Quotas: Divide and rule or unity in diversity

The Supreme Court verdict on OBC reservations for higher education could change the face of education in this country. It has also raised certain very important questions:

In a balancing act, SC upholds 27 per cent OBC reservation in higher educational institutions but keeps the creamy layer or the well off out of it. Is it the right decision?

All political parties have welcomed the judgment. Have quotas become a political weapon?

Both pro and anti-reservationists have something to celebrate but will this verdict end up dividing the campus?

The HRD Ministry says SC judgment applicable to the IIMs as well. How prepared are they to implement the quota and where is the infrastructure?

To discuss and debate these points on a CNN-IBN special show The Quota Question was an eminent panel comprising politicians, sociologists, Supreme Court lawyers and the most affected community – students.

The show was moderated by CNN-IBN Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep Sardesai and on the panel were National Spokesperson of Congress, Jayanthi Natarajan; Senior Counsel, Harish Salve; Advisor to HRD Minister on reservation, P S Krishnan and Professor of Sociology Dipankar Gupta.

The SC judgement: Reading the fine print

• Supreme Court has held the 27 per cent quota for OBCs in Central higher educational institutions legal and valid. This means that total reservation will go up to 49.5 per cent.
• The apex court has ruled creamy layer among the OBCs will be excluded from the quota benefits.
• The Supreme Court has allowed quotas in only state-run or funded colleges for now; private institutions have been kept out.
• The Court wants Government to review the 27 per cent quota after five years.
• It has ruled that not extending OBC quota law to minority educational institutions is legal.
• The SC has also observed that reservation is one of the many tools that are used to preserve and promote the essence of equality.
• And it says the concept of social equity must prevail over any concept of merit when it comes to reservations.

Dipankar Gupta explained the SC verdict and pointed out reservations were meant to give the ones who have been dispriviledged for centuries some help in order to ensure they “come up”. “I think the Chief Justice is correct that it’s one of the many tools. Because the other tool is anti-poverty programme. Because if you forget that and concertrate exclusively on reservations, a whole lot of OBCs and SC/STs will be left out.”

Which is precisely what the SC observed. It noted that caste cannot be the sole determinant of backwardness. The CJI said in his judgement: Determination of backward classes cannot be exclusively based on caste. Poverty, social and economic backwardness are all criteria to determine backwardness.

Caste vs Class

But doesn’t look like the UPA Government be willing to consider this, which would essentially mean going against the spirit of the SC judgement. However, P S Krishnan defended the Government with a terse argument. “It’s not correct. The Constitution of India mandates equality not only between individuals but between social groups because equality has been casuality of India’s civilization history over centuries. It’s nobody’s case that backward classes are identified only on the basis of caste.”

However, with General Elections fast approaching, that’s exactly what the Government is planning to do – giving reservations not on the basis of economic backwardness but purely on the basis of caste.

Krishnan vociferously rejected the statement. “We are taking caste as social unit and different commissions have worked out criteria of backwardness – social, educational and economic criteria and applied them to each caste unit and found out which of them were below the standards.”

But the inadvertent fallout of the judgement has been a strengthening of sorts of the Indian caste system. More castes have been added to the already existing structure and no where has it been heard or suggested that income be made the criteria of deciding backwardness. Essentially, the Government is perpetuating caste as the fallout of the Supreme Court judgement.

Jayanthi Natarajan replied to the argument, saying it was not the caste but a class of people that was acriteria. “Even the CJI has given a yardstick for that. For example, if more than half of the caste is not graduate, it can be a criterion. Therefore, it’s an issue about the backwardness of a group of people not perpetuating caste system,” she explained.

But the irony remains that no political party is willing to say that a certain class will have to drop out because they have achieved a certain measure of social and economic stature.

Jayanthi countered that politically difficult statement with a politically correct one. “After the Indra Sahni case, when we’ve had reservations for OBCs in employment, only 5.4 per cent of those seats have been filled. So until social inclusiveness is totally achieved, I don’t think it’s time yet to talking about leaving people out. It may be a very attractive argument. It’s also not true to say that it replaces merit,” she said.

Quotas = “socially inclusive” society?

Jayanthi’s argument raises an interesting point of debate. The general argument made in the favour of reservations is that of achieving a “socially inclusive” society. As per the National Sample Survey, out of 1,000 Hindu, upper-caste people in urban India, 253 were graduates. For Hindu OBCs the figure is 82 out of 1,000. Therefore, the “social inclusiveness” argument seems to work in this case and looks like the judgement has gone a long way in achieving that.

