Quota System: Who are the real beneficiaries? Compiled by Sai.R

[q]Quota System: Who are the real beneficiaries?

Contents

1. Quota system: Beginning of the end for IITs and IIMs Bhamy V Shenoy, Gulf Times, May 26, 2006--------------------------------------

2. Meeting the challenge of Mandal II, Satish Deshpande & Yogendra Yadav, Hindu May 21, 2006------------------------------------------------------------------

3. An interview of Arjun Singh by Karan Thapar for CNN-IBN, May 21 2006

4. Instead of uprooting casteism, reservations should not become a bane for the society, Punyapriya Dasgupta, Deccan Herald, May 21 2006

5. Quota and Tamilnadu Experience, S. Neelakantan, Hindu

6. History only repeats itself, Ram Krishnaswamy, Deccan Herald, May 25, 2006

7. Private Correspondence on reservation, Prof Devnathan Parthsarathy, IIT Bombay,

8. One step forward takes you backwards, Sujata Rajpal, Deccan Herald, May 26, 2006

9. Desecrating the holy cow, Kolla Hemanth, Hindu, May 26, 2006

10. My seat Mai baap, Indian Express, May 28, 2006

11. Reserved for politics by M J Akbar

12. Increase in quota will divide the nation, SC May 29, 2006

13. Some thoughts on reservations, Ram Kelkar, IIT Bombay

14. Azim Premji on quota

15. Quota: A mess made by the government, Kuldip Nayar

16. The anti-quota stir is misguided, Praful Bidwai, May 30, 2006

17. Of reservations and retribution, Arvind Lavakare, May 30, 2006

18. Reservation and the politics of reservation!, Rajinder Puri

19. Dr. K. Veeramani

20. reservation is a must in Higher education, Jayathi Ghosh

21. Quotas enabled SCs/STs to take on challenges

22. Affirmative action and social drama, IIT Madras, Pandu Rangan

23. Costs and benefits of quotas, T.T. Ram Mohan, Professor, IIM Ahemadabad

24. Quota quotes

25. How to assess OBC and BC

26. Countering social discrimination, Zoya Hassan, Hindu, June 2, 2006

27. Brahmins are the today’s dalits, by Francois Gautier

28. After the SC ruling on reservation, what next? M. Verappa Moily, Deccan Herald, Aug 26, 2005

29. Jaya for central law on govt quota, Aug 17, 2005 Deccan

30. Caste matters in the media, Siddhartha Varadarajan, Hindu, June 3, 2006

31. OBC students crack IIT entrance test on merit, IANS, June 1, 2006

32. What reservation will do to IIT, Prof Indiresan, Apr, 2006

33. Letter of resignation by Pratab Bhanu Mehta, Knowledge Commission member, May 2006

Reservation diverting attention from real issues

Published: Gulf Times, Friday, 26 May, 2006, 12:56 PM Doha Time

By Bhamy V Shenoy

It is sad to see how the quota issue has been put on the national agenda by India’s political leaders when the country is facing so many other more pressing problems. Sam Pitroda was right in suggesting that quota should not be the criterion for selecting students for institutions of higher education. But his suggested strategy of increasing the number of Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) is not feasible.

Already, the existing IITs are facing the problem of recruiting qualified faculty to replace those who are retiring. They also have the usual old problem of finding financial resources. How are we then going to start 70 more IITs? Thus, Pitroda’s strategy is a non-starter.

Well respected IT guru N Narayana Murthy has also suggested that quota should not be the deciding factor for selection of students for higher education institutions. The quota system will not help the students who get admitted under quota, nor of course do those who fail to get admission despite being "merited" students for the reasons given below.

One of the significant reasons for IITs being institutions of excellence is the fact that they are able to attract the best and the brightest. Another factor of equal importance is their ability to attract outstanding faculty. If the quality of students suffer as a result of admitting as much as 50% (likely to be more in the future years as we have seen in Tamil Nadu) under the quota system, the general standard of students will come down and so the quality of faculty too. Then those institutions slowly will be no different from most of the educational institutions we have in the country today.

In the beginning when IITs started, they were able to get some outstanding faculty. The salary structure the IITs were offering was above average. There were not many opportunities for them to get employment in India. Seeking employment abroad was not that popular; avenues to get employment abroad were not known as we do today. Since IITs were not that well known, the competition to get into IITs was not as fierce as today. After a few years, as IITs became well known and competition became fierce, they attracted outstanding students.

This period with hindsight may be considered as the golden age of IITs. They had three factors in their favour; outstanding students, excellent faculty that had joined in the beginning and the required amount of budget. But, in recent years, IITs have started to lose two of the three factors favouring them. Faculties who joined IITs in the beginning are retiring and they are finding it difficult to replace them. Second, the government has correctly decided to reduce funding to IITs by diverting funds to primary and secondary education. Thus, the only favourable factor for IITs today is their ability to attract good students. If that is diluted under the pressure of quota system, IITs are likely to lose their shine.

Those IIT alumni who were thinking of donating funds may think twice now. Is this the beginning of the end for IITs as has happened for some outstanding educational institutions in Karnataka like Maharaja’s and Maharani’s colleges of Mysore?

Another question often asked during this debate is why the issue of merit for capitation fee based colleges was not raised. In fact, that was the very reason for questioning the rationale for opening the capitation fee based colleges. Private colleges that gave a majority of the seats based purely on capitation fee failed to flourish. In fact many of them would be closed if the government liberalises higher education under the free market system. They attracted neither good faculty nor good students. None of them could do any research. Do we want our IITs to be like those failed capitation fee based colleges?

In recent years with increasing frequency the question of assessing "merit" is being asked. It is true that just scoring high marks by attending four or six years of coaching classes cannot be considered as merit. We need to develop a better system of assessing the merit even if it is less objective. However, just because we do not have a foolproof system and perhaps we may never have one, we should not commit another blunder of selecting students based on their accident of birth. Let us stop dividing and subdividing society based on caste.

Another relevant issue discussed during the quota debate is the need to solve the social justice problem of helping SCs (Scheduled Castes), STs (Scheduled Tribes) and OBCs (Other Backward Classes). No society can prosper if it does not solve these types of social problems.

