Click to play videoThe Supreme Court on Monday in an acerbic response to Government’s plea on the OBC quota case flatly refused to allow 27 per cent reservation in Centrally-funded institutes for the academic year 2007-2008.
While on the one hand, the landmark judgement had the strong anti-reservation students’ lobby celebrating on streets, it also sent out a clear signal that the judiciary simply does not approve of quota in higher education.
Dismissing the plea in the harshest of tones, the apex court categorically stated the government had no data to support quota and had not come up with any new facts to support its case.
The court said that the Solicitor General's demand that the matter be referred to a Constitutional bench will be heard in the third week of August.
One of the main objections of the Supreme Court was that the creamy layer should not get the benefit of reservations. According to Lahoti, the lawyer for the petitioners, the SC said, “The Central Government could not justify quotas for the creamy layer.”
So has the government failed to make a case for 27 per cent OBC quotas? What is the road ahead and what does future hold for thousands of B-school aspirants waiting with bated breaths for some clarity.
On CNN-IBN show India 360, students from Capital’s Jawaharlal Nehru University and representative student voices from Bangalore debated the big issue.
On the panel of discussion were CPI-M National Secretary D Raja, and economist Gurcharan Das.
Studentspeak: Pro-quota vs anti-quota
In JNU, the mandate was clearly divided. While the anti-reservationists were out in full force hailing the court verdict and promising to see the end to the quota debate altogether, the pro-reservation lobby asserted its rights in no uncertain terms.
Among the pro-quota lobby reactions were impassioned. “This is just the beginning for our victory. We have already shown how wrong their (Government’s) basis is. They are considering the 1931Census and that is wrong. And now, it’s been proved even by the Supreme Court. We will prove it too and this illegal, illogical reservation policy will uprooted,” said a student.
However, the other lobby immediately decried the apex court order and cited reasons for their disapproval as well. “We think the SC order is unfortunate. If we go by simple mathematics, Constitutionally, there can’t be more than 50 per cent in Central universities. While 22.5 per cent already exists due to SC/ST reservations and so in that way, the remaining 27 per cent seems to be a pretty rational proposition. People talk of 1931 Census, but 27 per cent anyway happens to be lesser than the least. So, why this debate over the number?” said one student.
But her argument was quickly cut short by the more vehement anti-reservation group where one student labeled Government’s maneuvers to appease “shameful.” “If the government, by the way of quota, wants to defend the creamy layer and extend some benefits to the rich and is forgetting the poor people, it’s shameful,” said an anti-reservationist.
The pro-reservation lobby also argued that when reservation was being given in jobs, there were voices that said there was no need for it and that OBCs should rather be given education. “Now today when an overwhelming percentage of India’s backward students are given reservations in Central institutions, why are you opposing it,” asked a student.
The answer to this argument was given by another student who pointed out the inherent flaws with the very criteria of identifying OBCs. “The criteria of identifying OBC people is very biased towards ‘social backwardness’ because the methodology to select is biased. There is a 22-point criteria and there’s an index of 11 points. Those who cross the 11-point index are included in OBCs. Twelve points are awarded for social backwardness, six points for educational backwardness and four for economic backwardness. They are only considering social backwardness right now and including all castes with that framework. It’s not fine,” he contended.
While the debate raged on in Delhi, similar sentiments were seen brewing in Bangalore. Though the voices from both lobbies weren’t as loud as in Capital, they were equally impassioned.
Most students hailed the decision as a victory for the masses. “It’s a big victory for us and the entire nation. It vindicates our stand as politicians want to divide our country and this is a slap on their face,” said a student.
Bangalore students also discussed the contentious issue of creamy layer and quota for the richest among the OBCs. Observed one professional who claimed to have come from a government-setup background. “I have seen my colleagues who benefit from reservations. Most of them are not exactly downtrodden, poor or economically backward and they can easily afford education in or abroad. Let reservation be more on economic basis and let’s abolish caste altogether as a concept,” he said.
Experts on ‘explanation’
The panel of experts too was suitably excited about the verdict. Responding to SC’s harsh tone and the demand for an explanation for quota, CPI-M leader D Raja said the Government had already given “enough explanations”.
“I think government has given enough explanation to the court because the creamy layer issue was settled at the time of Mandal case. Supreme Court had agreed upon certain criteria for creamy layer and that’s being followed. It’s nothing new. Now the policy has to be implemented. Again raising the issue of creamy layer is nothing but an effort to scuttle the very issue of reservation for the OBCs. How long can such a thing continue? Some people are making ridiculous argument that politicians are dividing the society, it’s absolutely stupid,” he defended.
There has also been a hushed criticism – with all due respect to the honourable court – that the court is interfering too much in public policy and stopping the emergence of an equitable society.
However, economist Gurcharan Das seemed to disagree in strong words. “Absolutely not. Thank god for the Supreme Court. This policy was always a bad one and it has exposed the political class. It’s a political ploy and always had a lot of problems. Forget the creamy layer which Mr Raja has not spoken about at all. The question remains as to who is an OBC. I am an OBC, earn in lakhs and get my son an admission to a college despite him scoring less than a poor Brahmin from Ghaziabad. So it’s a ridiculous policy,” he said.
The road ahead
So, what’s the solution to the quota conundrum? Is a caste-based census an option?
Students and experts differed in their opinions. While an anti-reservation student said they would request a census for “identification of caste”, pro-reservationists said government should get the quota ball rolling “as soon as possible”.
“It will be proved that the basis of selecting OBCs is completely wrong and this OBC Reservation Bill will be rooted out,” said one student.
While most pushed for a “scientific way” of going about the process, a student in Bangalore came up with an inetersting “solution” of sorts. “I think there’s a better way of going about it. Look at organizations like World Bank that have limited resources and more contenders and so they decide on a day-to-day basis. So we could wither follow their mode or seek their help,”
Expertspeak:
Gurcharan Das: “A caste-based census is a very problematic thing as by definition you are diving the country. That itself is something wrong. I don’t see it happening.”
D Raja: “This particular policy has to be implemented. I also want to know that when SC fixed a 50 per cent ceiling on reservation, what was its basis and what was the data? On Mandal Commission judgement, what was the data the SC had? So there’s no need for any data even now.”
Tell Us:
What do you think is the best solution to quota chaos? Write in with your opinion.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.