Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Reservation Bill

If the objective of the 104th amendment to the Constitution is to enable more people from the socially and economically backward sections to get access to education in private, unaided institutions, it has failed because it excludes minority-run institutions from its purview. It is ironical that the religion of the founders and stakeholders of educational institutions has been made a predominant factor in the conception of the bill.

Aravind Sridhar,
New Delhi

* * *

The bill is only a means adopted by all parties to garner votes. Had their intentions been genuine, minority institutions would not have been excluded. The exclusion is again guided by vote bank considerations. Merit has been given the go-by.

S. Raghothaman,
Chennai

* * *

The amendment has rendered long-awaited justice to the people of other backward classes. The MPs should be thanked for rising above party considerations to pass the bill.

N. Jayaraj,
Chennai

* * *

The passage of the bill in the Lok Sabha is a radical step towards rendering social justice in a society subjected to centuries of discrimination. However, we must not continue to be pegged to caste to derive the benefits of reservation. We must switch over to the economic criterion and empower the weaker sections among the socially backward through education and employment.

M. Govindaswamy,
Chennai

* * *

The bill is a precursor to reservation in the private sector. Unfortunately, both measures are tantamount to backdoor part-nationalisation of privately owned facilities without paying compensation. Instead of enacting a law that deprives private unaided institutions of their right to admit students, the Centre and State Governments could have doubled the intake in their own and aided institutions by starting a second shift, which is both economical and fulfils the objective of helping the deprived.

P.V. Maiya,
Bangalore

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu