A 27 percent quota for 52 percent of the population
is being opposed on the grounds of merit. What is missing here is the
realisation that merit is the ability to pass exams after intensive and
expensive coaching classes. Amit Sen Gupta questions
the hullabaloo
 |
Prime time television
has been overrun by indignant faces and shrill declamations, decrying
the government’s move to extend reservation in educational institutions
to the backward castes and to introduce reservations for jobs in the
private sector. “Shining India,” it would seem, has decided
to assert itself decisively. As the decibel levels continue to rise,
the chaotic days of the anti-Mandal agitation are starting to be played
out again in the metropolitan centres of India. The old arguments of
that period are all out there, but now accompanied by an even more compelling
argument, we are told. For this is the generation that has been taught
to believe in the golden future that a “resurgent” India
looks towards, an India that is riding on the global demand for Indian
talent.
As one sees the
faces of protest on the streets of Delhi and Mumbai, it is difficult
not to wonder how many of them will actually be in the country ten years
hence. Difficult not to wonder how many of them are already preparing
to take examinations that will take them towards their chosen futures
in the West. For there, lies the crux of the issue. The decibels emanate
from those who have little stake in the real India and have been taught
to chase a mirage called “Shining India”. For them the fact
that political parties support the initiative of the government, is
pandering to a “vote bank”. A term so loosely bandied around
that we tend to lose sight of what it means.
This so called
“vote bank” represents 83 percent of the Indian population.
It represents that population who would laugh if told about “Shining
India”. It represents those who do not always look very good on
national television — after all they lack the ability to speak
public school-accented ungrammatical English. But the numbers do tell
a story, so let us start from there. The government’s stated intention
is to extend reservation in educational institutions to the backward
castes by reserving an additional 27 percent of seats for them. A 27
percent quota for a section that constitutes 52 percent of the Indian
population. In other words, 17 percent of upper castes would still have
access to over 50 percent of the seats.
 |
Misguided
Cry: Anti-reservation youth ignore India’s larger
socio-economic realities
AP Photo |
| |
Opening
capitation fee colleges for medicine and engineering, plus massive
fee hikes in these institutions, compromises ‘merit’
in its entirety. But they evoke a mere whimper as
compared to the stridency seen on the streets over reservations |
The arguments regarding
why this is such a huge crime, have been repeated ad nauseum. However
since they continue to be repeated, some response is merited. The foremost
is of course the five-lettered term called ‘merit’. Merit
as in the ability of students to pass examinations after being extensively
coached in expensive institutions that teach you how to “beat
the system”. Merit as defined by your ability to access the best
schools, the best teachers and teaching aids. Merit as promoted by the
knowledge that you do not have to worry where the next meal is going
to come from. If that sounds too rhetorical, maybe we do need to remind
ourselves that for half of India’s population that is the most
important question.
But the shrill
voices of protest will not be silenced. For merit, we are told, is non-negotiable.
We hear the oft-repeated argument that Indian educational institutions
will lose their competitive edge in the global arena if merit is compromised.
This basic argument has two facets and both need to be explored. First,
what are the returns we seek when we pledge financial resources for
institutions of “higher learning”? To train people so that
they may serve the needs of global capital in the US and Europe? To
fill up the lower levels of the health systems in these countries? To
develop software that are owned and exploited by transnational corporations?
I would submit that the public funded educational institutions have
to service national needs, not personal or corporate needs.
We have a health
infrastructure that cries out for doctors. This country needs its best
minds to create a better future. But, sad to say, that is not what we
get from the institutions of higher learning today. It is a collective
failure of the system, in which the students marching on the streets
today are mere pawns. But their sweat and energy might possibly be better
directed in questioning a system that churns out plastic excellence
that cannot service the real needs of one’s own country. It is
unfortunate that the stridency seen on the streets today, has not been
seen to question the practice of opening capitation fee colleges for
medicine and engineering — a practice that compromises “merit”
in its entirety. And, barely a whimper in the face of massive fee hikes
in many of these institutions in the recent past.
