Reservation - a Rethink
Hitler once said, “The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”
I have to confess that the anti reservation propaganda had compelled me to believe that reservation is not good for our society. The flashy headlines in newspapers, the exaggerated stories and even the interviews of ‘intellectuals’ had me totally fooled into believing against reservation. Only later did I get to know that not a single national newspaper has any person from the backward community as its editor. So a deeper look into the reservation problem has compelled me to change my viewpoint on the issue.
It was said that reservation would undermine the value of merit, reduce the quality of our educational institutions, further create caste differences-thereby dividing the society and was against the very ideals of ‘one society’ laid down by our founding fathers. I would like to dwell into each and every one of these issues and decimate the propaganda employed by the anti reservation group, thereby providing justification for reservation for the backward communities.
Just like parents always give greater affection and care to their weaker children, similarly it is the duty of the government to take greater care of the weaker and backward sections of our society. The main purpose of this preferential treatment is to ensure their upliftment, which will enable them to compete with the people of the ‘privileged classes’. It is for this purpose that the government has introduced 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC’s), thereby bringing the total reservation to 49.5% for SC’s, ST’s and OBC’s.
The anti reservation protestors said that reservation would further divide society, but how can you divide an already divided society? We all know that traditional Indian society was divided into 4 classes – Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Viashyas And Shudras. These ‘Shudras’ were the worst affected because of the ill treatment meted out to them by the upper classes. It is this ill treatment, which manifested itself in the form of deep divisions in Indian society. The upper classes progressed both economically and socially, whereas the ‘Shudras’ ended up as the modern day SC’s, ST’s and OBC’s – the majority of whom are backward in every sense. So now when the government is trying to provide opportunities to these people to grow and develop, then what right does the ‘privileged classes’ have to oppose this decision of the government?
Independent India was always in the favor of reservation. The Constitution provides for ‘Protective Discrimination’, which calls upon the government to positively discriminate with respect to the backward communities in order to ensure their development. Articles 15, 16 and 46 of the Constitution requires that the State Governments should undertake all necessary measures for the education of the backward communities and Article 38(2) states that the State Government must work to reduce the differences in income, opportunities and facilities among different sections in society. Thus it would be incorrect to say that reservation is ‘unconstitutional’ and against the vision of our founding fathers. As you would remember, it was the ‘Harijans’ who were the closest to Gandhiji’s heart!
It was also propagated that reservation would reduce the quality of our premier educational institutions. This was because students of the general category would be more meritorious and that of the backward classes would be less meritorious and thus the overall standard of education would fall. But while proposing this, the anti reservation protestors conveniently forgot that the primary assumption behind their argument was that the students of the backward classes are less intelligent than them. So why is the government wrong in trying to uplift these people and bring them to the same level as that of the general category? Any rational person will agree that the quality of education students receive in urban schools cannot be compared to the quality of education in villages and other rural areas. Thus students of backward communities are at a disadvantage and thus cannot compete with the students of the urban elite areas.
It is often argued that why does the government not reserve seats in schools rather than colleges. I believe that reserving seats in schools doesn’t make sense because children of poor students will be unable to afford the education of urban schools. Banks and other financial institutions would prefer to provide financial assistance to college going students rather than school going ones. This is because college graduates have a greater probability of working and earning well, and thereby repaying the student loans, whereas at the school level there is no assurance of this happening. Moreover, the difference in the lifestyles and culture of the urban and rural people will make it impossible for rural students to adjust in the new urban environment.
It is also argued that the government should setup good schools in backward areas. But due to the large geographical diversity and the sheer size of the country, this task is an extremely difficult one. Even if the government does setup schools, the level of teachers and infrastructure cannot be comparable with that of the urban schools.
It was said that reservation would undermine the value of merit. Students of the general category who have worked hard and secured excellent marks will be unable to get admissions in good colleges because their counterparts belonging to the reserved category will be able to get those seats even with lower marks. Thus there is a strong feeling of hatred and resentment in the students of the general category against the students of the reserved category. But the question that arises here is that in this era of cut-throat competition is it correct to blame your failures on somebody else? Even today in ‘elite’ colleges like St.Stephens College, the admission cut off is generally above 95% for most courses. But does this mean that someone who gets 94% become less intelligent or meritorious than the one who got 95%? In this scenario, should the person who has got 94% blame everything and vent his anger on the persons who have secured 95% and above? So is it justified to blame the reserved category for your own failures?
