Reservations -Quo Vadis?
Activists are again being very vocal about need for affirmative action through reservation for children from disadvantaged background to gain entry into professional courses. Reservation is touted as the most effective affirmative action that can uplift the disadvantaged and bring about “proportionate representation of the different constituents of society in different walks of life for social justice”.
The argument of oppression of lower/backward castes by higher castes has little relevance in urban society today. Ironically, the majority of aspirants for professional courses come from urban areas, cutting across caste lines. Educated urban youth are rightly perceived to have an advantage in gaining entry to professional courses, (which purportedly works against the disadvantaged who are from the rural background, and which is sought to be corrected through reservation). But somehow the pro-reservation activists omit to mention that educated urban youth can also belong to the SC/ST/OBC community. A sample of SC/ST students who have made it to professional courses in the past on basis of quotas would bear out the hypothesis that it is the children of the already well off and established urban SC/ST who have benefited further through reservation.
With more reservation looming large, naturally there is hue and cry among the general category middle class, who see the cake for becoming a professional further shrinking. The irony is that a handful of beneficiaries of reservation policy are the activists who are spearheading the agitation for continuing with reservation. Typically, they are quite hesitant to volunteer foregoing benefits of reservation for themselves and their own progeny, though they take the public posture of fighting for other members of the caste/community. Taking a cue from them, people from other ‘backward’ castes have also felt tempted to play the caste card to take the benefit of reservation.
The general category middle class are ruing that ‘merit’ is being sacrificed at the alter of belated social justice. At the end of the day, however, I find that it is the self interest of individuals, cutting across caste/community, which masquerades as ‘social/national interest’.
I must clarify that I do not buy the ‘merit’ argument used by general category persons against SC/ST/OBC. It is haughty and arrogant, and without any substance. Merit is not a proprietary property of any caste or creed. But at the same time, I do not find any sociological justification for ‘forced’ proportionate representation of any caste/community/religion in any profession through quotas.
Quotas aimed at churning out future professionals strictly on the basis of demographic share of any particular caste/community/religion is a developing country’s funeral, as it is arbitrary, discriminatory and sub-optimal. Just because numerically a caste/community is bigger than others and perhaps is also growing because the members of the caste/community do not believe in or practice family planning while others do, does not imply that in every sphere of social and economic life they can claim for proportionate quota because of sheer number.
Quantity and quality are different concepts, more quantity does not necessarily imply proportionately more quality and vice versa. If a SC/ST/OBC student is bright, prima facie he needs no crutch of ‘reservation’ for becoming a professional. In case he is also from a rural/poor background, he should be given extra and free coaching by way of affirmative action to make up for his initial handicap. But if he is mediocre, prima facie, as his school results reveal, it is not necessary for the State to waste money on him further to make him at best a second class professional. That is NOT ‘social’ justice, since the only beneficiary from the affirmative action is the undeserving individual concerned.
Similarly, if a general category student is mediocre, even with nil reservation, he will not make it to professional courses through open competition. The argument often used is that the latter, being ‘well off’, has the option of buying donation seats in professional colleges, while the former, being ‘poor’, does not, so there is nothing wrong with reservation. This argument totally ignores the financial muscle of the OBCs of India today, for whom the recent bonanza has just happened.
Although this categorization about economic status of the general category candidates and others may not be universal, and two wrongs never made one right, I would say, for arguments’ sake, fair enough! But still,
(i) What is the likelihood that a SC/ST/OBC doctor, whether good (intrinsically deserving), or mediocre (product of reservation), would practice in rural areas out of choice? I suspect that it will be the same as for the general category doctor who could become a doctor either through open competition (intrinsically deserving) or because of money power (mediocre product of donation seats in private colleges).
(ii) What is the likelihood that a SC/ST/OBC engineer or MBA, given an opportunity, will migrate to developed countries? The same as any general category engineer or MBA, I think.
Where do all these leave the downtrodden community who this reservation gimmic is supposed to benefit? The argument for reservation in professional courses is about and for individuals, nothing more. This agitation by pro-reservationists should not be confused with the larger philanthropic picture about concern for up-liftment of the disadvantaged.
As already said, I do not support quotas in professional fields at all. I have also come to suspect the intentions of those from the SC/ST/OBC community (non-politicians) that do. If the pro-reservationists were genuinely convinced that quotas are essential for uplifting the lot of the disadvantaged, they would have volunteered to exclude themselves (i.e. the educated progeny of urban and well established parents) from the ambits of reservation, which would have then given them the moral and ethical high ground to represent the truly disadvantaged.
