reservations et al.

I've been posting on a hot new forum, and I though i'd include some of the stuff here. so check it out.

[quote]...how many of us would like to COMPETE ON MERIT with students of US/UK/JAPAN/EUROPEAN countries for indian jobs, suppose if we remove the RESERVED FOR INDIANS status from jobs in the indian industry....?[/quote]

firstly, wrt the above. We are really not that bad off. I've just come back from a trip to one of the leading universities of the US, and I assure you, we are really not that bad off. Indians can take on anyone, and are doing so, around the globe, even today.

[quote]...child from a poor Brahmin family might be lacking in terms of financial resource to succeed, but he can not be equated with a poor SCs child, who is living in an environment that is poor in terms of money as well as in terms of attitude, knowledge, social support and everything...[/quote]

Now that is one point that I agree with. It is stoutly pro-reservation, and no-one can deny that this is something that [i]does[/i] justify affirmative action for social upliftment of that poor SC child. True, Absolutely true.

But is this the way to go about it? While catering to the needs of the few, does one forget the needs of the many? The few in question are not that few, but how much of the population is really "backward" in terms of demographics? Should the percentage of seats reserved for a caste bear [i]any correlation[/i] to it's demographic presence in the population?

And is segregation of admission procedure away to ensure integration of society?

Also, are we not having an acute case of tunnel vision? The lot of the backward needs to be improved, true, but does that improvement have to come at the expense of those who are not backward?

About the economic side of things, is the motive behind the initial reservation policy economic upliftment of the people? Could be, but I think not. Dr. Ambedkar was not thinking that, I'm sure. He was trying to bring about a measure of equality in the nation. A form of social justice.

If the question is economic, the caste is a non-issue. A lot of lower caste people are poor, but not all. And a lot of upper caste people are rich, but again not all. So if economic upliftment was the motive, economic upliftment would have been mentioned.

So we must conclude that reservations were introduced as a measure of social reform, and social reform only. Thus a question comes to mind? Is this social justice?

[i][b]Is this not simply the caste system in reverse?[/b][/i]

A hundred years from now, what would the situation be like, if this keeps on. Taking even 49.5% reservation (hoping it doesn't increase further) what would the India of 2106 be like?

Would we have uplifted all backward groups and placed them on par with the rest of India? Would the rest of India even be able to compete with the Reserved groups? I fear that the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas will be the "scheduled" castes then, vying for quota, and asking for "justice for past discrimination and oppression by the ruling majority".

It could happen, no?

A few quick final points, and back to the project again.
The term used everywhere is "scheduled" castes, "scheduled" tribes. Schedule implies a fixed, precise chronological series of events, that brook no deviation from the plan. There was a schedule for their upliftment once.

There is no schedule now. It is going to be an indefinitely-long process. Everyone agrees that the quota system should be for a fixed time only, but no one is coming up with any figures.

A recent headline in a daily reminds me of something I'd like to share here. Shouldn't the quota system be replaced by the Kota-system?

I think the government should introduce reservation into preparatory institutes like FIIT-JEE, Kota, even CL, to provide everyone with the opportunity to have an equal shot at the IIT and IIM exams.

The IIMs are not for social upliftment. That is not their primary purpose. What would happen if MIT or Harvard decided to give 50% reservation to African-Amercans? would it help their lot? No. They have struggled to get their own place in American society. They have worked for it, instead of being pampered by the government.

If the poor SC child in the village has to be helped, first make sure the village is not a bad place to be to prepare for the IIMs. Improve rural infrastructure, but not thinking in terms of "rural improvement". Think of urbanization instead.

Why are villages still villages? Why are towns still towns? We could argue that smaller towns have been neglected in terms of facilities, and thus construction contracts should be reserved for smaller towns and villages. Is that being done?

What is being done to make sure that the poor SC, a farmer, doesn't commit suicide because of crop failure, in turn caused by neglect by Agriculture Department officials, because the farmer wasn't a man of good caste, and thus leading to inadequate environment for the poor SC's child to measure up to urban standards?

What is being done to ensure that the poor SC's child doesn't have to work instead of study, because the farm needs work and there isn't enough money for the father (who is ill) and hiring help at the same time.

What is being done to ensure that an orphan, of whatever caste, in a village does not starve, and can grow up to stand on his own two feet.

Some people are born disadvantaged. It is possible for such a person to achieve the heights of society, of wealth, of fame etc, even rising from such meagre begginings. Yet not for all. You cannot uplift an entire portion of society. Where do you get the leverage? Who pays the staggering cost of helping the poor become not-so-poor. Isn't it always the middle class, instead of the well-off?

The fact remains that this is a very, very unequal country, in an even more unequal world. Let us not kid ourselves.