[The promise of 10% reservation quota, in education and government employment, round about 100 days before the forthcoming general election is, obviously, a vote gathering stratagem. No point quibbling over that. A government in power, let it be clearly acknowledged, is quite entititled to such tricks. And, it has got to be noted, it doesn't fall in the class of vote gathering by triggering bloodlust.
What's of far greater salience is how genuine is the promise? Does it belong to the category of promise of farm loan waiver by the Congress in its poll manifestos for Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan? Or is it something like Rs.15 lakh in the bank accounts of all the poor, as promised by Modi in the run-up to the last general election (ref.: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqsDChcPxRU>)? Reproduced below are four informed comments examining the various dimensions and implications of the, sort of, last-minute promise. As regards the implementation of the measure, assuming that the necessary legislative procedures, needed for the necessary amendment in the Constitution, would, eventually, be gone through, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha having already showing the green light (ref.: < https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/parliament-live-updates-quota-bill-to-be-discussed-in-rajya-sabha-today-1974930>) the toughest hurdle is, on the face of it, going to be legal. There's a 50% cap in place set by the Supreme Court of India on the cumulative "reservation" quotas. Would this measure stand legal scrutiny? That's a very big, and the burning, question. Never mind Jaitley's facile explanation (ref.: < https://www.ndtv.com/video/news/news/in-quota-debate-arun-jaitley-says-50-cap-not-applicable-503444 >). The other important point is that when the scope of new employment itself - in the government sector in particular is, to put it rather favourably, is highly uncertain, what's the real value of such reservation? The question has also, pretty rightly, been raised who are these "poor" whom the 10% quota is meant to benefit? The ceiling has been fixed at Rs.8 lakh annual household income, which works out to about Rs.2,200/day. As against this, the poverty line is, since 2007, officially defined as Rs.26/day/head (i.e. Rs.130/household, assuming 5 members), in rural areas, and Rs.32 (i.e. Rs.160/household), in urban areas. (Ref.: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India>.) Average per capita (annual) income in 2017-18 is reported to be Rs.1,13,000.00 (i.e. per household: Rs.5,65,000). (Ref.: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_India>.) An individual is supposed to pay income tax if one's annual income, excluding if any from agriculture, is more than Rs.2,50,000.00. Even this could, or rather would, be an issue in case of scrutiny by the Court. However, what has, as yet, failed to draw focussed attention that, perhaps, about 95% of Indian households have income below the cut-off limit set. As per a report published (in May 2016), the annual income of 80% households is below Rs.1,59,601 (ref.: < https://www.thehindu.com/data/how-many-indians-are-richer-than-you/article8551773.ece>), way below Rs.8 lakh. Based on that, an estimate of 95% may be rather on the conservative side. Now, there's a 50% cap on quotas for employment, in government/public sector, and academic opportunities, wherever applicable. At least in case of employment, quite often, the quotas are not fully filled. So, it won't, again, be unreasonable to assume that very few slots, whether in case of education or employment, in the "general" category are filled by those who're otherwise entitled for reservation. So, in case of 45% of slots eventually going to those under "general" category and given the huge bulk (95%?) being covered by the stipulated income celing, this class may, as on date, be already occupying about at least 25% of the 45%, assuming that the remaining 5%, because of their financial clout, and the various advantages derived therefrom, are occupying the balance 20%. *In any case, the current share of that section of the "general" category, now being offered 10% quota, is, conceivably, significantly higher than 10%.* *What does it mean?* *It means that the 10% quota is simply an eyewash, of no use whatever.* *The lower segment of the group (of "economically backward"), being too disadvantaged, will rarely be in a position to take any benefit of the quota, being edged out by their financially much stronger counterparts.* *And, the higher segment is, understanably, already having (perhaps much) more than the quota.* *So, the "quota" is simply useless.* *Just an elaborate fraud.* *Yet another jumla like15 lakh.