Desicritics Comments on The Great Reservations Debate

Comment by poiuy

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:53:00 EDT

Pro or anti reservations, we should all understand that society will ultimately adjust to the changes. The "upper" castes will send their intelligent but not "extremely" intelligent kids to private schools or foreign universities. The not so rich upper caste may suffer certain economic degradation due to lack of opportunities in education and jobs. Personally i only have sympathy for students who will be applying for admissions this year because the rules of the game have been changed for them (although this whole debate has been going on for a while). The rest of the students in high-school just need to tough it out. One of the main issues i have with this whole reservations issue is that there is no end point to this so called social corrections. Initially it was set for 10 years and has been extending ever since. The new reservations also have no expiration date. I vaguely remember a periodic review to be done to exclude certain castes from the backward category. It also said that there have rarely been exclusions but only inclusions. One of my ideas is a proposal wherein reservations can be a implemented in such as way that, if any person and the next generation avails reservation, then successive generation can't claim further reservations. This rule probably shouldn't apply for women. I hope 2 generations (40 years) is a reasonable figure. Plus the onus will also lie on the current and the next generation of reservation seekers to raise their future generation on the belief that certain privileges will not be for their takings. Just as children of today's upper caste society are being disadvantaged to a certain degree by their deeds of their forefathers.

Comment by commonsense

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:59:46 EDT

Chandra: ""Isn't he being hypocritical when he expects to be in a subsidy operated Govt college while opposing reservations at the same time. A lower fee regime in a Govt institute is also a type of handout"" Absolutely right. Most people either don't realize or do not want to acknowledge all the support the state has provided them. They go ballistic only when their sense of perpetual entitlement to benefits and elite position is challenged and they get mad that "their tax money" is being used to help others. They lose sight of the big picture... Thans for clarifying the picture. I am not too clear about the finer details. Regardless, it is not difficult for me to appreciate the incredible positive transformation this decision will engender. The "motives" of politicians is irrelvant...they will always have a wide range of political motives, but even 5% of reasonably honest and decent politicians and and do make a difference. Now it is up to us to support this issue in the larger societal rather than narrow individual, "dog-eat-dog" scenarios that neo-liberals and neo-cons try to cons us with. By the way, all the neo-con supporters of so-called free-markets are all hypocritical beneficiaries of mega-state handouts; and not just the enrons and haliburtons either...

Comment by Chandra

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:58:32 EDT

Commonsense I think you make valid points and statistically you are right. Only 1/3rd (34%) of all general candidates are likely to have the same experience as Mr. Sharma. I am sorry to say that this situation is due to a poor rank in the entrance exam. I dont want to get into reasons of a poor rank. But here is an example of how reservations benefit everybody in a positive way. In Orissa, a women's reservation of 30% was introduced in the mid 90s. Till then there were about 1000 seats in total (may be lesser). This means that additional capacity was required. Over the next few years, newer colleges were added rapidly to now increase the tally by almost 10 times. All groups benefitted - Suddenly a large number of women were at college. When i graduated we had 4 women in a class of 200. The incoming class had 60. And mind you, academic standards did not fall at all because of these women. As many sharmas lost out, newer private engineering colleges opened up to meet up with demand from the sharmas. Not only that, these colleges hired and lured faculty with excellent compensation and facilities. Today some of these are easily regarded as the best institutes in the state. Women, general candidates, SCT/STs and faculty have all benefitted as the market responded to this change. All in all, you see the beginnings of a social change. Many people dont notice this but as a poor state that is only in the news for famine, death or starvation, this is a significant achievement. Today we produce almost as many (and as competent) graduates as our neighbour West Bengal despite having less than half of WB's population, half its fertility rate and 1/10th of its snootiness. :-) Now coming to Mr. Sharma. There is no doubt from his example that he has lost out. He needs to consider this. A Govt seat cannot be be all and end all goal. I say this because even irrespective of reservations, entrance exams are very competitive. Not ending up with a Govt seat is like not ending up in the IITs. All of us want to be in the IITs but also face it - keep your other options warm. This means that he will have to be either VERY brilliant or lucky to end up in a Govt college. Now comes the issue of fees. Isn't he being hypocritical when he expects to be in a subsidy operated Govt college while opposing reservations at the same time. A lower fee regime in a Govt institute is also a type of handout. The best option for him is to perpare again in order to get a better rank. If that does not work out he can either join a private institute or do something else. I can say that a so called engineering career is not the be-all and end-all in life. In fact i would say that our Engineering and IT craze are two factors that are pulling us down.

