Reservations
On Earth? Why Even Heaven Holds A Place
For Those Who Pray
Would things have been better from the start to go in for
economic weakness as the only basis for reservation without reference to caste
or creed? We have had it in schools and housing societies in given states for a
while, with the EWS reservations.
On the face of it, it looks like a reasonable idea, but
is probably better suited to a homogenized population with tiny minorities and
distinct groups. Where the population speaks the same language and professes
the same religion for example.
India, by contrast, has always been a sub-continent and
one size never did fit all. Caste based
reservations, in fact predate independence and both the British and some of the
Princely States had reserved quotas for underprivileged castes and sections.
But reservations, whatever their demerits, in all their
complexity and political potency, are a ground reality that cannot be reversed
now. Instead, they can, and are, being used as a device to increase capacity in
order to give content to the percentages announced. This is what went awry in the years of
socialist inadequacy. Today, there are resources to give the whole matter
teeth.
So no, 10% economic reservation for the poor amongst the
higher castes is not zero of zero, as the critics would have it. It is a modest
beginning, long in the gestation and put on the shelf for 10 years by the UPA.
It is law now, backed by almost all parties in parliament and now rapidly being
implemented in the states. It has a solid intent to provide at least 10% of all
future opportunities in education and jobs to the economically disadvantaged
amongst the upper castes as the economy grows.
The Other Backward Castes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs),
the Tribes, have been addressed, at least in theory, multiple times over the
last 70 years, starting in 1954 and picking up speed in the late seventies. The
Mandal Commission recommendations for the bottom of the pyramid excluding its “creamy
layer” were implemented in the 1990s, despite upper caste protests.
Reservations stand at near about the 50% mark or more in some of the states
under state legislation, despite a Supreme Court ruling to hold them at the
halfway mark in the service of equity for the “general category,” meaning
everyone else not covered.
But the back-office of primary, secondary and higher
educational opportunities, suffering still from chronic shortages, are being
addressed as well now, at last on an accelerated basis. New universities,
medical colleges and so on are being established all over the country.
After all, nobody can make a meal of percentages alone-they
must represent seats and jobs, both in the public and private sectors, as well
as in educational institutions and vocational training centres. If there are
ample opportunities and seats to go
around there is no shortage economy, and reservations become meaningless.
The greatest guarantee that this can succeed is by
expanding the economy so that there is more money. This will automatically
throw up new, often unregulated, opportunities.
But a hankering after permanent tenure government jobs must
go. In an era when technology is increasingly leading to automation and
digitization, the need for people is shrinking. Bureaucracy therefore will not employ or
absorb very many of the millions of new job seekers in future. They will have
to look at the “unorganized”, the small and medium sectors, as well as the
formal private sector. These, given a benevolent capitalist system, will grow
through entrepreneurship. In the medium term they are expected to grow much
bigger than the ailing PSUs. And, in all probability pay much better as well.
Permanent tenure however may have to go even in government jobs.
Is there a
positive momentum in the economy today? The answer is yes, and mainly due to
the pent up demand from the restricted and licensed socialist years. It
certainly needs a push and the untangling of knots as they appear by the
political leadership, but the inherent demand exists. The foundations of the
economy and higher education laid down in the early statist years have now
taken on a life of their own.
China may be suffering from over building today, but
India has a lead of at least 30 years before its domestic demand scenario is
slaked. China has already had 10% plus growth for 30 years, starting from the
eighties, and is now looking outwards and abroad to keep its giant appetites,
resources, and machinery occupied as best as it can.
Does this road map then essentially reduce reservations into
a political football, particularly at election time? Besides look at the trend - if everyone has
reserved seats where is the room for protest, except, of course, for relative
percentages and quotas within quotas!
How are those people meant to survive who cannot secure
the limited amount of private sector jobs or lack entrepreneurial skills? Well,
a universal dole is on its way along with cash grants to farmers and interest
free loans too. As is universal health insurance, already under implementation.
Will reservations themselves grow out-of-date too?
Perhaps they are beginning to already. But certainly, when we become the second
largest economy in the world after China on a PPP basis by 2030, reservations
will make little sense.
Having a purchase power parity greater than that of
America, that followed up Civil War with the massive Civil Rights movement of
the 1960s towards its own form of setting things to rights and justice, is
perhaps hard to imagine. But then, let us remember that India once was
completely dependent on humanitarian aid to survive and feed itself. It has
been some years since that it is no longer so.
Still it has been a long and winding road with a number
of twists and turns. Illustrative allegories sometimes makes it easier to
sympathise with how it has been for us. There is an iconic coming-of-age film
from 1967, just over 50 years ago,
called The Graduate, in which a
cougarish Mrs. Robinson seduces a 21 year old Benjamin, come home after
finishing his undergraduate studies. Benjamin’s father and Mrs. Robinson’s
husband are partners in a prosperous law firm.
The sexual conquest of the young college man by his
experienced seducer should have set him
on a path, presumably, of greater realism. Though like many young people, the
lust he feels for Mrs. Robinson does not dent his romanticism. He next falls
for Mrs. Robinson’s daughter Elaine.
This sets off a tug-of-war between the mother and
daughter with Benjamin as the beneficiary. And when Benjamin does turn
decisive, it is only to rescue Elaine from the altar when she is about to marry
another man, prompted by her mother.
A half a century on, the much awarded movie seems more
like a parable than urgent social commentary. The tug-of- war could well stand
in for the fandango between capitalism with a human face, and socialism that is
eternally confused but, like an old flame, exerts great emotional pull still.
The
Graduate was bold stuff for mainstream cinema of the time, with
its hint of student rebellion and fecklessness. Benjamin doesn’t have a one
night stand with Mrs. Robinson. He turns the dalliance into a longish,
surreptitious affair with many nights at a hotel.