Gupta said it was pointless arguing if OBCs should be given reservations. He said the more important point of debate was that of the creamy layer. “Look at the formula that Mandal devised to denote backwardness and you’ll find that economic backwardness has been given the least emphasis,” he said, explaning how if one is not educationally or economically backward, social backwardness didn’t apply either.

“Reservations should be reserved for those who have been dispriviledged (sic) in the past and have not been allowed to schools, temples, village wells etc,” he said.

But what could be the ideal index to determining backwardness? Gupta quoted the RC Prasad Committee (it was set up soon after the Indra Sahni case) that provided a criterion for the same. The only contentious issue, Gupta said, was considering land as a measure of wealth.

Lauding the apex court for the judgement, Gupta said it was time to move beyond caste. He explained that the idea of OBC judgement was to bring class back in. “Constitution has been very careful in pointing out that it should not be on the basis of caste as in Scheduled Castes but on the basis of other social and economic classes. It was not supposed to be caste. It plunges a knife deep into the Mandal body of reservations.”

In an effect, SC is asking the Government to review the concept of creamy layer. The bottomline of SC judgement seems to be this: Through the years, the creamy layer has benefited, the elite among the OBCs have always had it good. The question is whether the Government will consider a revision of this.

Krishnan remained defensive and said it was not correct to make these statements. “I know large numbers of SC and STs who have come from the bottom of the society. It’s a travesty of truth to say that only the upper castes have got the benefit of reservation. It’s also a travesty of truth t o say we have believed only in reservations. Reservation is one of the tools and we have always given great emphasis to land reforms, land distribution, developments of waste lands etc. There has been a consciousness that social justice is a large package out of which one very important tool is reservation.”

Vote bank: Cashing the quota cheque

But the argument clearly turns on its head when one talks of access to education, health and other facilities. Clearly, an effort is seriously wanting in this direction. It’s one thing to say that reservation is the way forward to social equity, but whether it’s primary or secondary education, there is simply no access and quota looks a soft option.

Krishnan argued quotas were not related to vote bank, as popularly perceived. He said quotas were started by the royals – Maharajas of Kolhapur, Mysore, Travancore and Cochin – who did not even care for votes. ”Reservation came to independent India much later. To relate it to vote bank is travesty of truth.”

But despite Krishnan and Jayanthi’s argument the public perception seemed to be tilted against SC ruling. Seventy-two per cent among the total votes cast online felt SC was not right whereas only 28 per cent agreed with the ruling.

The equation: Caste – Creamy Layer = Class

Senior Supreme Court counsel Harish Salve joined the debate at this juncture. Salve was the lawyer for the petitioners in the case. It would certainly be interesting to know Salve’s arguments in the court. Did he concede defeat? “On the contrary, I am very gratified that most of our criticisms of the law were accepted,” he said, adding, “The first and foremost was the Constitution provides for social engineering on the basis of class. What they have done is engineering on the basis of caste. When you take away creamy layer from caste, you have a homogenous class. That was accepted. We also said you cannot have lists formed by political considerations. The court has expressed gross dissatisfaction in the manner in which the lists have been drawn up and has thrown this open to judicial challenge.”

PAGE_BREAK

These were the point that got missed in the fury of the anti-reservationists. But again, the question is of political commitment. Will a Government in power review the OBC lists? A tough question, perhaps, for Jayanthi to answer. She said she was not empowered to answer that question. “We have not diluted our commitment towards a socially inclusive society. It’s all very well to talk about merit, we stand strongly by our statement to achieve that goal. Yes, SC’s ruling is a law and will be applied. This will be considered by the Cabinet,” she said.

There were 2,400 backward classes 60 years ago, today there are 4,000. Justice Ravindran says when more and more people aspire for backwardness rather than forwardness, the country stagnates. Jayanthi, however, countered that statement. “That’s exactly the point. As long as people do not fulfill the criteria of forwardness, it’s our duty to pull them,” she said.

She concluded her statement by saying that if someone thought of it as vote bank politics, then so be it. “We have to go to the people and either they will reject us or accept us,” she said.