I believe that in such a case, Darwin’s theory of the ‘Survival Of The Fittest’ will come into being and thus ensure that the most intelligent get the best possible education opportunities. Thus instead of lowering standards, the standard of education will rise because of increased competition. So it will be grossly unfair to say that the education standards will fall because of reservation.
The media has been extremely biased in their coverage of the reservation issue. Almost all news channels highlighted the anti reservation protests but hardly anyone cared to cover the pro reservation rallies. The media should have played a more socially responsible role, but since it was catering to a predominantly urban audience it preferred to highlight the anti reservation propaganda. Except for a few newspapers like ‘The Hindu’, none of them cared to even try to project the pro reservation views.
These days India is projected as the next global superpower and an emerging economic giant. The stock market touches new peaks every fortnight. But is this propaganda a true reflection of the standards of living of our people? We cannot claim to be a developed country if we still have OBC and SC/ST castes that lack equal social status and deprived of social respect. Have the ‘privileged classes’ become so engrossed with the hype against reservation that they totally refuse to acknowledge the deplorable standards of living of people in rural areas. To quote a Congress leader protesting against the BJP’s ‘India Shining’ campaign, “India is shining only for the rich and upper classes. The farmers and people of the rural areas have been totally left behind. If economic growth is not equally shared among all section of society, then these backward classes will take to arms in order to fulfill their aspirations. Thus we need government policies to actively uplift the people of these backward areas.”
I have to confess that the anti reservation propaganda had compelled me to believe that reservation is not good for our society. The flashy headlines in newspapers, the exaggerated stories and even the interviews of ‘intellectuals’ had me totally fooled into believing against reservation. Only later did I get to know that not a single national newspaper has any person from the backward community as its editor. So a deeper look into the reservation problem has compelled me to change my viewpoint on the issue.
It was said that reservation would undermine the value of merit, reduce the quality of our educational institutions, further create caste differences-thereby dividing the society and was against the very ideals of ‘one society’ laid down by our founding fathers. I would like to dwell into each and every one of these issues and decimate the propaganda employed by the anti reservation group, thereby providing justification for reservation for the backward communities.
Just like parents always give greater affection and care to their weaker children, similarly it is the duty of the government to take greater care of the weaker and backward sections of our society. The main purpose of this preferential treatment is to ensure their upliftment, which will enable them to compete with the people of the ‘privileged classes’. It is for this purpose that the government has introduced 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC’s), thereby bringing the total reservation to 49.5% for SC’s, ST’s and OBC’s.
The anti reservation protestors said that reservation would further divide society, but how can you divide an already divided society? We all know that traditional Indian society was divided into 4 classes – Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Viashyas And Shudras. These ‘Shudras’ were the worst affected because of the ill treatment meted out to them by the upper classes. It is this ill treatment, which manifested itself in the form of deep divisions in Indian society. The upper classes progressed both economically and socially, whereas the ‘Shudras’ ended up as the modern day SC’s, ST’s and OBC’s – the majority of whom are backward in every sense. So now when the government is trying to provide opportunities to these people to grow and develop, then what right does the ‘privileged classes’ have to oppose this decision of the government?
Independent India was always in the favor of reservation. The Constitution provides for ‘Protective Discrimination’, which calls upon the government to positively discriminate with respect to the backward communities in order to ensure their development. Articles 15, 16 and 46 of the Constitution requires that the State Governments should undertake all necessary measures for the education of the backward communities and Article 38(2) states that the State Government must work to reduce the differences in income, opportunities and facilities among different sections in society. Thus it would be incorrect to say that reservation is ‘unconstitutional’ and against the vision of our founding fathers. As you would remember, it was the ‘Harijans’ who were the closest to Gandhiji’s heart!