Comment by commonsense

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:38:19 EDT

Abhishek, If I wanted to "dismiss" Sharma's concern, I would not have used the word "sorry". It was used sincerely. However, the norm has also been the fact that millions of OBC's have never had the chance to even be on the starting line due to a variety of reasons that include caste and class. Read any piece by the sociologist Satish Deshpande (Delhi Univ) and Yogendra Yadav (Political Scientist, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi) and you will get a sense of the general pattern. The whole point is that this issue, contrary to surface appearances, should not be interepreted as a low caste/OBC vendetta against the upper caste, but a historic attempt to jiggle the institutions that perpetuate generational inequalities and elite dominance. Will it create new elites? of course! But then the same process has to be applied later ensure that these new elites do not get entrenched either. Will this process be perfect? Of course not? But does it mean that no action should have been taken and status quo maintained? From the viewpoint of those who are currently entrenched in the system, it is understandable why they would be outraged. Remember the outrage in the 1990's? Remember the drama-bazie of people sweeping the streets, cleaning the toilets to mock the lower castes. Predictions were made that India would collapse due to the death of some mysterious entity called MERIT. Nothing of that sort has happened, nor will it. Those who talk of MERIT in the abstract, forget that regardless of merit or not, a huge capitation fee will ensure a seat in many medical institutions etc. etc... So, I do not dismiss Sharma's view. I am certain that he speaks from experience. On the other hand, there are millions of others too who have a different experience. The whole issue is about striking a balance such that everybody gets a reasonable, not absolute, fair shake in life...this is a PROCESS not a formula that gurantees a once and for all desirable outcome.

Comment by Abhishek

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:56:25 EDT

This one quote is from The Pioneer. One of the judges who delivered the judgement on the reservation issue has gone public with this statement: "If the Government was to impose reservation in private unaided institutions, Justice Bhandari visualised four major problems that would occur. "At least four problems will likely arise: One, academic standards suffer; Two, attracting and retaining good faculty becomes more difficult; Three, the incentive to establish a first rate unaided institution is diminished; and ultimately the global reputation of our unaided institutions is severely compromised." Why double standards with the Government run organisations? I understand that the present 27% reservations comes with a lot of caveat. Still, it is difficult to extrapolate the reservation issue in the interests of "larger good". @ Commonsense: Frankly, Sharma's experience IS the GENERAL NORM, instead of one off experience. I have no clue as to why you would want to dismiss this. Just because others dont come on DC to air their experiences, doesnt mean that there are no other examples.

Comment by commonsense

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:59:57 EDT

sharma, sorry about your individual negative experience. however, IN GENERAL, your experience is not the norm.

Comment by Kumar Chetan Sharma

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:21:02 EDT

I have to agree with Abhishek, not coz a) am brahmin b) he is my friend but coz a) I was declined admission in a govt institute but another guy with less marks got admission b) I was not eligible for free counseling offered for preparation of a certain exam but other guys enjoyed the free counseling and still could not score From my childhood my father used to tell me, dude you gotta work hard, there is not Govt. job for brahmins. Sounds like an insult. Yes, we need some way to compensate for what my fore fathers did. But I didn't any thing wrong. Why shall I pay?

Comment by Chandra

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:21:10 EDT

Atlantean I am not sure anything you say is based on facts. The arguments you make now are the arguments we made while at college in the early 90s. We are all doing fine, thank you. Here in the UK i have atleast two lower caste families who would have never nade it without reservation. They are now productive members of the society. When i scour around my school mates and think of competent folks who lost out because of reservations, i cannot find one. On the other hand, when i look at how many incompetent school mates ended up as doctors and dentists through donations I can find quite a few examples....:-)