* Of course, unavailabilty of relevant authorised data works to the advantage of the campaign of grand deception. Nevertheless. In order to narrow down our investigations, we're deliberately eschewing here the very valid and vital issue of constitutional morality of the proposed measure - delinking "affirmative action" from the historical discriminations and resultant deprivations and worse directed at specific communities. <<The Union Cabinet’s decision to introduce a quota for the ‘economically backward sections of communities not currently covered by any reservation has led to some logical inconsistencies that border on the absurd. These inconsistencies pertain not only to what constitutes economic backwardness but also to the manner in which upper castes and others have been put on a par in certain respects. Let’s start with the income criterion to determine eligibility for this quota. It is to be fixed at a household income of Rs 8 lakh per annum from all sources. As of this year, any Indian who earns over Rs 2.5 lakh a year is liable to pay income tax. One would assume from this that the Union of India regards this level of income as sufficiently high to make one eligible to pay tax on it. ... The result of this second inconsistency is to effectively put OBCs and upper castes on a par when it comes to quotas. That amounts to a negation of the principle on which OBCs were granted quotas.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. l. below.) <<The proposal to give 10 per cent reservation to the economically backward classes, like several other schemes of the Modi government, is neither novel nor innovative. The Congress government under P V Narasimha Rao did provide for similar reservation, but a nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney (1992) struck it down. There have been similar efforts in states as well — Kerala under the left government (2008) in admissions to a few courses, the Congress government in Rajasthan (2008) and the BJP regime in Gujarat (2016). Even Mayawati has been in favour of such a reservation and has welcomed the government’s move. ... In any case, the legality of the Modi government’s move is suspect. The apex court has said in categorical terms that reservation solely on the basis of economic backwardness, that is without evidence of historical discrimination, finds no justification in the Constitution. A nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney had ruled that reservation is a remedy for historical discrimination and its continuing ill-effects. The court also said that reservation is not aimed at economic uplift or poverty alleviation. Economic backwardness is to be on account of social backwardness.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. ll. below.) <<*Is it an admission of economic failure?* Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas (Progress for all) was supposed to mean something else, when Modi promised it in 2013. Then the expectation was that his government would bring in an economic boom that could then lift all boats. Instead, economic mismanagement despite low oil prices and inflation – thanks to the twin shocks of demonetisation and the botched rollout of the Goods and Services Tax – have left an economy that is not nearly growing to is potential, and a staggering lack of job opportunities even as millions seek to enter the workforce. Rather than providing more jobs, the BJP is now trying to slice up its limited pie more equitably, a telling move that says as much about its economic performance as it does about its policy approach.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. lll. below.) <<The announcement of 10 per cent reservation for economically backward groups in the upper castes is another example of the travesty that characterises constitutional and political discourse when it comes to reservations. It is cynical politics. It is cynical policy. There are two realities India faces. This proposal has one element of honesty in it. It admits this government’s massive failure on every front. The stark reality is this. The Indian economy is not generating enough attractive jobs; nor is our education system training graduates properly enough to participate in the economy. In the context of that failure, there has been a clamour amongst the educated upper caste groups like Rajputs for a reservation route to be opened up for them. Since we cannot create enough jobs, the token signal that the poor from the upper castes can be symbolically represented in the state is all that we can now offer. This is in a context where public sector jobs are scarce. As Devesh Kapur has pointed out, per capita India now has fewer IAS officers than it did in the Sixties. Gone are the narratives of a buoyant economy lifting all boats. We are now back to distributing crumbs.>> (Excerpted from sl. no. lV. below.)] I/IV. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/Crossword/theatre-of-the-absurd-government-plan-for-quota-for-economically-backward-is-riddled-with-inconsistencies/ Theatre of the absurd: Government plan for quota for ‘economically backward’ is riddled with inconsistencies January 9, 2019, 2:00 AM IST Shankar Raghuraman in Crossword | Edit Page, India | TOI The Union Cabinet’s decision to introduce a quota for the ‘economically backward’ sections of communities not currently covered by any reservation has led to some logical inconsistencies that border on the absurd. These inconsistencies pertain not only to what constitutes economic backwardness but also to the manner in which upper castes and others have been put on a par in certain respects. Let’s start with the income criterion to determine eligibility for this quota. It is to be fixed at a household income of Rs 8 lakh per annum from all sources. As of this year, any Indian who earns over Rs 2.5 lakh a year is liable to pay income tax. One would assume from this that the Union of India regards this level of income as sufficiently high to make one eligible to pay tax on it. And yet, the new decision suggests that a family with a single earner who draws a salary three