Ten Questions on 10% Quota for Forward Castes

So, the ‘game-changer, is here. For the first time, a quota in jobs and educational institutions on the basis of economic deprivation in lieu of socio-cultural-educational deprivation has been legislated centrally. The Lok Sabha has passed the 124th Constitution Amendment Bill of Narendra Modi Government, bringing in 10% quota for economically deprived non-reserved category citizens of India.

Since it talks of economic criteria, the decision addresses the grievances of brahmins, baniyas, patels, marathas, gujjars, thakurs and, perhaps, even Muslims and Christians for the first time ever, and has been termed as a “master-stroke” by Modi before the general elections of 2019. It is said to be a broad-based reservation policy for having created more equality for less privileged unreserved citizens, yet not upsetting the lower castes and tribals, as their 49.5% total reservations remain untouched.

Looks too good to be true? Indeed. And it has surely foxed the Opposition parties who have all rallied to support the Bill grudgingly, except the All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen. So far so good.

Now for ten questions, and some scratching below the surface.

First, with just 90 days to go for the general elections in India, a major policy issue like additional 10% reservation based on economic criteria, is being declared without adequate time to actually execute it. So, is the timing not wrong, and is it not just a political stunt without honesty of execution?

Second, since the reservations had originally been envisaged for ameliorating social deprivation and centuries old caste-based injustice, is legislating it on economic criteria alone not a violation of the spirit of the Indian Constitution?

Third, even if Constitution Amendment Bill is passed in both the Houses of Parliament, is there a guarantee that the state Assemblies of 50% or more states of India will pass it to make it a valid amendment? And can that be done before the Code of Conduct for the Lok Sabha polls come in? And even if they do, will it stand the litmus test of legality and constitutional validity in the Supreme Court, which had, in an earlier case, already capped all forms of reservations to a maximum of 50% (and the current Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes quota already measure up to 49.5%)?

Fourth, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had bitterly fought the politics of reservation of former Prime Minister VP Singh for his ‘Mandal politics’ (based on the reservation recommendations of BP Mandal Commission) in 1990, and brought in its own version of ‘kamandal politics’ through the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which finally brought down the VP Singh government. Now, more than a quarter century later, has Mandal scored over kamandal, (a symbol of Hindu religion)? Is BJP eating its own humble pie by resorting to reservation politics after facing defeat in the five state Assembly polls recently? Has the ruling party come to a conclusion that Hindu polarisation through the never solved Ayodhya issue is becoming increasingly untenable as an election-winning tactic?

Fifth, the Narendra Modi government came to power in 2014 riding on the then Gujarat Chief Minister Modi's image as a Vikash Purush  (development man) showcasing Gujarat model of development. Now, has the Arakshan Purush (reservation man) taken precedence over the Vikas Purush? Is this a hurried burial to the so-called development politics of BJP in power?

Sixth, the current policy says that those below Rs.8 lakh annual income or owning less than five acres of land can avail of the benefits of this quota. That is Rs 66,000 income a month. If so, is this the new poverty line of India? And then why are people above Rs.20,000 income being taxed? Why do people have to go for hartal in the country asking for minimum wages of Rs.18,000 per month?

Seventh, BJP Minister Nitin Gadkari is on record saying that no substantial jobs are being created in the economy. If so, then what does such an additional reservation mean? Or, for that matter, there is no value of the existing 49.5% reservations as well. Reservation without creation of jobs is like dividing a desert. Whatever share you get, there is still no water to grow crops in a barren desert. The Council for Monitoring Indian Economy has noted a week ago, that India has lost 11 million jobs in 2018 alone. So, what do reservations actually bring in except some hollow promises? And without 'affirmative action through reservations' in private sector jobs, will this policy mean anything worthwhile on ground?

Eighth, the BJP has always been called a brahmin-baniya party, and with this reservation for upper castes, will this perception not get further strengthened? And if this reservation above 50% in total is struck down by the Supreme Court, will it be brought within the permitted 50%, thus making lower castes lose their share? Is this politically tenable?

Ninth, if economic relief is to be given to poorer sections, is reservation the right route, or schemes like loan waivers, income-generating projects like MGNREGA, free cereals, benefits through cheaper education, scholarships, etc.? Will reservations without job creation bring any real ‘game change’ on ground or will it be another jumla (mere announcement with no action)?

Tenth, and finally, while reservations were originally planned by the architects of the Indian Constitution for just one decade, they got extended decade after decade, and yet social justice is said to have not been done. What is the guarantee that the additional 10% quota on economic criteria will also not meet the same fate and simply get extended without any substantial impact on ground? Is reservation a long-term solution to poverty alleviation or ensuring social justice? However, this is a long-term question, and all political parties, except the Left, are guilty of using reservations to cultivate vote banks among the electorate.

The advocates of 10% quota are ecstatic over a perceived victory. While critics in the Opposition are crying hoarse, terming it an ‘election gimmick’ that won't stand the test of time and law. The debate remains wide open.

 (The writer is Media Dean of Pearl Academy in Delhi and Mumbai. The views are personal.)