Reservations can help, and hurt too

A side effect of the policy in India is the unprecedented rise in caste consciousness which can lead to divisiveness.

A recent article by Prof MS Sriram titled ‘Reservations have their own merit: inclusion’ published in this paper makes a valid argument. But it should be with a qualification that the extent of reservations should be within sensible limits.

The limit imposed by the Supreme Court at 50% is sensible in Indian circumstances. The formula is fair and balanced as it allows for the inclusion of marginalised groups and merit-based competition among all candidates. A good scope for open merit creates an incentive to excel, which is necessary for a country’s progress.

Moreover, the communities who benefit from the reservation are free to compete in the general category, and those who secure seats/jobs in the general pool are not counted in the reserved quota. This is also a right and just policy. 

Even at 50%, reservation in India amounts to the largest extent of positive discrimination practised among the countries of the world. The reservation policy has worked well so far, bringing millions of people from disadvantaged communities into the economic, social and political mainstream.

The reservation policy has also led to increased caste consciousness and politicisation of caste identities in India. Some political leaders are using this to demand reservations for more and more communities or castes. 

These new claimants of reservations are not from more deprived communities compared to castes, which have got the benefits so far but belong to ‘dominant castes’, which are politically more potent because of their larger numbers and are also primarily classes owning land. Since any extension of reservation benefits to them within the existing ceiling would deprive those castes that are already the beneficiaries of reservation, there is a clamour to raise the ceiling above 50%.

Tamil Nadu has a ceiling of 75%, while Bihar recently proposed increasing it to 65%. Some political leaders have even argued that a caste’s political and economic benefits should be proportional to its population size. There is a demand for a caste-wise census nationwide to facilitate it.

The implications of this seemingly just policy need to be well understood. Such a policy amounts to majoritarianism. The principle is applied in the case of delimitation of constituencies for elections. The southern states, which are more developed and have followed the national directive for family planning, are set to be punished for this by being allocated fewer seats in Parliament than the northern states, which are less developed and have not followed family planning. The northern states can then dominate the southern because of their larger population size. Is this fair and acceptable to the southern states? The same situation applies to the castes as well. The majority communities would then be justified in dominating minority communities, just because they are larger.

Instead of raising the ceiling set by the Supreme Court, it would be appropriate to accommodate more from the deprived castes by excluding the creamy layer from reservation benefits. It would create more space for the deprived. Of course, there are poor people even among the dominant castes, but they can be brought under the Economically Backward Classes, which is also a beneficiary of reservation. This has to be accompanied by a policy of excluding those among the reserved categories who have achieved success through a rise in their economic status, from the benefits of reservation. Once this principle is accepted, the details of the criteria can be worked out.

We should realise that the reservation policy only distributes available education and job opportunities. The more important point is to increase these opportunities.

An obsession with the reservation policy as the only or main solution to the problem of poverty and unemployment diverts our attention from the pertinent issue of economic development. The country should ensure that nobody is hungry, poor or unemployed, irrespective of caste, religion or region.

Despite the inclusive reservations of up to 50% (and more in some states) for many decades, India fares poorly regarding the Global Hunger Index. This shows the limitations of the reservation policy.

An incidental but unfortunate side effect of the reservation policy in India has been the unprecedented rise in caste consciousness, which can lead to divisiveness. 

A possible way to dilute this caste consciousness is to exclude the creamy layers from the reserved groups and to provide reservations for the economically backward people from all castes and communities, including the religious minorities. This would make the reservation policy more inclusive, fair, and democratic.

(The writer is honorary visiting professor, ISEC, Bengaluru)