Activists are again being very vocal about need for affirmative action through reservation for children from disadvantaged background to gain entry into professional courses. Reservation is touted as the most effective affirmative action that can uplift the disadvantaged and bring about “proportionate representation of the different constituents of society in different walks of life for social justice”.
The argument of oppression of lower/backward castes by higher castes has little relevance in urban society today. Ironically, the majority of aspirants for professional courses come from urban areas, cutting across caste lines. Educated urban youth are rightly perceived to have an advantage in gaining entry to professional courses, (which purportedly works against the disadvantaged who are from the rural background, and which is sought to be corrected through reservation). But somehow the pro-reservation activists omit to mention that educated urban youth can also belong to the SC/ST/OBC community. A sample of SC/ST students who have made it to professional courses in the past on basis of quotas would bear out the hypothesis that it is the children of the already well off and established urban SC/ST who have benefited further through reservation.
With more reservation looming large, naturally there is hue and cry among the general category middle class, who see the cake for becoming a professional further shrinking. The irony is that a handful of beneficiaries of reservation policy are the activists who are spearheading the agitation for continuing with reservation. Typically, they are quite hesitant to volunteer foregoing benefits of reservation for themselves and their own progeny, though they take the public posture of fighting for other members of the caste/community. Taking a cue from them, people from other ‘backward’ castes have also felt tempted to play the caste card to take the benefit of reservation.
The general category middle class are ruing that ‘merit’ is being sacrificed at the alter of belated social justice. At the end of the day, however, I find that it is the self interest of individuals, cutting across caste/community, which masquerades as ‘social/national interest’.
I must clarify that I do not buy the ‘merit’ argument used by general category persons against SC/ST/OBC. It is haughty and arrogant, and without any substance. Merit is not a proprietary property of any caste or creed. But at the same time, I do not find any sociological justification for ‘forced’ proportionate representation of any caste/community/religion in any profession through quotas.
Quotas aimed at churning out future professionals strictly on the basis of demographic share of any particular caste/community/religion is a developing country’s funeral, as it is arbitrary, discriminatory and sub-optimal. Just because numerically a caste/community is bigger than others and perhaps is also growing because the members of the caste/community do not believe in or practice family planning while others do, does not imply that in every sphere of social and economic life they can claim for proportionate quota because of sheer number.
Quantity and quality are different concepts, more quantity does not necessarily imply proportionately more quality and vice versa. If a SC/ST/OBC student is bright, prima facie he needs no crutch of ‘reservation’ for becoming a professional. In case he is also from a rural/poor background, he should be given extra and free coaching by way of affirmative action to make up for his initial handicap. But if he is mediocre, prima facie, as his school results reveal, it is not necessary for the State to waste money on him further to make him at best a second class professional. That is NOT ‘social’ justice, since the only beneficiary from the affirmative action is the undeserving individual concerned.
Similarly, if a general category student is mediocre, even with nil reservation, he will not make it to professional courses through open competition. The argument often used is that the latter, being ‘well off’, has the option of buying donation seats in professional colleges, while the former, being ‘poor’, does not, so there is nothing wrong with reservation. This argument totally ignores the financial muscle of the OBCs of India today, for whom the recent bonanza has just happened.
Although this categorization about economic status of the general category candidates and others may not be universal, and two wrongs never made one right, I would say, for arguments’ sake, fair enough! But still,
(i) What is the likelihood that a SC/ST/OBC doctor, whether good (intrinsically deserving), or mediocre (product of reservation), would practice in rural areas out of choice? I suspect that it will be the same as for the general category doctor who could become a doctor either through open competition (intrinsically deserving) or because of money power (mediocre product of donation seats in private colleges).
(ii) What is the likelihood that a SC/ST/OBC engineer or MBA, given an opportunity, will migrate to developed countries? The same as any general category engineer or MBA, I think.
Where do all these leave the downtrodden community who this reservation gimmic is supposed to benefit? The argument for reservation in professional courses is about and for individuals, nothing more. This agitation by pro-reservationists should not be confused with the larger philanthropic picture about concern for up-liftment of the disadvantaged.
As already said, I do not support quotas in professional fields at all. I have also come to suspect the intentions of those from the SC/ST/OBC community (non-politicians) that do. If the pro-reservationists were genuinely convinced that quotas are essential for uplifting the lot of the disadvantaged, they would have volunteered to exclude themselves (i.e. the educated progeny of urban and well established parents) from the ambits of reservation, which would have then given them the moral and ethical high ground to represent the truly disadvantaged.
No comments:
Post a Comment