Don't
'..He said as soon as they will get a copy of the bill, the medicos will consult lawyers and move the Supreme Court against the proposed legislation.' Read more about what the agitating medicos plan to do now that the Bill has been introduced in parliament.
Move the courts? Nothing new. It has been a favorite tool with those seeking 'equality' since independence. Perhaps no other class of legislation have been challenged as often and as vigorously as policies advocating reservations..One of the many reasons why a majority of the States in India and the Centre itself did not even attempt to correct the criminally skewed representation in jobs and higher education until very recently. But the most important reason why legislation was so rarely sought to be introduced and so frequently sought to be challenged was very simple : most of the governments were(/are) upper caste led and most of the 'rights' -conscious challengers were(/are) upper caste too. That doesn't add up, in your view..? Let me put it more bluntly - both the 'stallers' in government and the 'challengers' from civil society were both motivated by blind prejudice. Until now.
So blinded were they by prejudice that they'd overlook all the facts, evidence..data piling up before their own eyes (as powers that be in government)...and brush away all the proof of discrimination, exclusion..and inequality they'd witness every day (as constituents of civil society). And stall..and challenge. Until now.
And it seems like, even now.
I'd like to tell the challengers : Don't. Does that sound aggressive..like a warning? (If it's interpreted as one, it'd be a rarity in this blog's history - usually, I've been at the receiving end of dire threats about what would happen to the OBCs if this legislation went through). I'm only trying to tell the savarnas that the OBCs aren't the enemy- their own prejudices are...
I'm only trying to look into the future and see where..all this might lead upto.
posted by obc voice @ 10:21 AM
27 Comments:
My Guess is that not a whole lot will happen when challenged in court.
But one thing that I think might happen is that the court will ask to exclude the creamy layer from getting reservation benefits. This in my view in general will be a good thing for the OBCs. I have posted on Why it will be good for OBCS
As for looking in the future is concerned, to me it looks bleak because the caste identities are being further strengthened and people are aligning themselves based on caste. More caste based division is taking place in an already divided society. That to me is a dangerous thing. How this plays out in the future remains to be seen.
well OBC voice what about the very upper caste and brahminical as well as elitist judiciary, which is always prejudiced against the depressed people, barring few exceptions.
In the lower courts and even high courts, the caste works wonders and why not the dvijas are special.
we will have to change the polity completely, and get our due share in life.
The manner in which the bill is being opposed makes one feel that depressed people do not belong to this country.
polite indian,
i've come to know a little about your views these past few weeks..i wish you'd look a little more closely at what you've been saying before you start telling us..about what's good for the whole of society.
mineguruji,
what i've tried to say in this particular post is ...enough is enough. you can't stalling, diluting.. challenging,delaying all reservation legislation and expect the OBCs to swallow this antagonism and hatred forever..without reacting. It may not happen now, it may not happen in another ten years.. but it'll definitely happen.
obc voice,
From your comment it seems there is something in my views that you quite don't like and you might have developed a view based on different comments posted on different blogs but I will state my views here again so that you can tell me which part I should look more closely at.
1. I am against caste-system and I want it abolished(But my knowledge about this is not as profound as yours and my this view might be too naive. But I am willing to learn)
2. I know a segment of our society is not well represented and something needs to be done. I don't think that reservations are the best solution to provide social justice, but since I do not have an alternative solution, I will take this as a solution and not whine about it. The long term solution everyone knows but not willing to implement.
3. If reservations are to be implemented I think they should be implemented in such a way that they benefit the target group of people. I think excluding the creamy layer from the purview of the benefits of quota reservations would be a better implementation. And I gave the link in my previous comment as to why I think that is better.
Do not take any of my comments as me telling you or anybody what to do.
