On the Hate Reservations Band Wagon
A.K.D. Jadhav
Chetan Bhagat’s article “Creaming
the People” (TOI October 3, 2015) is of a piece with the general stream of
thinking in educated upper middle class India. In terms of its response to the
genesis and consequences of reservations this stream of thinking is based on
certain fundamental but fallacious assumptions regarding the raison d’ etre
for reservations. These assumptions betray not only a less than nodding
acquaintance with Indian constitutional history but more sadly an innocence of
the principles of political theory and science on which the structure of
affirmative action is erected in most mature democracies around the world. A
structure and which also found place in India’s constitution through the
medium of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. .
If taken as direct quotes
from the Bhagat article there are four assumptions on which his arguments are
built
1)
The
primary objective of the reservation policy is to obtain a fairer, more equal
society for which reservations are a short cut;
2)
The
constitutionally guaranteed reservations for SC/ST are “caste based”
reservations of the same category as the reservations for the relatively higher castes which came in the wake of
the Mandal Commission and are again gathering momentum under the new dispensation.
3)
Income
is a better indicator of the need for opportunity than caste and hence the
children of SC/ST who have high incomes are not deserving of reservations
4)
Reservations
also increase the social status of a caste
After making these
assumptions the writer then comes to the surprising conclusion that the
alternative to reservations is de-legitimization of the caste system. This
conclusion, though eminently desirable and closely linked to the philosophy
behind reservation for SC/ST in India, does not flow from the assumptions made
because properly seen these assumptions would take us in the opposite direction.
History and fact are hard task masters and so a closer look at each of these
assumptions is necessary to test them against historical, factual and social
truths.
Assumption
no. 1
“The
primary objective of the reservation policy is to obtain a fairer, more equal
society for which reservations are a short cut;
Neither in India nor in the
United States does the case for positive discrimination rest on the belief that
such discrimination will obtain a fairer, more equal society. If sixty years of
reservations have proved anything it is that unfairness and inequality continue
to plague society without a dent. Ambedkar’s argument for reservations laid no
claim to such lofty goals. The simple premise which forms the basis for the SC
and ST reservations is that Caste is an essential feature of Hindu society and
without Caste that society will cease to exist. Hence as long as Hindus survive
castes will also survive. The untouchables being outside the pale of the caste
system cannot expect to find a place in the political and social arrangements
made by the hindus. This has to be self evident to all who are acquainted with
the social and cultural practices of the hindus. The starting point for both
Jinnah and Ambedkar was therefore the same, namely, the demand for separate
electorates as the price for remaining within the framework of the Nation. This
construct was cogently and comprehensively argued by both of them in the round
table conferences at London in the early1930s.
The legitimacy of the argument was duly recognized in the form of the Communal
Award announced by the government in 1932. Gandhi and the congress accepted the
communal award in respect of the Muslims but opposed it vehemently for the
untouchables. Gandhi went on a fast unto death on this issue which lasted
twenty-one days, the longest fast of his career. The entire Hindu nation
painted Ambedkar as the villain of the piece who was bent upon dividing the
nation and taking the Mahatma’s life. To
cut a long story short a deal, which was subsequently described by Ambedkar as
“dirty”, was cut between the untouchables represented by Ambedkar and the
Hindus represented by Gandhi, the Congress and other parties of the right. Bhagat would do well to read the text of the
Poona Pact and get his facts right. In this deal the untouchables were offered
Reservations as a consolation prize in return for giving up the demand for
separate electorates. In due course Jinnah was able to convert his demand for
separate electorates into a demand for a separate nation. It was well said at
that time that while Jinha and the Muslims got Pakistan in return for separate
electorates Ambedkar and his untouchables had to remain content with Reservations. The deal was described as “Dirty”
by Ambedkar because he was blackmailed into it by the congress luminaries not
to mention the loony right which promised to burn every harijan basti in the
land should anything happen to Gandhi. This is the genesis of reservations for
the SC/ST and the so called intellectuals of middle India need to recognize
that nothing is more removed from the truth than the belief that reservations
were somehow “gifted” to the SC and ST by the enlightened statesmen who framed
the Government of India Act of 1935 and thereafter the Constitution in the interest
of creating a “a fairer, more equal
society”. Reservations for SC/ST
were born in the hard fought gutter of real
politic, a betrayal of the untouchables by the colonial government keen to
wrap up their show on the one hand and a subterfuge in the form of a poor
substitute for separate electorates “granted”
by the Hindu political parties, including the then Congress, on the
other. Separate Electorates were the perfect mechanism for ensuring that the
interests of the untouchables are represented and protected if the casteist
nation that is India is to become a true democracy. As a substitute for
separate electorates Reservations are expected to play this role. That is all
that they are expected to do and linking them with the fantasy goal of creating
a “just and fair” society has no basis in fact or logic. The answer to the failure of reservations to
properly protect the interests of the SC and ST is not to do away with them but
to strengthen them to the point where they can actually do the work that
separate electorates would have done. You do not close the police department if
it fails to control crime. You, instead build its capacity to handle crime.
