By Annapurna Sinharay
Over the past few weeks, the issue of reservation has sparked violent clashes across the nation. So far, two separate Bharat Bandhs, called by both the supporters as well as opposers of the reservation policy, have already resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries.
On April 4, BJP president Amit Shah, declared that the Centre would not scrap the policy of reservation for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities in education and jobs, adding that BJP would not allow anyone else to do away with the reservation policy either.
No one can dare to change the reservation policy as set by BR Ambedkar in the Constitution, Shah said, NDTV reported. His speech has put the limelight on Indias controversial affirmative action policies, compelling us to revisit the contested issue yet again.
A brief history of affirmative action in India
Among developing nations, India has the lengthiest history of affirmative actions, formulated to neutralise historical wrongs of a system that gave rise to disparity based on caste. The reservation policy, which was envisaged as a temporary provision (for 10 years), for the SC/ST in our constitution in 1950, has expanded over the past six to seven decades to become an almost permanent feature of the national policies.
It is worth noting that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian constitution, himself did not see affirmative action as a cure-all in itself. In fact, he was relentlessly committed to formulating strategies and instruments which would lead to the annihilation of caste altogether.
At present, the affirmative action programme in India consists of 22.5% quotas in government educational institutions, government jobs, and in all levels of elected bodies for individuals belonging to the SC/ST. In addition, since 1990, following the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, there are 27% quotas for individuals belonging to the Other Backward Class (OBC) in jobs, which in 2006, via the 93rd constitutional amendment, were extended to educational institutions as well.
However, there are no quotas for OBCs in the electoral sphere. Finally, 33% seats are reserved for women in elected local bodies, below the level of the state legislature.
Why such affirmative action has been criticised
Affirmative action or preferential policies all across the world, irrespective of the form they take (preferences in the USA, or quotas in India), are highly controversial. This is essentially because of three reasons. Firstly, there is significant dispute over the assessment of caste disparities, and whether these are significant at allif yes, to what extent and in which sphereand whether they have been narrowing over time. Secondly, there is a larger debate about whether caste is a valid indicator of backwardness, and whether affirmative action should be defined in terms of class, income or other reliable social markers. Lastly, there is the overarching debate about whether affirmative action is desirable at all, in any form, regardless of which social identity is used as its anchor.
Some believe that the existing reservation policy has failed to incorporate the lowest castes/tribes within the mainstream economy and society. A subset of these low castes and tribes have cornered the quota benefits to a considerable extent, and this continues to persist under the present system. This dilutes the very purpose of affirmative action, and has been a major cause of angst among the youth.
Moreover, as caste is not coterminous with class, the policy has ended up characteristically discriminating against the high caste youth, in favour of youngsters belonging to the lower castes, despite both of these groups sometimes sharing similar economic backgrounds. The vagueness deliberately left in the definition of OBCs has further heightened the problem. As it stands today, the reservation policy has been used mainly in vote bank politics, and has failed to include the truly needy into the mainstream economy and society.
Opposers of reservation consider caste based policies to be divisive, anti-secular, and anti-progressive. The reservation policy strengthens the notions of caste in modern India, and will likely result in further fragmentation and division of the society, which may prove to be irreparable.
Kaka Kalelkar, the chairman of the First Backward Class Commission, believed that reservation, and other remedies endorsed on the basis of caste would not be in the interest of society and the country. He was of the opinion that the concept of caste should be shunned altogether.
There has also been significant debate on whether caste can reliably be an indicator of backwardness. Though caste is has been a distinguishing factor in affixing backwardness, it cannot be the only basis for doing so. This view has also been endorsed by the Supreme Court, which urged the government to recognise emerging socially and educationally backward groups like transgenders, who are among the most distressed.
Rethinking the reservation system
New practices, methods and yardsticks must be constantly developed to abandon the regressive caste-centric definition of backwardness. This can help facilitate the identification of newly emerging groups in society, who direly require affirmative action. Reservation given to communities on the basis of historical injustice and prejudice alone would water down the social welfare protection provided to most deserving backward class citizens.