Comment by Atlantean

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:52:54 EDT

This verdict further institutionalises the reverse discrimination currently being practised by the Republic of India under various names - "social justice", "affirmative action", "reservations" etc. In the past, caste discrimination was about a group of people of one caste cornering a proportion of positions in society. In the present, its the same except that the castes which corner these positions have changed. Call it whatever you like - "social justice", "empowerment", "affirmative action" etc. etc. but it is nothing but plain reverse discrimination. Discrimination continues. One caste will continue to oppress another caste. Only that the oppressed and the oppressor change sides. Those who think that this policy will somehow bring caste discrimination to an end are fooling themselves. I really pity them. I pity their low intelligence. I also regret the arrogance with which they brandish their foolishness as social science. We are in the midst of a transition. Its tough times ahead for the "upper" castes. Its revenge time for the "backward" castes. What ultimately counts is the number of voters and having a man of your caste in power. Its doggy dog. Shape up! The more backward you are, the better. Protest, break glass, burn effigies, block roads, pelt stones, shout - and get your own little percentage of reservation. That's the only way to survive. Dont be silent. Get your man in the right place. And go grab that percentage! Later, argue that your loot is an act in favour of social justice, feel great and philosophical.

Comment by commonsense

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:53:30 EDT

any number of papers by Satish Deshpande and Yogendra Yadav (google them) rely on whatever data available by the GOI and NSS data...if one wants to go beyond opinions and knee-jerk reactions.

Comment by SidDes

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:26:36 EDT

@Author Have you cared to do enough background research before writing this stuff? I was more anti-reservationist than anyone cos I almost got rejected from Xaviers Bombay because of it. But after doing some hard-core finding out, I know what you write is not a reflection of realities.

Comment by Chandra

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:49:23 EDT

Abhishek: The whole thrust of this post here is the "middle class" which is feeling the pinch of the reservations Chandra: There is no evidence to support this contention. This was the argument made in the 90s when OBC job reservations were introduced and they have been proven wrong...so let us leave these non-fact based arguments outside.

Comment by Chandra

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 02:44:10 EDT

Abhishek: Tomorrow, if your kid wants to become a doctor and you don't have an OBC certificate, be prepared to crush his dreams by simply shrugging off your shoulders Chandra: I expect then that my kid works hard to rank in the top or atleast in the middle of class. Being in the second half of the class will now be of no use. It is all in the mind. If he/she cannot make it in the top half of the class, may be JNU or something else is the right place for him/her Abhishek: This isn't intended to be a cross comparison of the various socialist societies. It only serves to highlight the mess created by reservations and as one of the comments rightly observes that there ought to be some mechanism to avoid giving everything on a platter Chandra: I am sorry, i dont see any evidence that suggests that reservations impact general candidates. Abhishek: The current reservations haven't worked at all in the present context Chandra: There is no organised research to prove this one way or the other. However, from anecdotal experience one can see numerous lower caste families benefitting immensely. rgds

Comment by commonsense

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:37:41 EDT

Abhishek: Appreciate your level-headed response. Of course, my intention is not at all to dismiss your concerns. When it comes to making sense of "society", we are in it together, so all views must be incorporated, as much as possible. A brief comment on your comment below: "All the while,it is very natural to expect that my Dad's tax is not misused to give a largesse to someone who is either incompetent or would unable to stand despite the crutches. Doctors amputate the diseased limbs, dude. Not keep them for perpetuity so that they might become septic." This concern about your Dad's tax being possibly mis-used is valid. At the same time however, the tax I and others pay has always been misused for a variety of white elephant projects, outright corruption, handouts and subsidies to corporations (think Enron, Haliburton and some smaller players back home) who rob us blind...but this is usually not construed as state largesse, but as "good for business and the economy". If some of my tax money is used for genuinely helping the needy who then can get a foot in society, rather than being marginalized, I am happy for it. Sure, some of my tax funds will be misused, but I am talking of the overall big picture. Surely, I cannot track how every rupee of my tax is spent on what... As for the Mother Teresa similie: it is not charity or so-called saving of souls one is talking about. Social policies that are enlightened and intend to address some issues before they become major headaches, are precisely the policies that kill the need for us to have the likes of Mother Teresa around. Given some help and backing, most (not all, I understand) members of the underprivileged will find their way in this world, rather than being alienated, unemployed and hopeless. It is a matter of striking the right balance and giving everyone a reasonably (not absolutely) fair chance in life. In the end, especially in light of the rising prices, the growing divide between the elites and the masses, surely it is not hard to predict a difficult situation in the future if something is not done to minimize at least some of the inequities. Yes there will be freeloaders, yes, there will be bastards who will make money out of anything, but it is important to keep the big picture in mind.

