In April 2006, the issue of extending reservations to Other Backward Classes first came to the national consciousness. People have spoken for and against reservations since then with different agendas and different points of view.
The points of view included the usual suspects: the anti-reservationists argued that reservation would compromise academic merit and was merely a vote buying tactic, while pro-reservationists argued that social justice was a goal that far outweighed considerations of merit, or the motivations of the proposal. The debate took unpleasant directions: those who opposed reservations were smeared as defending upper-caste or upper class privilege, while the pro-reservationists had casteist abuse hurled at them. In addition to invective, it also descended into endless arguments over data on which OBCs were truly backward, and whether reserved seats would not simply be captured by powerful castes, while leaving actual backward classes as disempowered as ever.
The descent into madness became almost complete in the past month, with the Supreme Court being attacked for ‘legislating from the bench’, and statements from politicians about two individuals deciding the fate of a billion being undemocratic. (Tangentially, the same politician seems happy to have five hundred odd individuals deciding the fate of the billion others- one wonders what is the number between two and five hundred at which it becomes democratic.)
It is unfortunate that the debate on reservations has shifted so drastically to discussing who is backward and who is not, and who is fit to rule on backwardness and who is not. This continued argument over backwardness distracts from two issues: rights and autonomy- which few commentators have addressed over the past one year – Pratap Bhanu Mehta being one of the few. This is tragic, because these issues are far more fundamental than
Let us consider rights first. The Ninety Third Constitutional Amendment which enabled the extension of reservations has its genesis in the Supreme Court’s 2005 judgment in Inamdar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others. In its judgment, the court upheld the right of private educational institutions to have an admissions policy independent of government control. The Ninety Third Amendment was rushed in to destroy this private right, just as the very first amendment to the constitution was brought in to destroy the right to private property which the Patna High Court upheld in Kameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar.
For those who are suspicious of government control over private citizens and associations, this is obscene. If a private trust sets up a college, what business of the government is it which students it admits? The trust has no dealings with the government, so what gives the government the right to interfere with the trust’s admissions process?
But the argument is over reservations in IITs and IIMs and AIIMS, which are very much government institutions. Does the government not have a right to set admissions policy in the institutions it owns?
Assuredly. But here is where the other fundamental issue of autonomy comes into play.
The Union government ‘owns’ the IITs and IIMs. It therefore has the right to decide how they will be run, in all aspects. This does not mean that it is sensible for it to do so. It is difficult to accept the assertion that it is better for the admissions policy of IIM Bangalore to be set by Arjun Singh – or any other HRD Minister – than by IIM Bangalore’s own admissions committee. And all demands for government-enforced reservation boil down to this very assertion: that bureaucrats and politicians are more competent than universities themselves to decide what the universities should do. Highlighting the absurdity of this assertion is simple: one simply has to extend the argument. If Parliament is better placed to decide which students to take in than the university itself, it must be better placed to decide what they will eat as well. The menu of IIT Madras’s Mega-Mess must also be set by the HRD Ministry, with 15% reservation for proteins, 7.5% for fats, and 27.5% for carbohydrates.
The undermining of institutional autonomy by the HRD Ministry is dangerous. It creates disincentives for students to enter academia. It prevents universities from experimenting to find admissions policies which could accomplish more for social diversity than the blunt tool of reservations. Most importantly, it prevents new institutions from coming up, and supplying the educational infrastructure that the young people who form
But what is even more tragic than the HRD Ministry attempting to bring in reservations is that the anti-reservationists are taking their case to the Supreme Court. The HRD Minister is not the best person to make decisions on the day-to-day affairs of the IITs and IIMs, but neither are the Supreme Court justices.
We seek to overturn bad decisions by one authority by appealing to another authority to reverse them. This reveals flaws in our national character. The drama of the last month is symptomatic of the Indian unconcern for autonomy, and the lack of regard for institutions.
(An edited version of this article appears in this month’s edition of Pragati, the Indian National Interest’s publication)
Great piece. A few thoughts, though.
1) A body that finances the institution and technically owns it must be allowed to have SOME rights over the institution. If the government somehow perversely decides that population-proportionate representation is an ethically correct goal and must be achieved over a period of time, and wants its own bodies and institutions to reflect the same showing others the way – it can have the right to legitimately fix such quotas. Note that it is not yet telling the IIMs or IITs to tweak their admission or acdemic policies in terms of criteria that they want, the paper they set, the courses that they teach, etc. Surely, your mess food example is a classsic case of the slippery slope fallacy. Taking your autonomy point to its logical conclusion, the government should not be allowed to exert any rights whatsoever on these institutions – it should only fund them, which is not just impractical but also unfair.
2) People approach the SC to oppose the govt order not because there are some serious flaws in our national character but because the SC is the only body that has the legal validity to stay a govt order. If the IIMs or the IITs felt that their autonomy was being violated, it is upto them to negotiate with the HRD ministry or to approach the SC to stay the govt order. A common citizen wouldn’t be able to file a legally tenable complaint/PIL in the SC regarding IIM autonomy because he/she would fail to prove locus standi. It is not so, however, in the case of simply filing a case against reservations as the locus standi can be established quite easily.
Excellent post. Echo both Ritwik’s points. Could not have worded them better.