But the moot point of argument remains the state of education – perhaps the best reflection of Government’s duality on reservation. The driopout rates among OBCs is mounting each day but the Government still wants to give them reservations in technical institutions.

“There are only 2,200 backward classes listed in the Central list compared to 3,700 in Mandal list compared to even more in state list,” he said, conveniently forgetting a study done by the Human Resource Development Ministry that says one in every 10 students does not go beyond class VIII.

But Krishnan refused to listen to the argument.

"I am not speaking for the HRD Ministry. I am speaking only for this case because I am the advisor of the HRD Ministry for this case. I know that the Solicitor General presented before the Supreme Court, the various programmes which are being run by the Government under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan etc, saying that the drop-out rate has come down. But, I agree that much more has to br done to bring down the drop-out rate for which a lot of social reforms like land reforms and land distribution and development of lands," said Krishnan.

He said that the civil society is not even ready to lift a little finger in this matter.

So as a result of this judgement, an attempt is being made to review the whole concept of "creamy layer". It's true that in state after state, a few backward castes have monopolised the benefits of reservation, and this is the layer that the court wants removed, but is this something which is really happening?

PAGE_BREAK

To this, Gupta said, "The politicians who want the creamy layer to be retained in the quota purview are expressing partisanship in a very bare-knuckled, in your face, no holds barred kind of attitude - which would really be shocking anywhere else in the world."

However, he added that if the creamy layer was allowed in, then one would have taken away the raison d'être (reason for being) of the reservation system.

"Remember also, that the Mandal formula gave 12 points to social backwardness and only four points to economic backwardness, which only showed that Mandal wanted to camouflage the interests of the well-to-do backward class people. This is exactly why certain politicians are so interested in keeping up Mandal," he stated.

Education: A mission impossible for backwards

Gupta made a very valid point saying that as far as going to the people was concerned, the poor backward class people in villages are not really thinking of IITs and IIMs.

"For these people, even going to school is like mission impossible. Will any of these creamy layer people ever stand up for the people in the villages? Never. They are simply thinking of their own career prospects," he said.

Keeping this point in mind, one would like to know whether the Supreme Court judgement at any point say that primary education and secondary education are what need to be focussed and improved upon in terms of quality and access? This is something that was extremely important, much before one can move to reservation.

Harish Salve defended the Supreme Court saying that Justice Bhandari's judgement was a scathing indictment of the manner in which one never talks of primary eduction, but always talk of reservation in IIMs and IITs.

"Justice Bhandari's judgement and the Chief Justice's judgement reflect this concern. The entire fight against the creamy layer gives out the true motivation of what exactly is going on here. This particular judgement resonates economic criteria over and over again as a very important part of classification of classes," he stated.

Rajiv Gandhi did not approve of Mandal

Salve also brought forth the point that one of the most scathing indictments of Mandal ever was Rajiv Gandhi's speech in Parliament as the leader of Opposition. At that time, Rajiv Gandhi had blasted the Mandal report to bits.

For years, the Congress was very critical of the Mandal report. In fact, right through the 80s, the Congress did not support the Mandal report. It was V P Singh who brought the Mandal report in. Today, Arjun Singh has adopted Mandal - Mandal Part II in a sense - and the Congress is embracing it.

Rajiv Gandhi had clearly stated that society would be divided because of reservations.

PAGE_BREAK

However, Jayanti Natrajan defended the Congress saying that calling Arjun Singh's quota system Mandal II did not make it the same as V P Singh's Mandal Commission report.

"We have a policy that we are sticking to. We have a Common Minimum Programme and this is the UPA Government's policy of social inclusiveness. And we are proud to say that we have been vindicated in many ways," she stated.

Salve responded to her saying that Congress' vindication was entirely that in the political domain.

"I feel that the faith of the people in the Supreme Court has been vindicated because the court has said that 'yes, you can have social engineering, but that political gimmickery will not be allowed. You must exclue the higher classes and you must revise the list'," Salve stated.

So hopefully it is a rational court judgement that will make the society look forward.

We have heard from the policy makers, now CNN-IBN talks to the people who will be practically affected - the students. On the panel to debate the topic of reservations were Representative of Youth For Equality Dr Abhishek Bansal (anti-reservations); Delhi State Secretary of the Student Federation of India JNU, Rohit (pro-reservations); and IIM Bangalore Dean, Professor Pankaj Chandra.

Are anti-reservationists conceding defeat?

