Think beyond quotas

The Supreme Court judgment on what in popular parlance is called the Mandal II conundrum is truly historic, in one sense. Rarely have the pronouncements of the SC been both welcomed by contending parties, and, sotto voce, condemned.

In upholding the constitutionality of quotas for the socially and educationally backward classes, including pushing up the permissible limit to 49.5 per cent, the court has averted the anticipated clash between the judiciary and legislature.

Simultaneously, in insisting on restraints in the operation of the policy — exclusion of ‘creamy layer’, periodic reviews of both the criteria of inclusion and outcomes, keeping private, unaided, and minority educational institutions out of the purview of the act, to mention a few — it may well have taken away with one hand what appears to be a largesse handed by the other. No wonder, both extremities of the debate are claiming victory publicly, while expressing serious disquiet in private.

Then there are the comments by individual judges. There is, for instance, significant consternation over Justice Bhandari’s understanding that graduates are ineligible. Does this mean that all post-graduate courses fall outside the purview of the quota policy?

In which case, why fret about the IIMs or even the upper echelons of the central universities? Or is this to be interpreted as a key factor in determining the status of a group as an OBC — that if the proportion of graduates in a group matches national averages in the relevant age cohort, the group itself becomes ineligible for reservation?

There is similar confusion over family income cut-offs for deciding ‘creamy layer’, more so since different states use different cut-offs. Equally significant is the fact that given the exponential growth in the private provision of higher education since the mid-1980s, and the simultaneous decline in public provisioning — not just in technical institutions like engineering, medicine and management but also in general higher education — the much touted social justice, inclusive higher education measure affects only a miniscule number of potential aspirants.

One can continue to add to the list of questions which will dog public debate in the days to come. Yet, it must be admitted that the SC has valiantly attempted to introduce a degree of reason in what is a highly charged issue, most of all in demanding both clarity and transparency from the government in policy-making.

As Harish Salve, lawyer for the petitioners, points out, curbs, including judicial oversight, have been placed on executive action. And while, at the moment, we have no idea of how the government will decide on the eligibility criteria — be it of groups in the list, or of individuals to be excluded — it is clear that they cannot rush without challenge.

Yet, once we step back from the hype and posturing by interested parties, there is a sense of deja-vu. It is a political reality that substantial numbers in the country remain unconvinced about the ‘collective guilt for past civilisational misdimeanours’ vis-à-vis the OBCs, unlike the case of the SCs and STs.

No wonder, quotas for the former, be it in employment or higher education (even if now constitutionally valid), generate a feeling of unfairness. Repeatedly, it is pointed out that the dominant OBC groups enjoy both political and economic power, and that if they continue to remain educationally backward, this is a larger cultural question which demands action from the leaders of these communities — setting up their own institutions, investing heavily in quality schooling, and so on, rather than seek quotas at public expense.

There is today a vast body of work on affirmative action programmes — in the US, South Africa and Malaysia. Fortunately, the last decade has seen an increased interest by scholars on the varied Indian experience too.

Both by using secondary data produced by the NSS, as also case studies, it is now more feasible to design less blunt instruments to effect social inclusion, enhance mobility and tap existent talent in a range of sectors.

If we want to both enhance supply of and increase inclusion in institutions providing quality education and training, knee-jerk allocation of resources and introduction of quotas is hardly a preferred option. More so, since there is little talk about the obvious shortages in infrastructure and trained teachers.

Worse, in restricting the policy debate and public discourse to quotas alone (or even primarily), we may well end up pursuing a dead-end course. But then, the late Raj Krishna, best remembered for his unforgettable phrase ‘the Hindu rate of growth’ also never tired of pointing out that ‘our decision-makers are knowledge proof’. And therein lies the rub.

The writer is editor, Seminar.