The affirmative action test
Praful Bidwai
The News International, 15 April 2006
Can India, with its rapid but unbalanced growth, empower its socially disadvantaged people by offering them a new deal, or at least the hope of a brighter, more equal, more humane future? A good part of the answer will depend on whether India’s democracy becomes genuinely inclusive and participatory, and whether it substantially reflects the interests and aspirations of the mass of its population.
One of the more interesting aspects of India’s political system is the implicit recognition of the distinction between formal or procedural democracy, which deals with representation and free elections, and substantive democracy, which pertains to social content. Thus, the Indian Constitution is as much a charter of social transformation as a code of fundamental rights.
One of the instruments for progressive social change, written into the Constitution and developed by Parliament, is affirmative action in favour of those who have historically faced social discrimination, especially in the shape of casteism. While affirmative action for the Dalits (former Untouchables) and Adivasis (indigenous people) in the form of reservations of respectively 15 and 7.5 percent in government jobs and seats in educational institutions enjoys fairly broad support, this isn’t true of the low and lower-middle castes, officially called Other Backward Classes (OBCs), who comprise a little over 50 percent of the population.
In 1990, a modest measure to reserve just 15 percent of Central government jobs, based on the recommendation of an official body called the Mandal Commission, provoked a huge violent agitation by the upper castes. The number of jobs at stake was minuscule.
Now, another political storm is gathering with a recent remark made by Human Resources Minister Arjun Singh that the Cabinet will extend 27 percent reservations for OBC students in Central universities and the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology and Management.
The storm hasn’t been defused by the government’s decision to temporarily shelve the move following the Election Commission’s intervention. This intervention was related to the norm that once elections are declared to state or Central legislatures, as they have been in five states, a Model Code of Conduct comes into operation. Under it, the government shouldn’t announce any new schemes carrying benefits to any section of the people.
Opponents of the reservations proposal are mobilising themselves concertedly—especially through email listserves. Some reject affirmative action altogether, while others question educational quotas for OBCs. Some of the attacks are downright hysterical.
It’s vitally important that the issue be soberly debated, after separating its central core from contingent considerations, such as the timing of Arjun Singh’s remark. The heart of the matter is this: Are reservations’ critics right in saying that OBC quotas in Central educational institutions are uncalled-for, and that OBCs, unlike Dalits, don’t deserve them? Will quotas detract from "merit" and eventually undermine institutions like the IITs which have an enviable global reputation? Does the global experience with affirmative action prove that it can reduce discrimination and inequality of opportunity?
Affirmative action is necessary in India primarily because of the pervasiveness and deep roots of this society’s caste-based hierarchical social organisation. Inequality is built into its deepest structures. The vast majority of the people were excluded from public life for centuries.
Persistent casteism constitutes systematic denial of social opportunity, which destroys the possibility of people realising their elementary human potential. Dalits are the worst victims of this. OBCs also face vicious discrimination and exclusion, although it’s less virulent than what Dalits suffer. Such discrimination is legitimised by the Dharmashastras, in particular, the Manusmriti, as well as social mores and conventions.
Contemporary social science research has firmly established that past discrimination can produce inequality of opportunity, indeed widen it, even when there’s no present discrimination. Different initial points of privilege and disadvantage will generate hugely different outcomes for individuals.
Similarly, individual career achievements are determined not by talent or merit alone, but are greatly influenced by the individual’s membership (or lack of it) of a dominant, well-placed, educated group and his/her access to "the right" social contacts, information abut career options, role-models and mentors. A Brahmin/Rajput boy is much more likely to know about admissions to elite institutions and job options than a Dalit girl.
Such inequality of opportunity cannot be reduced without levelling the playing-field through affirmative action. The purpose of affirmative action is not to promote individual betterment, but to acknowledge historic injustices against a group and compensate them through quotas or preferences in job recruitment and in admissions to schools and colleges.
The principle of (limited) reservations outlined by the Mandal Commission is a sound plank on which to empower the bulk of India’s OBCs. Those who oppose it on the ground that it’s anti-merit are comprehensively wrong. Indian (or, for that matter, Pakistani) society and government aren’t exactly run on merit. What counts in a good deal of bureaucratic recruitment is social status, clan loyalties, wealth, sifarish, political influence, bribery, etc.
Even our competition examinations don’t accurately assess merit. In the IITs, for instance, admissions are dominated by candidates from privileged families who can afford special expensive coaching centres such as those in Kota in Rajasthan and can spend lakhs on such tuition. The IIT entrance exam only partly tests aptitude or intelligence. Success at it also involves mastering the "art" of anticipating problems, answering objective questions, managing time, and other techniques.
Some argue that OBCs don’t deserve preferential treatment because they are among the worst oppressors of Dalits. This is a pernicious proposition. It’s true that the social positions and interests of Dalits and OBCs don’t always coincide. In fact, they sometimes clash—as when the OBC is a petty landowner, who seasonally employs landless Dalits.
However, the fact is, Dalits and OBCs have a lot more in common between themselves than they have with their upper-caste collective oppressors. This only underscores the need for solidarity from below. OBC reservations won’t squeeze the Dalits’ quota in Central universities—which nobody contests.
Opponents of OBC reservations are trying to drum up a muscular show of opposition and create a Mandal-II. In 1990, the anti-Mandal agitation took off partly because the then Prime Minister V.P. Singh’s move was seen as an attempt to take the wind out of the mandir platform. The BJP backed the violent anti-Mandal protests, and the Congress too clandestinely supported them.
The present reservations-for-OBCs proposal is not a defensive counter-move. No party opposes affirmative action for OBCs. The political edge of 16 years ago is missing. Besides, many savarnas accept the inevitability (if not the desirability) of creating social opportunity for Dalits and OBCs. The "Forward March of the Backwards" is a reality. The present anti-Mandal sentiment is unlikely to move from cyberspace to the streets. One can only hope that affirmative action finds acceptance on an even wider scale, so that India becomes more of a caring-and-sharing and compassionate society.
How will the ruling Congress react to the anti-reservations protests? The OBCs are the one constituency whose support has eluded the party. If it hesitates and vacillates on reservations, the OBCs will continue to find the Congress unattractive. If, however, the Congress sticks firmly to its pro-quota stand, it can hope to win some OBC support.
Copyright 2006 The News International
|
