A
Passive Resistance To Equality
By Mritiunjoy Mohanty
13 July, 2007
Economic
Times
The
decision of the Supreme Court to stay the implementation of the Central
Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 is of
a piece in the long tradition of the Indian judiciary to oppose reservations
that favour OBCs.
In 1963, the Supreme Court
in the Balaji decision struck down OBC quotas in the then Mysore state
on the grounds that caste was an insufficient basis for positive discrimination
and that an overall quota of more than 50% went against the spirit of
the Constitution.
The Balaji ruling was overturned
in 1992 in the Indira Sawhney case, where the Supreme Court for the
first time accepted that caste was a reasonable basis for a policy of
positive discrimination and, therefore, implementation of the Mandal
recommendations was in keeping with both the letter and spirit of the
Indian Constitution. The stay, therefore, is in the Balaji tradition
with a small nod at Sawhney.
The use of the 1931 Census
by the government of India was unfortunate because it handed a convenient
escape route for the learned bench. It is, after all, reasonable to
argue that a 2007 policy can hardly be based on information gathered
in 1931. Unfortunate also because the NSSO has reasonably reliable estimates
of the OBC population for periods as recent as 1999-2000 and 2004-5.
Perhaps equally important
— in an effort to stay within the overall limit of 50% stipulated
by the Supreme Court — the suggested quota of 27% is significantly
lower than the share of OBCs in the overall population. This is not
to argue that more detailed information should not be collected. This
is simply to suggest that there exists sufficient and recent information
on the basis of which to implement the Act.
Underlying the stay is the
belief that merit is being sacrificed for political expediency. Leaving
aside exceptional talent such as the C V Ramans and Lata Mangeshkars
of this world, what is called 'merit' is to a significant degree also
influenced by an individual's socio-economic position and/or opportunities
gained by virtue of family and social connections.
In societies like ours characterised
by deep-rooted social inequalities, using 'merit' as a means of access
impedes mobility and tends to reproduce the same inequalities. Despite
protestations to the contrary, it is therefore neither democratic nor
egalitarian, unless there are countervailing tendencies.
One has argued elsewhere
(Social Inequality, Labour Market Dynamics and Reservation, EPW, 2 September
2006) that changing labour market dynamics and privileged access to
high quality tertiary education has meant upper-caste Hindus (UCH) in
the last decade or so have dominated access to the best jobs in the
urban economy. As a result, in the urban economy, SCs, STs and OBCs
are similarly situated and at a great and growing distance from the
UCH.
More than anything else,
it is the changing labour market dynamics that necessitates widening
the ambit of reservations in institutions of higher learning to include
OBCs. In obstructing this process the Supreme Court runs the risk of
being perceived as being both unfair and partisan.
But then UCH elite have long
used their domination of the judiciary and the bureaucracy as mechanisms
of passive resistance in their continuing battle to retain control over
socio-economic levers of power. Consider two examples of radical public
policy initiatives, the successful implementation of which might have
altered the trajectory of India's socio-economic growth: the implementation
of land reform and the SC/ST quota both of which were a part of the
socio-economic compact that led to the birth of the Indian republic
in 1950. Whereas zamindari was successfully abolished, the distribution
of land declared surplus (beyond legally permissible holdings) was effectively
stymied as land transfer got caught up a maze of litigation, bureaucratic
obfuscation and lack of political will.
Similarly as a response to
Ambedkar's mobilization and Gandhi's insistence, the UCH elite acceded
to constitutionally guaranteed quotas for SCs and STs. However by ensuring
that these quotas did not get filled, particularly in the higher echelons
of the bureaucracy, judiciary and the public sector (including colleges
and universities), the UCH elite ensured that any transformative potential
was snuffed out. And rather than a debate why quotas remain unfilled,
UCH elites, under the garb of equality, removed the 'creamy layer' from
within the purview of the quota, effectively snuffing out the possibility
of the formation of a countervailing elite.
OBC quotas have been resisted
much more strenuously, in part because UCH elites have always seen OBCs,
as compared with the SCs and STs, as being a much more serious threat
to the continued control over the socio-economic levers of power. UCH
elites have been successful in using passive resistance as a blocking
strategy because there was insufficient grass-roots political mobilization
around these issues. It can hardly be a coincidence that the states
where land reforms (e.g., Kerala and West Bengal) or SC/ST/OBC quotas
(e.g., Tamil Nadu) have been successfully implemented are states where
there has been political mobilization around these issues.
But successful blocking strategies
and elite resistance have also resulted in growing lower caste political
mobilization. One of the outcomes of UCH elite resistance to Mandal
was the re-drawing of the political map of India with a politically
assertive lower caste mobilization. Therefore if, on the one hand, changing
labour market dynamics and continued UCH domination of the most dynamic
segments of the urban economy as a result of privileged access to institutions
of higher learning necessitate an expansion of reservations in favour
of OBCs, then on the other, UCH elite blocking strategies become politically
counter-productive and socially expensive, as institutional and social
energy is spent in coming up with effective strategies of exclusion,
rather than devising strategies of inclusion and building a consensus
around which to take this old society forward.
The author teaches economics
at Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Kolkata, India and can be
reached at [email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.