Guest Column
The New Sunday Express May 7, 2006
Given the constitutional provisions for the uplift of the weaker sections since the 1950s, and the chaotic proliferation of literature on these provisions, the ignorance of most of those debating the merits of reservation is appalling.
It is also appalling that among the self-appointed educationists are some retired vice-chancellors who, for the sake of remaining in the news, project a different image before the media. They behave as if they are the constitutional pundits and saviours of the socially deprived but practise exactly the opposite in the institutions in which they have their sinecure. Here they do not follow even elementary rules of professional etiquette and democratic governance, yet sections of the media suck up to these unscrupulous characters and stream their photographs ad nauseam.
The constitutional provisions for job reservations for the socially deprived groups is qualitatively different from the constitutional mandate that the State shall make special provisions for the advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes, in particular the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
The latter is a comprehensive package of affirmative action. The best example of an appraisal of this package is in the recent report of the Constitution Review Committee where, in the context of job reservations, attention is drawn to making use of Article 46.
The cacophony and confusion caused by vested interests, in particular irresponsible politicians playing with the emotions and sentiments of the gullible masses, have left hardly any scope for the return of reason and fairness in the public realm. Only this can help assess the causes, contexts, and performance of any public policy.
Nobody has asked why the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and the state governments have not come out with a status paper on affirmative action in general, and reservation in particular – say (a) the educational levels of the different social groups such as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, and Others; (b) how many applications the central universities and the so-called elite institutions IITs and IIMs have been getting every year (for analytical purposes take only the last two or three years) from different social groups; (c) how many of the applicants get admission and how; (d) whether there is any overt or covert attempt by any of these institutions to exclude any section of society; (e) what kind of socio-economic profile these institutions have in terms of their student-teacher intake, and so on.
No doubt, Indian society is notorious for its discriminatory and exclusionary practices. While the British administration for long used these practices as part of its patronage politics, in the second half of the 19th century it admitted, in the context of the then Depressed Classes, that what existed was abstract justice. When its attempts to admit the Depressed Class children to public schools failed, following protests and boycotts by caste-Hindus, it started separate schools for the Depressed Classes. They still exist in some states.
When the victims of past and persisting discrimination are not able to get even minimalist State support to equip them through education, at least up to the pre-University level, it is the State that should give an explanation.
After all, it is the State’s failure to foster talent and institutions, create new institutions, and expand the education system commensurate with the demand for education. Reserving a few slots at the top without allowing and enabling the deprived groups to climb up even the lower rungs of the education ladder is political chicanery. If data available are any indication, as of now India’s demand for higher education is by 35 percent of the relevant age group. Contrast this with the present enrolment of 9 to 11 percent compared to 45 to 85 percent in Developed countries. Contrast this also with the fact that India’s present outturn of degree holders is just about 7.5 percent.
While the overall outturn is thus low, the share of degree holders among the SCs, STs, and Muslims is just about half or even less than half of the share of the Caste-Hindus in the relevant age-population of each group. As Muslims have only more or less the same access as the SCs, though their population is close to the SC population, it is strange that nobody has said anything about their plight so far.
As the State has failed for 55 years in its first charge of providing basic education to India’s unwashed millions, and is not doing so even now, the distortion and dilution of a large and comprehensive affirmative action package to the political largesse of reservation in educational institutions cannot be anything but diversionary, and a fig-leaf to cover its own sloth, and shoddiness. So, the issue for debate is not whether one is for or against reservation, but how to make the State accountable to the citizens, and ensure quality education to the entire rising generation with special provisions for the socially deprived.
© Author
It is also appalling that among the self-appointed educationists are some retired vice-chancellors who, for the sake of remaining in the news, project a different image before the media. They behave as if they are the constitutional pundits and saviours of the socially deprived but practise exactly the opposite in the institutions in which they have their sinecure. Here they do not follow even elementary rules of professional etiquette and democratic governance, yet sections of the media suck up to these unscrupulous characters and stream their photographs ad nauseam.
The constitutional provisions for job reservations for the socially deprived groups is qualitatively different from the constitutional mandate that the State shall make special provisions for the advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes, in particular the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
The latter is a comprehensive package of affirmative action. The best example of an appraisal of this package is in the recent report of the Constitution Review Committee where, in the context of job reservations, attention is drawn to making use of Article 46.
The cacophony and confusion caused by vested interests, in particular irresponsible politicians playing with the emotions and sentiments of the gullible masses, have left hardly any scope for the return of reason and fairness in the public realm. Only this can help assess the causes, contexts, and performance of any public policy.
Nobody has asked why the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and the state governments have not come out with a status paper on affirmative action in general, and reservation in particular – say (a) the educational levels of the different social groups such as the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, and Others; (b) how many applications the central universities and the so-called elite institutions IITs and IIMs have been getting every year (for analytical purposes take only the last two or three years) from different social groups; (c) how many of the applicants get admission and how; (d) whether there is any overt or covert attempt by any of these institutions to exclude any section of society; (e) what kind of socio-economic profile these institutions have in terms of their student-teacher intake, and so on.
No doubt, Indian society is notorious for its discriminatory and exclusionary practices. While the British administration for long used these practices as part of its patronage politics, in the second half of the 19th century it admitted, in the context of the then Depressed Classes, that what existed was abstract justice. When its attempts to admit the Depressed Class children to public schools failed, following protests and boycotts by caste-Hindus, it started separate schools for the Depressed Classes. They still exist in some states.
When the victims of past and persisting discrimination are not able to get even minimalist State support to equip them through education, at least up to the pre-University level, it is the State that should give an explanation.
After all, it is the State’s failure to foster talent and institutions, create new institutions, and expand the education system commensurate with the demand for education. Reserving a few slots at the top without allowing and enabling the deprived groups to climb up even the lower rungs of the education ladder is political chicanery. If data available are any indication, as of now India’s demand for higher education is by 35 percent of the relevant age group. Contrast this with the present enrolment of 9 to 11 percent compared to 45 to 85 percent in Developed countries. Contrast this also with the fact that India’s present outturn of degree holders is just about 7.5 percent.
While the overall outturn is thus low, the share of degree holders among the SCs, STs, and Muslims is just about half or even less than half of the share of the Caste-Hindus in the relevant age-population of each group. As Muslims have only more or less the same access as the SCs, though their population is close to the SC population, it is strange that nobody has said anything about their plight so far.
As the State has failed for 55 years in its first charge of providing basic education to India’s unwashed millions, and is not doing so even now, the distortion and dilution of a large and comprehensive affirmative action package to the political largesse of reservation in educational institutions cannot be anything but diversionary, and a fig-leaf to cover its own sloth, and shoddiness. So, the issue for debate is not whether one is for or against reservation, but how to make the State accountable to the citizens, and ensure quality education to the entire rising generation with special provisions for the socially deprived.
© Author
posted by prk1949 @ 12:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home