With reservations

The debate on the Bill for reservation in promotions shows that short-term political considerations decide the positions of political parties even on historically necessary actions.

IF the technicalities of the passage of a piece of legislation were the only criteria, then the December 17 approval in the Rajya Sabha of the Constitution amendment Bill that provides for reservation in promotions for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (S.Cs and S.Ts) in government jobs underscored Parliaments commitment to the empowerment of the historically marginalised sections of society. The Upper House, consisting of 245 members, passed the Bill with an overwhelming majority, recording 194 votes in favour and 10 against the Bill. Only twothe Samajwadi Party (S.P.) and the Shiv Senaof the 29 political parties represented in the House opposed the Bill.

However, if one were to go into the qualitative dimensions of this important piece of legislation, including the manner in which the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre formulated it, the reasons for introducing it in the winter session of Parliament as also the reactions in some of the major parties after its passage, the commitment to the concept of empowerment gets shrouded in ambiguity.

This sense of ambiguity is accentuated when answers are sought to the question as to why a Bill with such overwhelming acceptance and support generated so much controversy within Parliament and outside. And the answers predominantly point towards the primacy of short-term political considerations in the functioning of the majority of political forces and their penchant to play to the galleries of their respective support bases.

The Bill, by the UPA governments own statements, was in the making since May after the Supreme Court ruled in April against quotas in promotions implemented by the Mayawati-led Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) government in Uttar Pradesh. The Dalit-assertive BSP government had given reservation as per the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, but the apex court held that the Ministry had failed to demonstrate the need for the same.

Following this, the Union government held an all-party meeting in August, and here, too, there was broad agreement that the legislature should come up with a constitutional amendment to overcome the courts ruling. While most of the parties supported the introduction of a Bill addressing the concerns of the S.Cs and the S.Ts, the S.P. maintained a nuanced position right from the all-party meeting. It stated that it agreed with the idea of a constitutional amendment in principle, but with the rider that reservation in promotions should be introduced for the Muslim community, too, especially in the context of the Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee report on the plight of Muslims. Despite this, there were no concrete moves from the UPA government to introduce and pass the Bill in the winter session. But all this changed when the UPA was challenged by an opposition motion against foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail in Parliament. It was in the face of this challenge that the government decided to introduce the Bill hastily, without caring to correct the anomalies and inconsistencies pointed out by a number of specialists on affirmative action and empowerment.

The majority of parties, including UPA constituents such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and those supporting it from outside such as the BSP and the S.P., had opposed FDI in multi-brand retail. Given this background, the anti-FDI motion moved by the principal opposition, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and the Left parties should have gained majority support in both Houses of Parliament. But the Congress party managers reportedly used all means in the book and some beyond it, so much so that both the BSP and the S.P. took up positions that ultimately helped the government defeat the opposition motion. Both parties boycotted the voting in the Lok Sabha, and the BSP completely changed its public position on the issue and went to the extent of voting with the government in the Rajya Sabha, where the government faced a more critical situation in terms of numbers. It was this crucial support offered by the Dalit party that resulted in the introduction of the Bill in the winter session itself.

To put it in realpolitik terms, the BSP struck a quid pro quo deal with the government for the support it had extended in the FDI vote. In fact, Mayawati went into a lengthy harangue in the Rajya Sabha to push the case for the Bill and to ensure that her partys role in its introduction was not overlooked by the public, particularly her Dalit support base. Such was her vehemence that in the process she also presented the unseemly spectacle of casting aspersions on Hamid Ansari, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

Signals of a deal between the BSP and the Congress and undue haste in introducing the Bill became evident from the events that followed. The hurry in the formulation of the Bill was unravelled by the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill. This section had such factual mistakes that it changed the very character of the Bill and made it open to negative interpretations.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons had stated that reservation in promotion for the S.Cs and the S.Ts (which has been in operation since 1955 as part of constitutional provisions) was discontinued following the 1992 judgment in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India. This was incorrect since the majority judgment had clearly stated that, wherever reservations are already provided in the matter of promotion, be it Central services or State services, or for that matter services under any corporation, authority or body, falling under the definition of State such reservation shall continue in operation for a period of five years from the day of the judgment.