It was also propagated that reservation would reduce the quality of our premier educational institutions. This was because students of the general category would be more meritorious and that of the backward classes would be less meritorious and thus the overall standard of education would fall. But while proposing this, the anti reservation protestors conveniently forgot that the primary assumption behind their argument was that the students of the backward classes are less intelligent than them. So why is the government wrong in trying to uplift these people and bring them to the same level as that of the general category? Any rational person will agree that the quality of education students receive in urban schools cannot be compared to the quality of education in villages and other rural areas. Thus students of backward communities are at a disadvantage and thus cannot compete with the students of the urban elite areas.
It is often argued that why does the government not reserve seats in schools rather than colleges. I believe that reserving seats in schools doesn’t make sense because children of poor students will be unable to afford the education of urban schools. Banks and other financial institutions would prefer to provide financial assistance to college going students rather than school going ones. This is because college graduates have a greater probability of working and earning well, and thereby repaying the student loans, whereas at the school level there is no assurance of this happening. Moreover, the difference in the lifestyles and culture of the urban and rural people will make it impossible for rural students to adjust in the new urban environment.
It is also argued that the government should setup good schools in backward areas. But due to the large geographical diversity and the sheer size of the country, this task is an extremely difficult one. Even if the government does setup schools, the level of teachers and infrastructure cannot be comparable with that of the urban schools.
It was said that reservation would undermine the value of merit. Students of the general category who have worked hard and secured excellent marks will be unable to get admissions in good colleges because their counterparts belonging to the reserved category will be able to get those seats even with lower marks. Thus there is a strong feeling of hatred and resentment in the students of the general category against the students of the reserved category. But the question that arises here is that in this era of cut-throat competition is it correct to blame your failures on somebody else? Even today in ‘elite’ colleges like St.Stephens College, the admission cut off is generally above 95% for most courses. But does this mean that someone who gets 94% become less intelligent or meritorious than the one who got 95%? In this scenario, should the person who has got 94% blame everything and vent his anger on the persons who have secured 95% and above? So is it justified to blame the reserved category for your own failures?
I believe that in such a case, Darwin’s theory of the ‘Survival Of The Fittest’ will come into being and thus ensure that the most intelligent get the best possible education opportunities. Thus instead of lowering standards, the standard of education will rise because of increased competition. So it will be grossly unfair to say that the education standards will fall because of reservation.
The media has been extremely biased in their coverage of the reservation issue. Almost all news channels highlighted the anti reservation protests but hardly anyone cared to cover the pro reservation rallies. The media should have played a more socially responsible role, but since it was catering to a predominantly urban audience it preferred to highlight the anti reservation propaganda. Except for a few newspapers like ‘The Hindu’, none of them cared to even try to project the pro reservation views.
These days India is projected as the next global superpower and an emerging economic giant. The stock market touches new peaks every fortnight. But is this propaganda a true reflection of the standards of living of our people? We cannot claim to be a developed country if we still have OBC and SC/ST castes that lack equal social status and deprived of social respect. Have the ‘privileged classes’ become so engrossed with the hype against reservation that they totally refuse to acknowledge the deplorable standards of living of people in rural areas. To quote a Congress leader protesting against the BJP’s ‘India Shining’ campaign, “India is shining only for the rich and upper classes. The farmers and people of the rural areas have been totally left behind. If economic growth is not equally shared among all section of society, then these backward classes will take to arms in order to fulfill their aspirations. Thus we need government policies to actively uplift the people of these backward areas.”
posted by avneeshlaw at 1:19 PM
7 Comments:
Media has its own constraints. Its market consists mainly of upper castes. So they have to give preference to anti-reservation policy. So it will continue like this only. Non-dalits do the reporting on dalits' issues and make them totally invisible on middle pages.
"not a single national newspaper has any person from the backward community as its editor" - and this after 50+ years of reservation. Don't you think this says something about the effectiveness of this strategy?
"what right does the ‘privileged classes’ have to oppose this decision of the government?" - many of the so-called privileged class folks are privileged in name only. How can you rationalize reservations for rich OBCs while leaving poor "upper caste" people out in the cold?
