I am not discussing here the merits or demerits of the ‘proposal’ to have reservations for backward classes in educational institutions. On the issue of whether there should be reservations at all, and, if so, for whom and to what extent, entirely sincere and honest differences of opinion can exist between entirely reasonable persons. What I seek to emphasise is that what happened recently is not as startling or explosive or bizarre as has been portrayed in the media.
Pursuant to apex court judgments (not dealing only with backward classes) which limited the scope for reservations in educational institutions, Parliament debated the matter threadbare. There was rare unanimity that the law should be amended to enable the provision of some reserved seats in educational institutions for backward classes. Since the onset of the coalition era of governance in the last 15 years or so, agreement to pass even ordinary laws by simple majorities has been a scarce measure. Fractured consensus has been the order of the day.
The 93rd constitutional amendment which enacted Article 15(5) to the Indian Constitution in mid- January this year was passed not only by two-thirds majority but with near unanimity. It empowered governments to provide for reservations in educational institutions for backward classes. There was thus supervening constitutional support for such reservation. In any democracy, and especially in parliamentary democracy, the will of the people has to be deemed to be the will expressed by the people’s representatives in Parliament. Whether you and I like it or not, the people of India, with virtual unanimity, constitutionally sanctified reservations for backward classes in educational institutions.
Had the Centre passed any law to bring into effect this constitutional mandate, it would’ve been nothing but consequential action pursuant to unopposed constitutional amendment. Protests at such implementation would be akin to unanimously approving the purchase of an expensive car in January 2006 and then objecting to its use in April 2006.
{{/usCountry}}Had the Centre passed any law to bring into effect this constitutional mandate, it would’ve been nothing but consequential action pursuant to unopposed constitutional amendment. Protests at such implementation would be akin to unanimously approving the purchase of an expensive car in January 2006 and then objecting to its use in April 2006.
{{/usCountry}}But the media went to town saying that the HRD Ministry had made a ‘proposal’ to implement such reservations. The HRD Ministry has been engaged with various ministries on this proposal for several months — including the Law Ministry — but that had not caught anyone’s fancy. In the British Indian form of cabinet governance, proposals leading to legislation or involving policy perspective changes, have to get approvals/inputs from diverse departments and ministries before the cabinet approves it. It becomes the government’s decision/policy only after such cabinet approval. Thereafter, it is officially announced or, if legislation is involved, it is then processed into a bill presented to Parliament.
Strangely, none of this had occurred with the reservation ‘proposal’ when it caught the media eye and came into public glare. The proposal had not even been scrutinised by the cabinet. But the media presented it to the nation as the fait accompli of a finally implemented decision. Everyone assumed not only that it was final government policy but that it was already under implementation.
As matters stand, the cabinet has taken no decision whatsoever on the matter. Indeed, the matter is not presently pending with the cabinet. If, and when, the cabinet accepts the proposal (and it is entitled not to accept it), a law may be required for implementation, which, in turn, will have to go through parliamentary debate and enactment.
This just shows the power of the media.
No place to pass the buck
Salman Khan’s conviction for violation of the Wildlife Act shows that when a vigilant citizenry and sensitive civil society supervise the prosecution process, the criminal justice system can be just, conclusive and efficient. Salman evoked the ire of Jodhpur’s Bishnoi community — incidentally my hometown and birthplace — which has for centuries created legend and folklore for their sincerity and commitment to the cause of ecology, sustainable development and animal welfare. They were committed to the cause of ahimsa much before Gandhiji galvanised the concept into a potent anti-imperialist weapon. The Bishnois are the original global environmentalists for centuries. It was they who created the original chipko movement by clinging to trees decades ago when forests were threatened with decimation.
When the Bishnois found Salman — with all his money, glamour and glitz — going for illegal hunting and brutally killing species listed endangered and protected in the Wildlife Act, they kickstarted the prosecution process and ensured a sustained monitoring which made it impossible to try any of the manipulations frequently witnessed in high voltage trials in India.
I find it ironic when Indians make a habit of complaining about everything. They complain about the suborning of the criminal justice system in Jessica Lall’s case or the Nitish Katara case and equally complain when Salman is convicted within a reasonable time-frame after a full trial without hostile or perjured witnesses. With passage of time, we tend to think of this merely as the killing of animals which should perhaps not lead to harsh punishment for humans.
After 40-odd years of Project Tiger and expenditure of huge funds, India’s tiger population has declined. This is because we have never handed down exemplary punishment to illegal hunters and poachers. Let us, therefore, applaud, not denigrate, our system when (occasionally) it works.