times this amount, that is Rs 7.5 lakh, is economically backward and hence deserves a quota in education and jobs. Indeed, in a double-income family where husband and wife each earn just under Rs 4 lakh, both would pay tax and their family would still be entitled to the quota. At just under Rs 8 lakh per annum, not only would you be liable to pay tax, you would have to pay it at the second slab of 20%. So what are people at this level of income in the eyes of the Indian state? Are they ‘poor’ and hence in need of support from it, or are they so well-off that they need to be taxed at higher than entry level? Apparently, they are both. Given such a logical absurdity, it is no surprise that the income criterion would actually make over 95% of Indians eligible for the new quota, as we reported yesterday. Welcome to the land of the economically backward, which is somehow at the same time also an economic powerhouse. Illustration: Uday Deb The other logical inconsistency is that the income exclusion criterion for this quota is to be exactly the same as for the other backward classes (OBC). Now, OBCs were provided a quota on the grounds that they were socially and educationally disadvantaged and not on economic grounds. The exclusion criteria came into being because of a Supreme Court ruling that said the ‘creamy layer’ among OBCs should not have the benefit of the reservation. Thus the Rs 8 lakh cut-off for OBCs defines what constitutes the creamy layer among them. It is not a definition of poor. Between the poor and the creamy layer lies a whole wide swathe of those who are in neither category. To equate the cut-off for the creamy layer with a definition of poor (or economically backward) is to obfuscate the issue. The result of this second inconsistency is to effectively put OBCs and upper castes on a par when it comes to quotas. That amounts to a negation of the principle on which OBCs were granted quotas. Even that is assuming that the new quota will also have other exclusions not spelt out in the announcement on Monday. For instance, sons and daughters of IAS officers cannot avail of the OBC quota. One would assume that similar rules would apply to the new quota too. Otherwise, upper castes (and others not currently under any quota) would actually be placed at an advantage over OBCs. It is difficult to believe that these inconsistencies escaped the notice of everybody in the Cabinet including the sharp legal minds. We can only conclude, therefore, that they were deliberately overlooked to cater to a political need – making the upper castes and others like the Patidars of Gujarat or the Marathas of Maharashtra believe that BJP is the true guardian of their interests. But will these sections really gain from the new quota? Let’s assume for the moment that the requisite constitutional amendment does get passed and the new quota gets implemented. Will that serve their interests? One obvious hurdle is the sheer lack of government jobs. But perhaps this is more to address the area of education – professional education in particular – than jobs. The reality, however, is that an overwhelming majority of the seats – and jobs – that are currently not reserved are cornered by communities outside the purview of reservations. Indeed, their share is in many cases actually higher because quotas often go unfilled. Given this reality, all that the new quota might achieve is a reshuffle within upper castes and non-reserved categories on who gets the seats and jobs, if that. BJP, of course, wouldn’t be hurt politically if the amendment doesn’t get passed. It will help it portray the opposition as having prevented the move. Similarly, if it is passed but then struck down by the courts, BJP would with good reason hope to earn brownie points for having tried. Does that leave the opposition with no hope of countering this politically? Far from it. Parties that have their base predominantly among the OBCs are almost certain to raise the demand that their quota should now be raised to become proportional with their share of the population. As for the rest, they can legitimately demand that the income criterion be reduced to, say, Rs 2.5 lakh so that the quota really serves the poor. Will they do that and risk alienating the better-off sections of those not currently served by reservations? We’ll know soon enough. II/IV. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/narendra-modi-govt-upper-caste-quota-reservations-5529274/?fbclid=IwAR1a_OcLrRSG6FznY9QadRznCnEpZwlKp6eXI6JkO1IMEKdCGI_XNgI-GEw Why reservation for economically backward classes may not pass judicial scrutiny The most likely scenario is that the Modi government’s move will be stayed by the apex court till the final decision on the constitutionality of the Bill is delivered. Written by Faizan Mustafa | Updated: January 9, 2019 9:36:06 am The legality of the Narendra Modi government’s move is suspect. (PTI Photo) The Narendra Modi government started its innings in 2014 with a constitutional amendment giving the government a vital say in the appointment of judges. But the apex court struck it down as unconstitutional in 2016 as the amendment undermined the primacy of the opinion of the Chief Justice of India in judicial appointments, which the Court said was part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Now, the government is ending its term with another major constitutional amendment, whose chances of being