"the anti reservation protestors conveniently forgot that the primary assumption behind their argument was that the students of the backward classes are less intelligent than them." - Nice try! The primary assumption is that a person coming in on a reserved seat is likely to be less intelligent than someone who has come in after clearing a competitive exam. This assumption does not change even if you create reserved seats for "upper caste" people. The key word here is "reserved seat" and not "backward caste people".
"Thus students of backward communities are at a disadvantage and thus cannot compete with the students of the urban elite areas." - Yes. So fix the problem of quality of education in rural areas.
"But due to the large geographical diversity and the sheer size of the country, this task is an extremely difficult one." - Yes. That's why we have a government. And that's why we pay taxes left and right. If the government cannot do its duty, it should quit.
"But the question that arises here is that in this era of cut-throat competition is it correct to blame your failures on somebody else?" - Good statement; I like it. So why does a "backward caste" person blame the ancestors of the "forward caste" people for his failures?
"Darwin’s theory of the ‘Survival Of The Fittest’ will come into being and thus ensure that the most intelligent get the best possible education opportunities. Thus instead of lowering standards, the standard of education will rise because of increased competition." - I believe I would like to have a glass of whatever it is that you're drinking! You really think that competition from someone with 40% marks is better than from someone with 94% (given that the % is the only objective criterion we have left)? So, if we assume that there was no reservation, you would still like to have a bunch of people with low academic performance to "increase competition"? Somehow, this makes no sense.
"we still have OBC and SC/ST castes that lack equal social status and deprived of social respect." - Yes, that is the problem. Yes, discrimination should not be tolerated. If a person comes across a case where he finds discrimination because of caste, the matter should be reported to the "authorities" and stringent action must be taken. It may even be interesting to have affirmative action - but this means giving preference to a certain type of person ONLY when everything else is equivalent.
If you still think reservations is the best idea since sliced bread I would propose the following:
- reservations for mentally-challenged people for the post of PM and President
- reservations for physically handicapped people in the national sports teams (including cricket and hockey and football)
- reservations for the blind in archery teams
And since none of these teams will ever be able to win anything in an open competition, we should also reserve medals, along the lines of 25% of all gold medals must be given to the mentally challenged.
Surely you would have read the writeup that starts like this:
'I think we should have job reservations in all the fields. I completely support the PM and all the politicians for promoting this. Let's start the reservation with our cricket team. We should have 10 percent reservation for muslims. 30 percent for OBC, SC/ST like that. Cricket rules should be modified accordingly. The boundary circle should be reduced for an SC/ST player. The four hit by an OBC player should be considered as a six and a six hit by a OBC player should be counted as 8 runs. An OBC player scoring 60 runs should be declared as a century.'
came here via blogbharti
no one has a problem with reservation being given for underprivileged. any institution should look at a what a student can be instead of what he is. an economically backward student could have been better than others, reservation here makes sense. but reservation solely based on caste lines cheats an meritorious student. simple because another student who has had the same facilities get away with lesser marks. like alok says, marks is the only indicator we have as of now, we have to go by marks. and 50% reservation is ridiculous. nominal reservation (forget the numbers) is fine for the economically backward but that that should hold for all castes.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here is a point by point explanation of every single argument mr.alok has put forward. I think u r a very opinionated individual, though lacking in logic !
U said:
1. “ "not a single national newspaper has any person from the backward community as its editor" - and this after 50+ years of reservation. Don't you think this says something about the effectiveness of this strategy? ”
By saying this r u trying to imply that not even a single individual of the backward community is capable or intelligent enough to be an editor of a national newspaper. Ur argument simply tries to propose the superiority of a particular race or community over others. This way of thinking makes u pretty similar to Hitler!
2.
“ what right does the ‘privileged classes’ have to oppose this decision of the government?" - many of the so-called privileged class folks are privileged in name only. How can you rationalize reservations for rich OBCs while leaving poor "upper caste" people out in the cold?”
I agree with u that reservation for the creamy layer is not acceptable. However, at the same time, we have to remember that the main purpose of reservation is development through opportunities. It is obvious that people would do more for their own community. And thus the idea behind it is justified to some extent, though I am personally opposed to it.
Another important aspect u have raised is the lack of opportunities for poor “upper caste” people. However, the government is trying to uplift the poorest in the society, the majority of whom are the backward classes. Also, these poor “upper castes” must look for better opportunities for growth from their own community.
