B L Razdan
Some days back Dr Amar Chand Bhagat and Dr Kuldeep Dogra had reasoned in these columns as to why India still needs reservations. Relying on the Constitutional provisions in Articles 16(4) and 46 and the practices in some socialist republics they argued that the present reservation policy should be continued just as the most developed county like US has a reservation policy to uplift the blacks.
The need for continued reservations had also been sought to be justified to ensure an egalitarian Society. Let us not forget that in egalitarian societies, all individuals are born equal, and all members of society are said to have a right to equal opportunities. While affirmative action may be justified for some time, it does not mean to perpetuate the policy indefinitely and in perpetuity to rob Pal to pay Peter and push the former into abyss, which in itself is a gross violation of the principle of egalitarianism. In fact, Aristotle said it ages ago, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”
In order to have social harmony the framers of our Constitution had prescribed the social medicine which had a shelf life of a decade and Caste-based reservations as a state policy were envisaged to end by 1960. The reservation policy cannot be posited ad infinitum as an alibi for perpetuating what is politically expedient. Constitutional provisions were envisaged to achieve a goal: to proactively compensate inherited disabilities. These cannot be privileges in perpetuity. If one were to undergo an orthopedic foot surgery, one would be prescribed a crutch for temporary use and all crutches are, by definition, interim and dated accessories. Unless wisely used, these could perpetuate one’s general disabilities in the process of mitigating a special disability. Empowering provisions, in other words, cannot be converted into alibis for perpetual disability. Means for empowerment cannot be perks pegged on unending disempowerment. The fixing of a deadline for terminating these provisions was eminently rational and desirable.
Another example analogous to the latitude extended to infants and dependent children in a home is to provide special provisions and special protections. The enjoyment of such provisions has implications for one’s situation, stature and self-image. Dependent children, for instance, are not granted the sort of freedom and rights that adults may enjoy. One cannot have special privileges and general rights at the same time; just as one cannot be an infant and an adult at the same time. An infant claiming adult rights provokes disapprobation. At the same time, it is cruel and callous on the part of adults to neglect or resent the special needs of infants, which could imperil their well-being altogether.
The flip side of reservations is that these perpetuate social cleavages without conferring the desired benefits to the intended beneficiaries, especially the needy among them. Post-independence some two or three generations have immensely benefited from affirmative action yet they resist the concept of “creamy layer” being introduced. A vast canvas of Neo-Swaranas has emerged who do not allow the fruits of the affirmative action to flow down to the real needy even as they claim that they are their very own kith and kin. A shameful assertion of double standards by the powerful lobby of Neo-Swaranas would want the Parliament to undo even the Supreme Court decision as was done in Shah Bano case. But the Government should not do this. True affirmative action does not mean that the son of Ram Vilas Paswan should get the benefits of reservation at the cost of the really needy and deserving in his very own community. Nor were the fruits of affirmative action meant for the likes of Meera Kumar daughter of Jagjivan Ram, who prima facie did not suffer from any disability whatsoever.
Another undesirable fall out is that reservations have become a big disincentive for the people in these categories, to work hard and achieve things on their own merit. Since things come their way easily they don’t think it necessary to equip themselves with the necessary skill sets and knowledge that are so vital in a competitive world. In that sense reservations have become counterproductive too. Rather than being inspired by the personal example of Baba BhimRaoAmbedkar, they choose the easier option and suffer a guilty conscience all through their careers and life both, for having benefited unjustly and undeservingly.
It is a favorite past time of most of the pro-reservationists to blame “Manuvadis” even without having read Manusmriti. Manu divided the society in four different groups on the basis of the vocations they were adept in as was warranted by the call of the times. There is no prohibition in an individual or a group of individuals with the relevant merit and experience to move up the social ladder, which itself came into existence later. Evidently, he could not trust an unlettered person to handle education as was done by the Congress Government by entrusting Department of Education and Culture to Maulana Azad who had never attended even a primary school and did a tremendous damage to our educational set-up and our culture. Manu could not even trust the defence of the land to physically weak persons. Even so, as the times change some changes may become necessary as has been the case with our own Constitution which has been framed rather very recently in comparison.
Although the Supreme Court of India had capped the reservations at 50% in view of the provisions of Article 335, the various State Governments were permitted to raise the limit on justifiable grounds. The led to a huge chunk of training slots and jobs being cornered by people who would not justify the demands of the professions they chose or offices they held. Worse, it also prevented the meritorious in the society to seek these opportunities and they sought green pastures elsewhere. No wonder then that the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu are a rage in America for their mathematical prowess and gentle demeanor. Most of the UKs Health Department is run by Indians. Their gain and that of many other Western countries is certainly our loss. A meritorious person has the capability of creating thousands of jobs, whereas the one who has got his own job because of reservation struggles all his life to keep it. Obviously, reservations work to the detriment of the national interest on the whole. It also pulls back India from seeking its rightful place at the international level.
Let me make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the Bhagwat Gita declares it most openly that it is through one’s karma that one’s varna gets established and that one can always rise not only in the social ladder of varnaashramdharma on the strength of one’s karma; but also promote oneself from tamasguna to rajas guna and rajas guna to satwikgunathrough sheer grit, determination and hard work. After all, Rishi Valmiki was not a beneficiary of reservation. Those who flock to his temples fail to take the necessary inspiration from his life to rise in their own lives on the basis of merit and hard work. Bhagwat Gita has a much higher sanctity than Manusmriti; but our leaders do not intentionally advert to its sacred pronouncements.
The myth of untouchability does not figure in Manusmriti. Who would snap the umbilical cord of the newborn at the time of its birth in our homes? Who would do our “mundane” thereafter? Who would draw the water from our well? Who would prepare the “patal” used to have meals? Who would wash our clothes? Who would cart the daughter in law in the palanquin at the time of marriage? Who would vouch for her safety all her life? The simple answer to all these questions is that a Brahmin would be shaved by a barber of another caste; a Brahmin would get his clothes washed by other caste people; a Brahmin would drink milk produced and milked by other caste people; Chatth puja would be performed on the soup prepared by Valmikis. In the Brahmin marriage hall (mandap) the presence of washerwoman and barbar would be compulsory and the bride’s father would demand new dresses for them from the groom’s father.
Where was untouchibility? Britishers highlighted it to divide the society and create for themselves a fence against the Brahmins and the Rajputs, whom they dreaded, and later the political expediency tried to keep the issue alive for vote bank politics. And if I refuse to shake hands with you on grounds of hygiene, or keep a safe distance from you – as in these epidemic days – please don’t accuse me of practicing untouchability. I am still your brother and well wisher.
In the modern day competitive world it makes sense that all of us regardless of caste, colour, creed, religion, etc. learn to equip ourselves with knowledge, skills and other requisite accessories so as to be able to face the world on our own. Says Gita (4/38), “There’s nothing so holy as knowledge.” And according to Hitopadesha: “Education imparts politeness; intellectual politeness secures capacity and suitability; capacity and suitability enable one to secure wealth; wealth so secured enables one to conform to Dharma, which in turn secures happiness.”
It is imperative and desirable that reservations be abolished; the sooner, the better. For in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Some will always be above others. Destroy the inequality today, and it will appear again tomorrow.”
(The author is formerly of the Indian Revenue Service, retired as Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Chandigarh.)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel