BY RAM PUNIYANI

Indian society is divided across many levels - caste, class, community, religion, sex. Although the Constitution had made adequate provision for reservations till backward communities prospered, these weren’t implemented on time. Today, reservations have led to clashes between the middle classes and communities who enjoy the benefit of reservations.

RESERVATION HAS been a big bone of contention in Indian society. Over the last two decades, opinions on the issue have been expressed in subtle, direct and indirect forms. In the popular psyche, while some reservations are desirable, others are regarded as obstacles to social progress and still others are regarded as obstacles to national integration. Currently, the reservations related to women are considered highly desirable, while those concerning Dalits-OBCs are regarded as the cause of stagnation and roadblocks to progress. Many also feel that caste-based reservation deprives more meritorious upper castes from the portals of opportunity, while the mere talk of reservation for minorities is presented as dividing the nation.
Despite India coming out of the colonial yoke, despite democracy and the modern constitution being in place, the process of transformation of caste and gender has not progressed very far. The foundations of these twin transformations were laid during the freedom movement, but since forms of landlordism and hold of clergy continued in society, caste-gender transformation has not been completed. Former prime minister, the late Jawaharlal Nehru, once told a French journalist, Andre Marloux, that while the country had a secular constitution, it was gripped by deep religiosity.

CONSTITUTION

THE writers of our Constitution made adequate provisions for affirmative action for Dalits-Adivasis by reserving seats for a stipulated period of time. Since the implementation of these policies was in the hands of the upper castes, it was done properly and caste divisions lingered, resulting in every succeeding government extending the period of reservations - of course this was motivated by electoral ‘compulsions’. The issue was further compounded by the fact that these reservations were used by the ‘creamy layer’ of the community, thereby making these rich richer, while depriving the majority of the community of basic amenities and consequent dignity.

In the 80s, the process of urbanisation resulted in the rise of an affluent middle class who became assertive and were against reservations for Dalits and OBCs. In the RSS, they found an organisation that was willing to take up their cause - albeit for their own vested interests - leading to the first major instance of anti Dalit violence in Ahmedabad in 1981. This was followed, five years later, by more violence against OBCs in Gujarat. By this time, women’s movements witnessed a rise in activity. For almost a decade now, women have been demanding their due in the social and political sphere. The RSS support base saw the Mandal Commission’s recommendations for reservation to OBCs as a threat to their social status and rallied around Advani’s rath yatra. Mandal was to be countered by kamandal (politics in the name of religion), as Atal Behari Vajpayee put it. Kamandal spilled blood on the streets and the issue of reservation was pushed to the background while the major assault was directed towards minorities - first against Muslims and then against Christians. The popular battle cry was, ‘Pehle Isai, Phir Kasai’.

With the severe security problems of minorities, the question of equity remained in the background. As a matter of fact, the Muslim community went down on the social indices, as pointed out by the Sachar Committee. With declining economic indices, the talk of reservation for Muslims in education and jobs started coming up. But RSS affiliates working for a Hindu nation - essentially one with hegemony of upper caste males - retorted that any reservation for Muslims would result in the formation of another Pakistan. Although it is hard to comprehend the logic behind this strain of thought, the concealed threat in this formulation is obvious. As a compromise, there is now talk of an Equal Opportunity Commission through which affirmative action for minorities and steps that fall short of reservation will be proposed and perhaps even implemented. However, how far can an Equal Opportunity Commission achieve this purpose if societal thinking is so hostile to minority welfare?

PLACE FOR WOMEN

IN the meanwhile, women - another deprived section of Indian society - were given reservations in panchayats. Although this move is merited, the effects have not achieved the intention. It is obvious that women sarpanchas in most panchayats are merely puppets of their husbands of other male relatives. Nevertheless, this has led to some degree of women empowerment. This provision was followed by a demand for reservation for women in the Parliament, the highest law-making body in the country. Most political parties, including the BJP - the political wing of the RSS, that inherently believe in the birth-based hierarchy of caste and gender supported the move. The only opposition came from the OBC-dominated parties, for whom caste inequality has been the central concern of their politics.

Their argument is that, at present, mainly upper caste and affluent women are in the social space so this move will tilt the ‘caste balance’ in favour of upper castes. According to them, there should be an inbuilt ‘sub quota’ on the basis of caste and minority. There is truth in this, of course, because all women in the country do not live in the same conditions. Poor Dalit, Adivasi and Muslim women have little in common with affluent women. The Bill for women’s reservation has been debated since 1996. So far, as there has been no clear majority of any party in Lok Sabha, the bill was kept in limbo. Now with the UPA in a comfortable position, it is expected that the bill will finally be passed.

Opponents to the bill are reported to be Sharad Yadav, Mulayam Singh and Lalu Prasad Yadav. According to media reports, they reject the bill outright. However, it has been suggested that they want the bill to be modified. The move to make reservations when necessary must be wholeheartedly supported, when the purpose is to bring about gender and social justice. At the same time, provision must be made for a safety clause so that the reservations are suitably implemented to avoid adverse effects. While some political voices that are vociferous for ‘merit’ are against the concept of SC-ST-OBC-minority reservation, they are strong proponents of reservations for women. Why these double standards? Why has the bill not been amended to include the sub quota for caste and minorities? Perhaps, this exposes the real agenda of those behind the bill in the present form.