Backpage

back to issue

DESPITE a century long experience with reservations/quotas and over five decades of constitutionally mandated affirmative action/protective discrimination policies and programmes, our debate on reservations seems stuck in an old groove. The current reactions to proposals advocating an extension of the reservation regime to the private sector amply bear this out.

Even though, barring ideological dinosaurs, there is consensus on the need to improve dalit presence in the public sphere – education or jobs – serious disagreement over the selection of appropriate strategy persists. Those advocating a continuation/extension of a quota regime harp on first order assertions – that discrimination against dalits/tribals continues to remain widespread and that even existing quotas remain routinely unfilled. Since the policy, so the argument goes, has never been given a fair chance, claims that it does not work are specious.

This view does not address the concern that if so far, despite legal backing and pressure, the policy of quotas continues to be flouted, why would it work better in the future? Nor does there seem to be adequate appreciation of the growing resentment against reservation, a tendency increasingly evident in legal judgements. As Marc Gallanter’s classic study Competing Inequalities so brilliantly demonstrated, courts have regularly ruled against any extension of the reservation regime.

It is not that the proposals advanced by the ‘other side’ carry any greater merit. Replacing caste-based reservations by those for the economically disadvantaged not only runs counter to the constitutional logic, but only replaces dalit/tribal candidates by those from the upper castes. Equally disingenuous is the proposal to scrap reservations altogether and instead increase investment in education and skill development, thereby increasing the pool of ‘qualified’ and ‘meritorious’ dalit candidates who could then, without crutches, compete for jobs and seats in educational institutions.

Not only does this suggestion valorize a limited understanding of merit, it wilfully disregards the ugly reality of qualified dalit candidates being routinely denied jobs or seats in institutions of higher learning. Nor that an improvement in economic status automatically translates into higher social acceptance.

If such has been the experience with reservations in the public sector, is an extension of the same policy to the private sector likely to succeed any better? Industry spokespersons are already in an uproar, claiming that this would add to their many burdens, reduce efficiency and their competitiveness, vital in a globalized world. In addition there is little clarity about how such a policy could be enforced, particularly in a private sector environment which does not guarantee job security.

None of these arguments are new. So why do the advocates of reservation persist in their demand? Is it because, in our country, the broader policy of affirmative action and protective discrimination has been reduced to quotas? Why is it that none of our dalit formations/parties ever organise a campaign for increasing funding support to and improving the working of institutions/programmes designed to enhance the skill levels of dalits and tribals? It almost appears that symbolic battles over quotas are sufficient index of political correctness.

More useful than these stultified debates are proposals seeking to take a cue from the US experience of affirmative action. Crucially, the word quota does not form part of the US policy debate. Instead, US policy-makers rely on a stringent anti-discrimination law which penalises institutions, public or private, that in matters of education or employment discriminate against an individual on grounds of race or colour. Alongside is a vigorous espousal of the values of diversity, pluralism and multiculturalism.

Equally important have been measures to improve the education and skill levels of people of colour. And fiscal policies to support enterprises run by Afro-Americans and other minorities. It is only as a result of consistent effort, over decades, and at substantial political cost, that private enterprises in the US are today somewhat more representative. Instead of complaining, as the Indian industrialists routinely do, of an absence of dalit candidates of acceptable merit and qualifications, the responsibility for training the selected candidates is assumed by the enterprise/institution.

Refusing to address the systemic exclusion of dalits/tribals (as also other discriminated groups) from the public sphere can only weaken our institutional systems and democracy. It is also likely to further push these groups into a ghetto, forcing them to rely on group identity and resources to the detriment of general institutions and processes. Our experience with a policy of quotas has, at best, yielded weak results. Clearly it is time that our policy-makers and political elites think ‘outside the box’ and attempt more innovative solutions.

Harsh Sethi

top