Menu
blogid : 65 postid : 1295370

Reservation: political, judicial and social facets

जागरण संपादकीय ब्लॉग
जागरण संपादकीय ब्लॉग
  • 17 Posts
  • 333 Comments

In a nation as diverse and society as stratified as ours, there will always be issues where consensus building across segments may seem well nigh impossible. If newspaper opinion pieces and television debates on reservation in the last week are anything to go by, we can be sure that divergent views on the subject will continue to be expressed and exchanged.

Each of the views, whether in favor of or against reservation, notwithstanding merit, is certainly not devoid of sophistry. The latest addition of 10% economic reservation on the hitherto burgeoning 49.5% quota has triggered a fresh round of discussion amongst the propagators and contrapuntists.

On a cursory glance of how events unfolded in the last ten days, reservation despite being socially divisive has emerged as a politically unifying factor. How often have we witnessed a constitutional amendment bill receive almost unanimous approbation in both the houses of parliament? The tragicomic situation was that the entire opposition concurrently castigated the government yet voted in favor of the bill. The irony of political compulsion and the paradox between words and actions couldn’t be lost out on anyone.

At the risk of dumbing down, lets endeavor to disentangle some of the knotty pieces of this conundrum.

The primary accusation of the executive is that this measure of widening the reservation ambit is an act of political opportunism. The motive is to win over the upper caste voters who allegedly had alienated from the BJP, which paid the price in the last assembly polls. Well it is perhaps unquestionable that there indeed was a fierce reaction to the central governments decision to reaffirm the draconian provisions of the legislation on the prevention of atrocities against scheduled castes. Be that as it may, what is unusual in the government calibrating its actions or doing a course correction in the aftermath of an election? This isn’t the first or the worst example of populism before the general election. After all winnability remains a top priority in electoral politics for outfits of all hues.

Some are questioning the legal tenability of this constitutional amendment arguing that it may not pass judicial scrutiny. Expect voluminous debates amongst the intelligentsia in days to come. The elementary question before the honorable Supreme Court is whether the parliament has the right to frame or amend laws bearing in mind the inviolability of the basic structure doctrine? What is at stake is perhaps the sovereignty and supremacy of the parliament.
We have seen in the past that some of the actions of the courts although received well did prompt a feeling in society that those issues were best addressed by the parliament. Whether decriminalizing section 377 or revoking laws relating to adultery or restricting and then relaxing alcohol sale in proximity to highways, one did get a feeling that if not an outright case of judicial overreach, the lines between the legislature, executive and judiciary were perhaps getting blurred.

It has also been suggested that framers of our constitution had considered and dismissed the idea of economic reservation. How often have we heard erudite scholars quote from the constituent assembly debates? The attempt is to infer and expound what the founding fathers had in mind. With utmost regard to their wisdom and intent, is it appropriate to assume that all political acumen and constitutional sagacity resided in the members of the constituent assembly? Aren’t societies in a perennial state of flux? The post independence context may not be relevant after 7 decades.

Again at the risk of over simplifying, the only non-negotiable attribute emanating from the basic structure doctrine should really be free and fair elections and personal liberties. Everything else can be/should be deliberated if warranted by circumstances.

In a sovereign democratic republic a piece of legislation passed by such overwhelming majority as in this case should ideally become law unhindered. However that shouldn’t prevent the fourth estate from doing its own critique of the actions of any of the three organs-legislature, executive and judiciary.

The fundamental principle of equality is enshrined in our constitution. It is eulogized and rightly so as uncompromising and has prompted a slew of legislative actions and judicial interventions. Stretching the idea further, any kind of reservation, protection should be an affront to this principle of egalitarianism, at least in a utopian model. It may have been necessitated by historical discrimination and brutality but the proverbial affirmative action was a proviso or an exception to the rule of equality. If an exception has existed for 70 years, does the aberration not supplant the rule?

Reservation was first introduced in 1951 soon after independence with the approach of establishing a level playing field wherein the starting line was the same for all and the thought was to review in 10 years. That reconsideration never came about and from 22.5% for SC’/ST in 1951 to 49.5% including OBC in 1990, from applying to government jobs to extending to higher education in 2006, the latest salvo being to embrace private education as well and all along the murmur on coercing the private industry also, the ambit has surely widened. This idea of an egalitarian society is of course ennobling but perhaps ends there.

If the overarching view is to create an ambience of equal opportunity the thrust should be on education at primary, middle and intermediate level. Right to education is critical and equally crucial is right education. The key word here is quality. I would much rather invest in the quality of school education, focus on upgrading government schools to bring them at par with private schools than worry about protectionism in higher education. If starting line has to be set at par, it better happen by the time a child is 18 years after which everyone is set free to soar basis their ability and effort.

The first casualty of any kind of reservation, whether due to social and educational or economic backwardness, on account of either caste or income, is merit. Reservation of any kind jeopardizes meritocracy. We need more seats in higher education and more jobs for our educated population. The discontentment and angst, the exodus to overseas of a certain section shall continue unabated in the absence of extenuating actions. In addition to infrastructure, tangible land acquisition and labor reforms and effective education policy will be the sine qua non. Tokenism has outlived its utility.

If what started out as a temporary facilitator hasn’t delivered enough to warrant a phase out so as to transit towards real equality, perhaps either the idea or the implementation has been faulty. It’s time to recalibrate the approach. We await better ideas from our lawmakers.

Read Comments

    Post a comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CAPTCHA
    Refresh