struck down by the SC are even greater. Strangely, the government that overemphasised “merit” in judicial appointments has now taken reservation to 59 per cent with almost 95 per cent of the population of economically backward classes covered. Moreover, a pro-private sector government has extended the proposed quota to private educational institutions as well, though the SC in Ashok Thakur (2008) had left this question unanswered. The proposal to give 10 per cent reservation to the economically backward classes, like several other schemes of the Modi government, is neither novel nor innovative. The Congress government under P V Narasimha Rao did provide for similar reservation, but a nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney (1992) struck it down. There have been similar efforts in states as well — Kerala under the left government (2008) in admissions to a few courses, the Congress government in Rajasthan (2008) and the BJP regime in Gujarat (2016). Even Mayawati has been in favour of such a reservation and has welcomed the government’s move. The BJP as a party has not been a great votary of social justice through reservations. In fact, the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, in 2015 called for a review of the reservation policy. But anticipating its political fallout in the Bihar assembly elections, the BJP disowned Bhagwat’s remark. Likewise, the government implemented the apex court’s directive to take the department instead of university as the unit of reservation, a decision that drastically reduced the number of reserved seats for SCs and STs in universities. Similarly, the government lawyer did not effectively defend the SC/ST Act in the Supreme Court and almost admitted its misuse, leading to the dilution of the Act. Historically, most reservation schemes have been announced on the eve of general or assembly elections. The political leadership treats Indian voters as stupid and forgets that in the past, such populist moves have not paid electoral dividends. Rajiv Gandhi did not win in 1989 despite overturning the Shah Bano verdict and opening the locks of the Babri Masjid. Socialist leader Karpoori Thakur and V P Singh too failed to get the anticipated support from the masses for their reservation policies. In any case, the legality of the Modi government’s move is suspect. The apex court has said in categorical terms that reservation solely on the basis of economic backwardness, that is without evidence of historical discrimination, finds no justification in the Constitution. A nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney had ruled that reservation is a remedy for historical discrimination and its continuing ill-effects. The court also said that reservation is not aimed at economic uplift or poverty alleviation. Economic backwardness is to be on account of social backwardness. The backwardness mentioned under Article 16(1) must be the backwardness that is both the cause and consequence of non-representation in the state administration. It has to be backwardness of the whole class, not of some individuals. The economic criterion will thus lead, in effect, to the virtual deletion of Article 16(4) from the Constitution. Hence, economic backwardness has to be on account of social backwardness under Article 16(4). Moreover, the move upsets the 50 per cent cap imposed by the SC on reservation. Justice Thommen in Indra Sawhney said that “any attempt to over-emphasise its compensatory aspect and widen the scope of reservation beyond ‘minority of posts’ is to practice excessive and invidious reverse discrimination”. B R Ambedkar in his speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 30, 1948, explicitly said that equality of opportunity would require that reservation should be for the “minority of the seats” and only in favour of “backward classes who had not so far had representation in the state”. The weaker sections as mentioned in Article 46 are a genus of which the backward class of citizens mentioned in Article 16(4) constitute a species. Thus, only backward classes, and not all the weaker sections, are entitled to reservation. Caste and class are not synonymous. Class is not antithetical to caste, caste is an enclosed class. Ambedkar, at the time of the first amendment, which inserted clause 4 in Article 15, told Parliament that “backward classes are nothing else but a collection of castes”. Class here is social class. Thus, economic backwardness must be the result of social backwardness. A constitutional amendment in the matter will be subject to the basic structure theory. There is no definition of the basic structure and in each case, the court decides what features of the Constitution constitutes the basic structure. The Modi government must be hoping that since there is some controversy about the right to equality being a part of the basic structure, it can pass judicial scrutiny. Justice K K Mathew in Indira Gandhi (1975) had not accepted Article 14 as part of the basic structure because equality is a multi-coloured concept incapable of a single definition. Moreover, the government may argue that reservation will widen the ideals of equality by including even the economically backward. But equality as a principle is part of the basic structure and with equality of status and opportunity in the preamble also as basic structure, the Court may agree to the economic criterion for reservation. In any