Author: Swapan Das Gupta
Publication: Free Press Journal
Date: April 2, 2007
http://www.samachar.com/features/020407-features.html
I must confess my profound unease at the irrational
exuberance of those junior doctors and medical students at the All India Institute
of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) who observed "holi" after last Thursday's
Supreme Court interim order on reservations for Other Backward Castes students.
The elation of those who fought valiantly,
angrily and without political backing against Human Resources Development
minister Arjun Singh's divisive politics is understandable.
However, to interpret the harsh language used
by the judges against the UPA Government's policy as some sort of political
victory is unwarranted.
History, unfortunately, is deeply discounted
by the Hindu mind. Had it been otherwise, those in the forefront of the various
movements for "equality" would have learnt that battling populism
in India is futile. The stir that greeted Arjun Singh's reservation policy
in the summer of 2006 was a small-scale venture compared to the ferocity of
the anti-Mandal movement of 1990.
At that time too, the established political
parties kept a discreet distance from the protests-although, unlike last year,
there was more than tacit encouragement. As we have seen in Tamil Nadu, no
one in electoral politics can afford to be remotely perceived as anti- OBC.
Yet, after the initial excitement subsided,
it became clear to everyone that the addition 27 per cent reservation in government
jobs for OBCs was irreversible. Where the political class played an invaluable
role was in ensuring that affirmative action in recruitment to the bureaucracy
did not escalate into a vivisection of India along caste lines.
When the Mandal Commission controversy erupted
in 1990, there was a real danger of this happeningnot least because of inflammatory
speeches of some Lohia-ite politicians.
Historical experience suggests that the clock
of populism cannot be turned back. The priority is to take the divisive sting
out of the conspiracy to destroy the emotional integrity of India-whether
by a V.P. Singh, an Arjun Singh or a Rajinder Sachar committee.
Banking on the judiciary can delay matters
and even cause some embarrassment to the government but, in the end, it is
just a temporary stalling tactic.
In 1970, for example, when Indira Gandhi peremptorily
abolished the privy purses of the erstwhile rulers of princely states, she
was guilty of a serious breach of faith. The integration of the Princely States
into independent India had been secured on the strength of firm understandings
with their rulers.
For the sake of populism, Jawaharlal Nehru's
daughter tore up those assurances barely 23 years after they had been negotiated.
Predictably, the princes went to court and Nani Palkhivala argued convincingly
and passionately for them. The Supreme Court even granted temporary relief
after the legislation failed to get a two-third majority by just one vote.
Ultimately it proved futile and the Government got its way on the strength
of brute democratic force.
This is precisely what is happening with the
expanded reservations policy. For the moment the Supreme Court has stayed
the new reservations pending the Government's clarification of some demographic
details. The Court has rightly felt that the 1931 Census-the last exhaustive
enumeration of India's caste system-is dated.
Unfortunately, the implication of the Court
order is hideous. It more or less constitutes a sanction for the Census Commissioner
including caste as a category for the 2011 Census. Another alternative is
an extraordinary caste census held, say, next year.
Those familiar with the divisive mobilisations
that took place around caste enumeration during the Census of 1911, 1921 and
1931 will readily appreciate why injecting caste into this exercise is an
experience India must not repeat.
In the pre-Independence head-counts, the trend
was towards community fragmentation propelled by Sanskritisation. The focus
was establishing a ritual hierarchy and the battles were incredibly nasty.
The more prosperous or influential sections
of the community often broke away from their more disadvantaged kin by claiming
ritual separateness and greater proximity to Brahminism. Today, when de- Sanskritisation
and demonstrating ritual backwardness is the key to cornering governmentapproved
patronage, a caste Census is certain to create unforeseen social complications.
It is best avoided.
There are two fundamental questions that have
to be answered. The first is: has reservation for OBCs in education secured
political approval? The answer, regardless of the motives, is a categorical
Yes. The alternatives, like means-tested reservations, while more logical,
have not found political support. If that is the case, does it make too much
sense to quibble over whether OBCs constitute more than half the population,
as the Mandal Commission claimed, or actually number less?
Once the principle of caste-based backwardness
has been accepted and the economic criterion for determining backwardness
rejected the consequences flow. If the dubious principle of caste reservations
has to be contested, it must be done politically.
That, unfortunately, is likely to prove impossible.
How many votes have those wellmeaning independent candidates from the IITs
secured? In most cases they haven't even recovered their deposits.
The second question is: does the judiciary
prevail over Parliament? The answer, once again, is a categorical No. The
Supreme Court can strike down a law on account of flawed drafting or on the
ground that it violates the Fundamental Rights and the Basic Structure of
the Constitution. It cannot, however, overrule the principle of affirmative
action-despite its inherent iniquity. Last Thursday's order was interim.
Eventually, the Government will get its way.
Those who want the judiciary to rescue them from venal politicians are promoting
an idea which, unfortunately, is incompatible with democracy.
The people must fight their own battles; the
judges can't do it for them. As it is the carping noises of an "elitist"
and "uppercaste" judiciary sounds ominous. Democratic politics in
India is proving a permanent hindrance to India achieving its full potential.
Yet, we have to live with it because nothing better than democracy has been
invented.
However, control over politics doesn't accord
politicians the automatic control over society. The answer to political divisiveness
must involve a redoubled bid to promote greater social cohesion. That's where
the Hindu religious leadership can play an invaluable role.
samachar_editor@sify.com
