In defence of quotas: stigmatising the majority

There is no factual reason for the rest of the country to be digging in their heels against reservations for SCs/STs/OBCs, who comprise 80 per cent of the country’s population. Furthermore, why is Indian industry so set against private sector reservations when it had itself asked, after Independence, for a protectionist policy on imports?

By Dr Bhalchandra Mungekar

The offensive by the elite in India against the proposal to create quotas for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in educational institutions such as Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and Central universities, or exploring the possibility of creating some space in the private sector on a voluntary basis, as expressed by the Prime Minister, is deplorable, though very predictable. The attack is so virulent and one-sided that the country at large is made to believe that the proposals would jeopardise merit and efficiency, which are the two major planks of a globalised and competitive economy. Unfortunately, the pros and cons of such proposals notwithstanding, the defenders of merit forget the fact that, through their attack, they are condemning and stigmatising nearly 80 per cent of the population of the country—comprising Scheduled Castes (SCs)/Scheduled Tribes (STs)/OBCs—as non-meritorious, inefficient, useless and unworthy of securing their due share in education and employment.

The entire discussion on merit defies common sense, inasmuch as merit is a product of socio-material and -cultural conditions. Second, it is always relative. Therefore, to consider merit in a mechanical manner, particularly in a caste-ridden society like India, which is governed by an unequal opportunity structure resulting from highly skewed access to social, economic, educational and cultural entitlements, is not only sociologically questionable but also morally indefensible. It is a pity that the defenders of merit do not want any thing on the basis of caste, despite the fact that caste governs the complete life of the individual as well as Indian society as a whole.

The entire intellectual and academic class in the country is known for analysing and describing caste, but has never shown courage and conviction to argue, to use Dr Ambedkar’s words, that “caste is the greater monster in the progress and unity of the nation”. In 2002-03, for general category students, the dropout rates up to Class V were 34.89 per cent, up to Class VII 52.79 per cent, and up to Class X 62.59 per cent. For SC students, the same were 41.47 per cent, 59.93 per cent and 71.92 per cent, respectively; for ST students, these were 51.37 per cent, 68.67 per cent, and 80.29 per cent, respectively. The dropout rates in the rural areas were higher than in the urban areas, and for girls in all these categories, they were higher still than for boys.

This kind of inequality prevails among the various social groups with respect to all social and economic indicators, be it level of poverty, rate of unemployment, access to housing and drinking water and other health and sanitary facilities, and so on. Are we so naive and uncompassionate as to demand exactly the same level of merit from millions of SC/ST boys and girls, condemned to deplorable and wretched conditions of life, on par with a small minority commanding and, in fact, monopolising, access to all privileges, and that too created largely through public expenditure?

Even here, the facts speak a different story, which are very often and intentionally neglected.
So far as admissions to engineering, medicine and other professional courses are concerned,
at the entry level, there is virtually no difference between the marks obtained by students belonging to the general category and those coming from the OBCs. Even the difference between the marks obtained by the general category/OBC students, and those belonging to the SCs, has been narrowing over the years. If there is a difference in the marks of the students of these three categories at the closing levels, that, too, is getting narrower. This is the success of the
reservation policy.

Assuming that there was no reservation for these socio-economically and educationally backward sections of society, would it have been possible for them to reach where they are today? Even after adopting some protective measures—such as reservation for the weaker sections of society in the spheres of education and employment—hundreds of posts meant for them remain vacant, as no suitable candidates are available from these social categories. That, sometimes, due to deeply rooted prejudices even suitable candidates from these sections are not found suitable is a
different story.

After Independence, the country adopted a protectionist policy for speedy industrialisation. High rates of import tariffs were one of the major elements of this protectionist policy. Has not this policy provided a “sheltered market” to our domestic industry? I hold that protection to Indian industry in the initial stages of industrialisation was certainly desirable, though the levels of import tariffs were questionable. But wasn’t Indian industry demanding even higher import tariffs to get more protection from international competition? Isn’t it a fact that after the initiation of economic reforms and the globalisation of the economy in 1991, Indian industry has been demanding a “level playing field”?

Reservation is also a form of “level playing field” for the depressed and disadvantaged sections of society.In the US, they have used two instruments to provide protection against discrimination and to give fair access and equal opportunities to African-Americans, Latinos and women. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, the minorities get legal protection against discrimination in employment. Under this provision, anybody who suffers from discrimination can go to court. In addition, the US uses certain policies to provide fair access to minorities in government contracts, employment, and admission in educational institutions. This is what is legally described as the Affirmative Action Policy to provide fair access to groups discriminated against. Besides, the private sector itself has voluntary measures to provide fair participation to the minorities.

The Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong University has prepared a list of 500 top universities in the world by using a scientific methodology comprising alumni and staff of the institution, winning Nobel Prizes, farsighted researchers in 21 broad subject categories, articles published in nature and science journals, etc; of these 500 universities, the US alone had 168, Germany and the United Kingdom 40 each, Japan 34, Italy 23, France 21, and so on. China itself had 18, Spain nine, and even South Korea had eight. Fortunately, India figured in the list, with three institutions. Congratulations are due to Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, lIT Kharagpur and the University of Kolkata. Are our universities run and managed by the SCs, STs and the OBCs?

Furthermore, are our navaratna public sector undertakings not profiting even after implementing the reservation policy?

Objectively, there is nothing surprising in witnessing such a distressing scenario in which various state universities in India are struggling to maintain their existence in the midst of innumerable constraints, ranging from 25-30 per cent of teachers’ posts remaining vacant at any point of time to non-payment of salaries due to the scarcity of funds. Do you want such state universities to be equally meritorious on par with those in the other parts of the world, whose alumni funds alone run to billions of dollars?

There is no evidence to show that the SCs, STs and OBCs are inefficient and non-meritorious. Therefore, arguments of merit and efficiency are pretexts against affirmative action policies and do not hold much water. It is essentially a conflict of interests. On the one hand, a relatively small elite class is fighting to perpetuate its monopoly of privileges; on the other, vast sections of society are aspiring for a legitimate share in those privileges. In a highly inegalitarian and divided society like India, protective policies are unavoidable for a broad-based and inclusive socioeconomic development. In fact, the only substitute to “quotas” and “reservations” is the creation of a more egalitarian social order that guarantees equal opportunities to all and, simultaneously, fights against all sources of inequality, exclusion and discrimination. (The author is Member, Planning Commission, and the article is excerpted from ‘Debating Education: The Reservation Issue’, a booklet brought out by Sahmat)