So you thought former HRD minister Murli Manohar Joshi was bad? Well,consider this: Sri Arjun Singh seems hell-bent on proving that when it comes tocynical exploitation of populist measures, he is by far the first among equals.
So you thought former HRD minister Murli Manohar Joshi was bad? Well,consider this: Sri Arjun Singh seems hell-bent on proving that when it comes tocynical exploitation of populist measures, he is by far the first among equals.
Take the latest controversy over the "newpolicy" that would take the overall reservation in the centralgovernment-funded higher education institutions -- including IITs and IIMs --from the current 22.5 (for SC and ST students) to 49.5 per cent in all, with anextra 27 per cent for the OBCs
Sri Arjun Singh, since he makes such a production ofplaying by the letter of the law, first kicked it off by publicly stating thathis ministry would announce the decision after the completion of the assemblypolls in five states. So why bring it up now? The party nominally considered theprincipal oppositionseemed to provide an answer: "What the Congress-led government is doing is amere political stunt, a fraud on the poor people by selectively leaking theproposal when there are elections in five states".
Now that maybe as clear as day, but moreinteresting was the phrase that prefixed the abovequote from the BJP: "We are pro-reservationists". Which is whythey were happy to acquiescewhen the 104th amendment to the Constitutionwas passed in the winter session of Parliament so easily in a rare show ofconsensus in the UPA rule. Apart from token, confused murmurs, no body, least ofall the not-so-principled politicos of the non-so-principal opposition party,paused to ponder then what a "big fraud" was being perpetrated in thewake of the Inamdarjudgement. To be fair, though, the said amendment that the minister invokes in his defence, makes no mention of OBCs but merely empowers the state to make "any special provision by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for SC/STs" in admissions to educational institutions, whether aided or unaided". It is clear that Sri Arjun Singh was happily engaged in his electoral propaganda with nary a thought to the repercussions of such statements.
And all this at a time when the IITs and IIMs are alreadysuffering and suffocating under an HRD ministry that ironically somehow alwaysseems to be headed by those who could do with some human resource developmentthemselves. The various arguments for quotas versus merit have been repeated so manytimes before that they hardly need any repetition, but what is most bizarre isthat the current controversy should have erupted when such eminently sane andarticulate advice as that from the member-convenor of the high-profile NationalKnowledge Commission (NKC), which reports directly to the prime minister, isavailable.
It is heartening therefore to read about the exchange of mails among the NKCmembers, beginning with the e-mail from Pratap Bhanu Mehta which, terming theArjun Singh pronouncement as a "distressing development" exhorted allmembers to protest the proposals: "These is no point having the Commissionif we don't take a stand on this issue."
Mehta's email went on to point out that "IITs are already facing severe faculty shortages, and to simply increasethe number of seats will have serious adverse consequences. It shows the extentto which these institutions are being subjected to the ministry’s ownpolitical and intellectual predilections."
Mehta then listed three main points to protest to the PM: "First, the new proposals are incompatible with promoting excellence andautonomy. Second, the access to education should be distributed widely acrosssocial groups, but 49 pc reserved seats is a step in the wrong direction. At themoment, measures are in place for SCs/STs and these should not be supplementedby reservation for OBCs. This is an opportunity to think afresh on this issueand not rush into introducing measures that we know are irreversible."
The e-mail acknowledged that "there is probably more a consensuson SC/ST reservation, but reservations for OBCs have very little justification:indeed it is in some ways hurting the cause of SC/STs. But the idea that 49 pcof seats must come under reserved categories is surely alarming." In aseparate article in the Indian Express, Mehta expounded on the above topoint out that the founding fathers of the Constitution recognised that theclaims of the OBCs all kinds of other groups are not the same as those of SC/STs,whose consideration at the time of Independence was so appalling that theydeserved special consideration. "It is a widely known fact that many OBCsare now akin to what used to be dominant castes ... OBC atrocities on Dalits areno less significant. It is a travesty of justice to contrive special measures toreinforce OBC dominance."
Mehta has summed up the contours of the current debate so succinctly and wellthat it would be best to link to the full article in the Indian Express: TheSeats of Power
Also See: What otherssay, including reactions from ArjunSingh
Tags