Backpage

BARRING unforeseen circumstances, the Constitution (117th Amendment) Bill, 2012, to extend the bene-fits of quota in promotions to all Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to override Article 335, which requires their claims to be balanced by concern for the efficiency of government, seems like a done deal. The Rajya Sabha, with an overwhelming majority of 194 for and 10 against in a House of 245 has already approved the amendment. And unless the Samajwadi Party, which opposed the move, stalls the working of the Lok Sabha in the remaining days of the winter session, we will soon have yet another example of a short-sighted, and cynical, working out of the politics of ‘social justice’, a move which not only bypasses the cautionary strictures of the Supreme Court but also disregards the need and wisdom of testing policy moves against available evidence.

Possibly this is only to be expected in a climate where the justifiable requirements of affirmative action are reduced to quotas and what was envisaged by the Founding Fathers to be a temporary and time-bound initiative has, over the years, proliferated into a bewildering and complex regime of quotas, not just for the ‘historically disadvantaged’ group of SCs and STs but every conceivable social segment which can mobilize numbers and political clout. And once Mandal extended the ‘benefits’ to the amorphous category of OBCs, the field became open for everyone, including dominant castes like the Jats.

It is not as if reservation/quotas are per se a regressive and divisive social policy. There is enough evidence to show that apart from providing opportunities in education and employment, reservation, by ensuring mandatory representation for some of the most marginalized sections of Indian society, has helped improve the diversity in crucial sectors of society and thus increased the legitimacy and political viability of our democratic system. That said, an uncritical reliance on a blunt instrumentality without, and this is crucial, any commensurate effort at other ameliorative steps not only limits the efficacy of intervention but strengthens the feeling that quota politics is nothing but an expression of symbolic politics for short-term contingent gain. Note the recurrent demands of the Samajwadi Party to extend the benefits of reservation quotas to the Muslim community, incidentally by deliberately ‘misreading’ the recommendations of the Sachar Committee and despite previous court injunctions against such a move, all to signal their ‘concern’ for the community. Worse, it has intensified the feeling, amongst all those ‘negatively impacted’ by the quota regime, of hostility towards perceived beneficiaries.

Take, for instance, this latest move of the constitutional amendment. Few can honestly deny the need to intervene and secure advancement for officers for historically underprivileged sections. That is why there is uniform consensus for reserved quotas at the point of entry. But once the initial hurdle has been overcome, and in theory, everyone is at par, should quotas be applicable in promotions also? Those in support of such moves will point to entrenched prejudice against quota candidates which they claim results in stalled upward mobility, thus keeping intact the inequitous social and power relationships.

Again, even if we grant this, are quotas the best way forward? Should not issues of ability and merit, howsoever they are measured, and the consequences of rapid track promotion for a specified section be also considered? That, incidentally, was what the Supreme Court had decreed even while upholding the constitutional validity of quotas in promotion. And this is what the new amendment now nullifies. The net implication is that irrespective of whether the individual in question satisfies the qualification criterion, and even if the promotion ‘disturbs’ the overall balance and stability of the organization, possibly impacting its collective efficiency, the quota promotion will be held as valid. Without formally stating it in as many words, we are being asked to accept that the only valid consideration is the social identity of the individual. Far from helping diffuse entrenched caste identity, such moves may well do the opposite. No surprise that so many associations in government departments have gone on strike.

For years now, scholars of affirmative action have pointed to the limited efficacy of quota based initiatives and stressed the need to vastly enhance efforts at continuing training, strengthening the quasi-legal measures against prejudice and harassment in the workplace, and so on. For reasons best understood by the political class, such moves rarely find favour and meaningful political support. Possibly they demand more concerted action, over a longer term, than a political class in search for more immediate electoral-political returns is willing to invest in, or able to muster enthusiasm for. Evidently, symbolism trumps substance in the electoral calculus.

Harsh Sethi