in the abolition of caste.

Fortunately, the court was able to see through the smoke screen, and a smokescreen there clearly was. All the time, one got the impression that the real contesting parties were not present before the court. Perhaps one got a clue from the fact that the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution which enabled this law, also enables the making of reservations in the private sector.

And judging from the arguments that were addressed, I got the impression that a surrogate battle was being fought by foreign universities and private educational institutions, all of whom are entering in to the field of education in India in a big way. Perhaps they were the real objectors to the law, though absent from the court.

The Supreme Court wisely avoided answering the question whether reservations can be made in private institutions, stating that the question will be decided only as and when a law is made making reservations in private institutions. This means, the issue is left open for an appropriate day.

In this stunning decision of the Supreme Court of India, one recognises the power of a Constitutional Court. The judgment is a vision statement, a road map for development, a road map for inclusive growth. It is time for us to acknowledge frankly that the so- called benefits of globalization and privatization have not reached the lower levels of society, but remained in the privileged hands of a few, for whom the world begins and ends with fashion, Bollywood and cricket.

At a time when prestigious foreign universities are looking to set up shop in India, it is only natural that they need to know where they stand on the reservation issue as it will impact deeply on their finances. Education will become more out of reach than it is already for the backward classes. The Supreme Court judgment corrects an existing imbalance in this regard.

What requires special mention is arguments advanced by the team working for the government. Solicitor General Ghulam Vahanvati argued that we need to acknowledge that equality in the Article is not about treating likes alike, but about compensating the backward to ensure equitable distribution of scarce resources.

Gopal Subramanium placed the debate in historical context and pointed out that American judgments freely thrown about in court by the petitioners, could not be relied upon. The Indian Constitution was based on an understanding of the direction of social change desired by the Constitution makers.

K. Parasaran, former attorney general for the Union of India, returned the Preamble to its rightful place, emphasising the Constitutional goal of equality of social status.

Appearing for one of the States, Andhra Pradesh, I pointed out that under the federal structure that the States have identified backward classes and taken special measures for their advancement for more than a century.

In support of the Constitutional challenge, all that was argued is that the law was a measure in 'vote back' politics. This is cynicism carried to its extreme. It is unfortunate that we have reached a stage in political debate which is bipartisan and cynical. This time, all political parties had supported the passage of the law in Parliament.

The cynicism came from the counsel in court, mouthing what one would expect to hear from politicians. Very few political parities had the courage of their conviction to defend the law in court, one of them being the Rashtriya Janata Dal through Ram Jethmalani.

The petitions, however, invited the court to hold that the law was a measure of 'vote catching' and the unanimity over its passing was sought to be projected as an exercise in self interest rather than in the interest of the OBC. It is to invite court to decide on prejudice, not on Constitutional vision. Fortunately that view did not prevail.

It is true that the judgment calls upon the government to exclude the 'creamy layer.' This seems to be in line with the Mandal judgment, which also mandated the exclusion of the creamy layer in employment. It was argued for the Union of India, that in order to avail of the benefits of higher education, one needs to be in a stable economic position to arrive at the level or competing for those exams. To exclude them would be to deny the class as a whole, the benefit of those who could become leaders and peer group motivators.

However, that was not to be. Given the exclusion, there is a case for upward revision of the income limit for deciding backwardness, given the passage of time and inflation. The exclusion of children of former and sitting MPs and MLAs seems to be motivated by the assumption that they are already at a high level of achievement. While this may be true of those who inherit their MP status from parents, it is not necessarily true of others.

I recently represented Haribhau Radhord, MP, the only member Parliament from the Nomadic and Denotified tribes, who has been fighting a lonely battle for including these categories for reservations in employment.

It is too much to expect that the privileged will give up their fight so easily, but what the judgment does is give legitimacy to the struggle for justice of the OBC, a legitimacy which was denied to them in the smoke screen of 'vote bank politics' and political bargaining between the leaders of these communities.

Many a battle between the Health Minister and the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences has its origins in the known opposition of students and faculty of AIIMS to reservations. Who can forget those images of striking doctors supporting the director and opposing reservations?

During the arguments, I was being told, "Do you know, so and so is the head of medicine in the hospital? He is SC. No one goes to him." The suggestion was that the SC doctors are not good at their work. For me, it was evidence of the deep-rooted caste bias against the best and most qualified of the SC and ST.

We need to celebrate that fact that Indian society is on the march in the direction of social change and upward mobility for the dispossessed, despite the well funded, well disguised and well argued case of the forward class doctors of AIIMS.

The court has been able to separate the grain from the chaff and look at the reality of the situation. The judgment will change the lives of many formally excluded sections from the halls of higher learning and
privilege.

Advisedly, the court did not go into the question whether reservations can be mandated in private colleges. However, it is an idea whose time has arrived, a law waiting to be passed, a constitutional challenge waiting to happen. I would like to be there then to defend the law, as I was this time round.

Indira Jaising is a well-known Supreme Court lawyer. This article by her has been distributed by the Rights Support Movement

Women’s Day eve to be observed as Betrayal Day

MARCH 8 is International Women’s Day. Exasperated by the failure of the political parties to enact legislation to provide for 33% representation for women in Parliament and the State legislatures, women’s organizations have called for observance of March 7 as Betrayal Day.