Comment by Abhishek

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:06:45 EDT

@Commonsense: The elites have institutionalised this systematic loot only because they could exploit the situation to their advantage. However, frankly speaking, they constitute other end of the spectrum. Why mix them with the present debate? The elite would escape the situation anyway; witness there wards studying a incognitio universities abroad but nevertheless, they have something to crow about. The whole thrust of this post here is the "middle class" which is feeling the pinch of the reservations. I worked hard to get through entrances but was totally shocked to hear that my colleagues needed substantially less percentage to clear the entrances just because they were from a particular caste. It's like rubbing salt in the wounds. When it comes to getting into Post Graduation, it's even worse. Your arguments hold merit but only when there is documented irregularity in disbursing the goods. For example, in none of the panels from the Planning Commission is there any representation from the target community? Although, Panchayati Raj was supposed to engineer the change at the local level, has it really happened? They remain dependent on the Government largesse alone. There are many if's and but's and there can be no final answer. Neither is this debate going to benefit the real issue because the systemic rot has entrenched firmly. I truly appreciate your compassion and empathy for the downtrodden but remember, I am not Mother Teresa either. All the while,it is very natural to expect that my Dad's tax is not misused to give a largesse to someone who is either incompetent or would unable to stand despite the crutches. Doctors amputate the diseased limbs, dude. Not keep them for perpetuity so that they might become septic.

Comment by Pratik

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:17:09 EDT

Considering any POV on this issue is moot, I am suprised no one talks about basic facts here. Given that sc/st/obc comprise more than 50% of our country's population and putting vote-bank politics aside (it is a fact of life), very soon they are going to be ruling and running this country. We'll have reservations in the cricket team if they should want it. When that happens we will thank affirmative action and the exemplary social commitment shown by some upper caste individuals in the past, that there are well qualified people in these communities, capable of leading our institutions and making sound policy decisions.

Comment by K. M.

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:06 EDT

commonsense, I had intended to stop posting on this thread, but since you seem to be interested in continuing the discussion I will reply. I have posted a detailed rebuttal on my blog here. It is too long to be posted as a comment so I invite you to visit my blog and comment if you are interested. K. M.

Comment by PH

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:31:16 EDT

CS, Your point abt using economic markers instead of caste is valid. And it is part of a genuine complaint against reservations. Equally valid is the point that reservations cud end up ghettoising instead of "mixing" populations. I don't know - this whole brouhaha abt medicine and engineering seats seems a bit weird when a large chunk of the ppl don't get basic ed.

Comment by commonsense

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:30:15 EDT

KM: "But you are not definitely not looking for empirical evidence. Infact you admit as much yourself. You say yourself that the goal of economic equality will never be possible. How then do you know that it is desirable?" There is a difference between total economic inequality ie. everyone in a society having exactly the same economic resources AND policies that are based on the goal of promoting egalitarianism and a modicum of equality of eonomic opportunities. The former is utopian as in quite unrealistic. The latter is a "real utopia" to use an oxymoron because it is based on the fact that no person is an island who recreates his own private infrastructure, ie. roads, educational instiutions, electric supply lines etc. Rather all of us as indviduals rely on pre-existing structures that we did not individually create, but we use them to further our economic status etc. Due to institutional arrangements that reinforce and enhance existing inequalities, there always have to be a range of policies that this inequality does not get totally out of hand such that insurmountable social conflicts emerge. This situation is in the interests of everyone, rather than only the existing elites, who of course would love to preserve their privileges while self-congratulating them on their purely individual capabilities, forgetting how much they owe to society and existing institutions. I can't imagine that anyone would think that a certain measure of equality of opportunity and outcomes is "not desirable". It really depends on who are the winners and losers. For the record, I do NOT stand to gain from this recent decision. Neither do any of my family members. However I am committed sincerely to supporting policies, that despite their flaws, are better than "each man for himself" in a dog-eat-dog scenario.

