?Reservation must to bring equality? | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Apr 23, 2018-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

?Reservation must to bring equality?

RESERVATION IS required for bringing equality in society and would continue till this objective was achieved, asserted All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary Digvijay Singh. He was speaking at the monthly symposium organised by Abhyas Mandal on ?politics and morality? at Jall Auditorium today.

india Updated: May 31, 2006 15:25 IST

RESERVATION IS required for bringing equality in society and would continue till this objective was achieved, asserted All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary Digvijay Singh. He was speaking at the monthly symposium organised by Abhyas Mandal on ‘politics and morality’ at Jall Auditorium today.

Singh said the country was being torn asunder more by the ‘for and against’ groups fighting on this topic rather than by reservation itself. Those for it argue that they had been suppressed and dominated for thousands of years and their participation in private and public enterprise was limited thus needing reservation. Those against it argue that they could not be blamed for past happenings and punished for crimes they never committed.

It had to be understood that Jews, minorities and the colonised have claimed and received compensation for the past misdeeds committed by the westerners. The merit of those getting admission through reservation could not be questioned, as it was limited only to admission but did not guarantee passing of that student. The topper of Indian Institute of Management -Ahmedabad (IIM-A) belonged to the Scheduled Caste (SC), was the son of a widow and lived in a slum in Chennai.

Indira Gandhi introduced reservation for OBCs in engineering and medical colleges thereby producing thousands of doctors and engineers from the deprived categories He himself never asked the caste of a doctor, as treatment was what was more important for a patient.

What was important was giving the underprivileged opportunity. There was no denying that had Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj of Kolhapur not sent Dr B R Ambedkar for his education abroad and Sam Pitroda not helped out of his childhood of poverty their stories would have been much different.

Politicians today were divided on caste, community, language, secular and other petty or made up issues. In such a scenario the voice of a film actor on the plight of rehabilitation oustees was censored and his film banned by a communal diktat issued by the political ruling class, he said.

Today many politicians were using party funds, election funds and other sources of money for their personal ends. While he was Chief Minister he had made tabling account of personal assets compulsory for those in office, and by law government servants had to make their income and assets public. The Right to Information (RTI) Act introduced by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government was a gigantic step forward in this direction.

Cases of disproportionate income have been filed against several politicians but the standards are fixed by the society, which views different issues and different people in different light. Jayalalithaa won elections and Mayawati got enthroned as the leader of her party despite such allegations.

He said the office of profit issue was being distorted to suit political ends and parties were fighting on getting in or out of the purview of the law brought for its amendment. Sonia Gandhi was charged with the same, but she did not accept her position by amendment and re-contested elections to prove her mettle. Lal Bahadur Shastri and Madhav Rao Scindia had resigned as Railway and Airways Ministers respectively taking blame for accidents occurring in the purview of their ministries.

He said that politicians were targeted in the name of morality more often as they remained in the eye of the public most of their time. However, those throwing stones at them should realise that they themselves might be guilty of several excesses and that they are after all elected representatives chosen by the public. The civil society had to decide the norms of morality and be the judges punishing those who flouted the same.

The punishment of society was more effective than a criminal impeachment. The society had to set the blame and take all like judiciary, bureaucracy and traders into consideration while deciding on the same.