People's Democracy

IN DEFENCE OF QUOTAS

Stigmatising Majority Is Morally Indefensible 

Dr Bhalchandra Mungekar

THE offensive by the elite in India against the proposal to create quotas for Other Backward Classes in the educational institutions such as IITs and IIMs and the central universities or exploring the possibility of creating some space in the private sector on voluntary basis as expressed by the prime minister is deplorable though very much predictable. The attack is so virulent and one-sided that the country at large is made to believe 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 SCs/STs/OBCs as non-meritorious, inefficient, useless and unworthy of securing their due share in education and employment. 
  
The entire discussion on merit defies commonsense inasmuch as merit is a product of socio-material and cultural conditions. Secondly, it is always relative. Therefore, to consider merit in a mechanical manner particularly in a caste-ridden society like India which is governed by 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 anything on the basis of caste despite the fact that caste governs complete life of the individual as well as the Indian society. If merit is to be understood in a purely secular manner and it is not to be judged in the context of one’s caste background, why is it that elite class in the country has never shown courage for seeking the abolition of the caste system? Our entire intellectual and academic class in the country is very much 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”.   

Let us take one dimension of inequality. In the year 2002-03, for general category students the drop-out rates up to Vth standard were 34.89 per cent, up to class VIIIth 52.79 per cent, and up to class X, 62.59 per cent. For the SC students, the same were 41.47 per cent 59.93 per cent and 71.92 per cent, respectively; while for the ST students, they were 51.37 per cent, 68.67 per cent, and 80.29 per cent, respectively. The drop out rates in the rural areas were higher than in the urban areas, and for girls in all these categories were still higher than those for the boys. This kind of inequality prevails virtually 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 naïve and discompassionate to demand the exactly 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 the public expenditure? 
  
Even here the facts would speak a different story, which is very often and intentionally neglected. So far the admission to engineering, medicine and other professional ones are concerned, at the entry level, there is virtually no difference between the marks obtained by the students belonging to general category and those coming from the Other Backward Classes. Even the difference between the marks obtained by the general category/OBC students and those belonging to the Scheduled Castes is narrowing over a period of time. However, there is difference in the marks of the students of these three categories at the closing levels, and that too is becoming narrower in course of time. This is the success of the reservation policy. Assuming that there was no reservation for these socio-economically and educationally backward sections of the 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 the 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, even due to deeply rooted prejudices, even the suitable candidates from these sections are not found suitable and not selected is a different story. 
  
After Independence the country adopted protectionist policy for speedy industrialisation. High rates of import tariffs was 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 was not Indian Industry demanding even still higher import tariffs to get more protection from the international competition? Isn’t it the fact that after initiation of economic reforms and globalisation of the economy since 1991 the Indian industry has been demanding ‘Level Playing Field’?   

Reservation is also a form of ‘Level Playing Field’ for depressed and disadvantaged sections of the society.   
In USA, they have used two instruments to provide protection against discrimination and also to give fair access and equal opportunities to the African-American, Latino and women. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, the minorities get legal protection against the discrimination in employment. Under this provision, anybody who suffers from discrimination can go to the court of law against the discrimination in employment. In addition to this legal protection, the US also used certain policies to provide fair access to the minorities in government contracts in employment and in admission in educational institutions. This is which is legally described as ‘Affirmative Action Policy to provide fair access to the discriminated group’. Besides, the private sector itself has voluntary measures to provide fair participation to the minorities.   
Let me bring out another fact to the light. The Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University has prepared a list of 500 top universities in the world by using scientific methodology comprising alumni, and staff of the institution winning noble prizes, highly sighted researchers in 21 broad subject categories, articles published in nature and science journals etc., and of these 500 universities USA alone had 168, Germany and UK 40 each, Japan 34, Italy 23, France 21 and so on. China herself had 18, Spain 9, and even South Korea 8. Fortunately India could figure in the list with three institutions, congratulations to Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, IIT, Kharagpur and University of Kolkata. Are our universities run and managed by the SCs, STs and the OBCs? 
  
On the other hand, are our ‘Navaratna’ Public Sector Undertakings not earning profits even after implementing the reservation policy.   

Objectively, there is nothing surprising to witness such a distressing scenario where various state universities in India are struggling to maintain their existence in the midst of innumerable constraints ranging from 25 to 30 per cent of teachers vacancies remaining vacant at any point of time to non-payment of college teachers salaries due to the scarcity of funds with the State Governments. Do you want such state universities in India equally meritorious on par with those in the other parts of the world whose alumni funds alone run into billions of dollars? 
  
There is no evidence to show that the SCs, STs, and the OBCs are inefficient and non-meritorious. Therefore, arguments of merit and efficiency are pretexts against the 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 for perpetuating its monopoly of privileges; and, on the other hand, vast sections of the society are aspiring for a legitimate share in those privileges. In a highly inegalitarian and divided society like India, the protective policies are unavoidable for a broad-based and inclusive socio-economic development. In fact, the only substitute to ‘quotas’ and ‘reservations’ is to create more egalitarian social order guaranteeing equal opportunities to all and, simultaneously, to fight against all sources of inequality, exclusion and discrimination.