“For those who are suspicious of government control over private citizens and associations, this is obscene. If a private trust sets up a college, what business of the government is it which students it admits?” True. And specifically more so, for private institutions. But for IITs and IIMs, I’d think of the government as a shareholder-equivalent. Management a.k.a the institute’s administration may have some ideas about how the place should be run (including admission and/or diet policies), but this cannot supersede what the owner wants.
“The HRD Minister is not the best person to make decisions on the day-to-day affairs of the IITs and IIMs, but neither are the Supreme Court justices. ” By implication, what you’re saying is that IIT/IIM administrators are the best judges of how to run these institutions (or am I reading this wrong?). Can’t agree – we may be suspicious of government, but when it comes to government-owned organisations, surely no one but the government has the right to say how they should be managed? Suspicion of the role of government is an individual opinion, but the fact that the majority of the populace of the country voted for this government and have signed up to be governed by these individuals over a 5-year timeframe means that the MAJORITY of the populace is willing to live with the consequences of the actions of their Ministers. We could argue that the will of the majority should not be at the cost of the minority, but I don’t think that this line of argument is at debate here anyway.
“Most importantly, it prevents new institutions from coming up, and supplying the educational infrastructure that the young people who form India’s ‘demographic dividend’ so desperately need.” This may be a potential outcome of the 93rd Amendment (and specifically for private institutions), but aren’t we assuming that seat reservation requirements are a criterion to determine the relative profitability/value of opening a new college/university? I may be wrong here, but 2 things seem to fly in the face of that assumption –
1. With the exception of government-owned institutions, I don’t think the government has the right to set prices/fees for education. I may be wrong, but I don’t know of any.
2. How do we deal with/quantify the impact of the government-imposed condition that any seats that will be additionally reserved going forward will NOT be at the cost of ‘regular’ seats, but will be additional students that these educational institutions will admit? One of the government’s biggest arguments from day one, which I haven’t seen too much comment on, is that this move will NOT reduce the number of seats available in the general category.
Ritwik,
It won’t take long for the Govt. to ‘advice’ the IIMs to ‘relax’ the admission criteria for OBCs so that the seats don’t go unfilled!
Ritwik, Nandu:
In the article I was trying to draw a distinction between the owner’s rights to set policy and the need to have implementation carried out at the institutional rather than the ownership level.
For example, my own (private-sector) employer has a Diversity and Inclusion policy. The aim of Diversity and Inclusion was set by the global board of directors, but the actual implementation has been left to individual business units. So one country would have decided to focus on increasing employment opportunities for the disabled, while another (specifically India) has decided to focus on making it a better place to work for women. Again, even when two countries might have decided to focus on womens’ empowerment, the specific programs used to accomplish the same might differ. The problem with quotas is that the government is fixing not only the end (representation of OBCs) but also the means.
Secondly, quotas which increase representation along one metric can shatter it along another one (this is a topic for a separate post).
Nandu:
Even I am not sure if the government fixes prices for education (I think it varies from state to state). However the government does fix lecturer and professor payscales – which is also arguably an attack on institutional autonomy and disincentivises talented people from entering academia.
Aadisht,
One minor point. In the case of proportionate respresentation, the end is the means. Caste-based reservations can be shown to be logically and ethically flawed and unable to achieve any of the other ostensible intended results by any number of arguments. However, if the aim is – since (atleast) 27% of this country is OBC, 27% of each of its government bodies/institutions must be OBC – the end becomes the means, because all other ways will make the representation TEND to 27 rather than ensure it is 27 exactly/minimally.
Aadisht:
“However the government does fix lecturer and professor payscales – which is also arguably an attack on institutional autonomy and disincentivises talented people from entering academia.” These payscales have existed from before, what’s the connection with the quota issue? And besides, if I know right, the scale fixed is the minimum, not the maximum.
“…quotas which increase representation along one metric can shatter it along another one…” Completely agree! That’s true of most things though, you can’t fix all problems at one go; and the government merely prefers to ‘fix’ the ‘caste problem’ and is willing to deal with the consequences of this move.
Ritwik:
“In the case of proportionate representation, the end is the means.” Sorry, can’t agree with this one. You’re equating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Even with all else being equal (no caste, all have identical social/economic status, equal access to information, etc) equality of opportunity will not result in equality of outcomes (which explains why you don’t find too many Jain butchers – irrespective of the fact that no one stops Jains from taking up the occupation). What the government is trying to do is ensure equality of opportunity….I don’t think even the government of India believes that reservations will continue till kingdom come. They think that this is a necessary evil to place all people (irrespective of caste or economic status) on a similar footing in terms of their ability to access development opportunities.
Nandu,
I have not supported that particular line of thinking. I have not supported reservations either. I understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. What I said was – all the pro-reservation points that try the “equality of opportunity” (the ostensibel intentions) plank can be easily shown to be logically flawed in numerous ways, for en-masse caste-based reservations do not ensure or create equality of opportunity. However, if a pro-reservation argument is given along the “equality of outcome” lines (which is a philosophy that I consider ethically indefensible), the end (population-proportionate representation) is the means (quotas, which are basically decided along the lines of population percentages).
Ritwik,
as you’ve said proportionate representation is ethically indefensible. It is also a utilitarian nonsense. It cannot be defended. So is extending the argument to mess food such a slippery slope after all?
Nandu,
there isn’t any connection with the quota issue. I was pointing out that the lack of autonomy extends to payscales as well as admissions.