I try to get as many viewpoints as possible and base my views on considering diverse views. Above all , the views that I hold today are not written in stone. These might change as and when I learn new things.
polite indian,
with regard to the "creamy layer" argument, it must be noted that - notwithstanding our supreme court - that this argument has little merit. (Pun unintended.) A long time back (1994), I remember Andre Beteille pointing this out in a seminar. He noted that in the American context, their academicians were very clear that affirmative action would benefit only the relative better-off amongst the African-Americans. The argument was that notwithstanding this, affirmative action was needed to bring in more African-Americans in to areas where they were under-represented. The hope was that over time, this would create more opportunities for African-Americans.
Note that if you remove the "creamy layer" (interesting phrase - our national obsession with the colour white?) then in effect, you are removing the people most likely to take advantage of the reservation policy. I don't know how it will work out in the OBC case, but it seems to me that if you apply the "creamy layer" to the Dalits, then their under-representation in the government will become even more severe. (In another post, OBC voice notes that some 22.5 lakh jobs reserved for Dalits are not filled even now. You can imagine what will happen if you exclude the "creamy layer.")
There are reasons to be sceptical of reservations - many of which have been intensely debated here and elsewhere - but the point about the "creamy layer" is about the weakest in this regard. Affirmative action - whether of the American or Indian variety - is targeted at the top end. In effect, they are "trickle down" policies. One difference between the American and Indian case is that by the time of affirmative action (late 1960s), African-Americans had - even under the apartheid like "separate but equal" policy in the American South - a higher academic achievement than Indian Dalits/OBCs. Most of them were literate and there were even "Black universities" which provided university education. Thus, there was a base which could take advantage of affirmative action.
As OBC voice documents, such a base is not there in India. I guess OBC voice and others would argue that notwithstanding this, we still need reservations because the OBCs have little representation in the important decision making institutions of the country. May be so - but in this case, there is no point in pursuing the "creamy layer" argument. However, one will have to deal with the "base" sooner or later. I wish it will be sooner rather than later.
Suresh,
Thanks for the comment.
As you noted in the case of Dalits if we implement the creamy layer concept a lot more seats will remain vacant than they are today and the reason being not enough candidates to fill. I believe the case of Dalits is lot more different than the OBCs. This is one of the reasons I think the solution towards social justice lies elsewhere and in other policies.
I believe you have read my post about the creamy layer. My whole argument is based on my assumption that I mentioned in the post. If you negate the assumption then what you are saying makes perfect sense and there is no case for excluding the creamy layer from reservation benefits.
The assumption I have made is "Even without reservation at least 27% OBCs are getting admission into these institutes and most of them are from creamy layer". If this assumption is incorrect then my whole point falls flat on the ground. Again, I have no data to back my assumption but if someone has any data then it might be helpful.
Polite Indian,
Regarding the extent of OBC underrepresentation (without any breakdown by "creamy layer"), the only article that I have come across is one by K. Sundaram in the Times of India, available at
http://www.tinyurl.com/mx65a
I am in no position to comment on Professor Sundaram's article, but perhaps OBCVoice will have something to say about it. For the record, the article claims that the shortfall in OBC representation is not much - implicitly supporting your contention.
suresh,
i'm glad you've come visiting.. i've read elsewhere your views..on certain other, but related issues, and they are characterised by much clarity and.. cogent analysis.
your comments were directed towards the good blogger, polite indian..but i thought i'd butt in respond to one particular issue that you've raised - I refer to the K.Sundaram article in the Times of India.
To cut to the chase, the basic logic of his argument is based on two assumptions :
a) he pegs the population of the OBCs at a much lower level than the Mandal figure of 52%,
b)he cites the figures of representation of the OBCs as proof that the OBCs don't deserve reservation in centrally-run institutions.
At the beginning of the 'meat' of his arguments he starts out :
'...This has the effect of lowering the share of OBCs among those with higher secondary certificate to 26.5 per cent compared to their 32 per cent share in the total population in the 17-25 age group.'
Where did he get the figures ?..nowhere in the article does he cite the source of his data.. He says '..compared to their 32 per cent share in the total population in the 17-25 age group.' How did he get the 32% figure?