The argument about
merit has another dimension. It presumes that the disadvantaged fundamentally
lack the qualities to excel. Notions about caste are rooted deep in
the psyche of Indians — 3,000 years create a lot of baggage that
we unquestioningly carry. Perhaps a presumption of lower mental abilities
inherent as characteristics in the so-called “lower” castes
is never far away from our sub-conscious when the very thought of caste-based
reservations provokes such extreme reactions. The southern states have
had reservations for backward castes, far in excess of what is now being
proposed, for decades. All developmental indicators suggest that they
have done much better than the bimaru states of the North where reservations
are such an anathema. Possibly if the “centres of excellence”
were to draw students from sections more rooted in the country’s
dust and heat, they would also be more inclined to embrace it after
graduation.
There is also the
argument that students who get entry through reservation quotas fail
to cope and are in fact worse off in the long run. First, there is very
little evidence that this happens. Second, wherever this does happen,
it is largely caused by a system that is insensitive to issues such
as language and socio-economic disadvantages. A system, for example,
that cannot address the requirements of a student who has been taught
all his life in a vernacular language, needs to be examined. Reservations
are the first step in a much larger set of enabling conditions that
need to be put in place. Unfortunately elitist blinkers blind the guardians
of such institutions to needs of this kind.
Finally, one last
issue needs to be examined. Professor Agrawal has raised the question
whether caste is the only factor that places people at a disadvantage.
It is a pertinent point and clearly it would be incorrect to argue that
caste is the only factor that gives rise to gross inequities in Indian
society. Factors such as economic, regional and gender-based disadvantages
impact enormously on a person’s ability to develop to her or his
full potential. But 3,000 years of discrimination also means that caste
fundamentally worsens the other disadvantages. Affirmative action based
on caste addresses this imbalance, but it cannot address all imbalances.
The intent here is not to conflate caste and class, and there is no
denying that class-based economic inequities need to be addressed. But
the presence of other factors that promote inequities does not constitute
an argument based on caste. Besides, while there would be distortions,
caste differences do correspond fairly closely to economic disparities
in most regions of the country.
Professor Agrawal’s
suggestion on a form of affirmative action that takes into account multiple
factors (caste, economic status, region, gender, etc) is based on sound
premises. It clearly draws from the excellent system that governed the
admission policy in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in the 70s
and 80s. It was a system that served the university very well. But the
system survived for a period largely because it was strongly backed
and zealously overseen by the progressive students movement in JNU.
Minus such support and extended to an immensely larger scale, the system
is likely to be a non-starter. Targeting of affirmative action to a
section within “backward” castes will be used as a powerful
tool to deny the benefits to as many as possible. This is the experience
with targeting of any social security measure, as it allows the elite
to find ways of denying others access.
The argument that
caste-based reservations benefit the “creamy” layer is one
that applies equally well to upper castes. The upper caste elite has
always enjoyed a form of reservation by virtue of their virtual monopoly
over access to basic education of a certain quality. Should we not then
be concerned about the “creamy layer” among the elite who
monopolise educational and employment opportunities? Even a cursory
look at the trajectory of the progeny of senior professionals and bureaucrats
would show that a very small elite among upper castes controls many
top positions. Why is it then that a few instances of the same happening
among “backward” castes or dalits appear so unacceptable?
No system that seeks to remedy 3,000 years of discrimination can be
perfect. But to deny minimum justice because it is not perfect, contributes
to the perpetuation of the initial crime.
An activist-academician, the writer works with the Delhi Science Forum
Readers
are invited to respond to the ideas put forth by VP Singh, Purushottam
Agrawal and Amit Sen Gupta.
Send in your views and replies to peoplepower@tehelka.com.
TEHELKA
QUOTA DEBATE: FEEDBACK