Finally, who are the real beneficiaries of the quota system? Not many children of poor SCs, STs, and OBCs are able to complete even eighth grade today. It is only the children of the creamy section of SCs, STs and OBCs who are able to complete college. – IANS

((Bhamy V. Shenoy, an international oil expert, is a member of the India Development Coalition of America who is involved in several NGO projects in India. He can be reached at bhamysuman@hotmail.com)

Meeting the challenge of Mandal II (Hindu 21 2006)

Satish Deshpande & Yogendra Yadav

Is there a way forward where both merit and social justice can be given their due? This two-part series attempts to find one.

THE CENTRAL Government's move to introduce reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in elite institutions of higher and professional education — popularly known as Mandal II — seems to be heading towards a stalemate. In this article, we propose a possible solution that might take us beyond the debilitating standoff between `merit' and `social justice'.

This is clearly an ambitious and optimistic agenda, especially because Mandal II proves that some mistakes are destined to be repeated. Once again the Government appears set to do the right thing in the wrong way, without the prior preparation, careful study, and opinion priming that such an important move obviously demands. It is even more shocking that students from our very best institutions are willing to re-enact the horribly inappropriate forms of protest from the original anti-Mandal agitation of 1990-91. As symbolic acts, street-sweeping or shoe-shining send the callous and arrogant message that some people — castes? — are indeed fit only for menial jobs, while others are `naturally' suited to respectable professions such as engineering and medicine. However, the media do seem to have learnt something from their dishonourable role in Mandal I. By and large, both the print and electronic media have not been incendiary in their coverage, and some have even presented alternative views. Nevertheless, far too much remains unchanged across 16 years.

Perhaps the most crucial constant is the absence of a favourable climate of opinion. Outside the robust contestations of politics proper, our public life continues to be disproportionately dominated by the upper castes. It is therefore unsurprising, but still a matter of concern, that the dominant view denies the very validity of affirmative action. Indeed the antipathy towards reservations may have grown in recent years. The main problem is that the dominant view sees quotas and the like as benefits being handed out to particular caste groups. This leads logically to the conclusion that power-hungry politicians and vote bank politics are the root causes of this problem. But to think thus is to put the cart before the horse.

A rational and dispassionate analysis of this issue must begin with the one crucial fact that is undisputed by either side — the overwhelming dominance of upper castes in higher and especially professional education. Although undisputed, this fact is not easy to establish, especially in the case of our elite institutions, which have always been adamant about refusing to reveal information on the caste composition of their students and faculty. But the more general information that is available through the National Sample Survey Organisation clearly shows the caste-patterning of educational inequality. Some of the relevant data are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 shows the percentage of graduates in the population aged 20 years or above in different castes and communities in rural and urban India. Only a little more than 1 per cent of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and Muslims are graduates in rural India, while the figure for Hindu upper castes is four to five times higher at over 5 per cent. The real inequalities are in urban India, where the SCs in particular, but also Muslims, OBCs, and STs are way behind the forward communities and castes with a quarter or more of their population being graduates. Another way of looking at it is that STs, SCs, Muslims, and OBCs are always below the national average while the other communities and especially Hindu upper castes are well above this average in both rural and urban India.

Table 2 shows the share of different castes and communities in the national pool of graduates as compared to their share of the total population aged 20 years or more. In other words, the table tells us which groups have a higher than proportionate (or lower than proportionate) share of graduates. Once again, with the exception of rural Hindu OBCs and urban STs, the same groups are severely under-represented while the Hindu upper castes, Other Religions (Jains, Parsis, Buddhists, etc.), and Christians are significantly over-represented among graduates. Thus the Hindu upper castes' share of graduates is twice their share in the population aged 20 or above in rural India, and one-and-a-half times their share in the population aged 20 or above in urban India. Compare this, for example, to urban SCs and Muslims, whose share of graduates is only 30 per cent and 39 per cent respectively of their share in the 20 and above population.

It should be emphasised that these data refer to all graduates from all kinds of institutions countrywide — if we were to look at the elite professional institutions, the relative dominance of the upper castes and forward communities is likely to be much stronger, although such institutions refuse to publish the data that could prove or disprove such claims.

Although it is implicitly conceded by both sides, upper caste dominance is explained in opposite ways. The upper castes claim that their preponderance is due solely to their superior merit, and that there is nothing to be done about this situation since merit should indeed be the sole criterion in determining access to higher education. In fact, they may go further to assert that any attempt to change the status quo can only result in "the murder of merit." Those who are for affirmative action argue that the traditional route to caste dominance — namely, an upper caste monopoly over higher education — still remains effective despite the apparent abolition of caste. From this perspective, the status quo is an unjust one requiring state intervention on behalf of disadvantaged sections who are unable to force entry under the current rules of the game. More extreme views of this kind may go on to assert that merit is merely an upper caste conjuring trick designed to keep out the lower castes.

What is wrong with this picture? Nothing, except that it is only part of a much larger frame. For if we understand merit as sheer innate ability, it is difficult to explain why it should seem to be an upper caste monopoly. Whatever people may believe privately, it is now beyond doubt that arguments for the genetic or natural inferiority of social groups are unacceptable. If so, how is it that, roughly speaking, one quarter of our population supplies three quarters of our elite professionals? The explanation has to lie in the social mechanisms through which innate ability is translated into certifiable skill and encashable competence. This points to intended or unintended systemic exclusions in the educational system, and to inequalities in the background resources that education presupposes.

It is their confidence in having monopolised the educational system and its prerequisites that sustains the upper caste demand to consider only merit and not caste. If educational opportunities were truly equalised, the upper castes' share in professional education would be roughly in proportion to their population share, that is, between one fourth and one third. This would not only be roughly one third of their present strength in higher education; it would also be much less than the 50 per cent share they are assured of even after implementation of OBC reservations!

