As the impasse continues on the issue of reservations, the Group of Ministers appointed to deal with the issue has already forwarded its report to the Prime Minister. Much as it is expected of the political class, the GOM has favored implementation of the quota for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) ‘as soon as possible’. The formula of the GOM has been framed in such a way that it is taking away (the quota) with one hand, while at the same time giving back (the seats) to the general category with the other. The only problem in the GOM formula is how long it will take to increase the number of seats and to put in place the institutions required to absorb the new quota. The government should therefore first of all spell out more clearly on how it proposes to implement this formula.
The other issue that needs proper attention is on whether; the creamy layer of Other Backward Classes (OBC) ought to be excluded from the proposed reservation. There are reports that neither the human resource development ministry nor the ministry of social justice wants to touch the issue, especially after the uproar over the 27 per cent quota. The more important reason could be that if it does introduce an economic criterion, it could well rob the powerful groupings of the more well to do section among the OBCs of benefiting from the 27% quotas. It is 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.
