A take on Mohan Bhagvat's views on reservations

hagwat's Call on Quota and Musings Merit Attention November 7, 1990. On this day, Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Prime Minister and prime mover of Mandal Model is forced to exit office. Arguably, the casualty of the first Mandal versus Kamandal war. His August 7, 1990, decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission put the regime in direct conflict with the BJP supporting it. The tipping point was the arrest of L K Advani at Samastipur in Bihar. November 8, 2015. Twenty-five years later, Bihar is again the venue of the battle for political supremacy cloaked in the do-or-die rhetoric. The parade of ironies is delicious—the man who arrested Advani is now a BJP MP; Nitish Kumar, the man who shared power with the BJP for over a decade, is the prime opponent; and Lalu Yadav, his friend-turned-foe-turned-friend, is leading the charge. At the heart of raging rhetoric is an observation made by RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat in an interview on the politics and outcomes of the reservation policy. The observation coming amid an intensely fought election has stoked a debate with old chestnuts. Thanks to the intellectual laziness within the BJP and the huge trust deficit that haunts the RSS, the fog of confusion now envelops the Gangetic plains—where a slice in the quota translates into economic survival, where quota delivers political dividends. Just 18 months ago, the BJP, led by Narendra Modi—an OBC leader from Gujarat—swept the Gangetic plains clean, decimating the Opposition to win over 100 seats in the original battleground of the Mandal agitation. The crux is the apparition, the return of suspicion. A quarter of a century later, the BJP finds itself painted in a corner as a party against reservations. It is instructive to know what exactly Bhagwat said. The context was the principle of "integral humanism" espoused by Deen Dayal Upadhyay and the question was: "Do you see any such policy initiative, undertaken or suggestive, which is in tune with integral humanism?" Bhagwat said: "Reservation for socially backward classes is the right example in this regard." He then observed that "if we would have implemented this policy as envisaged by the Constitution makers instead of doing politics over it, then present situation would not have arrived. Since inception it has been politicised". Bhagwat then went on to suggest an apolitical review to decide "which categories require reservation and for how long". Depending on who is located where in the debate, the statement is finding varied interpretations. There are those who believe this to be a signal. There are those who see it as a valid opinion. There are those who see it as an inference on the political coralling, even capture of entitlements. The observations have opened up the field of interpretations between what was said and what was meant. For an objective analysis of reality, one needs to step away from personified equivalence, the heat, dust and passion of rhetoric. Fact is, 25 years after its initiation, the idea of affirmative action deserves an audit, at least an examination of beneficial outcomes. At a personal level—and this is an essential disclosure—I am a votary of and am invested in the idea of affirmative action. At an institutional level, at a national level, affirmative action is a moral and economic imperative. The moot point today is about the efficacy of the structure of the policy on reservations. Success is sketchy. The inadequacy of process and implementation to enable empowerment is stark. For instance, the policy states 27 per cent of Central government jobs must be filled by OBC candidates. In reality, only 11 per cent of Group A positions and 17.7 of all posts were filled by OBC candidates. The policy demands 49.5 per cent of all government jobs are reserved for socially disadvantaged groups (SC+ST+OBC), whereas in reality only 43 per cent of jobs are occupied by them. Fact is, the disadvantaged groups are failed by the poor education system and off-shoring of tasks has shrunk the jobs pie. Reservations are not just about a salary cheque. The aim also encompasses addressing social bias and prejudices. On the ground, the consequences of social conditioning are shocking. In Karnataka, a Dalit cook has been humiliated since five months as nobody will eat the food she cooks for the mid-day meal scheme. The only way she can retain her job is by choosing to not cook. In Odisha, Dalit students are barred from offering prayers at the puja in the school. These are incidents that represent a reprehensible mindset. Quotas were installed to improve inclusion and empowerment. The translation of intent has been poor. The socio-economic census illustrates the economic and social backwardness of disadvantaged communities across rural India. Human development and economic indices are distressful. Average years in school for Indians is 4.5 years, but much worse in the Mandal belt on the Gangetic plains. The much-awaited caste census will reveal more. The question that begs to be asked is if the instrument of reservation—more importantly the policy, the way it is designed today—has delivered on the intended objectives. Is it backed by institutional reforms in primary education necessary for the migration of the oppressed from social and economic backwardness? Is it deep enough to reach the extremely backward and the economically deprived? What about socially forward but economically backward communities? Is it diverse enough to cover the variations of the economic and political geography? Should it be less urban and more rural? These are questions that any nation must examine if the idea is to deliver genuine change. shankkar.aiyar@gmail.com