If the upper caste view needs an unexamined notion of merit that ignores the social mechanisms that bring it into existence, the lower caste or pro-reservation view appears to require that merit be emptied of all its content. While this is indeed true of some militant positions, the peculiar circumstances of Indian higher education also allow alternative interpretations. In a situation marked by absurd levels of "hyper-selectivity" — 300,000 aspirants competing for 4000 IIT seats, for example — merit gets reduced to rank in an examination. As educationists know only too well, the examination is a blunt instrument. It is good only for making broad distinctions in levels of ability; it cannot tell us whether a person scoring 85 per cent would definitely make a better engineer or doctor than somebody scoring 80 per cent or 75 per cent or even 70 per cent.

In short, it is only a combination of social compulsion and pure myth that sustains the crazy world of cut-off points and second decimal place differences that dominate the admission season. Such fetishised notions of merit have nothing to do with any genuine differences in ability. The caste composition of higher education could well be changed without any sacrifice of merit simply by instituting a lottery among all candidates of broadly similar levels of ability — say, the top 15 or 25 per cent of a large applicant pool.

But the inequities of our educational system are so deeply entrenched that caste inequalities might persist despite some change. We would then be back where we started — with the apparent dichotomy between merit and social justice in higher education. How do we transcend this dilemma? Is there a way forward where both merit and social justice can be given their due?

In this second and concluding part of their series, the authors offer a method to ensure both merit and social justice are taken into account.

THE ALTERNATIVE proposed here is rooted in the recognition that we need to go beyond a simple-minded reduction of `merit' and `social justice' to singular and mutually exclusive categories. In reality, both merit and social justice are multi-dimensional, and the pursuit of one does not require us to abandon the other. The proposal seeks to identify the viable common ground that permits simultaneous commitment to both social justice and excellence. It seeks to operationalise a policy that is morally justified, intellectually sound, politically defensible, and administratively viable.

Let us present the basic principles that underlie this proposal before getting into operational details. First of all, this proposal is based on a firm commitment to policies of affirmative action flowing both from the constitutional obligation to realise social justice and also from the overall success of the experience of reservations in the last 50 years. Secondly, we recognise the moral imperative to extend affirmative action to educational opportunities, for a lack of these opportunities results in the inter-generational reproduction of inequalities and severely restricts the positive effects of job reservations. Thirdly, it needs to be remembered that the end of affirmative action can be served by various means including reservation. The state's basic commitment is to the end, not any particular means. Finally, flowing from the experience of reservations for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), we need to recognise that there are multiple, cross-cutting, and overlapping sources of inequality of educational opportunities, all of which need redress. This is what our proposal seeks to do.

The proposal involves computing scores for `academic merit' and for `social disadvantage' and then combining the two for admission to higher educational institutions. Since the academic evaluation is less controversial, we concentrate here on the evaluation of comparative social disadvantage. We suggest that the social disadvantage score should be divided into its group and individual components. For the group component, we consider disadvantages based on caste and community, gender, and region. These scores must not be decided arbitrarily or merely on the basis of impressions. We suggest that these disadvantages should be calibrated on the basis of available statistics on representation in higher education of different castes/communities and regions, each of these being considered separately for males and females. The required data could come from the National Sample Survey or other available sources. It would be best, of course, if a special national survey were commissioned for this purpose.

Besides group disadvantages, this scheme also takes individual disadvantages into consideration. While a large number of factors determine individual disadvantages (family history, generational depth of literacy, sibling education, economic resources, etc.), we believe there are two robust indicators of individual disadvantage that can be operationally used in the system of admission to public institutions: parental occupation and the type of school where a person passed the high school examination. These two variables allow us to capture the effect of most of the individual disadvantages, including the family's educational history and economic circumstances.

In the accompanying tables, we illustrate how this scheme could be operationalised. It needs to be underlined that the weightages proposed here are tentative, based on our limited information, and meant only to illustrate the scheme. The exact weights could be decided after examining more evidence. We suggest that weightage for academic merit and social disadvantage be distributed in the ratio of 80:20. The academic score could be converted to a standardised score on a scale of 0-80, while the social disadvantage score would range from 0 to a maximum of 20.

Awarding social disadvantage points

Table A shows how the group disadvantage points can be awarded. There are three axes of group disadvantage considered here: the relative backwardness of the region one comes from; one's caste and community (only non-SC-ST groups are considered here); and one's gender. The zones in the top row refer to a classification of regions — this can be at State or even sub-State region level — based on indicators of backwardness that are commonly used and can be agreed upon. Thus Zone I is the most backward region while Zone IV is the most developed region. The disadvantage points would thus decrease from left to right for each caste group and gender.

The castes and communities identified here are clubbed according to broadly similar levels of poverty and education indicators (once again the details of this can be agreed upon). The lower OBCs and Most Backward Castes along with OBC Muslims are considered most disadvantaged or least-represented among the educated, affluent, etc., while upper caste Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Parsis, etc., are considered to be the most `forward' communities.

Disadvantage points thus decrease from top to bottom. Gender is built into this matrix, with women being given disadvantage points depending on their other attributes, that is, caste and region. Thus the hypothetical numbers in this table indicate different degrees of relative disadvantage based on all three criteria, and most importantly, also on the interaction effects among the three. Thus, a woman from the most backward region who belongs to the lower OBC, MBC, or Muslim OBC groups gets the maximum score of 12, while a male from the forward communities from the most developed region gets no disadvantage points at all.

Tables B and C work in a similar manner for determining individual disadvantage. For these tables, all group variables are excluded. Table B looks at the type of school the person passed his or her secondary examination from, and the size of the village, town, or city where this school was located. Anyone going to an ordinary government school in a village or small town gets the maximum of 5 points in this matrix. The gradation of schools is done according to observed quality of education and implied family resources, and this could also be refined. A student from an exclusive English medium public school in a large metro gets no disadvantage points.

Table C looks at parental occupation as a proxy for family resources (that is, income wealth, etc., which are notoriously difficult to ascertain directly). Since this variable is vulnerable to falsification and would need some efforts at verification, we have limited the maximum points awarded here to three. Children of parents who are outside the organised sector and are below the taxable level of income get the maximum points, and the occupation of both parents is considered. Those with either parent in Class I or II jobs of the government, or in managerial or professional jobs get no points at all. Intermediate jobs in the organised sector, including Class III and IV jobs in the government, are reckoned to be better placed than those in the unorganised, low pay sector.