Comment by commonsense

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:16:27 EDT

Abhishek: ""It only serves to highlight the mess created by reservations and as one of the comments rightly observes that there ought to be some mechanism to avoid giving everything on a platter. Government largesse should not be institutionalised in the name of promoting equality where favourable promotions are given across the board just because you are a certified OBC. "" Another way of looking at it is that the elites do get a lot of things handed to them on a platter. They use the state for all kinds of lucrative contracts etc. etc. and this is not usually recognized as govt. largesse even though this is exactly what it is. Just because somebody gets a job thru reservations or gets admission in an educational insitution, it need not and does not mean that they will not be evaluated for performance. Of course an economic criterion is important too, as OBC does not always necessarily equate with lack of opportunites and high caste does not always mean endless opportunities. At the end of the day, it is not a question of "bleeding hearts" or "ideology", but a sincere commitment to the promotion of a modicum of egalitarianism. Will politicans exploit this for vote banks? Of course they will. They are after all politicians and to accuse them of this is like accusing a doctor of practising medicine. However, it would be absurd to think that the state is thoroughly compromised. Their are conscientious civil servants and bureaucrats too, and some of them, despite all the cynicism, are committed to a certain vision that will in the end benefit everyone rather than a small elite, regardless of their caste background. There may be many flaws in this policy, but let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. BTW, if anyone is interested, I do not stand to benefit from any reservation nor will my kids or any members of my family, so I write this not out of vested self-interest, nor a bleeding heart, but out of a sincere commitment to a process that will eventually give a larger percentage of my fellow citizens a reasonably fair shake in life. There are many ways of redistributing wealth in society, and this process is not to be equated with "socialism". Otherwise Canada, all of Western Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Singapore etc. would be "socialist". The deployment of the term "socialism" is more often than not just a red herring, pun intended!

Comment by PH

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:15:25 EDT

Abhishek, You lost me at "emasculated".

Comment by Man Singh

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:46:37 EDT

Reservation has two components. 1. SC/ST and is very genuine no comments. 2. OBC : Current 27% OBC reservation is senseless altogather. becaise out of thousands of casts included in OBC category 4 casts are landlords and economically strong. they are Jaat Gurjar Yadav and Kurmi. these casts are the major beneficiary of this OBC reservations being rich and resourceful. landless OBC's like nai, teli tamboli kumhar etc will never come up untill these landlords are clubbed with them. I am surprised how even supreme court of India can be so negligent in recognising a simple fact that in rural India, its landownership is teh criteria of backwardness. Landless Brahmins suffer as much as landless SC/ST as both rely on landlords for their livelyhood.

Comment by TM

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:21:11 EDT

Compromising on merit means heading into bankruptcy. I think India heading towards Zimbabwe way. Let's not be too bullish on India.

Comment by TM

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:18:46 EDT

Compromising on merit means heading into bankruptcy. I think India heading towards Zimbabwe way. Let's not be too bullish on India.

Comment by Abhishek

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:21:04 EDT

Those who support reservations either because they are compelled to do so or have bleeding hearts, don't realise the futility of their approach towards these issues. I have worked hard and faced these issues in practical real life; I realise that I am on the so called "neo liberalist" end of the spectrum as some of the people have commented on. Tomorrow, if your kid wants to become a doctor and you don't have an OBC certificate, be prepared to crush his dreams by simply shrugging off your shoulders. All this idealism would simply fly out of the window. Unless you wish your ward to study in dungeon called as JNU where his mind would warp in the same twisted manner as yours; all in the name of idealism. This isn't intended to be a cross comparison of the various socialist societies. It only serves to highlight the mess created by reservations and as one of the comments rightly observes that there ought to be some mechanism to avoid giving everything on a platter. Government largesse should not be institutionalised in the name of promoting equality where favourable promotions are given across the board just because you are a certified OBC. The problem starts off with the basic education; when you have such wide disparities across the spectrum, there is no gurantee that equality can be ensured at the top. I am not against the equality per se. Although, there ought to be different models to call for inclusive growth instead of trying to make a bad thing worse. The current reservations haven't worked at all in the present context. Statistics is, at best, the sum of the probables and interpretation. Unless you decide to weigh in the evidence based situation, the idealistic comments would just remain that.