Wokay!

In April 2006, the issue of extending reservations to Other Backward Classes first came to the national consciousness. People have spoken for and against reservations since then with different agendas and different points of view.

The points of view included the usual suspects: the anti-reservationists argued that reservation would compromise academic merit and was merely a vote buying tactic, while pro-reservationists argued that social justice was a goal that far outweighed considerations of merit, or the motivations of the proposal. The debate took unpleasant directions: those who opposed reservations were smeared as defending upper-caste or upper class privilege, while the pro-reservationists had casteist abuse hurled at them. In addition to invective, it also descended into endless arguments over data on which OBCs were truly backward, and whether reserved seats would not simply be captured by powerful castes, while leaving actual backward classes as disempowered as ever.

The descent into madness became almost complete in the past month, with the Supreme Court being attacked for ‘legislating from the bench’, and statements from politicians about two individuals deciding the fate of a billion being undemocratic. (Tangentially, the same politician seems happy to have five hundred odd individuals deciding the fate of the billion others- one wonders what is the number between two and five hundred at which it becomes democratic.)

It is unfortunate that the debate on reservations has shifted so drastically to discussing who is backward and who is not, and who is fit to rule on backwardness and who is not. This continued argument over backwardness distracts from two issues: rights and autonomy- which few commentators have addressed over the past one year – Pratap Bhanu Mehta being one of the few. This is tragic, because these issues are far more fundamental than

Let us consider rights first. The Ninety Third Constitutional Amendment which enabled the extension of reservations has its genesis in the Supreme Court’s 2005 judgment in Inamdar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. In its judgment, the court upheld the right of private educational institutions to have an admissions policy independent of government control. The Ninety Third Amendment was rushed in to destroy this private right, just as the very first amendment to the constitution was brought in to destroy the right to private property which the Patna High Court upheld in Kameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar.

For those who are suspicious of government control over private citizens and associations, this is obscene. If a private trust sets up a college, what business of the government is it which students it admits? The trust has no dealings with the government, so what gives the government the right to interfere with the trust’s admissions process?

But the argument is over reservations in IITs and IIMs and AIIMS, which are very much government institutions. Does the government not have a right to set admissions policy in the institutions it owns?

Assuredly. But here is where the other fundamental issue of autonomy comes into play.

The Union government ‘owns’ the IITs and IIMs. It therefore has the right to decide how they will be run, in all aspects. This does not mean that it is sensible for it to do so. It is difficult to accept the assertion that it is better for the admissions policy of IIM Bangalore to be set by Arjun Singh – or any other HRD Minister – than by IIM Bangalore’s own admissions committee. And all demands for government-enforced reservation boil down to this very assertion: that bureaucrats and politicians are more competent than universities themselves to decide what the universities should do. Highlighting the absurdity of this assertion is simple: one simply has to extend the argument. If Parliament is better placed to decide which students to take in than the university itself, it must be better placed to decide what they will eat as well. The menu of IIT Madras’s Mega-Mess must also be set by the HRD Ministry, with 15% reservation for proteins, 7.5% for fats, and 27.5% for carbohydrates.

The undermining of institutional autonomy by the HRD Ministry is dangerous. It creates disincentives for students to enter academia. It prevents universities from experimenting to find admissions policies which could accomplish more for social diversity than the blunt tool of reservations. Most importantly, it prevents new institutions from coming up, and supplying the educational infrastructure that the young people who form India’s ‘demographic dividend’ so desperately need.

But what is even more tragic than the HRD Ministry attempting to bring in reservations is that the anti-reservationists are taking their case to the Supreme Court. The HRD Minister is not the best person to make decisions on the day-to-day affairs of the IITs and IIMs, but neither are the Supreme Court justices.

We seek to overturn bad decisions by one authority by appealing to another authority to reverse them. This reveals flaws in our national character. The drama of the last month is symptomatic of the Indian unconcern for autonomy, and the lack of regard for institutions.

(An edited version of this article appears in this month’s edition of Pragati, the Indian National Interest’s publication)

And that reason is the Nehru dynasty.

It then seeks to assign the same reason to the fame achieved by top musicians — Amjad Khan (Sarod), Zakir Hussain (Tabla) and Bismillah Khan (Shehnai) besides cricketers — Nawab of Pataudi, Syed Kirmani, Azaruddin, Zaheer Khan, Irfan Pathan, Mohammad Kaif, Munaf Patel, Wasim Jafar , as well as tennis star Sania Mirza.

Meanwhile, Ravikiran writes in over email:

If any party made three demands
1) Control inflation
2) Oppose FDI in retail
3) Get higher prices for farmers…
Would anyone notice that they are mutually incompatible?

They are mutually incompatible for ordinary parties. But the Congress is no ordinary party. It is led by Sonia. And Sonia is not just any woman. She is the living incarnation of Guan Yin, the goddess of Compassion. Her compassion will resolve all paradoxes. It will ensure that the small farmer and the small retailer work in harmony and provide small prices to the small consumer.

If you don’t believe this, it only shows how heartless you are. But the Guan Yin will have compassion even for you.