Backpage

INDICATIONS that the UPA government is considering introducing OBC quotas in all educational institutions – public, private, even non-aided, including ‘institutions of excellence’ – have so far not generated the protest that accompanied the first round of Mandal announcements in the early nineties. Maybe the implications have still to sink in, or, more likely, the potentially adversely affected treat the moves as a fait accompli, an inevitable fallout of the increasing politicisation of our institutions.

The usual counter-arguments – about the dilution of academic standards, the likely increase in social strife accompanying the increased competition for reduced open quota seats, that reservations benefit only the creamy layer and not the disprivileged masses, or that quotas, if at all needed, should be fixed on economic not social identity criteria – seem to cut little ice. Unfortunately, high decibel media campaigns focused on merit and impending caste wars often harden the attitudes of pro-reservationists, seen as reflecting a status quoist upper caste mentality.

Despite many such reservations, political parties across the spectrum seem unwilling to question policies framed in the language of social justice in the belief that they will help consolidate the crucial lower caste vote bank. Is this true? Not only dalit and tribal leaders but even spokespersons of the most backward classes have questioned the reservation regime as primarily helping the better-off among the upper OBCs. Equally, many among even the OBC strata likely to benefit from these proposals suspect the value of seats in poorly run educational institutions and are no longer satisfied with being fobbed-off with training that does not enhance their livelihood prospects.

It is thus time that the debate move beyond the old grooves to engage with other modalities of affirmative action. For instance, is the under-representation of specific social groups in centres of higher education and technical training the result of social discrimination, a lack of financial resources, or the fact that there is a shortage of qualified candidates to fill the quotas unless entrance standards are diluted? If the problem is one of insufficient qualified candidates, surely the appropriate remedy is ensuring quality schooling and intensive remedial and coaching classes to enable deserving candidates from socially deprived strata to compete. Similarly, why not expand the range of scholarships or subsidized loan schemes such that finances do not become a barrier to entry.

And if the issue is one of social discrimination, more true for dalits rather than OBCs, would not effective anti-discrimination legislation work better than quotas? Or is it that our political masters are intellectually and politically lazy, preferring symbolic and blunt instrumentalities which promise political gain rather than meet social objectives. Is this, as Pratap Mehta points out, only a politics of condescension based on an assumption that without patronage the marginal communities can never make it on their own?

Few of our institutions are either designed to or have evolved a practice of addressing equity of access without impairing quality. Reservation candidates are not only stigmatized as interlopers in a circle of merit, they are also left to their own resources to negotiate a demanding system. With little if any special coaching to overcome the handicaps imposed by indifferent schooling or improve language skills, it is little surprise that so many are forced to drop out, now also having to deal with failure.

Among the many factors which go into making institutions of quality is relative autonomy in functioning and the ability to regulate entry. Ensuring excellence places a heavy burden on both faculty and students. Populist social engineering, as for instance through an introduction of quotas and dilution of entry standards, both increases resentment and dysfunctionality. So do proposals to unthinkingly increase the number of seats or adding to the number of institutions. Before expanding the Mandal proposals to the Central universities or other institutions of excellence, it might be worth analysing the experience of state universities and institutions, understanding the reasons why they are no longer in demand by those desiring quality education.

Fortunately, given the changes in both the employment and educational spheres, as also the emergence of a more self-assured strata from among the socially disprivileged, a consequence of democratic politics, it should now be possible to advance fresh initiatives for meeting the twin requirements of quality and social equity. But, if neither side is willing to think afresh, we may well face what political scientist Kancha Ilaiah warns about – a civil war.

Harsh Sethi