Sunila Singh (suni_manas@hotmail. com), National Programme Officer, National Project on Preventing Torture in India (Mobile: 9910272509) writes:

We are appealing to one and all to use the occasion of International Women's day, 8 March to protest against the humiliation that Indian women have experienced at the hands of the political class. On the issue of 33% representation for women in Parliament and State Legislatures, we seek your support and urge you to express solidarity towards us not because we want the piece of legislation passed but as mark of protest at the dastardly manner in which the women of India have been treated. The political leaders have not had the courage to say "no" or "yes", instead they have done the unforgivable act of keeping the women of the country guessing, waiting, testing their patience and using the issue whenever it suits them.

As you all know, many of us have been struggling for the last ten years to get our elected representatives to act on the pledge and electoral assurance they have given to the women of India during the general elections of 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2004. The second major coalition is on the verge of completing its term. Every single national party and members of two leading coalitions, NDA and UPA, have been involved in this decade-long wait and watch stance towards the issue. Ostensibly, no one has objection to it, some have sought modification, others are backing it and yet no one is willing to bell the cat. Women are at best a "potential" and not necessarily a real vote bank. It is the men who have brought governments down, so no one can risk their wrath and disenchantment.

Today, we are not only disheartened and disgusted by the manner in which the political class has handled this issue but have now reached a point where we need to confront the stark reality that women do not count. It is assumed that women can be "managed". Just as the British denied us the right to be a sovereign nation on the ground that India cannot be a nation state as its society is divided on caste, creed and religious lines, the political class is today spouting the same arguments for the women of the country.

We agree that we are not a homogenous group. We agree that it is not necessary that if women are given political representation they will fight for the betterment of other women. Yet we raise the demand. Why? The answer is for the simple reason that we would like to create a level playing field for the women. We would like to create for the women the space and opportunity to be part of the political process, give expression to their concerns and needs and prevail upon the people in authority to hear them out with a sense of obligation and responsibility towards them. Most importantly, we do not want our fate to be decided by others. We would like to have a critical presence in decision making bodies so that we cannot only speak for ourselves but are also accountable to the large mass of women, who have been denied many of their basic entitlements and rights.

We all know that gender inequality and discrimination is rampant in our country. We have statistics to prove this stark reality. In last ten years, the political class has demonstrated time and again that they are afraid to face the issue. We have witnessed a series of humiliating, insincere and feeble actions taken by the politicians to prevent the resolution of the issue either way. We urge you to join us in fighting against this unprecedented betrayal by the political leaders

Next Steps

Please declare 7th March, the eve of the International Women's Day, as the "Betrayal Day" when we collectively demonstrate our deep disappointment and rightful indignation with this decade- long charade.

Plan the protest in any way you want to, using powerful tools such as satyagraha, black band, candlelight vigil, silent rallies, prayer meetings, solidarity meetings to mark the occasion.

Ensure that mass media is informed and brought on board to the extent possible.

We can create a Secretariat which has representation from each State which will be empowered to coordinate and bring all activities under a common platform.

Once this protest is launched, let us work towards making it a year long campaign and ensuring that unlike the General Elections of 2004 in the forthcoming General Elections, there is vigorous debate and brainstorming on the issues.

Why are we symbolizing 7th March as the Betrayal Day?

1996- An Aborted Effort. The United Front Government made an unsuccessful attempt on 12 September 1996, to introduce the Bill. Its introduction was prevented.

1998- Brutal Assault in Parliament on the Women's Reservation Bill. After five adjournments on the fateful day of 13 July 1998, at 5.30 p.m. when Union Law minister M. Thambidurai rose to introduce it, we witnessed an unprecedented act, an act that brought "shame" and "disrepute" to the august body of Parliament. RJD MP Surendra Prasad Yadav went to the well of the House, snatched the copy of the Bill and physically prevented its introduction. The Speaker responded by adjourning the House

1999-The 13th Lok Sabha and Lack of Political Will. Major Parties pledged 33% representation in the Election Manifesto. Made an election issue by the electronic news channels and out of all the women-related issues like women's health, education and crimes against women, the issue of reservation received the most coverage. Promises not kept. Empty rhetoric.

2000-01- Compromise is the Mantra of the Day. The Geetha Mukherjee Report is sidelined and recommendations put into cold storage. Reducing women's demand for 33% representation in elected bodies to a narrow numerical alternative and suggesting 33% representation within parties. Women continue to a victim of the age-old divide and rule policy

2002- Issue of 33% reservation pushed to the margins. With politics severely polarized, women victimized in many ways. 33% issue temporarily eclipsed.

2003- "Revival" of the Bill for Political Advantage. The impasse in Parliament continues. Within parties, support building up for an alternative formula of strengthening gender representation in parties.

2004 - It is no longer an election issue. The media gives it an unceremonial burial.
Out of the 1,342 development stories telecast on the six news channels during the nine weeks of campaign, there were barely 18 news reports on women's reservation.

2005-06 – Political Stalemate. From NDA to UPA-Irresolution, Political Charade and harangue.

2007-The Bill is in a "comatose" state, neither a "potential" social issue nor a political promise that must be redeemed.