case, only an 11-member bench can overrule Indra Sawhney and a decision is unlikely in six months. The most likely scenario is that the Modi government’s move will be stayed by the apex court till the final decision on the constitutionality of the Bill is delivered. The validity of reservation on the basis of economic backwardness in the absence of social backwardness, will depend on how many of the 11 yardsticks of backwardness laid down in Indra Sawhney for OBC reservation is satisfied by the Bill. — This article first appeared in the January 9, 2019 print edition under the title ‘Slipping on quota’ III/IV. https://scroll.in/article/908630/scroll-explainer-why-bjps-upper-caste-quota-is-a-great-gambit-but-raises-some-tricky-questions?fbclid=IwAR0nLIT2rOAmT-2MmJgHTXyGiZnVYtvdd9AdwBfs0YWJTD_O9YyEvyVbujs Why BJP’s upper-caste quota is a great gambit – but it raises some tricky questions A quick rundown of the reasons the 10% quota could alter the conversation, while also facing serious challenges. Yesterday · 02:30 pm Rohan Venkataramakrishnan Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s proposed Constitutional Amendment to give 10% reservation to the economically backward “general category” population, being referred to as an upper-caste quota, is the sort of grand gambit expected from a government facing re-election. The move has, in one fell swoop, altered the entire political conversation, which was otherwise focused on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s losses in recent state elections and controversies like the Rafale case. But it is also fraught with complications, from an unavoidable legal test to questions of whether this will be seen as a last-minute election gimmick. However it is seen, though, it is the sort of move that alters the political conversation and forces all other parties to find a way to react – after months of the BJP falling behind the narrative curve. Here is what the move does for the BJP: Changes the narrative: For the last few months, the BJP has been chasing the story, forced to react to arguments being made by the Opposition, whether it is on farmer unrest, the lack of jobs, Rafale or otherwise. The party’s loss in three North Indian states drove this point clearly home, with the BJP recognising that it had been put on the back foot. This move changes all of that, forcing all other parties to come up with a response and giving the BJP a huge selling point going into the general elections. Addresses upper-caste anger: It was evident that upper castes were unhappy with the BJP during the three North Indian state elections towards the end of 2018. This was in part because of the BJP’s support for reinstating the tougher conditions of the Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, which upper castes believe is a draconian law that is misused against their communities. Over the last few years, forward castes like Jats and Marathas around the country have also taken to the streets demanding reservations, with various state governments finding it difficult to respond. This changes all that. An all-India move that forces all parties to fall in line: Opposition parties will find it very hard to oppose the move, since forward castes form a part of their bases as well. Although a few have brought up the question of reservation being a way to fight historical injustice rather than economic deprivation, most have preferred instead to proffer support for the move while nevertheless criticising the BJP for attempting it at the last minute and in this manner. Appeals to anti-reservation base: In a certain way, the move actually speaks to a significant section of the BJP and its right-wing base that is opposed to the idea of caste-based reservations. Recognising that doing away with reservations altogether is an unviable position, this section has instead demanded that quotas be based on economic criteria rather than caste for decades now. By proposing a reservation that is based only on economic conditions, the BJP is fulfilling exactly that demand. Can be sold as a pro-poor move: Technically speaking the letter of the law will simply say this is a quota that is open to all general category individuals, meaning those who do not fall into other reserved categories. On paper, that means it would apply to minorities as well as forward castes, while in reality it is likely that it will be cornered by the latter. In that way the BJP can insist this is a non-discriminatory policy, one that fits into the Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas (Progress for all) tagline, even though its actual impact is likely to be lopsided. Potentially de-stigmatises reservations: Many Scheduled Caste groups have been in favour of upper-caste quotas for decades now, in the belief that only offering it to backward castes heightens discrimination, as has often been seen in the treatment of those that make it through reserved seats in the education system. If forward castes also enter educational institutions and government professions through reservations, it might go some way towards reducing that misguided ‘merit’ argument. But not everything about the move will be smooth sailing. For starters, there are questions about how it has been introduced in the first place and whether such a quota is legally tenable. Here are some of those concerns: Will it pass judicial muster? Attempts at bringing in reservations that are