Let's assume, on his behalf his source is the data gleaned from the NSSO 'mapping' of the 1991 Census which says the number of Hindu OBCs in the country could be 32.1 % of the total population. And of all OBCs in the country to be 36%.
Personally, I think the Mandal figure is more reliable.. but I'd rather not go into the reasons why I think so now..but let me point out that the purpose of the NSSO 'survey' was not to determine the caste profile of the country ..but to gather a whole lot of other data..besides. caste was only a peripheral focus area..Mr.Yogendra Yadav also finds these figures unreliable.. and quotes 40-44% (and I Don't think that figure takes into account the Muslim OBCs..At least he doesn't specifically mention them)as a more reliable figure.
Looked at from any logical angle the NSSO figures are not believable..as far as the caste profile of the country is concerned.
But Mr. Sundaram, without even quoting his source (don't you find that surprising coming fron a Professor of the 'prestigious' Delhi School Of Economics ?).. takes that as Gospel truth..and assumes everyone else does too.
'If
So the OBC under-representation is just 0.6 per cent. Our broad results stand: the extent of OBC under-representation in higher education is less, much less than 5 per cent. If anything, they are strengthened by the exclusion of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
Clearly, a 27 per cent reservation of seats for OBCs, and attendant proposals to raise total enrolments by 54 per cent across the board, are totally unjustified. '
That's his concluding argument.. Before that he points out precentages of OBC representation among matriculates, undergraduates, graduates etc..
Now I shall point out how his second assumption can't be used..as an argument against reservations even if his first assumption (a) and the figures supporting his second assumption (b) are right.
The current round of reservations are for Centrally-run institutions..and the figures for representation in higher education that he quotes cover representation in all the higher educational institutions in the country (inclusive of central institutions ?..because here too..he isn't specific..but i am assuming not because the central institutions don't collect caste data on their students -except on the sc/st)! Consider this : what would be the share of centrally-run higher educational institutions (in terms of seats) in all the the higher educational institutions in the country (if that earlier figure includes the central institutions) ? Would you consider it significant..if you take into account the number of universities and colleges in the 25 odd states in the country? I don't think so.
And isn't his conclusion wrong because most of the limited OBC representation in the overwhelming majority of educational institutions (which are in the states)..is a result of the policy of reservations?
That's what I meant by the term 'prejudice' I used in my current post.. the fact that otherwise objective, meticulous academics and men of scholarship would.. go to such great lengths to overlook glaring gaps in their arguments to justify convenient conclusions..
1)You start with assumptions, 2)you support that with unproven data 3) you conclude by proving your own argument that a certain policy is wrong...(precisely because that policy is working elsewhere!)
We still keep coming back to the same issue over and over again. That of numbers and statistics.
The problem is that there are no reliable numbers in this whole issue and often times, people throw up a lot of numbers derived from something else and base their argument on them.
madhat,
'The problem is that there are no reliable numbers in this whole issue...'
exactly..but there are enough, 'prperly used', to sow seeds of doubt..and they're being used.
obcvoice and madhat,
The lack of proper data is a serious problem. I would urge caution in critiquing any analysis on this basis precisely because the same argument can be used by "the other side." Indeed, from what I understand, the "Youth for Equality" forum has the lack of data as one of the main points of their argument.
The data problem is unfortunately something that confronts any researcher working on any data source supplied by the Government of India. Often there are basic inconsistencies, missing data etc. all of which render any analysis difficult. Even worse, the available data is treated as some sort of "national secret" and parted with most unwillingly. The question is, what do we do? The only pragmatic solution is to use the available data - with all its problems - and whenever possible to cross-check it with other sources. One might also want to conduct "robustness checks" to see what happens if one used different numbers. In this case, what Prof. Sundaram could do - I don't know if he has done this - is to see to what extent the results of his analysis change if one uses different numbers for the percentage of OBCs in the population. In particular, what happens if the NSS numbers are replaced by the Mandal commission numbers? That will at least, give us some "bounds" on the extent of underrepresentation.
