E-Paper
On very shifty ground
Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment Meira Kumar must know that her ?wish? to hike reservations for Scheduled Castes from 15 per cent to 16.23 per cent calls for a constitutional amendment.
Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment Meira Kumar must know that her ‘wish’ to hike reservations for Scheduled Castes from 15 per cent to 16.23 per cent calls for a constitutional amendment. As it stands now, the government’s amendment to a 49.5 per cent cap of reservations comprises 15 per cent for SCs, 7.5 per cent for Dalits and 27 per cent for OBCs. Any increase over this means another tweaking of the Constitution. Ms Kumar has based her request on two things: 2001 census data, which has shown an increase in the Dalit/SC population from 15 per cent to 16.23 and the fact that the SC umbrella has expanded to include Buddhists and 68 more castes. There should be no perturbance, then, with Muslims in Maharashtra wanting quantified ‘representation’ in Parliament, civic bodies, the police services and the bureaucracy. In other words, more quota.
If Buddhists are classed as SCs, why should other minorities like the Parsis or the Jains not seek quotas? Ms Kumar may be well-conversant with the OBC, Dalit and SC constituents, but we are increasingly confused about who is an OBC and the sections of society that qualify to be SCs. One can understand the growing demand for the quota card. Inherent in the reservations argument, as it is practised now, is the understanding that once a community is ‘awarded’ a quota, it stays forever — regardless of whether the community requires a ‘leg-up’ in the future or not. That this ‘crutch’ was designed with a time-frame in mind so as to bring the community at par with the rest is something that seems to have been forgotten. This ‘misrepresentation’ was aided in no small measure when the Constitution’s reference to OBCs became confused with ‘Other Backward Castes’. To make matters worse, there are the many overlaps and layers in documentary evidence that make it quite impossible to have any empirical parameter to define the ‘backwardness’ of a community or even its numerical strength.
The danger in pursuing such divisive politics is that very soon there may be no more sections in the education and job pie to carve up and serve. It is one thing to want to aid the underprivileged. It is quite another to keep expanding the composition of the underprivileged, where the term ‘backward’ is just a euphemism for assured employment. Ms Kumar’s ‘vision’ helps neither social justice nor empowers any section of society. It only perpetuates and democratises disabilities.