based only economic criteria have failed in the past, with the Supreme Court making it clear that existing quotas have to be tested against historical under-representation and other criteria for backwardness. The Supreme Court has also laid down a general guideline that reservations will not go over 50% of the total pie, which this 10% quota promises to do. No government has attempted a Constitutional Amendment on the matter, so it is not a certain thing that it would be struck down, but the proposal will undoubtedly be tested in court. Was it improperly brought in? The Cabinet’s decision to clear this proposal on January 7, a day before the Winter Session of Parliament was about to end, makes it seem like a blatant election gimmick. A Constitutional Amendment requires both houses to pass the Bill with two-thirds support, and it would then have to be ratified by at least half of India’s state assemblies. But aside from the legal requirements, there is also the question of propriety. If the BJP was serious about the move, would it not have introduced the proposal ahead of the Session, allowing for a public debate on the matter? Will it change the idea of reservation? If the move passes, it will fundamentally alter India’s approach to reservations, which until now has remained one of addressing historical injustice against sections of the society that are backward. By putting forward a reservation as a means of addressing economic inequity even for dominant communities, the move attempts to use affirmative action as a way of addressing the state’s inability to distribute wealth and progress better. Although many forward castes have though about reservations for years in this manner, as a way to address economic inequality – without even thinking about the historical injustice it addresses – this would formalise that approach. Is it an opening for converting all reservations? Going back to the question of appealing to the BJP’s right-wing base, which has been opposed to caste-based reservations, this move might also open space for more questioning of that very idea. Once economic-criteria reservations are a reality, the base will undoubtedly start pushing for caste-based quotas to evolve into economic ones. Right now that seems like political suicide, but by altering the very idea of reservations, the ‘Overton Window’ shifts. Is it an admission of economic failure? Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas (Progress for all) was supposed to mean something else, when Modi promised it in 2013. Then the expectation was that his government would bring in an economic boom that could then lift all boats. Instead, economic mismanagement despite low oil prices and inflation – thanks to the twin shocks of demonetisation and the botched rollout of the Goods and Services Tax – have left an economy that is not nearly growing to is potential, and a staggering lack of job opportunities even as millions seek to enter the workforce. Rather than providing more jobs, the BJP is now trying to slice up its limited pie more equitably, a telling move that says as much about its economic performance as it does about its policy approach. IV. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/general-reservation-economically-weak-dalit-obc-caste-lok-sabha-election-constitution-the-jumla-5527562/?fbclid=IwAR1wIcL6jFrWZYj0oGNswLFl-9fE6hwtZ7vR2I8hnirapqEMJHoRdGU1d2s The reservation jumla Quota for upper caste poor is cynical politics, and cynical policy. Since we cannot create enough jobs, the token signal that the poor from the upper castes can be symbolically represented in the state is all that we can now offer. This is in a context where public sector jobs are scarce. Written by Pratap Bhanu Mehta | Updated: January 8, 2019 8:01:30 am The proposal has one small silver lining. One unintended thing it will do is remove the stigma of reservation itself. The announcement of 10 per cent reservation for economically backward groups in the upper castes is another example of the travesty that characterises constitutional and political discourse when it comes to reservations. It is cynical politics. It is cynical policy. There are two realities India faces. This proposal has one element of honesty in it. It admits this government’s massive failure on every front. The stark reality is this. The Indian economy is not generating enough attractive jobs; nor is our education system training graduates properly enough to participate in the economy. In the context of that failure, there has been a clamour amongst the educated upper caste groups like Rajputs for a reservation route to be opened up for them. Since we cannot create enough jobs, the token signal that the poor from the upper castes can be symbolically represented in the state is all that we can now offer. This is in a context where public sector jobs are scarce. As Devesh Kapur has pointed out, per capita India now has fewer IAS officers than it did in the Sixties. Gone are the narratives of a buoyant economy lifting all boats. We are now back to distributing crumbs. India needs effective forms of reservation or affirmative action, especially for Dalits. But our reservation policy, post Mandal, has more generally become a prime example of majoritarian politics, where the exigencies of politics and power rather than the ethical and moral claims drive entitlements. One of the biggest casualties of this move has been that the