Combining the scores in the three matrices will give the total disadvantage score, which can then be added to the standardised academic merit score to give each candidate's final score. Admissions for all non-SC-ST candidates, that is, for 77.5 per cent of all seats, can then be based on this total score.

Differences and advantages

While our proposal shares with the proposal mooted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) the commitment to affirmative action and the desire to extend it to educational opportunities, the scheme we propose differs from the Ministry's proposal in many ways. The Ministry's proposal seeks to create a bloc of `reserved' seats. Our proposal applies to all the seats not covered by the existing reservation for the SC, ST, and other categories. The MHRD proposal recognises only group disadvantages and uses caste as the sole criterion of group disadvantage in educational inequalities. We too acknowledge the significance of group disadvantages and that of caste as the single most important predictor of educational inequalities. But our scheme seeks to fine-tune the identification by recognising other group disadvantages such as region and gender. Moreover, our scheme is also able to address the interaction effects between different axes of disadvantage (such as region, caste, and gender, or type of school and type of location, etc.).

While recognising group disadvantages, our scheme provides some weightage to individual disadvantages relating to family background and type of schooling. Our scheme also recognises that people of all castes may suffer from individual disadvantages, and offers redress for such disadvantages to the upper castes as well. While the MHRD proposal is based on an all-or-nothing approach to recognising disadvantages (either you are an OBC or you are not), our proposal allows for flexibility in dealing with variations in degrees of disadvantage.

The scheme we propose here is a modified version of one that was designed for the selection process of a well-known international fellowship programme for higher education, where it was successful for some years. Thousands of applications have already been screened using this scheme. A similar scheme has been used for admissions to Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The working of this scheme does not seem to offer any insurmountable operational difficulties, despite the vast expansion in scale that some contexts might involve.

In the final analysis, the most critical advantage of a scheme such as the one we are proposing is that it helps to push thinking on social justice along constructive and rational lines. One of the inescapable dilemmas of caste-based affirmative action policies is that they cannot help intensifying caste identities. The debate then gets vitiated because it concentrates on the identities rather than on the valid social reasons why those identities are used as indicators of disadvantage. Our scheme clearly links caste identities to measurable empirical indicators of disadvantage. It thus helps to de-essentialise caste and to focus attention on the relative progress made by these communities.

Thus groups such as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, etc., occupy particular positions in this scheme purely by virtue of the levels of educational advantage or disadvantage. The scheme allows policies to be calibrated according to the changing relative positions of different groups, and takes care of such issues as poor upper castes, `creamy layer,' etc. It reminds us, in short, that caste or community matter not in themselves, but because they continue to be important indicators of tangible disadvantages in our unequal and unjust society.

(This proposal has been developed in consultation with many social scientists.)

(Satish Deshpande is Professor of Sociology at Delhi University; Yogendra Yadav is Senior Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi.)

Hello!

Over the past few days, there has been a major momentum gaining in the

campus over the recent Reservation Issue. I find it best that people are

informed about all the facts so that they can themelves decide about their

own stance on the issue.

I am attaching the transcript of the interview of the HRD Minister, Arjun

Singh with Karan Thapar on the "Devil's Advocate" programme of the IBN

News channel.

Please read through it carefully. It is a long mail, but worth every minute

of yours.

Saumya

P.S : If possible, also follow the link given and watch the 3 minute video

excerpt at the website.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

CNN-IBN is a partnership between Global Broadcast News (GBN), a TV18 Group

Company, and Turner International (Turner) in India.

The 24-hour, English-language news channel is spearheaded by renowned

television journalist Rajdeep Sardesai as the Editor-in-Chief. IBNLive.com

is the online arm of GBN with hard news as its core offering and

interactivity as its key component. Manned 24x7, IBNlive.com is powered

not just by CNN-IBN journalists but also by TV18 group's team of over

1,000 news professionals.

This interview was taken at Arjun Singh's Residence by noted television

journalist Karan Thapar.

Source :

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/decision-on-quota-is-final-arjun/11063-4-single.html

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to the Devil's Advocate. As the debate over

the reservations for the OBCs divides the country, we ask - What are the

government's real intentions? That is the critical questions that I shall

put today in an exclusive interview to the Minister for Human Resource

Development Arjun Singh. Most of the people would accept that steps are

necessary to help the OBCs gain greater access to higher education. The

real question is - Why do you believe that reservations is the best way of

doing this?

Arjun Singh: I wouldn't like to say much more on this because these are

decisions that are taken not by individuals alone. And in this case, the

entire Parliament of this country - almost with rare anonymity - has

decided

to take this decision.

Karan Thapar: Except that Parliament is not infallible. In the Emergency,

when it amended the Constitution, it was clearly wrong, it had to reverse

its own amendments. So, the question arises - Why does Parliament believe

that the reservation is the right way of helping the OBCs?

Arjun Singh: Nobody is infallible. But Parliament is Supreme and atleast I,

as a Member of Parliament, cannot but accept the supremacy of Parliament.

Karan Thapar: No doubt Parliament is supreme, but the constitutional

amendment that gives you your authorities actually unenabling amendment, it

is not a compulsory requirement. Secondly, the language of the amendment

does not talk about reservations, the language talks about any provision by

law for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. So, you

could have chosen anything other than reservations, why reservations?

Arjun Singh: Because as I said, that was the 'will and desire of the

Parliament'.

Karan Thapar: Do you personally also, as Minister of Human Resource

Development , believe that reservations is the right and proper way to help

the OBCs?

Arjun Singh: Certainly, that is one of the most important ways to do it.

Karan Thapar: The right way?

Arjun Singh: Also the right way.

Karan Thapar: In which case, lets ask a few basic questions; we are talking

about the reservations for the OBCs in particular. Do you know what

percentage of the Indian population is OBC? Mandal puts it at 52 per cent,

the National Sample Survey Organisation at 32 per cent, the National Family

and Health Survey at 29.8 per cent, which is the correct figure?

Arjun Singh: I think that should be decided by people who are more

knowledgeable. But the point is that the OBCs form a fairly sizeable

percentage of our population.