As OBCvoice notes, it is very likely that Professor Sundaram's data is the NSS survey. He has done a lot of work on this dataset (along with others like Suresh Tendulkar) in the past also. The article in ToI reads as if it is a summary of an academic article. I tried looking up the Delhi School website to see if the relevant paper was there but I had no luck. At any rate, it is difficult to criticise Prof. Sundaram too much here - given the basic lack of data, one has to use whatever data is available. One might criticise him for trusting this source too much but one can't fault him for using it at all.
I don't think the NSS survey would have information that can be used to draw any inference about the extent of OBC underrepresentation in central institutions. What the data might have is the educational attainment of those surveyed. In this regard, I guess Sundaram could retaliate and ask if there is any reason to suppose the OBC representation in central institutions is very different from their representation in other educational institutions. If there is any reason to suppose that OBCs representation is very different between central and non-central institutions, then to that extent, Sundaram's analysis would be misleading. OBCVoice, could you clarify if there are significant reasons as to why OBC representation might be very different between the two sets of institutions?
"And isn't his conclusion wrong because most of the limited OBC representation in the overwhelming majority of educational institutions (which are in the states)..is a result of the policy of reservations?"
What he seems to be arguing is that current OBC underrepresentation in higher education is not significant enough to warrant *further* reservations. This is perfectly compatible with your argument that the current level of OBC representation is because of past reservations.
*Sigh* - I guess, about the only thing that we can safely conclude without fear of contradiction is that we will remain an unequal society for quite some time. It makes one wonder at the optimism of Dr. Ambedkar when the initial request for political (not academic) reservations was made for only ten years!
I also wish - inspite of the reservations that have been expressed by the likes of Andre Beteille - that caste details will be taken up in the next census. Obviously, we are going to have the quota system with us in one form or the other for the conceivable future. Given that, it is in all our interests to see that this policy is carried out as fairly as possible. Otherwise, we are doomed to carry on such futile discussions about lack of data.
Also, OBCvoice, thanks for your kind words. You run an interesting blog and thanks for that.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hey... Mr obc we r just few steps far our goal....First time in India something has happened that had never took place before.. Nothing can stop uS now... SCHHOOL CHILDREN TOO R STANDING FOR IT ;Checkmate 2 you... mR LOSER...
Hey... Mr obc we r just few steps far our goal....First time in India something has happened that had never took place before.. Nothing can stop uS now... SCHHOOL CHILDREN TOO R STANDING FOR IT ;Checkmate 2 you... mR LOSER...
schoolkids,
when did u last go to school?
lol schoolkid, lets see who wins and who loses.
mineguruji you don't worry...you will win...
kalyug hai na...burai ki jeet to hogi hi !!
haha ha baten ananymous pate ki karta hai, manuwadi taktein kaliyug mein hi jake khatam hongi. Yeh kkalyug satyug ka drama brahmon ka hai. lol
mineguruji,
kalyug hain..isliye brahmanwad itne din thik sakee..
glad to have you back in form..
Cant believe u guys get away with this crap
hi obc mate
was just busy upgrading my system
and busy with some obc and few sc guys for cat preparation.
the revolution will live long and we will be the footsoldiers.
seems as if u never went tO skool... hee..he.. baaton se hi lagta hai! u might not be having dat spunk to face the world at dat age.. ha..ha... we r proud we have.. coz we r NOT YOU.. n we wont give up...... u people better know wats right but as it's already said kalyug hai na toh bachhe hi badon ko sahi rasta dikhaengey... but even children cant do nething if the adults r blind..... n i repeat reply on our blog coz skool children dnt have dat much of faltoo time like u to check ur bloody blog aggain n again 4 d reply....
@mineguruji,
oops ! seems you have had some personal problems with brahamans rather than having problem with reservations.
I seriously doubt if u actually are fighting for yourself or for the OBCs?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home