The basic difference between 68% of Rajasthan and 69% of Tamil Nadu : Mahesh Chandrashekaran
Following prolonged agitation by the Gujjars, the Rajasthan Govt recently enacted a law to grant an additional 5% reservation to the Gujjars and four other communities. Simultaneously, an additional 14% reservation was also mooted for the Economically Backward Classes (comprising presumably the poor of all those communities otherwise not ‘entitled’ to any reservations). The total percentage of reservations in Rajasthan thus stands enhanced to 68%, one percent less than Tamil Nadu’s 69%.
Many have already commented that any reservation in excess of the 50% ceiling laid down by the Supreme Court is liable to be struck down (as happened in the case of Orissa). One person has already challenged the 68% reservation law in the Rajasthan High Court. To the extent that the said 68% quota law has been promptly challenged is welcome, indicative of the alertness on the part of citizens and other human beings.
Though, the 68% Rajasthan Quota law is being compared with the 69% reservation system in Tamil Nadu, both reservation systems are world’s apart – in intent and scope. It must be emphatically said that people who are comparing the two reservation systems have failed to appreciate the basic difference between the two reservation systems.
The fundamental difference is in the scope. While the Tamil Nadu reservation system is totally “exclusive”, the Rajasthan reservation is truly and really “inclusive”.
While the Rajasthan reservation rule granting reservation to “all” sections of the society recognizes their right to citizenship and the right to live with dignity and earn a livelihood and be a part of the State machinery, the TN reservation system granting 69% reservation (plus the right to the ‘balance’ as well) to the most powerful and well off sections of the society dubbed ‘backward’ is meant to deprive the ‘minority’ other human beings of the State of their citizenship, their dignity and associated rights. The less than 1% representation of the minority non-reserve Hindus (illegally dubbed ‘forward’) in the State Machinery and less than 3% representation in professional education (see Indrajaal of Tamil Nadu) (INDRAJAAL OF TAMILNADU) is adequate evidence of the intent and purpose of the TN reservation system.
In Tamil Nadu, eight decades of supremacist reservations have ensured that 99% jobs in Tamil Nadu Government are with the ‘backwards’ while those with less than 1% are in fact called ‘forward’! To a casual observer, the contradiction should be plainly evident, but not so for the cowering Indian political class, the intellectuals, the courts and the terrorized media, which mindlessly continues to parrot the mantra of ‘social justice’ and India being the “world’s largest democracy”. And that is why meaningless comparisons are being made between the two reservation schemes merely because the reservation percentage is nearly the same.
How the courts will view the reservation systems is altogether a different matter. Hopefully, the courts would be able to appreciate the true scope and intent behind the two reservation systems.
However, it is not to say that the Rajasthan Reservation rule is perfect. It is doubtful whether community-specific reservation is valid. Secondly, while the additional 5% quota was created for the Gujjars and four other groups, the ‘reservation’ for other communities was not proportionately reduced considering that the Gujjars and others no longer form part of the regular Backward Classes who were already getting 27% quota based on the dubious ‘backward caste’ population.
The current attempts to provide reservation for ‘other’ classes without tinkering with the present 50% quota (as if it is a divine order and regardless of the actual ‘backward’ population) and without breaching the 50% limit already reached reveals the true mindset of political elements who want have a foot in both camps.
