In 1990, when the VP Singh government decided to reserve 27% OBC quota in education and central government services on the recommendation of Mandal Commission, all hell had broken loose. The people mostly belonging to the upper castes had held the country to ransom over the OBC reservation by violent protests. There was turmoil and unrest across the country with the argument that the reservation policy is an attack on ‘merit’.
Over the decades, the communities which fell under the reserved categories have been lambasted by the people belonging to the upper castes. The reservation policy and its beneficiaries have been mercilessly ridiculed and belittled.
Now, when it comes to the decision of 10% quota to upper castes in the garb of poverty alleviation, there is complete silence or wholehearted welcome. Now, there is no question of merit and demerit. The decision has been welcomed by the most mainstream political parties, including the Congress, the champion of social justice, and the BSP, the messiah of Dalits. There is a modest criticism from some sections of the civil society, intellectuals, academicians and concerned citizens who generally have a say on the public discourse. But there is no violent protest, turmoil and unrest. Why? The question arises.
The question becomes even stronger if you look at this through another angle.
Ever since the Narendra Modi government came to power at the Centre, it has faced stiff opposition, massive protests and outrageous criticism from political parties, activists, academicians, intellectuals and concerned citizens over a variety of issues and policies – from land acquisition ordinance to demonetisation, and from Supreme Court senior-most judges’ unprecedented press conference to CBI feud. Whether it is crackdown on the JNU students or lynching of Muslims, the BJP-led government has been heavily taken on. The question arises why this issue failed to elicit such kind of opposition, protests and criticism that other issues create?
This all happened despite the fact that the decision is whimsical. There is no constitutional ground of the decision and is in contravention to the Supreme Court judgment.
In the Indra Sawhney case, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court noted, “A backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion. It may be a consideration or basis along with and in addition to social backwardness, but it can never be the sole criterion…”
The fact of the matter is that the decision is a purely political stunt which will strike a sledgehammer blow to the idea of social justice. There is no reasonable ground on which the decision has been taken. The argument which is touted as the basis for the decision is poverty alleviation. But this is certainly not for poverty alleviation but a provision for advancing the backward sections of the society which fell behind due to caste hierarchies. Article 15(4) of the Constitution clearly states that special provision should be for advancing the backward sections of the society not for advancing the income.
“Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”.
In the article 16(4), it has been further clarified that the aim of the reservation is to ensure the representation of the backward sections in government posts and appointments.
“Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State”.
The motto of reservation is very simple and clear: as all the citizens of the country are equal in the eyes of the Constitution, there should be equal representation from all classes and sections of the society in government services. But the reality defies the Constitution’s fundamental value. Due to deeply entrenched caste system in the Indian society, there is hegemony of upper castes over the country’s resources. The motto of reservation is to reduce the wide gap between the representation of upper castes and lower castes at least in government services.
On the other hand, the 10% quota to the upper castes is also defying the 50% ceiling of the reservation set by the Supreme Court. In 1992, an eight-judge bench of the Supreme Court presided by then Chief Justice M. Venkatachaliah set the upper limit of the reservation fifty per cent. There is 27% OBC quota in addition to 22.7% SC/STs quota. This 10% quota to upper caste is clearly in contravention to the Supreme Court’s ceiling.
Despite being far from constitutional validity, in contravention to the Supreme Court judgment and antidote to social justice, the 10% quota to upper castes failed to create the unrest and uproar which was caused by the 27% quota to the other backward castes. This clearly points to the degree of upper castes dominance over not only the country’s resources but also public discourses and political narratives.