The Supreme Court has sent out a message saying that the way forward is to allow and monitor reservations. So, are anti-reservationists in a mood to concede?

To this, Dr Bansal said, "See, the basic point was that we are against caste-based reservations. We said give reservations but give it to the people who actually need them - this includes the economically backward from upper castes as well as the lower castes."

The Supreme Court verdict wants to provide a healing touch and not divide on the campus and it wants to satisfy all by removing the creamy layer from the purview of the quota system.

Dr Bansal said that they were satisfied with the verdict. "See, castes will be reviewed every five years and this judgement is a very progressive step forward."

However, Rohit said that the court had not quite taken the middle ground in an effort to satisfy all. He said that the court had rejected the votebank politics petition which had been filed and he said he thought that this was a fitting rebuff to those who had argued against reservations.

PAGE_BREAK

Dr Bansal stuck to his ground nonetheless saying that the idea of reservations took root from votebank politics and that the Government was playing the British game of divide and rule. "The more the Government divides this country, the better chances they have of staying in power. Rather than providing for primary and secondary education, the Government is caching in on votebank politics," he said.

Striking a middle ground?

The court is virtually asking the two sides to come together with this decision now. They have taken the best of both the arguements. It is now the campus which is polarised.

Rohit said that the point is not about pro and anti-reservationists coming at a middle ground now. He said that the point was that organisations like the Youth For Equality - which he claimed were entirely a casteist organisations - had been rebuffed by the Supreme Court.

These points apart, the question practically now was whether IIMs and IITs have the infrastructure to accomodate quota students. In many campuses, there are two students who share a 100 sq ft room and this might just add to the burden on the campuses.

Professor Chandra said that about a year ago with the Moily Committee, they had clearly said that they would be happy to accomodate quota students in a three year phase using our existing resources.

"We had said that we would accomodate 7 pc students the first year, 17 pc in the second year and the rest in the third year," he said.

Till then though, quality could be badly effected because the teacher student ratio could go up to one teacher for 15 students when it should ideally be one teacher for nine students.

"The first year would be simple because we just have to accomodate 19 students. However, in the long term, the increase is about 54 per cent over the existing numbers and then we would need to add factulty and all other resources in order to maintain the same level of quality," he said.

He added that the issue was more that the students - quota and general category - should graduate almost equal to each other and that all students should be equally good when they graduate from the institute.

"At this juncture, we are not ready to ensure this, though in the long run, I am sure we will be ready," he stated.

Campus politics

There is a worry on the campus that candidates who come in through the quota will have an inferiority complex and may be treated as lesser cousins.

Rohit did not agree saying that there was already stratification in India and segregation on campuses was something that was already happening.

However, Dr Bansal disagreed saying that the Government had simply widened the rift between upper and lower castes on campuses. Dr Bansal refused to acknowledge the fact that there was already a rift between classes on campuses like AIIMS.

"See, our argument was thatt meritorious students from backward classes should be brought at par with the general category students. Also, students who do not have access to infrastructure and facilities like books, schools and colleges should also be brought at a level where they can study and be as good as anyone else," he stated.

Supply Vs demand

There is a huge demand and there is less supply so wouldn't creating more IITs and IIMs across the country solve the problem a bit?

Prof Chandra agreed with this adding that many of these problems would become secondary if education in India was privatised and people would automatically get more opportunities in the country.

"There is also a very strong case for increasing the capacity in Government institutions too. We want to expand and we want to bring in more students. We need more faculty and for this the culprit is compensation from the Government," he said.

Both Rohit and Dr Bansal agreed that the crux of the problem was opportunity. India needed to provide many more IITs and IIMs to its students and create opportunities for people in the process.

Final results of the SMS/Web poll:

Is the Supreme Court decision on OBC quota the right step?

Yes: 21 per cent

No: 79 per cent

CNN-IBN Editorial: The 27 per cent OBC education quota is an important legal reminder from the Supreme Court that the Indian state stands for equality of opportunity. The judgement, as a legal statement is undoubtedly a good one, but it is no substitute for executive action. Real equality of all India's young citizens will only be possible if the primary school system is drastically improved so that the overwhelming majority of India's children do not drop out of school. For the moment, the government's attempt to carve up centres of excellence according to caste appears lopsided given the fact that only less than ten percent of our children will ever be educated enough to apply to these centres of excellence anyway.