Karan Thapar: No doubt, but the reason why it is important to know 'what

percentage' they form is that if you are going to have reservations for

them, then you must know what percentage of the population they are,

otherwise you don't know whether they are already adequately catered in

higher educational institutions or not.

Arjun Singh: That is obvious - they are not.

Karan Thapar: Why is it obvious?

Arjun Singh: Obvious because it is something which we all see.

Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that the NSSO, which is a government

appointed body, has actually in its research in 1999 - which is the most

latest research shown - that 23.5 per cent of all university seats are

already with the OBCs. And that is just 8.5 per cent less than what the

NSSO

believes is the OBC share of the population. So, for a difference of 8 per

cent, would reservations be the right way of making up the difference?

Arjun Singh: I wouldn't like to go behind all this because, as I said,

Parliament has taken a view and it has taken a decision, I am a servant of

Parliament and I will only implement.

Karan Thapar: Absolutely, Parliament has taken a view, I grant it. But what

people question is the simple fact - Is there a need for reservations? If

you don't know what percentage of the country is OBC, and if furthermore,

the NSSO is correct in pointing out that already 23.5 per cent of the

college seats are with the OBC, then you don't have a case in terms of

need.

Arjun Singh: College seats, I don't know.

Karan Thapar: According to the NSSO - which is a government appointed body

-

23.5 per cent of the college seats are already with the OBCs.

Arjun Singh: What do you mean by college seats?

Karan Thapar: University seats, seats of higher education.

Arjun Singh: Well, I don't know I have not come across that far.

Karan Thapar: So, when critics say to you that you don't have a case for

reservation in terms of need, what do you say to them?

Arjun Singh: I have said what I had to say and the point is that that is

not

an issue for us to now debate.

Karan Thapar: You mean the chapter is now closed?

Arjun Singh: The decision has been taken.

Karan Thapar: Regardless of whether there is a need or not, the decision is

taken and it is a closed chapter.

Arjun Singh: So far as I can see, it is a closed chapter and that is why I

have to implement what all Parliament has said.

Karan Thapar: Minister, it is not just in terms of 'need' that your critics

question the decision to have reservation for OBCs in higher education.

More

importantly, they question whether reservations themselves are efficacious

and can work. For example, a study done by the IITs themselves shows that

50 per cent of the IIT seats for the SCs and STs remain vacant and for the

remaining 50 per cent, 25 per cent are the candidates, who even after six

years fail to get their degrees. So, clearly, in their case, reservations

are not working.

Arjun Singh: I would only say that on this issue, it would not be correct

to

go by all these figures that have been paraded.

Karan Thapar: You mean the IIT figures themselves could be dubious?

Arjun Singh: Not dubious, but I think that is not the last word.

Karan Thapar: All right, maybe the IIT may not be the last word, let me

then

quote to you the report of the Parliamentary Committee on the welfare for

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - that is a Parliamentary body.

It says that looking at the Delhi University, between 1995 and 2000, just

half the seats for under-graduates at the Scheduled Castes level and just

one-third of the seats for under-graduates at the Scheduled Tribes level

were filled. All the others went empty, unfilled. So, again, even in Delhi

University, reservations are not working.

Arjun Singh: If they are not working, it does not mean that for that reason

we don't need them. There must be some other reason why they are not

working

and that can be certainly probed and examined. But to say that for this

reason, 'no reservations need to be done' is not correct.

Karan Thapar: Fifty years after the reservations were made, statistics

show,

according to The Hindustan Times, that overall in India, only 16 per cent

of

the places in higher education are occupied by SCs and STs. The quota is

22.5 per cent, which means that only two-thirds of the quota is occupied.

One third is going waste, it is being denied to other people.

Arjun Singh: As I said, the kind of figures that have been brought out, in

my perception, do not reflect the realities. Realities are something much

more and of course, there is an element of prejudice also.

Karan Thapar: But these are figures that come from a Parliamentary

Committee. It can't be prejudiced; they are your own colleagues.

Arjun Singh: Parliamentary Committee has given the figures, but as to why

this has not happened, that is a different matter.

Karan Thapar: I put it to you that you don't have a case for reservations

in

terms of need, you don't have a case for reservations in terms of their

efficacy, why then, are you insisting on extending them to the OBCs?

Arjun Singh: I don't want to use that word, but I think that your argument

is basically fallicious.

Karan Thapar: But it is based on all the facts available in the public

domain.

Arjun Singh: Those are facts that need to be gone into with more care. What

lies behind those facts, why this has not happened, that is also a fact.

Karan Thapar: Let's approach the issue of reservations differently in that

case. Reservations mean that a lesser-qualified candidate gets preference

over a more qualified candidate, solely because in this case, he or she

happens to be an OBC. In other words, the upper castes are being penalised

for being upper caste.

Arjun Singh: Nobody is being penalised and that is a factor that we are

trying to address. I think that the prime Minister will be talking to all

the political parties and will be putting forward a formula, which will see

that nobody is being penalised.

Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about that formula, but before we

come to talk about how you are going to address concerns, let me point one

other corollary - Reservations also gives preference and favour to caste

over merit. Is that acceptable in a modern society?

Arjun Singh: I don't think the perceptions of modern society fit India

entirely.

Karan Thapar: You mean India is not a modern society and therefore can't

claim to be treated as one?

Arjun Singh: It is emerging as a modern society, but the parameters of a

modern society do not apply to large sections of the people in this

country.

Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you Jawaharlal Nehru, a man whom you

personally admire enormously. On the 27th of June 1961 wrote to the Chief

Ministers of the day as follows: I dislike any kind of reservations. If we

go in for any kind of reservations on communal and caste basis, we will

swamp the bright and able people and remain second rate or third rate. The

moment we encourage the second rate, we are lost. And then he adds

pointedly: This way lies not only folly, but also disaster. What do you say

to Jawaharlal Nehru today?

Arjun Singh: Jawaharlal Nehru was a great man in his own right and not only

me, but everyone in India accept his view.

Karan Thapar: But you are just about to ignore his advice.

Arjun Singh: No. Are you aware that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who introduced

the first ammendment regarding OBCs?

Karan Thapar: Yes, and I am talking about Jawaharlal Nehru in 1961, when

clearly he had changed his position, he said - I dislike any kind of

reservations.