There is only one way of strengthening reservations. It is to let the SC and ST
select their own leaders and appointees in all arms of government. If you let
the opposing camp choose your generals there is very little chance of your
winning the battle. The battle in this case is the upliftment of SC and ST in
all aspects of life. Hence the flaw is not in the concept of reservations but
the manner in which it is implemented and the irrelevant goals which it is
required to achieve.
Assumption
no. 2
The
constitutionally guaranteed reservations for SC/ST are “caste based”
reservations of the same category as the reservations for higher castes which
came in the wake of the Mandal Commission and are again gathering momentum
under the new dispensation .
Any one with a modicum of
knowledge of the hindu scriptures will know that SC and ST are not recognized
as a part of the chaturvarna or the
four fold division of castes and are in fact “out caste”, technically known in
the hindu scriptures as “Antyajya”. Ambedkar drove home this point in his book
“Who were the Shudras?”. In this book Ambedkar proved to the hilt that SC and
ST are not and were never the Shudra castes mentioned in the hindu scriptures.
Reservations of SC and ST cannot therefore be described as caste based
reservations. Unlike the caste based reservations now being extended to the
shudra castes the reservations for the untouchables are political rather than social or socio-economic
in nature. They are more concerned with Liberty and Equality of Opportunity
than with Equality per se. Hence the pros and cons of reservations as
mechanically trotted out from time to time by Bhagat and company do not apply
to SC and ST but apply rather well to the caste based reservations being
extended to the shudra castes or castes now delicately described as Backward
Castes by the hindus. The caste system does indeed ensure that the shudra
castes continue to perform low paid functions and continue to carry low status.
However, the fundamental difference between the BC and SC/ST is that if the BC
is educated and financially well off he is very easily accepted as an equal in
middle and upper middle class India. The SC and ST is doomed by the hindu DNA
to being outside the pale to be ever considered an equal. Beverly Nichols
brought this out rather well in his book Verdict on India (1944) which, though otherwise an apology for
colonial rule, did hit hard with some undeniable home truths. Chief among these
must be counted his elaborate thesis that despite his LSE and Columbia
achievements there was no chance of Ambedkar being recognized as a giant
intellect by the hindus for the simple reason that it went against their basic
impulse. The fact that the witting or unwitting hatred of the Antyajyas continues to fester to this day in India is
amply proved by the daily record of atrocities which make the headlines in some
form or other in some part of the India or the other. There is also the fact
that regardless of how anglicised middle India might get it can never give up
the distinction between upper caste and lower caste. In fact India is now one
of the very few countries on the globe where the concept of “Class IV”
continues to enjoy social acceptance and servants and servitude are par for the
course. In short, while the caste based reservations for the caste hindus can
be praised or rubbished on the “creamy layer” platform the inclusion of the SC
and ST is this equation is a non sequitur.
Assumption no. 3
Income is a better
indicator of the need for opportunity than caste and hence the children of
SC/ST who have high incomes are not deserving of reservations
The case for reservations
for SC/ ST as embedded in the constitution rests on the ground that all social
arrangements in the country, wittingly or otherwise, conspire to
pro-actively prevent the SC and ST from
achieving his potential by depriving him of the opportunity to do so at every
turn. In this argument it is not material if the SC /ST is rich or poor, educated or uneducated, dark
or fair. As long the task of judging his merit is in the hands of the caste
hindus there is very little chance of his being declared merit worthy. This is
a logical construct on the separate electorate principle. SC and ST, being
victims of negative discrimination, are deprived from reaching their potential
due to the prejudices native to their victimisers. They may have diverse
talents and skills but the social arrangements of the hindus keep them away
from their rightful due for reasons which are external to their potential and
their capacities. In the United States, this fact, often described as racial
prejudice or racial profiling, has been recognized over the years by all
sections of thinking society, private and public. Positive discrimination is their
answer to this social ailment.
