Examining reservation

The disclosure of a move to reserve seats for Other Backward Classes in the IITs and the IIMs sets off a controversy.

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN in New Delhi

" Today, we have performed the ritualistic immersion (visarjan) of a historic document." This was one of the first comments of B.P. Mandal, the architect of the Mandal Commission Report, after he and other members of the Commission submitted the epoch-making report to Union Home Minister Giani Zail Singh. That was in December 1980, and Mandal's choice of metaphor must have sounded incongruous at that moment. But the manner in which the recommendations have been treated has indeed imparted a prophetic value to it. The report and its recommendations have gone through a cycle of sorts, characterised by long periods of government apathy and episodic revivals accompanied by raucous protests and political twists.

The Mandal Commission report remained forgotten for 10 years, until the National Front government under the leadership of Vishwanath Pratap Singh implemented a portion of it in 1990. The political demonstrations that followed that action were so strident and dramatic that they altered radically the style and content of political discourse in the country.

Sixteen years from then, the report is back in the public eye through the intense debate in the media and at other forums on the intent of Human Resource Development Minister Arjun Singh to implement its other portion. As was the case in 1990, the debate is multi-dimensional and its qualitative aspects range from the constructive to the ludicrous to the sinister. As to which of these aspects would ultimately assert itself and emerge on top does not evoke a definitive reply.

It all started on April 5, when the media approached Arjun Singh after a function in New Delhi seeking clarifications whether his Ministry proposed to implement reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in educational institutions, including Central professional institutes such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs). The Minister replied in the affirmative and explained that Article 15(5) of the Constitution had come into force on January 20, 2006, after having received Presidential assent, thus facilitating the advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes in matters of admission to educational institutions through reservation of seats and other means.

The reactions to this piece of news emerged at various levels. To start with, Arjun Singh's statement was perceived as a political exercise aimed at bolstering the chances of the Congress and its allies in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in the Assembly elections to be held in April-May in West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry and Assam. Counter-arguments such as the OBC communities were significant only to the elections in Tamil Nadu and that Arjun Singh's proposal was inconsequential there because already the extent of reservation there was 69 per cent were not acceptable to the critics of this line. The Election Commission (E.C.) promptly took note of it and sent notices to the Minister, treating his statement prima facie as violation of the model code of conduct.

Secondly, it was argued that Arjun Singh was initiating something unprecedented in the country's history and that it would work against merit in the education sector and cause great damage to centres of excellence such as the IITs and the IIMs. A realpolitik twist was added to the debate with suggestions that Arjun Singh had not consulted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh or the Union Cabinet before making the reservation plan public. It was also indicated that the Prime Minister was not in complete agreement with the proposal and that Arjun Singh had jumped the gun in order to upstage Manmohan Singh and score political points.

The Prime Minister made his own contribution by suggesting that corporate leaders should take steps to blend commitment to excellence with commitment to social equity. The near-negative reactions of corporate leaders, including those from organisations such as the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), mark another feature of the current debate.

Interestingly, almost all participants in the debate seem to have taken the premise that Arjun Singh unravelled a new proposal to help OBC communities. Not many commentators have cared to highlight the fact that the Mandal Commission recommendations refer to the need for reservation in educational institutions. There are about a dozen recommendations in the report, which propose, apart from reservation in government jobs and educational institutions, separate coaching facilities for students aspiring to enter technical and professional institutions and special vocation-oriented education facilities to upgrade the academic and cultural environment of OBC students.

The report also states that fundamental structural changes in the land-tenurial system and production relations through progressive land reforms are required if steady and long-lasting results are to accrue from the recommendations.

The Commission has also pointed to the need for the creation of a chain of financial and technical bodies to assist OBC entrepreneurs and upgrade the skills of village artisans and provide them with subsidised loans to set up small-scale industries.

If anything, Arjun Singh was only following the basic recommendations of the Mandal Commission, albeit incompletely and after a gap of two and a half decades, but the Minister too chose to present reservation in educational institutions as something that was a consequence of the December 2005 constitutional amendment. In his reply to the E.C., he pointed out that the Central government had taken several steps to implement the mandate of this constitutional amendment. He also recalled his own reply to the debate on the 93rd Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha on December 21 last year.

In this speech he assured the House, particularly members who belong to the backward classes, that every single advantage that had accrued to the country after the Mandal report, would accrue to the country after this Bill was passed, in terms of admission and in terms of other advantages that the backward classes should get. He had also said that the government would not leave things halfway.

