Quotas are back in focus with a controversy brewing over the Gujarat government’s attempt to provide a 10 per cent reservation for the economically backward people among the unreserved. The May 1 ordinance has opened a Pandora’s Box, with the Gujarat High Court striking it down as “inappropriate and unconstitutional” in a verdict that has wide implications.
The High Court, while quashing the ordinance, had said that the 10 per cent quota would breach the limit of 50 per cent that has been set by the Supreme Court for all quotas. It further asserted that the state government had taken the decision to provide such a quota despite not having much scientific data to justify such a move.
What is being missed is that this ordinance was moved to provide a quota on economic grounds and this could have been emulated by the Union government. This would have been reassuring as, till now, none of the quotas in force in the Union government is based on economic grounds. The largest category of beneficiaries under the reservation system in India is that of Other Backward Classes, followed by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
The total percentage of quotas in Union government jobs now stands at 49.5 per cent, leaving just about 50 per cent for those who do not fall into any of the quota categories. This has led to much heartburn over the decades among those who fall in the general category. The Union figure is not adhered to in many states and in some of them such as Tamil Nadu, the percentage is much higher.
Reservation is meant to benefit the deprived sections of society and help lift them to the level of the rest of the population. These groups were said to be historically oppressed and offering them equal opportunity was certainly the prime responsibility of a modern democratic administration. The reservation mechanism was to be reviewed after every five years, but this was not done.
This, some claim, has also led to merit taking a back seat. Rather than focusing on gaining seats in educational institutions or jobs in the government through merit, people are now increasingly trying to get certificates showing that they belong to the SC, ST or OBC categories. This also indicates that reservation actually perpetuates caste discrimination, instead of helping do away with it.
This has also led to a sense of reverse discrimination, as some people fail to get seats in prestigious institutions or government jobs, despite being more meritorious than the others, simply because they do not belong to any section of society that enjoys the benefits of reservation.
This argument may sound old and tired but truth cannot be brushed aside.
This denial of seats and jobs to meritorious people of the general category had led to massive protests in 1990, when the then Prime Minister VP Singh announced in Parliament August 7 that year that his government had accepted the Mandal Commission report that recommended 27 per cent reservation for OBC candidates at all levels of services and thus drastically raised the percentage of reservation.
Those protesting against the implementation of these recommendations argued that the quotas have left very few opportunities for them and that economic criteria should be the only consideration if at all there has to be reservation.
It is significant that there are large sections among the upper castes that are economically very weak and they may be much more in need of government support than the people of socially backward castes who may be better off.
The objective of reservation is not to further fill the coffers of those who already live in comfort. As such, the government should revisit the criteria for quotas. It is in this context that the Gujarat government’s ordinance providing 10 per cent quota for the poor has merit, despite running the risk of violating the 50 per cent cap on reservations put by the Supreme Court.