And then there is the need for validation, however
clumsy, from the older woman. Nobody wins the laurel wreath for the moral high
ground, and there is no redemption on offer. Unless, that is, Benjamin running
off with Elaine in her bridal dress, grinning from the back seat of a bus in
the final scene, is it.
The seduction of Fabian Socialism with Soviet overtones
was the siren call of the early years. This was the Mrs. Robinson of our
economic vision, looking for post-colonial validation. It left the nation (read
Benjamin), yearning for equality and justice. It provoked caste-based
affirmative action, without the mojo and wherewithal to fulfill such desires.
Growth rates were truly paltry, at no more than 2%. The whole caboodle couldn’t
sustain itself, massive five-year Soviet style plans notwithstanding.
Of course, Socialism, even Communism was the fashionable ism of the forties, probably in reaction
against imperial and colonial exploitation that this country and others just
emerging into independence experienced. The burning zeal in leaders like Nehru,
and later his daughter, Indira Gandhi, who both ruled for lengths of time in
our formative years, was to re-engineer economics to suit notions of social and
economic equality.
Unfortunately, they did not pay much attention to the
income side of the ledger, even expecting it to take care of itself with
deficit financing. But, international credit ratings were invariably low. India
was looked at as a poverty stricken third-world country with potential, but
masses of intractable problems to overcome first.
Borrowed money therefore, was not easy to come by, not
even from the multilateral lending agencies such as The World Bank or the IMF,
and came almost always, when it did, tied up in multiple strings. The cavalry
to the rescue in the early years, and to an extent even now, was/is the Soviet
Union/Russia. It was and is keen on exercising its hegemony over a
strategically placed country in South Asia.
So the USSR and Russia as its successor negotiated barter
deals, deferred payments, and traded with us in rupees and roubles as opposed
to US dollars. Iran, in difficulties with US sanctions today, sells us oil in
rupees as well.
Socialism implicitly and explicitly abhors notions of
profit and prescribes redistribution of wealth, without however addressing how
to hold up the central pole of the circus tent. So, in effect, it snatched away
the assets and privileges of the rich and economically viable, without any
knowledge about how to make and keep them productive.
This ended up killing the golden goose. And Nehruvian
socialism only managed to redistribute degrees of poverty. Elsewhere, Communism
collapsed altogether, to be replaced by a state run capitalist system or an
oligarchy with all its inequities accepted.
Britain, Nehru’s early model for Fabian Socialism derived
from it, has not only declined steadily over the years since WWII, but is now
on the point of disintegration as a consequence of its ill thought out backlash
with Brexit.
To compound issues, the programme of caste-based quotas
in India, particularly by reserving quantities of government jobs, in the
absence of much of a private sector, created further strains for the economy.
The idea was to uplift the most downtrodden in a highly pluralistic society.
Over the years the sub-castes wanted their pound of flesh, and so did the
religions, and the sects within them.
India, the sub-continent also contains many languages.
That they too were clamouring for distinctions and advantaged assistance is
another story. One that led to a number of new states being formed to give vent
to linguistic, cultural, and sometimes religious aspirations.
This, in turn, gave birth, prematurely, and probably
without meaning to, both vote-bank politics and pseudo-secularism. And probably,
in a round-about way, to the rise of Hindu Nationalism that has grown into the
chief alternative in national and state politics.
But for the young Benjamin that India was, when it
graduated into independence, it would undoubtedly have been much better, we can
see in hindsight, to have pursued strategies of high economic growth under the
banner of a benevolent capitalism.
A getting it on with Elaine and a happily ever after
perhaps. That might indeed have brought forward the high growth rates from the
mid eighties. The economy, which was only truly unshackled in 1991, still took
some years to shake off its chains. What if it had received a no nonsense boost
in 1947 itself?
For a left-wing Nehru languishing in British jails for
long years even as the arch capitalist princely classes colluded with the
British, it was a course he probably wasn’t even willing to consider.
With the model being American “individualism” and its
risks of boom and bust, would we have forged ahead without excessive state
interference? As a free market, Indian ingenuity and initiative, much
appreciated today around the world, would have flowered. We may well have
become the powerhouse of Asia, given our superior geography and natural
resources in comparison to China.
If only the early Indian governments had stuck to
securing our best interests amongst the comity of nations instead of trying to
change the world order to suit the have-nots. It might have been the hard-nosed
Patel what-if, instead of the Gandhi-Nehru rose-tinted what is.
But this is going into the realm of what might have been
then, and might be again, given the proclivities and the gradual coming of age
advantages this nation enjoys in 2019. An economy on the way to becoming a $ 5
trillion one before long, has many options, and reservations are the least of
them.
As we have grown
more populous, we also seem to have become more prosperous. We were a very poor
and ravaged country at independence, with a population of some 350 million people,
with low life expectancies to boot. Today we are more than 1.3 billion strong,
enjoy food surpluses, and have recently doubled our per capita income.
This is alongside being the fastest growing major economy
in the world with an average growth of 7.3% in GDP per annum. Our life expectancy, despite
massive challenges yet in health, sanitation, and environmental issues, has
more than caught up with that of developed nations.
Of course, in a successful and thriving democracy such as
India, there may be populist steps taken that will retard our forward momentum
from time to time. This even acts as a corrective towards the inclusion of
those who might feel ignored or left behind. Our socialist past cannot be
expected to exit the stage without a few attempts to survive after all.
But, overall, the inexorable logic of greater prosperity
is a human desire to consolidate it and prepare for further growth. There is
therefore no reason to fear that Benjamin will refuse to grow up and secure his
own pot of gold.
(2,343
words)
For:
AGENDA, The Sunday Pioneer
January
20th, 2019
Gautam
Mukherjee
No comments:
Post a Comment