Reservations: Meaningless Slogans for Social Justice

Commentary

CP BHAMBHRI

The Constitution (Amendment) Bill which provides for 33 percent of re-served seats for women in the Parliament and State Legisla-tures has not beeny opposed by any political party or group because everyone wants to be branded as progressive by empowering the effectively disenfranchised women of India. The only opposition to the Bill has come from caste and community leaders who by joining the bandwagon of reservations want that such reservations should be on the basis of caste and religion of the women. Thus, these leaders want the casteization and communalization of the Legislatures.

If one follows the yardsticks of the political class of the 1990s, the makers of the Indian Constitution would be dubbed as social reactionaries because they showed great caution in dealing with the whole social project of affirmative action for safeguarding the rights and interests of sections who were inheritors of historically determined social discriminations. It is essential to mention that the Constitution tried to reconcile many irreconcilable by adopting a balanced middle path while dealing with the complex and contradictory social realities.

If, on one hand, a bold experiment was launched by adopting the principle of universal adult franchise, on the other, reservation of seats in Legislatures was provided for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes only. It was a powerful intervention by the Constitution to empower the most underprivileged and discriminated sections of Indian society. The authors of the Constitution did not go berserk on the policy of reservation of seats in Legislatures because they clearly rejected the demand for communal representation. Not only this, the reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes, Tribes and for Anglo-Indians was only for a temporary period and it was to be reviewed after ten years of the commencement of the Constitution.

By various amendments of the Constitution, especially the Constitution (45th Amend-ment) Act of 1980 and the Constitution (61nd Amendment) Act of 1989, it is proposed to extend it up to year 2000 AD only. This cautious attitude of the Founders of the Indian Republic is also clearly reflected in adopting a policy of reservation of seats in public services for the deprived strata of society. If, on one hand, every citizen was guaranteed equality of opportunity, on the other, reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was provided to take care of the inherited social disabilities of sections of society who were to be protected against the unregulated principle of abstract equality.

Further, even these reservations in public services were to be consistent with "the maintenance of efficiency of administration." Many a time, the Supreme Court has applied correctives in reminding the policy makers about the limits of the policy of reservations in public services. The Supreme Court in 1951 in the Venkataramana Vs State of Madras case held that a person could not be kept out of public services because he was a Brahmin or again in the Balaji Vs State of Mysore case in 1963 observed that reservations made "under Article 16(4) beyond the permissible and legitimate limits would be liable to be challenged as a fraud on the Constitution."

When VP Singh, a self-appointed messiah of social justice, found the recommendations made by Mandal Commission on reserva-tions as a profitable political commodity, he created a stir by suddenly announcing the acceptance of the Mandal report, August 7, 1990. This raw politics of reservations was play-ed by VP Singh and others without any holds barred and the Supreme Court again intervened to tell the adventurist political class that reservations in services cannot go beyond 50 percent and that the policy of reservations in public services shall exclude the "creamy layers" of the reserved social categories.

By abandoning the note of caution administered by the Constitution, the new messiahs of reservations in Legislatures and public services have completely fragmented and fictionalized the already divided society. Politics is not just a mirror reflection of social reality. It is equally concerned with changing the inherited social categories and identities. The political class by following a reckless policy of reservations has encouraged social antagonisms based on caste versus caste, sub-caste versus sub-caste and now it is wanting to bring this division among the women in India.

India has inherited a very complex caste system, but the policy of reservations has solidified and institutionalized caste divisions and caste identities. Politics of reservations generates and stimulates caste, community and gender con-sciousness and every group in India is involved in targeting the other group as villain of the piece. Social deprivations are not attributed to the Himalayan failures of the economic path of development followed by the country. The political class does not want to become a target of the deprived people and by following a policy of reservations, politicians have successfully created a situation where different social groups are targeting each other for their deprivations.

The journey of casteism began with Forward Castes versus Backward Castes and it has reached a stage where every sub-caste is against every other sub-caste. Tamil Nadu has witnessed violence by backward castes against the Scheduled Castes and the rural population of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is actually involved in a violent caste war. Has the policy of reservations brought social justice for the really deprived groups in society? The answer to this question is a Big No.

If the unending system of reservations has promoted serious social cleavages, it has also displaced from public controversy the serious agenda of economic growth with justice. While Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Kanshi Ram, Mayawati and future women representatives in the State Legislatures have created assured social and sectarian constituencies for winning an election, they have completely failed to evolve socio-economic programs for the real empowerment of the Dalits. Laloo Yadav is probably electorally invincible because of the electoral support of Muslims and Yadavs of Bihar, but the landless agricultural workers of Bihar have to migrate in distress to search for their livelihood to Haryana and Punjab. All political factions which are masquerading as Champions of the Dalits have not undertaken a single real step which can empower people liv-ing below the poverty line.

The Constitution favored limited reserva-tions because it was believed that gradually the need for reservations will not be felt because the successful implementation of the programs of socio-economic development will create new opportunities for the development of the whole of India. Not only has India badly messed up its developmental agenda, the self-appointed guardians of caste, community and gender re-servations do not have any agenda for the social and economic development of the country. Laloo Yadav, Mulayam Singh, Kanshi Ram, Mayawati, who are the product of casteization of Indian politics, have failed to pull out their states from the existing stage of poverty and underdevelopment.

The politics of Forward Caste versus Backward Caste, or Hindu versus Muslim or Male versus Female has succeeded not only in divid-ing the society, it has legitimized the idea of politics for the sake of power alone. The believers in the policy of reservations have reduced social justice to a meaningless slogan. The unfinished task of land reforms has not been im-plemented by the practitioners of social justice and the landless agricultural workers have not escaped from the continuing tyrannies of the land owning castes.

Every political party has become a victim of the aimless politics of reservations. The Com-munist Parties resisted and very reluctantly fell in line with VP Singh’s politics of Mandal. The BJP’s Hindutva has no answer to the politics of caste versus caste among the socalled Hindus whom the BJP claims to represent. The growing decline and decay of the Congress can be attributed to its failure to respond to secta-rian politics of the votaries of reservations. Fragmented society has also fragmented politics. Since the 1990s the Central Government has become weak, unstable and vulnerable to domestic and foreign pressures because the electoral verdict is fragmented.

The upshot is that the policies of reservations are mere rhetoric because the real flesh and blood of empowerment and social justice is conspicuous by its absence in the agenda of the champions of reservations. This policy is socially disastrous because it has generated the feelings of social distancing. The political parties which emerged as champions of reservations have failed to provide stable governments because the electoral verdict has been fragmented as a result of sectional reservations. There is no evidence that political empowerment of Dalits has brought any change in the life of the Dalits. Similarly, political empowerment of women will not bring any benefit to the landless agricultural women of India.

Copyright © 1997 IndiaWeb Post. All rights reserved.