Why only caste-quotas are opposed? Why the other types of quotas are not opposed? : Mahesh Chandrashekaran
One of the contributors in the “Comments/Post Your Own Article “ has raised this question as to why the SC/ST Quotas are opposed and why other types of quotas (i.e Management/Defence/NRI) are not opposed?
This is a good question and must be answered fairly and squarely. Core reasons are touched here, while other less important issues are left out.
First and foremost, there is no opposition to ‘reservation’ per se. All that is demanded is that ‘reservation’ be provided based on a fair, objective and transparent assessment of the need for such ‘reservation’. In other words, ‘reservation’ must be based on hard, empirical and verifiable data. Reservation certainly cannot be based on a ‘belief’ that it is needed, regardless of the ground realities. So far as Backward Class reservation is concerned, evidence actually suggests that such reservation is not needed at all. On the contrary, it is the non-backwards who need reservation in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra etc, where their representation in medical/law education and government is almost NIL. [Predictably, no politician wants to talk about this appalling state of affairs and the print media goes to great lengths to hide ‘reserved class’ employment statistics of State Governments]
Secondly, quotas for SC/ST is not opposed at all, except in a very limited way. The contentious issue is the quota for so-called Backward Classes, about which there is no definition. Quotas for SC/STs and quotas for Self-Proclaimed Backwards are worlds apart. Both should not be confused. One needs to recall, that very recently*, senior leaders representing SC interests have demanded that “Dalit” reservation law be separated from the combined OBC law since there is a growing fear that even “SC” reservation could be challenged. Scheduled Caste reservation has a historical background, while OBC reservation is a result essentially of use of muscle power and motivated by acute, self-generated antipathy to a section of the society.
Coming back to the basic question, unfortunately, those who are raising this question (either out of ignorance or knowingly), are not able to understand and appreciate the basic difference between ‘quotas’ carved out and allotted by the State on the basis of “birth” and ‘quotas’ that Managements/NRI’s can utilise at their discretion.
Caste-based quotas enforced by the State specifically debars a set of legitimate, blameless human beings of India from accessing educational seats/jobs that are in ‘quota’ category, whereas Management Quota does not discriminate on grounds of birth/religion/place of birth etc. Management quota merely means that in colleges run by private managements, of the total number of seats available, certain number of seats are available to the Managements for allocation at their discretion, which one may assume is in favour of ‘better off’ people. (Read more explanation below).
Allotment of seats by a private management to any set of students bears no comparison to ‘discriminatory quotas’ based on ‘birth’ fixed by the State. There is a world of difference between state-sponsored discrimination (specifically prohibited by Article 15(1)) and the mere allotment of seats by private college managements to any person.
For those who may not be aware or trying to act so, it must not be forgotten that all State action is governed by the provisions of the Constitution of India, whereas private citizens and organisations are not bound by constitutional provisions of non-discriminatory conduct. Indeed, every conduct of a private citizen is essentially discriminatory. While the State is duty-bound to take care of all its citizens (with some preference to the genuinely needy to be determined on the basis of empirical evidence), a private entity has no such responsibility. The State and non-state entities therefore cannot be compared at all. [One example is sufficient to prove this point. No govt department can bar a “class of citizens” from entering its premises, whereas a private entity has the right to determine as to who should be allowed/not allowed to enter its premises.]
In this respect, it is pertinent to study Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India which reads “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”. Caste-based quotas are a violation of this provision as the Government itself admits and hence the protests and opposition from those who stand to lose. Besides, it not just a question of not getting a few seats. Even the issue of “loss of merit” is secondary. Indeed, the issue is much larger and serious. The current quota law categorically debars the non-reserved category (Hindus in particular) from accessing a majority of education seats, while it allows the ‘reserved’ category to access 100% of the seats. It is thus a question of citizenship and the right to earn a livelihood and to live with dignity. When the State discriminates arbitrarily, the right to citizenship, the right to livelihood and the right to live with dignity – all stand erased.
Besides the above, a crucial question arises. From where have the terms Management Quota, NRI Quota etc arisen? The answer is that the State (i.e. the politicians) itself is the creator of such quotas. The Government because of its skewed priorities did not expand educational facilities for the population that was/is rapidly growing. Also, for a long time, under the influence of socialists, the Government ran a monopoly of opening higher educational institutions and did not allow the private sector to run educational institutions. The TATA institutes in fact were nationalised. The Government had basically adopted the attitude “we won’t do and won’t allow others to do”. The consequence was a severe shortage of higher education facilities. Later on realising that there was no way out, the private sector was allowed to set up higher education institutions. The Government having allowed the private sector to operate their own educational institutions, now stepped in and demanded that private sector managements surrender a majority of their seats on which ‘caste-quotas’ and government-fixed fee would be levied from the majority of students. This imposition had the potential to financially destroy private educational institutions that depend on fees collected for their survival. Without the quota and fee controls, the educational facilities that should have been available to the public at large and at a reasonable price, forced the managements to keep a quota for themselves that could be allotted essentially to better off students (at a higher fee) so that the institutions themselves could financially stay afloat. Had the private educational managements been allowed to keep all their seats and simultaneously levy reasonable fees from their students, the concept of Management Quota would never have arisen. (Isn’t that the concept on which the private enterprises are run?). The alleged menace of donations would also have bee curbed. Thus it can be said with certain amount of certainty that the Management/NRI Quota was born as a result of governmental control.
Of course, the thinking continues among socialist circles that education is not an enterprise and hence profits should not be allowed. But considering the menace posed by restricted fees structures and seat surrendering required, the issue of Management/NRI quota would disappear if the private sector were allowed to run their institutes transparently, autonomously and profitably. [The Govt-owned IIMs have this year hiked the fee for PG course to about Rs.14 lakhs, with few protesting] This event proves that even Govt-owned institutions need to charge reasonable fees for their survival. Then why shouldn’t the private educational institutions do so?
There are other issues as well. One of them is that most private colleges in India (particularly in South), are run by the politicians themselves. They created the quotas, restricted expansion of Govt institutions and simultaneously opened the private colleges to handle the inevitable flow of students (both of reserved and non-reserved) category who could have otherwise got into Government-owned institutions. And that is the reason, why the politicians generally do not protest Management/NRI quotas because they know why these exist. In any case, most private colleges admit only on the basis of professional entrance exams, such as in Karnataka, Bihar, Andhra etc. To that extent, merit is not exactly compromised.
[In this connection, it must be made clear that the issue of merit is raised by the non-reserved category people alone because the principle of “merit only” based admissions is applied only to “non-reserved” category human beings of India, whereas, the concept of “merit only” is not applied to the “reserved” category citizens. Moreover, the “non-reserved” category human beings are neither saying that they alone possess merit nor are they fools to say so. On the contrary, it is the quota champions who are saying that “reserved” citizens need quota because they may not be so meritorious!]
While management quota at best can be called ‘unethical’, (and donation charging can be dealt with by law which the State must enforce!) it is vastly different from debarring a ‘section’ of the society of its lawful claims on the assumptions that several thousand years ago when society was severely primitive and there was no such thing called India, the ancestors of this ‘section’ discriminated against the ancestors of the current day quota beneficiaries!
Refer:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/303988.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Dalits_OBCs_to_come_under_separate_quota_laws_/
From YFE Editor: Read the YFE Policy Document on Education:
YOUTH FOR EQUALITY POLICY DOCUMENT ON EDUCATION
The YFE believes that “No one should get admission to school, college, university, or professional institution on the basis of caste, religion, social status, or monetary power of parents/guardians. “