Positive Discrimination begins by recognizing the very basis of inequality as a
state of the mind. This is difficult for Indians to digest because of the
organic linkage between caste, religion and culture. Thus, to a thinking Indian
mind “Unequal” is unequal because he is genuinely not “equal” and not simply
because he is treated as one despite the possibility of his being as good as or
better that the “equal”. Thus reservations are meant not to treat “Unequals”
differently but rather to safeguard them from being treated differently. So the
relatively high income of an untouchable family does not protect its children
from becoming victims of prejudice in schools, colleges and most certainly at
work places. The best example is the selection process of the Indian
Administrative Service which comprises a written component and a viva component. A quick look at the
results of the highest ranked SC and ST candidates will show that if the
selection had been purely on the basis of the written exams these candidates
would have found place in the merit list on their own. The fact is that all
these candidates without exception fare very poorly in the viva which then drags their overall score below that of the non SC
and ST candidates. The simple reason for this is that from the very beginning
in 1949 when reservations first started right up to the current date the UPSC
follows the practice of segregating the SC and ST candidates into separate
groups for their oral interviews. The interviews are then held separately by
upper caste members of the commission who have no compunction in marking down
their numbers. The protection of anonymity offered by the written exam is lost
in the viva. What is true of the IAS
is true in greater measure of other services and in fact selection processes.
Assumption no. 4
Reservations also increase
the social status of a caste.
Inherent in this assumption
is the belief that the social status of castes is flexible and the hierarchical
nature of this status can be demolished through the intervention of
reservations. The fact, however, is that the social status of a caste is
determined by the hindu scriptures and has little to do with whether the
members of a particular caste hold jobs or do not hold jobs or the nature of
the jobs they hold. There are two excellent markers of the social status of a
caste. These are marriage and housing. It is absurd to suggest that the status
of an untouchable caste has risen because of reservations to the point where
caste hindus would accept an untouchable caste as its equal for the purpose of
arranging a marriage. As for housing, most young people from the SC and ST
communities will tell you that outside the five metros it is very difficult to
find housing and one of the reasons why government jobs are coveted is that it
often carries a government house along with it.
At the end of the day it is
the real world and not the ideal world that matters in everyday life. In the
real world the children of SC and ST continue to suffer the slings and arrows
of outrageous fortune in all situations and at all times. Hence the original
basis for Reservations continues to hold ground. This basis is not economic and
certainly not social. Reservations have nothing to do with improving the economic
status of the untouchable nor with improving his educational or professional
attainments. These are not the goals of reservations because these goals will
not help him to gain a share in the decision making forums of government and
society which comprise almost exclusively of caste hindus. Neither a rich
untouchable nor an educated untouchable is acceptable to the caste hindu as
worthy of sharing his table. Only reservations per se can achieve the end of
obtaining for the untouchable a share in governance and education. Whether one
agrees with this premise or not the demand for reservations was based solely on
this goal as was the constitutional guarantee
This is not to say that a
just and fair society or improvement in the economic and status of the untouchable
are not desirable goals. They are certainly desirable but these goals are
applicable not just to the untouchables but to all those who are deserving of
them. The point, however, is that that there is no need or justification for
linking reservations with these goals because the sole purpose of reservations
is to ensure that SCs and STs get their due share in the governance of the
country and in the education of its people. In other words it is a part of the
power sharing arrangement which goes into the making of a democracy. The basic
premise is that without reservations the caste hindus will neither elect
untouchables nor appoint them to positions in government nor admit them to
institutions of learning. This will hit democracy and change the nature of the
polity because a huge segment of the people will go unrepresented in various
aspects of government.. The inevitable
conclusion is that as long as castes exist reservations for SC and ST must
exist. The United States has progressed to a state where not only slavery but
racism itself is a crime. In India untouchability is a crime but casteism is
rampant and its practice is permissible by law.
In the US a white man, unless he is of the Ku Klux Klan variety, would,
if not feel ashamed, at least hesitate to call himself a white man except in a
very technical sense. In India a Brahmin has no compunction in calling himself
a proud Brahmin or a Rajput in calling himself a brave kshatriya. Caste based
associations and caste based political parties are a thriving reality. Unlike
race the castes have respect and honour attached to them. In this background
the compulsions of democracy demand that if reservations are to be done away
with then separate electorates have to brought back on the agenda. The revolution
wrought by the good doctor, alias
babasaheb, would have to start all over again. The Chetan Bhagats of this world
would be well advised to let sleeping dogs lie.