historical specificity of the experience of Dalits has been completely occluded. Every other group has managed to don the mantle of victimhood in the same way. The purpose of reservation has been stretched beyond combating discrimination and empowering the truly marginalised, (that is the only thing it does not do), to now an anti-poverty measure, a load it cannot bear. The idea that you can address economic deprivation through reservation is preposterous. This measure is being enacted against this backdrop. But both the timing and content of this announcement smack of desperation. Some politicians like Nitish Kumar have been discussing this idea for a while. But to introduce a major constitutional amendment like this, a few weeks before elections, by a government that is struggling, is a political afterthought rather than a policy forethought. Like previous reservation measures, it does not allow for a full discussion of better alternatives, some of which might even be used to replace current OBC reservation. The purpose of reservation has been stretched beyond combating discrimination and empowering the truly marginalised, (that is the only thing it does not do), to now an anti-poverty measure, a load it cannot bear. The idea that you can address economic deprivation through reservation is preposterous. There have been a number of them: Rakesh Basant’s proposal of looking at parents’ education as the best proxy; or even JNU’s old deprivation criteria that allowed for an interesting play of inter-sectionality. What will be the economic cut-off? Let us say a pure economic criterion that pegs the cut-off for eligibility around Rs 8 lakh a year (close to the creamy layer exclusion for OBCs) is used. In some ways, if the idea is to reach the truly deprived, this criterion will be too generous. In short, the basic question — why should particular groups be brought under the ambit of reservation — will remain subject to irrationality. The proposal has one small silver lining. One unintended thing it will do is remove the stigma of reservation itself. Reservation has historically been associated with caste. And often in our imagination there was a stigma that the upper caste put on those who had come through reservation. By including upper castes under the sign of reservation, it dissociates caste and the stigma of reservation. Upper castes can no longer resent Dalits and others for reservation. Dalit groups have been arguing this for a while; hence their support for this policy. But there are better ways of achieving this goal. But this silver lining is overshadowed by the Pandora’s box this proposal opens up. It breaches the 50 per cent ceiling on reservations laid down by the Supreme Court. It is true that the rationale for the 50 per cent ceiling was not entirely clear; nor should it be sacrosanct. But it was an uneasy social compact that tried to strike the balance between two different ideas: That the legitimacy of institutions be measured entirely by their representativeness and the idea that identity should be irrelevant in determining whom jobs go to. It recognised the historical claims of Dalits and, more controversially, other backward castes, while keeping enough of a general structure open. If the 50 per cent ceiling is breached, we have straightforwardly moved to the idea that representativeness, based on criteria the state decides is all that matters. If we have decided to introduce a constitutional amendment to expand the scope of reservations, what will happen to the OBC demand that has been articulated for a long time, that the 50 per cent ceiling should be breached to accommodate OBCs in proportion to their numbers? Why is the government, the argument goes, not releasing full caste data? There is an inherent escalating logic to this. If we are talking representativeness as such, which other groups should be included in its ambit? Should Muslims, the one group whose mobility is now lagging even more than SCs, come in via their sub castes or as a category in their own right? What about gender as a more potent axis of deprivation? VP Singh could not control Mandal, and this government should not assume it can ride this cynical ploy. There will, of course, be other constitutional questions. Will a breaching of the 50 per cent ceiling, or the inclusion of groups that are economically, but not socially backward, pass constitutional muster? If precedent is any guide, it should not. One way or the other, this issue is going to deepen the crisis of the judiciary. If it caves in, it will be seen as pliant, overturning a hard-won constitutional settlement it had itself created. If it does not, the clamour will be to portray the Indian judiciary as an obstacle to greater social justice (which, in the case of reservation jurisprudence, will be unjustified). These matters cannot be discussed in conventional categories, because the Supreme Court itself has become so arbitrary. So the government is taking a bet that all conventional legal precedent can go for toss and it can get its way. That is how cynical politics has become. It will be fascinating to see if any political party has the guts to speak the truth. Or will this be an all-party jumla? We seem headed for a politics that peddles illusions, and a constitutional culture defined by cynical social engineering, not any ethical principle of policy effectiveness. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
