http://www.deccan.com/Columnists/Columnists.asp
My reservations about SC verdict By Kancha Ilaiah Recently, while rejecting the revision petition moved by the Centre seeking the revocation of the stay on OBC reservation in Central institutions, the Supreme Court used very harsh language. The court's line of argument was that if the Centre had not implemented OBC reservation for the last 50 years, what was the hurry now? Why couldn't it wait for one more year? By the same logic, we can also say that the caste system has been there for 3,000 years, so let it remain in place for another 100 years. The Supreme Court's position on the issue is uncannily similar to the position taken by the United States Supreme Court in the early stages of the abolition of slavery. It opposed the abolitionists for quite a long time. From the days of Thomas Jefferson, the US judiciary was doing a racist reading of the equal rights promised by the American Constitution and was resisting reforms for a long time. Similarly, the Indian apex court is also on a collision course with the Centre on the issue of reservation which implies the abolition of the evils of caste and untouchability. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that the Supreme Court ever took a pro-active position on the issue of abolition of caste and untouchability. Here it will help to delve into US history to see what we can learn from the conflicts between the executive and the judiciary during Jefferson's period and Abraham Lincoln's period. In a recent book, Winning the Future, penned by the former Republican Speaker of the American Congress, Newt Gingrich, this issue is referred to at length. Jeffersonians called the irresponsible judges who were using their class ideology, "the midnight judges." Jefferson said, "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." He further warned that the "the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the Constitution of the federal judiciary, an irresponsible body. "Working like gravity by night and day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states and the government of all be consolidated into one." However, we are unable to find a bold Jefferson among our politicians. Needless to say, there is no Lincoln either in India. Gingrich says that Lincoln was forced to lead the nation to a civil war as the Supreme Court of his time was refusing to accept the liberation of slaves as an essential ingredient of democratic polity. Sadly, our Supreme Court has also been taking a similar approach in recent years towards issues of social justice. The very same Supreme Court had upheld 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in government jobs in the Mandal judgment. Its decision was that reservation should not cross 50 per cent. In this context, there is no logic in disputing the Centre's decision to give 27 per cent reservation to OBCs in Central educational institutions. If the Supreme Court bench thought that the 1931 census data was too old to be relied upon, why didn't it ask the Centre to go for a caste census? OBC organisations have been asking for such a census for quite a long time. We should remember that the court also praised the students of AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) as Abhimanyus for organising a strike against the reservation policy and asked the government to pay the doctors who struck work their salaries. This very judicial system insists that the working class that goes on strike should not be paid wages. So far we have not seen the Supreme Court or any high court directing governments to provide equal educational opportunities for all children of the country. Should we assume that Indian judges are unaware that there is no equality possible between the children of the elite who study in private English medium schools and that of the poor who study in government-run schools where education is conducted in regional languages? How many of our judges are willing to put their children in a Hindi medium school or some other regional language school? How come the courts have not asked for a uniform medium of instruction in the country, at least up to the level of school education? If the courts do not understand the basic principle of a democratic system, they would lead society towards civil strife. A political system has to work towards a process of socioeconomic transformation. And the guiding principle of that transformation is equality. The judiciary cannot and should not come in the way of this transformation.