Arjun Singh: I don't think one could take Panditji's position at any point

of time and then overlook what he had himself initiated.

Karan Thapar: Am I then to understand that regardless of the case that is

made against reservations in terms of need, regardless of the case that has

been made against reservations in terms of efficacy, regardless of the case

that has been made against reservations in terms of Jawaharlal Nehru, you

remain committed to extending reservations to the OBCs.

Arjun Singh: I said because that is the will of Parliament. And I think

that

common decisions that are taken by Parliament have to be honoured.

Karan Thapar: Let me ask you a few basic questions - If reservations are

going to happen for the OBCs in higher education, what percentage of

reservations are we talking about?

Arjun Singh: No, that I can't say because that has yet to be decided.

Karan Thapar: Could it be less than 27 per cent?

Arjun Singh: I can't say anything on that, I have told you in the very

beginning that at this point of time it is not possible for me to.

Karan Thapar: Quite right. If you can't say, then that also means that the

figure has not been decided.

Arjun Singh: The figure will be decided, it has not been decided yet.

Karan Thapar: The figure has not been decided. So, therefore the figure

could be 27, but it could be less than 27 too?

Arjun Singh: I don't want to speculate on that because as I said, that is

decision, which will be taken by Parliament.

Karan Thapar: Whatever the figure, one thing is certain that when the

reservations for OBCs happen, the total quantum of reservations will go up

in percentage terms. Will you compensate by increasing the total number of

seats in colleges, universities, IITs and IIMs, so that the other students

don't feel deprived.

Arjun Singh: That is one of the suggestions that has been made and is being

seriously considered.

Karan Thapar: Does it find favour with you as a Minister for Human Resource

Development?

Arjun Singh: Whatever suggestion comes, we are committed to examine it.

Karan Thapar: You may be committed to examine it, but do you as minister

believe that that is the right way forward?

Arjun Singh: That could be one of the ways, but not the only way.

Karan Thapar: What are the other ways?

Arjun Singh: I don't know. That is for the Prime Minister and the other

ministers to decide.

Karan Thapar: One way forward would be to increase the total number of

seats.

Arjun Singh: Yes, definitely.

Karan Thapar: But the problem is that as the Times of India points out, we

are talking of an increase of perhaps as much as 53 per cent. Given the

constraints you have in terms of faculty and infrastructure, won't that

order of increase dilute the quality of education?

Arjun Singh: I would only make one humble request, don't go by The Times of

India and The Hindustan Times about faculty and infrastructure, because

they

are trying to focus on an argument which they have made.

Karan Thapar: All right, I will not go by The Times of India, let me

instead

go by Sukhdev Thorat, the Chairman of the UGC. He points out that today, at

higher education levels - that is all universities, IITs and IIMs - there

is

already a 1.2 lakh vacancy number. 40 per cent of these are in teaching

staff, which the IIT faculty themselves point out that they have shortages

of up to 30 per cent. Given those two constraint, can you increase the

number of seats?

Arjun Singh: That can be addressed and that shortage can be taken care of.

Karan Thapar: But it can't be taken care of in one swoop, it will take

several years to do it.

Arjun Singh: I don't know whether it can be taken care of straightway or in

stages, that is a subject to be decided.

Karan Thapar: Let me ask you bluntly, if you were to agree to compensate

for

reservations for OBCs by increasing the number of seats, would that

increase

happen at one go, or would it be staggered over a period of two-three or

four year old process.

Arjun Singh: As I told you, it is an issue that I cannot comment upon at

this moment because that is under examination.

Karan Thapar: So, it may happen in one go and it may happen in a series of

several years.

Arjun Singh: I can't speculate on that because that is not something on

which I am free to speak on today.

Karan Thapar: Will the reservation for OBCs, whatever figure your Committee

decides on, will it happen in one go, or will it slowly be introduced in

stages?

Arjun Singh: That also I cannot say because as I told you, all these issues

are under consideration.

Karan Thapar: Which means that everything that is of germane interest to

the

people concerned is at the moment 'under consideration' and the government

is not able to give any satisfaction to the students who are deeply

concerned.

Arjun Singh: That is not the point. The government knows what to do and it

will do what is needed.

Karan Thapar: But if the government knows what to do, why won't you tell me

what the government wants to do?

Arjun Singh: Because unless the decision is taken, I cannot tell you.

Karan Thapar: But you can share with me as the Minister what you are

thinking.

Arjun Singh: No.

Karan Thapar: So, in other words, we are manitaining a veil of secrecy and

the very people who are concerned...

Arjun Singh: I am not maintaining a veil of secrecy. I am only telling you

what propriety allows me to tell you.

Karan Thapar: Propriety does not allow you to share with the people who are

protesting on the streets what you are thinking?

Arjun Singh: I don't think that that can happen all the time.

Karan Thapar: But there are people who feel that their lives and their

futures are at stake and they are undertaking fasts until death.

Arjun Singh: It is being hyped up, I don't want to go into that.

Karan Thapar: Do you have no sympathy for them?

Arjun Singh: I have every sympathy.

Karan Thapar: But you say it is being hyped up.

Arjun Singh: Yes, it is hyped up.

Karan Thapar: So, then, what sympathy are you showing?

Arjun Singh: I am showing sympathy to them and not to those who are hyping

it up.

Karan Thapar: The CPM says that if the reservations for the OBCs are to

happen, then what is called the creamy layer should be excluded. How do you

react to that?

Arjun Singh: The creamy layer issue has already been taken care of by the

Supreme Court.

Karan Thapar: That was vis -a-vis jobs in employment, what about at the

university level, should they be excluded there as well because you are

suggesting that the answer is yes?

Arjun Singh: That could be possible.

Karan Thapar: It could be possible that the creamy layer is excluded from

reservations for OBCs in higher education?

Arjun Singh: It could be, but I don't know whether it would happen

actually.

Karan Thapar: Many people say that if reservations for OBCs in higher

education happen, then the children of beneficiaries should not be entitled

to claim the same benefit.

Arjun Singh: Why?

Karan Thapar: So that there is always a shrinking base and the rate doesn't

proliferate.