Whatever the merits of the 93rd Constitution Amendment Bill referred to by Arjun Singh, there is little doubt that a lot many participants in the "Mandal II" debate are not happy with the Minister's cocksureness about "not leaving things halfway". In fact, the majority of the anti-reservationists would be happy if the Minister chose to leave things halfway. Ironically, a number of Arjun Singh's own colleagues in the Congress and the allies in the UPA government take this position in spite of the fact that the UPA's Common Minimum Programme (CMP) for governance has made a firm commitment about implementing reservation for OBCs in educational institutions.

Not surprisingly, formal statements of support to the CMP promise have not come from most of the UPA partners. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), the leader of the Left parties on whose support the government is dependent for survival, however, strongly backed Arjun Singh's proposed move through an editorial in the party's newspaper People's Democracy. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Samajwadi Party (S.P.) president Mulayam Singh Yadav, too, has welcomed the reservation plan despite the many differences he, his party and his government have with the Congress and the UPA.

Pointing out that the system of capitation fee in a large number of private institutions worked as reservation for the rich, People's Democracy said that merit became an issue only when it came to providing access to those who for centuries had been denied education. It also argued that until education for all was achieved, it was necessary to understand that education in the country had, for long, particularly since Independence, been afflicted with the perennial quest for a proper balance in its eternal triangle - quantity, quality, equity. "Reservation definitely addressed the issue of equity, the issue of both quality and quantity also needs to be addressed through measures to expand state-run educational facilities and increasing expenditures for providing high-class educational infrastructure to tackle quality. However, equity cannot be kept in abeyance until this balance is brought about in this eternal triangle. Quantity, quality and equity complement each other and were not in conflict, as vested interests seek to deliberately project," the editorial said.

Proponents of the politics of affirmative action, such as Dr. Udit Raj, chairman of the All India Confederation of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) Organisations and president of the Indian Justice Party, view the current debate as a ploy to defeat the objectives of reservation in educational institutions. "The whole debate, including the suggestions about the conflict between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Arjun Singh on the issue, has been engineered in such a manner as to dilute the very concept of reservation for the oppressed classes," he said and added that sections of the media had become active participants in the advancement of this game plan.

Political analyst Hariraj Singh Tyagi perceived a filibustering tactic in the constant inclusion of newer issues in the debate. "First it was the election code of conduct issue, later an inner-party tussle was suggested, and now there seems to be an effort to debate the proposal jointly with reservation in the private sector. Clearly, somebody is trying to stave off immediate implementation of reservation in educational institutions," he said.

Whatever the merits of the contention put forward by Udit Raj and Hariraj Singh Tyagi, there is little doubt that Arjun Singh's statement about "not leaving things halfway" has taken a beating of sorts. What should have been an open and shut case for reservation in educational institutions has got embroiled in a controversy that could go on for a considerable period of time.

The debate with reservations in the private sector revolves basically around a note prepared by a Group of Ministers (GoM) led by Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar on the proposal. The GoM pointed out that it was not possible to initiate reservation in the private sector without amending the Constitution, and that the "political desirability, political feasibility and legality of amending the Constitution need to be carefully considered in consultation with UPA constituents". The GoM interacted with representatives of the CII, FICCI and other organisations. According to the GoM, these trade and industry organisations accepted the "desirability of affirmative action" but opposed the "concept of reservation as prevailing in the government" because they saw reservation as a factor that limits initiatives in global business competition.

The CII is apparently working on a formal proposal to the government highlighting what it perceives as affirmative action. Apparently, the CII's focus is on rural industrialisation, scholarships, a financing system to promote entrepreneurship, job creation and skill development for the underprivileged. The plan apparently asserts that reservation would be detrimental for industry's health.

By all indications, there are efforts, supported by sections of the UPA and the bureaucracy, to evolve similar parameters for reservation in Central educational institutions. Ten days before the current controversy erupted, on March 25, the Prime Minister had waxed eloquent on his government's commitment to promote modernity and social equity at the same time. Addressing the Harvard Alumni Association, he said: "Our government is committed to promoting excellence and improving access to education for our citizens. To some, this goal may appear contradictory, since the pursuit of excellence is sometimes seen as being at the cost of access. We in India have had an interesting debate on the need for academic institutions to strike a balance between the pursuit of excellence and the objective of providing access."

The current controversy has emerged as if on cue. But as the debate continues there is no clarity how the balancing act will finally unfold.