Reservation and the OBCs

By V. K. Natraj

MS. GAIL OMVEDT TheHindu, March 24 & 25) should be complimented on attempting to place an evaluation of positive discrimination (the policy of reservation) within the wider framework of state policy towards education, probity in public service and other related issues. An important implication which flows from her analysis is that by itself reservation is not an answer to the problem of backwardness which is a composite of economic and social factors. It is even arguable that at least a part of the problem which reservation constantly encounters is due to its being seen in isolation of other instruments of social action, for example, education. But this need cause no surprise when Governments find it easier to add 10 or 15 per cent as grace marks (a well known professor once remarked ``what a word to describe a disgraceful activity'') to applicants from rural areas than to take much-needed steps in reforming and improving rural schools. Karnataka is an example.

Ms. Omvedt's analysis, however, poses problems. Her major concern is that the upper castes have, insidiously and otherwise, attempted to thwart the extension of reservation benefits to the OBCs. There is truth in this but it needs to be severely qualified. And the following appear to be the required qualifying caveats.

The most important feature of the category called `socially and educationally backward classes of citizens' (the language of Article 15(4) of the Constitution) is that it is amorphous and highly heterogeneous. There has never been agreement on what criteria should be employed to assess this backwardness. At different points of time and in different parts of the country a multiplicity of criteria have been used. At once this distinguishes the OBCs from, say, the Scheduled Castes. In the latter case too there are conflicts pertaining to inclusion/exclusion. Witness for example the demand for categorising SCs into `right' and `left'. Andhra Pradesh, and, in a minor key, Karnataka are examples. There have been periodic rumblings in Karnataka about the inclusion of `touchable' castes among SCs. In spite of this, SC as a group presents fewer problems than OBC.

This is not all. Taking Karnataka as an example, the OBCs as a category include the `dominant castes' at one end as well as numerically and otherwise not significant castes (in political and economic terms) at the other. In between are wedged those which are numerically neither highly represented nor too insignificantly so and which, due to a veritable constellation of factors, have made an entry of sorts into politics and, possibly to a lesser extent, the administration.

It is this dimension which one misses sorely in Ms. Omvedt. A further difficulty is infused by another phenomenon. Some castes (Jatis) among the OBCs have registered noticeable advance in education and are a powerful voice in politics. The Lingayats and Vokkaligas in Karnataka belong to this group. Not infrequently one hears from them references to quality resulting from what in their perception is the extensive benefit reservation confers upon SCs. At the same time they claim the backward tag for themselves for political reasons as well as for garnering a lion's share of the benefits of reservation. Ms. Omvedt, given her simple undifferentiated category of OBCs, must necessarily miss these nuances. And she does so. This leads to the important question of the nexus between caste and participation in governance, using the latter term to connote both its political and administrative meanings.

As for creamy layer, Ms. Omvedt argues that this is a ploy by the upper castes to dilute the effects of reservation. One is tempted, indeed entitled, to ask: do the proponents of creamy layer comprise only the forward castes. In the early Eighties, the Dalit Sangarsh Samiti in Karnataka came out with a strong plea for limiting reservation to one generation. The DSS was speaking of the SCs. While an element of upper caste meddling cannot be ruled out, it would seem illogical to deny that the genuinely needy can benefit more substantially if the relatively better-off are skimmed off. Surely Ms. Omvedt cannot be arguing that the offspring of rich peasants should continue to benefit from reservation in education at the cost of the children of small and marginal farmers, landless labourers, etc. At least one hopes this is not her position.

Leaving aside the machinations of the forward castes, the `creamy layer' is defensible on the simple ground that when the pie is of finite size (and the pie of state sector jobs may well shrink over time) there requires to be installed a mechanism which aims at as just a distribution of it as possible. Ms. Omvedt is right in referring to the corruption this leads to but does the answer lie in carrying a flabby bag which contains a large number of `free riders'?

Ms. Omvedt's attempt suffers from the fact that she treats the OBCs as a homogeneous category and appears determined to prove that OBCs have been deprived of their share due to the influence of the forward castes. By adopting this approach to OBCs the interplay among the OBCs figures nowhere in her article. A further point which Ms. Omvedt does not mention - she must certainly be aware of it - is that the Constitution of India did not contain an enabling provision for reservation in education. There was such a proviso for employment (Article 16-4). The former was incorporated through the first amendment in 1951. How the importance of education as a necessary foundation for employment came to be missed is surprising.

Finally, as regards merit and efficiency it is singularly unfortunate that the debate on reservation has always adopted a dichotomous framework in analysing the merit-reservation relationship. Quality and equality have been seen as opposites. It is not surprising that the opponents of reservation happily employ the dichotomous idiom. Supporters too tend to suggest such a dichotomy. In the process, the way equality can promote quality by widening the arena of recruitment is hardly recognised. Equally sadly unrecognised is the contribution quality can make to a more equitable society in the future. In saying this it is not implied that blind insistance on merit can take this society forward on the distant march to equity. All that is suggested is that blending the two, quality and equality, should become a major element in the evolving strategy of reservation.

It is necessary for Ms. Omvedt to recognise that it is precisely the difficulty of determining which castes can legitimately constitute the OBCs that has culminated in controversy. It is this which sparked the anti- Mandal agitation but the crux of the problem centres on one of the great conondrums of reservation. States such as Karnataka have been able to `manage' reservation when at least one dominant caste among the OBCs has supported them. Not to focus on the composition of OBCs must necessarily lead to a partial view of a vexing problem. This Ms. Omvedt has successfully accomplished.

Ms. Omvedt argues that the upper limit of 50 per cent in reservation in effect reserves 50 per cent for the forward castes. Here again there are definitional problems in that castes which ought to be designated `forward' have arranged to advance towards the backward tag. Further, in this writer's experience, an increasing number from the SCs and OBCs are able to win places in higher education in the non-reserved pool. Certainly the student body today reflects social reality better than it did half a century ago. None of this indicates an equitable society but that reservation has made a dent cannot be denied. In such a fluid context, there is all the more need to examine the composition of OBCs with clarity.

(The writer is Director, Madras Institute of Development Studies.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Beyond the massacre
Next     : Kashmir dispute