Arjun Singh: I don't think that that is a very logical way of looking at

it.

Karan Thapar: Is that not acceptable to you?

Arjun Singh: No, it is not the logical way of looking at it.

Karan Thapar: So, with the possible exception of the creamy layer

exclusion,

reservation for OBCs in higher education will be almost identical to the

existing reservations for SC/STs?

Arjun Singh: Except for the percentage.

Karan Thapar: Except for the percentage.

Arjun Singh: Yes.

Karan Thapar: So, in every other way, they will be identical.

Arjun Singh: Yes, in every other way.

Karan Thapar: Mr Arjun Singh, on the 5th of April when you first indicated

that the Government was considering reservation for OBCs in higher

education, was the Prime Minister in agreement that this was the right

thing

to do?

Arjun Singh: I think, there is a very motivated propaganda is on this

issue.

Providing reservation to OBCs was in the public domain right from December

2005, when Parliament passed the enabling resolution.

Karan Thapar: Quite true. But had the Prime Minister specifically agreed on

or before 5th of April to the idea?

Arjun Singh: Well, I am telling you it was already there. A whole Act was

made, the Constitution was amended and the Prime Minister was fully aware

of

what this is going to mean. Actually, he had a meeting in which OBC leaders

were called to convince them that this would give them the desired

advantage. And they should, therefore, support this resolution. And at that

meeting, he himself talked to them. Now, how do you say that he was

unaware?

Karan Thapar: But were you at all aware that the Prime Minister might be in

agreement with what was about to happen but might not wish it disclosed

publicly at that point of time? Were you aware of that?

Arjun Singh: It was already there in public domain, that's what I am trying

to tell you.

Karan Thapar: Then answer this to me. Why are members of the PMO telling

journalists that Prime Minister was not consulted and that you jumped the

gun?

Arjun Singh: Well, I don't know which member of the PMO you are talking

about unless you name him.

Karan Thapar: Is there a conspiracy to make you the fall guy?

Arjun Singh: Well, I don't know whether there is one or there is not. But

fall guys are not made in this way. And I am only doing what was manifestly

clear to every one, was cleared by the party and the Prime Minister. There

is no question of any personal agenda.

Karan Thapar: They say that, in fact, you brought up this issue to

embarrass

the Prime Minister.

Arjun Singh: Why should I embarrass the Prime Minister? I am with him. I am

part of his team.

Karan Thapar: They say that you have a lingering, forgive the word,

jealousy

because Sonia Gandhi chose Manmohan Singh and not you as Prime Minister.

Arjun Singh: Well, that is canard which is below contempt. Only that person

can say this who doesn't know what kind of respect and regard I hold for

Sonia Gandhi. She is the leader. Whatever she decides is acceptable to me.

Karan Thapar: They also say that you brought this issue up because you felt

that the Prime Minister had been eating into your portfolio. Part of it had

gone to Renuka Chaudhury and, in fact, your new deputy minister Purandar

Sridevi had taken over certain parts. This was your way of getting back.

Arjun Singh: No one was taking over any part. This is a decision which the

Prime Minister makes as to who has to have what portfolio. And he asked Mrs

Renuka Devi to take it and he cleared it with me first.

Karan Thapar: So there is no animus on your part?

Arjun Singh: Absolutely not.

Karan Thapar: They say that you did this because you resented the Prime

Minister's popular image in the country, that this was your way of

embroiling him in a dispute that will make him look not like a modern

reformer but like an old-fashioned, family-hold politician instead.

Arjun Singh: Well, the Tammany Hall political stage is over> He is our

Prime

Minister and every decision he has taken is in the full consent with his

Cabinet and I don't think there can be any blame on him.

Karan Thapar: One, then, last quick question. Do you think this is an

issue,

which is a sensitive issue, where everyone knew there would have been

passions and emotions that would have aroused has been handled as

effectively as it should have been?

Arjun Singh: Well, I have not done anything on it. I have not sort of what

you call jumped the gun. If this is an issue, which is sensitive, everyone

has to treat it that way.

Karan Thapar: But your conscience as HRD Minister is clear?

Arjun Singh: Absolutely clear.

Karan Thapar: There is nothing that you could have done to make it easier

for the young students?

Arjun Singh: Well, I am prepared to do anything that can be done. And it is

being attempted.

Karan Thapar: For seven weeks, they have been protesting in the hot sun. No

minister has gone there to appease them, to alley their concerns, to

express

sympathy for them. Have politicians let the young people of India down?

Arjun Singh: Well, I myself called them. They all came in this very room.

Karan Thapar: But you are the only one.

Arjun Singh: You are accusing me only. No one else is being accused.

Karan Thapar: What about the Government of India? Has the Government of

India failed to respond adequately?

Arjun Singh: From the Government of India also, the Defence Minister met

them.

Karan Thapar: Only recently.

Arjun Singh: That is something because everyone was busy with the

elections.

Karan Thapar: For seven weeks no one met them.

Arjun Singh: No, but we are very concerned. Certainly, all of us resent the

kind of force that was used. I condemned it the very first day it happened.

Karan Thapar: All right, Mr Arjun Singh. We have reached the end of this

interview. Thank you very much for speaking on the subject.

(Transcript of the interview with HRD minister reported on May 21 2006)

Stirring up hornests’ nest (Hindu May 25, 2006)

Instead of uprooting casteism, reservations should not become a bane for the society

By Punyapriya Dasgupta

Reservations as an aid to egalitarianism began in India much before V.P.Singh and Arjun Singh found the Mandal recipe useful for their own not entirely unselfish reasons. The story began in princely Mysore around 1870 and this nonviolent method of protecting the vast majority from Brahminical tyranny soon became popular in southern India.

The Justice Party got enough powers from the elections in the undivided Madras Presidency in 1921 to be able to reserve government jobs for the hitherto deprived social classes and castes. The British spread reservations to the country as a whole. The Government of India Act 1935 assured the "depressed classes" of representation in legislatures and an order next year named 62 castes and 14 tribes in a schedule as specially entitled to government jobs. The Scheduled Castes and Tribes entered India's constitutional history. The earlier unkind designations of low castes, depressed classes and primitive tribes were discarded.