3.
"the anti reservation protestors conveniently forgot that the primary assumption behind their argument was that the students of the backward classes are less intelligent than them." - Nice try! The primary assumption is that a person coming in on a reserved seat is likely to be less intelligent than someone who has come in after clearing a competitive exam. This assumption does not change even if you create reserved seats for "upper caste" people. The key word here is "reserved seat" and not "backward caste people".
The simple point here is that a person of the backward community does not have the same facilities or opportunities available to people in urban areas, where the quality of education is pretty high. It is this which doesn’t give him a level playing field in exams and thus there is a need for reserving seats for them. There is no way u can compare the quality of education in a convent school in delhi, to a government run school in bihar, or for that matter, even an mcd school in delhi.
4.
"Thus students of backward communities are at a disadvantage and thus cannot compete with the students of the urban elite areas." - Yes. So fix the problem of quality of education in rural areas.
This idea sounds very easy and simple in theory, but extremely difficult in practice. The quality of infrastructure and teachers cannot be the same in villages, as compared to cities, not merely because of insufficient funds but also lack of good quality teachers
5.
"But due to the large geographical diversity and the sheer size of the country, this task is an extremely difficult one." - Yes. That's why we have a government. And that's why we pay taxes left and right. If the government cannot do its duty, it should quit.
It is the duty of the government to provide education and that is what it is doing. Just because the “upper castes” lose some seats in the process, doesn’t mean that you have the right to create a national hue and cry over the issue and deprive other needy people of these much needed opportunities! it is the duty of the government to stop rapes, murder et al and just because it cant stop these things, should it quit?
6.
"But the question that arises here is that in this era of cut-throat competition is it correct to blame your failures on somebody else?" - Good statement; I like it. So why does a "backward caste" person blame the ancestors of the "forward caste" people for his failures?
Dude get your facts and logic straightened out! The point here is that the failure of an "upper caste" person, who has had all possible oportunities in life, in not passing an exam is because of u not working hard enough or not being intelligent enough. On the other hand, for the person of a backward community, this failure arises because of lack of opportunities. For students who have studied for most of their lives in regional languages or in hindi, it is very difficult to tackle the high level of English in competitive exams. Also, the problem of discrimination is a ‘hereditary’ one ie continuing for generations, and not because of the present acts of some individuals!
7.
"Darwin’s theory of the ‘Survival Of The Fittest’ will come into being and thus ensure that the most intelligent get the best possible education opportunities. Thus instead of lowering standards, the standard of education will rise because of increased competition." - I believe I would like to have a glass of whatever it is that you're drinking! You really think that competition from someone with 40% marks is better than from someone with 94% (given that the % is the only objective criterion we have left)? So, if we assume that there was no reservation, you would still like to have a bunch of people with low academic performance to "increase competition"? Somehow, this makes no sense.
U r more than welcome to have a glass of my drink if it will allow you to think clearly and not with a prejudiced mind! The point here is that the number of seats will initially fall for the general category, and thus there will be increased competition for those lesser seats. Thus, only the best and the brightest will get through to the best educational institutions. I simply cant understand why it is so difficult to understand such a simple thing!
8.
"we still have OBC and SC/ST castes that lack equal social status and deprived of social respect." - Yes, that is the problem. Yes, discrimination should not be tolerated. If a person comes across a case where he finds discrimination because of caste, the matter should be reported to the "authorities" and stringent action must be taken. It may even be interesting to have affirmative action - but this means giving preference to a certain type of person ONLY when everything else is equivalent.
It’s so nice to see that u have at least some compassion and sympathy for people less privileged than you are. The word discrimination does not simply mean the physical disrespect of a lower community but also the denial of opportunities to them. If they are not allowed to grow and prosper, then they will always remain inferior to the “upper class” and no improvement can ever take place in their lives. This is the worst possible form of discrimination and has to be checked, by providing better opportunities!
Finally, i think the end part of ur arguments just showed how cynical and narrow minded a person u are! thus i believe that such cynicism is not worthy of any comment!!
Post a Comment
<< Home