The controversial quota Bill to provide 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in Central educational institutions, which is to be made operational from the academic year 2007, was introduced by HRD Minister Arjun Singh in Lok Sabha yesterday. The Minister said the Bill was brought in order to benefit millions of students belonging to socially and economically weaker sections of society. The question however remains on whether this purpose will be served given that the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Bill, 2006, makes no mention of the creamy layer. This implies that the creamy layer which had been a bone of contention has been included for enjoying the benefits of reservation. It will be interesting if the Supreme Court will also have a say with regard to the issue of the creamy layer.
As such, the impasse continues on the issue of reservations with protests mounting and now the government referring the matter to a Joint Parliamentary Committee. While the formula that the government has framed for the quota has become clearer, the issue of time frame for implementation and the question of creamy layer continue to elude a political consensus. One complication when it comes to this issue is on the definition part. It is also obvious that the lobby of OBC leaders does not want to hear about a creamy layer, and insists that reservation should apply to all backwards irrespective of their financial status. But then, even the Supreme Court verdict in response to a PIL filed against the Mandal Commission’s recommendation of 27 per cent reservation in jobs has clearly pointed out that the creamy layer of OBCs should be excluded. How sincerely the political class is able to take up this issue of excluding the creamy layer remains to be seen.
More importantly, the issue that needs to be debated is whether reservation itself has a clear objective in mind. The question of how much, for whom and for how long remains a matter of contention as far as reservation goes and more so because the vehicle of reservation has been driven for political ends and in the process has lost its direction. The social and economic objective that it was meant to address in the first place remains unfulfilled. The policy has been used as a tool of vote bank politics by politicians instead of it being mobilized as a tool of social justice. As such even without the present controversy, a review is needed on how the quota system has functioned over the last few decades.
As a matter of policy, the government should therefore make a serious effort to make the present reservation system more rational, scientific and effective for it to become a viable tool of social change. Reservation policies have no doubt produced substantial redistributive effects. However, this has not been spread evenly through the beneficiary groups. Ultimately it has to be borne in mind that an egalitarian social order cannot be built by mere policies, promises and pious hopes. Reservation as such can only give a helping hand. The roots of inequality have to be found in the social and economic structure and it is these structures that have to be transformed. The government should therefore realize that reservation cannot be the total solution but rather it should formulate a mix of economic and social measures to bring about equity in society.