Within five weeks of India's attaining independence, an order went out for the reservation of 12.5 per cent of recruitment of government staff by open competition for the Scheduled Castes and of 16.6 per cent of the vacancies filled otherwise.

The Scheduled Tribes got a separate identity after the Constitution came into force in 1950. The quotas now stand at 15 per cent for SCs and 7.5 per cent for STs – in proportion to the population figures. The founding fathers repeatedly mentioned "any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens" separately from the SCs and STs.

This complicated the scene by the introduction of another and a bigger category, now commonly called Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Why could not the OBCs be accommodated in enlarged lists of SCs and STs? The SCs and STs had already started seeing their quotas as a privilege not to be shared with any new category of countrymen.

The first Backward Classes Commission, in the 50s, listed 2399 backward castes or communities and 837 most backward and recommended reservation of huge, impractical numbers of seats for them in technical and professional institutions and recruitment in government services. Jawaharlal Nehru was disappointed that the commission had made caste the yardstick and ignored the economic standard. Yet nobody could stop reservations from falling into the rut of castes.

There is no hope of extrication in the foreseeable future. A great opportunity to help uproot the bane of casteism was used to perpetuate it instead. The Mandal Commission (1978-80) had 11 criteria including the educational and the economic to work with but it chose to focus its attention on the caste factor -- going far back to 1931, when the last census figures for the castes had been collected – and came up with a list of 3,743 caste-based OBCs. This commission recommended 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in admissions to colleges, universities and institutions for professional and technical education and government jobs.

The Mandal calculations could have led to a recommendation of 52 per cent reservation for the OBCs in addition to the 22.5 per cent already existing for the SCs and STs – three-fourths of the whole cake but a legal bar on going beyond 50 per cent stood in the way. Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi refused to open this Pandora's box but V.P.Singh did ten years later.

Possibly he wanted to use Mandal to thwart the challenge to his leadership from his own deputy, Devi Lal, inside the hotch-potch Janata party. A fierce backlash from upper class students, as soon as the 27 per cent reservation in educational institutions was ordered, dislodged V.P.Singh from power. Why despite this clear warning Arjun Singh decided to try the risky 27 per cent reservation again is a bit of a mystery. A suspicion has spread that the move is aimed at the prime ministership of Manmohan Singh, complementary to Ajit Jogi's demand for the helm to be handed over to Sonia Gandhi.

Reservations are tricky. They are undeniably necessary to uplift crores of oppressed and depressed Indians in the shortest possible time. But there must be limits. The Constituion warns that claims to reservations should be consistent with "efficiency of administration" and the Supreme Court adds that application of the rule of reservations to certain services and posts may not be advisable.

But drawing the line is difficult as the beneficiaries of reservations are coming up everywhere. At the same time reservations cannot go on for ever. The Constitution originally set 10 years as the outer limit but five decennial amendments have extended it to 60 years. This proves that reservations have not worked well enough.

One reason is that once a caste gets the tag backward, it resists renouncing it. Thanks to reservations there is a huge demand now for backwardness – albeit for the label only. The Muslims and the dalit Christians also want it besides various Hindus. The Supreme Court's directive for the passing out of the creamy layer is being fiercely resisted. The other reason is that reservations are being used as political tools.

Narasimha Rao tried to draw extra mileage by talking about them before the 1996 elections. Arjun Singh may be trying to help Sonia Gandhi prepare for the coming UP elections. Had he been genuinely bent on benefiting the people he should have added to the seats in the medical and technical colleges first and extended reservations later instead of going about it the other way. Why, it may also be asked, there is no move to begin phasing out reservations after 60 years? Because that suits no political party. But Ambedkar himself, the champion of the dalits, posthumously raised to the pantheon of Bharat Ratnas, warned that if reservations were for too many and for too long India's development would suffer.

Quota and the Tamil Nadu experience

S. Neelakantan

The reservation policy has produced visible improvements in the conditions of the deprived sections. However, the time is ripe for a reconsideration of the exclusively caste-based criteria.

TAMIL NADU has a long record of enforcement of the reservation policy to redress the problem of group injustice. The late S. Guhan has provided the best justification for reservation ( The Hindu , December 11, 1990). To my knowledge, no study establishes that Tamil Nadu has become relatively inefficient because of its reservation policies. On the contrary, data show that the level of competitiveness of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, and the Other Backward Classes, as revealed by the cut-off level of marks scored for their admissions to professional courses, is continuously increasing and progressively nearing the cut-off marks of those selected in open competition. To quote Guhan, "This only shows that, given time and patience, `merit' ceases to be the monopoly of the forward communities and the so-called backward classes tend to catch up fast."

The reservation policy is unfair when individual cases are considered in isolation of the group context. Since the seats in educational institutions are limited, reservation would necessarily reduce the number available for open competition. The competing groups diverge in competitive strength. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy (in K.C.V. Kumar V. Karnataka 1985 SCR 394) refers to a backward class child "who has no books and magazines to read at home, no radio to listen, no TV to watch, no one to help him with his homework, whose parents are either illiterate or so ignorant and ill informed that he cannot even hope to seek their advice on any matter of importance." He goes on to ask: "Has not this child got merit if he with all his disadvantages is able to secure the qualifying 40 per cent or 50 per cent of the marks at a competitive examination where the children of the upper-classes who go to St. Paul's High School and St. Stephen's College, and who have perhaps been specially coached for the examination may secure 70, 80 or even 90 per cent of the marks? ... surely a child who has been able to jump so many hurdles may be expected to do better and better as he progresses in life."

In the past in Tamil Nadu, elitist schools in Chennai and the hill stations catering to the rich used to corner the top ranks in SSLC and matriculation examinations. Now the top rankers come from schools in relatively small towns serving all classes of society. In the 1950s, top rankers belonged mostly to forward castes. Now it is no longer true. These again reinforce Guhan's conclusion quoted above.

Nearly 80 years of practice of the reservation policy in Tamil Nadu have produced some visible improvements in the conditions of the deprived sections. But to achieve social justice in full measure, Guhan's conclusion that it has to be continued for three or four m