THE Congress Govt. led by CM Ashok Gehlot in Rajasthan has announced the allotment of 14% reservation for economically backward among the upper castes. This move makes a mockery of the socially just purpose of the policy of reservations, by turning it on its head. Of course, Gehlot is not the first to come up with this idea of negating and diluting the provisions of reservation, though he may be the first to implement it. In the days when Congress and BJP leaders were stoking the fires of anti-Mandal resentment, one of their planks was that ‘economic criterion’, not the social and historic backwardness imposed by caste, should be the criterion for reservation. Even VP Singh, while implementing the reservation recommended by the Mandal Commission with one hand, pandered to the anti-Mandal forces on the other hand by suggesting 10% reservation of the poor among the upper castes.
Today, Gehlot’s move is showing the signs of snowballing dangerously. The BJP in a move of one-upmanship has announced that it will introduce reservation for economically backward upper castes into its national agenda. It is no surprise that Congress and BJP, old enemies of social justice and affirmative action, should now compete to hijack and distort the very foundation of reservations. But it is disturbing to find that among progressive democratic sections, Gehlot’s move is sparking off cynicism, not just towards opportunist political forces, but, unfortunately, towards reservations for backward castes too. Political scientists and legal commentators have come down heavily on the move introducing reservations for upper caste poor. But while they defend reservations for dalits, Gehlot’s move seems to have made them dubious about reservations for OBCs, which in the decade since Mandal had become a settled debate. For instance, one article critiquing the Rajasthan Government’s recent move strongly and sensitively defends the need for the continuance of reservation for dalits. However, it concludes by saying that since reservation is a "poor substitute" for social justice, "expanding reservation is not about social justice; it is about the games that politicians play when they want to outmanoeuvre their opponents and therefore gather votes. Affirmative action in other words has no longer anything to do with giving people what is due to them, or giving them what has been denied to them by history or by politics." (Neera Chandhoke, Justifying Affirmative Action, The Hindu, 4 June,2003). These words seem to imply that all attempts to expand reservations beyond those for SC and STs, would fall in this category.
Another commentary puts forward persuasive arguments explaining why Gehlot’s move violates the Constitution’s principles of affirmative action and social justice, but concludes on the note that "India’s affirmative action was designed for SCs and STs and those similarly situated – not for those with political connections. If this goes further, India would be well advised to limit its reservations to the SCs and the STs." (Rajeev Dhavan, Reservation for All, The Hindu, June 13, 2003)
Should we be forced to throw out the baby (of OBC reservation) with the bathwater? Must we tar reservation for the OBC with the same brush of political opportunism as reservation for upper caste poor? Or should we firmly defend, not only dalit reservation but also the principle of reservation for OBCs, against all attempts by opportunist political parties to rob it of meaning and nullify its essence? We can do the latter by clearly defining the principles on which a policy of reservation must be based.
In our society, age-old, historic social discrimination based on caste has strong survivals in modern times. Such discrimination effectively undercuts the principles of democracy and equality to which a modern nation should be committed. In this situation, reservations are necessary in order to ensure that casteist prejudice does not block the access of dalit, backward castes to education and employment. Of course, reservation alone cannot eradicate casteism – but the experience of reservations shows that it can play a significant role in counterbalancing the impact of casteist discriminations. For instance, take the case of dalits. Dalits continue to be glaringly absent in the private sector, top levels of industry or business. In the private sphere, casteist atrocities abound – two-tumbler system in hotels, blocking off access to common sources of water, rape and massacres of dalits, as well as, of course, refusal of caste Hindus to permit inter-dining, inter-marriage, etc…
However, in the public sector, where reservations have been at least partially implemented, we find greater representation of dalits – in government jobs for instance. It is this section, which is the mainstay of political mobilisaion of dalit parties. However, caste-based imbalances have survived even within reservation. For instance, studies point out that 100% implementation of reservations in the public sector has been achieved only in the post of sweepers – inevitably, in the upper level posts, reservation is less than totally implemented. Yet, reservations have, to a limited extent, succeeded in reducing caste-based disparities, broadening the access of socially discriminated castes to the public sector. In the absence of affirmative reservations for the dalit and backward castes, education and jobs would effectively remain ‘reserved’ for those who, historically as well in the contemporary world, are recipients of social privilege. It is to correct the abhorrent imbalances engendered by casteism that reservations become relevant. In other words, reservations have the specific role of addressing social discrimination, not economic or educational disadvantage alone.
But the question arises: aren’t poor people, too, effectively blocked off from accessing education and jobs? Why can’t reservation be based on economic deprivation?
It is a basic fact of bourgeois democracy that the "equal opportunities" guaranteed in theory, are nullified by class divisions, which effectively prevent the poor, working majority from accessing those opportunities. But this economic exploitation and deprivation are not linked to prejudice and discrimination on the ground of birth. Poor people constitute the majority in our society; in order to reserve places for the poor in just proportion to their representation in society, one would have to allot at least 75% reservation for them!
But the fact is, reservation is no answer, not even a partial one, for poverty. Reservation can only have a role in democratizing the distribution of opportunities to give those from discriminated castes a share in opportunities and power. To shrink the economic gap between the haves and have-nots calls for a totally different package. If education for all and jobs for all were made a reality, if land redistribution were taken seriously, it would be a big step towards economic democratization of the society. It also needs to be emphasized that in the absence of these above-mentioned measures, reservation too is rendered toothless. After all, as the youth who opposed the anti-Mandal wave, while demanding "Jobs for All", used to say – "27% of 0 is 0". The availability education and jobs is a precondition: once these are available, reservations can ensure that discriminated castes get their fair share of them.
But far from taking such measures, the policies of privatizing education and liberalization of the economy are resulting in massive shrinkage of jobs, and are effectively reserving opportunities for the rich. The ruling classes try to manage the resulting resentment by pitting the poor of one caste against the poor of others. Gehlot’s recent move is should be recognized as part of precisely such a gameplan and rejected. It cannot fool the poor for long.
— Observer