Further, the then government had brought in a Constitution amendment within the five-year period, in 1995, ensuring continuance of the reservation in promotions. These factual positions were misrepresented in the current Bill, making it appear as though the government was introducing some new affirmative action programme for the S.Cs and the S.Ts, whereas in reality this was only an initiative to continue with the reservation that had been existing for over five and a half decades with stronger provisions and safeguards. These anomalies were pointed out in the Rajya Sabha debate itself by the Communist Party of India (CPI) leader, D. Raja. He called for rectification of these and the introduction of stronger provisions in the Bill.

P.S. Krishnan, former Secretary to the Government of India with unparalleled experience in issues and schemes relating to affirmative action and empowerment of the marginalised sections of society, told Frontline that he had pointed out the need for strengthening the provisions of the current Bill through a number of specific suggestions. But these were not incorporated. Both Krishnan and Raja hope that the government will take steps to correct the anomalies and strengthen the Bill as it progresses through the legislative process in the Lok Sabha and the implementation processes in different forums of government.

Raja said that the Union Minister of State in the Prime Ministers Office (PMO), V. Narayanasamy, who introduced the S.C./S.T. promotion quota Bill, had indicated the governments readiness to look into suggestions to strengthen the Bill. Narayanasamys speech in the Rajya Sabha pointed to the discrimination faced by S.C. and S.T. communities in government services. Asserting that this imbalance needed to be changed through a piece of legislation, he said: The number of posts of Secretaries or equivalent in the Government of India is 102. Among them, the number of officers from the S.C. category is nil; the number of S.T. officers is two, and the number of OBC [Other Backward Classes] officers is nil. As for the number of Additional Secretaries or equivalent, the total number is 113, of which the number of S.C. officers is five, S.T. is one and OBC is nil. Of the 434 posts of Secretaries and equivalents, there are 32 S.C. officers, 14 S.T. officers and one OBC officer. Which means that the S.Cs constitute 6.5 per cent, the S.Ts 9.8 per cent and the OBCs 9.2 per cent.

Krishnan told Frontline that while there were deficiencies in the Bill passed in the Rajya Sabha, the political parties and observers interested in real empowerment of the marginalised sections should see this as a fresh renewal of the much-needed measures.

True, there are deficiencies in the Bill and there may be problems in the way it was brought out, but we should also remember that a beginning of sorts has been made. One cannot see the good as the enemy of the best, he said. BSP leader Brijesh Pathak was, however, of the view that the proof of the UPAs commitment to the concept would ultimately lie in the implementation of the reservation. We need to see how far the Congress will go ahead in this direction, given the manner in which it agreed to come up with the legislation.

At the political level, both the BSP and the Congress consider themselves gainers. Primarily, the Congress managers are happy that they saved the day on the FDI vote. They also feel that they will be able to highlight the partys concern for Dalits and tribal communities by campaigning about the Bill. The BSP leadership is of the view that it can present itself as the real proponent of the Bill, particularly among its vast support base in Uttar Pradesh. The S.P., which opposed the Bill by advancing the cause of the Muslim minority, has also sent the right messages to its predominantly OBC-and-Muslim support base. Some of the leaders of the party are of the view that a section of the upper castes in Uttar Pradesh sees great merit in the partys opposition to the Bill.

The reactions from within the BJP, particularly its Uttar Pradesh leaders such as Murli Manohar Joshi and Rajnath Singh, lend credence to this perception. According to BJP insiders, both the senior leaders were highly critical of the partys support to the Bill in the Rajya Sabha. Their argument was that this would make the upper castes in Uttar Pradesh move closer to the S.P. Clearly, the developments in the various parties and, more so, the introduction of the Bill in Parliament indicate that short-term political considerations had become central even to historically imperative legislation.