Reserving Comment

The union ministry of human resource development’s draft Bill extendingreservations to other backward classes (OBCs) in central educationalinstitutions like IITs and IIMs has drawn flak for simplistic, if notmisleading, reasons. Observers, for instance, have dubbed it as Mandal II,without realizing that it was none other than the Congress party itself thatsupported the agitation against the implementation of Mandal I in 1990. Noneother than Rajiv Gandhi, former prime minister, was believed to be opposed tothe divisive agenda to impose quotas in centrally funded educationalinstitutions at that time.

Equally simplistic is the spin that paints the concerned HRD minister ArjunSingh as a Judas of sorts as his proposal represents a challenge to theauthority of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Prime Minister, of course, hasbeen very much in the decision-making loop of this draft proposal, but hisdeafening silence on the issue only fuelled speculation that it is not what thegood doctor had in mind. Days before the controversy broke, at a Harvard AlumniMeeting, Dr Singh had stated that the challenge before policymakers was to "'toarrive at a golden mean, which makes both excellence and equity walkhand-in-hand together".

Arjun Singh, for his part, seems to have arrived at his very own mean with 27 percent reservations for OBCs, besides the existing 22.5 per cent reservation forscheduled castes and tribes in the draft Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes andSocially and Educationally Backward Classes of Citizens (Reservation of Seats inCentral Educational Institutions) Bill, 2006. This draft has yet to securecabinet approval and might be introduced in Parliament after the ongoingelections in five states are over. There are no prizes for guessing that thisBill will sail through, if the widespread political support for reservations isany indication.

For all this Judas talk, Arjun Singh, when replying to the parliamentarydebate after introduction of the 104th Constitution Amendment Bill -- laterknown as the the 93rd Constitution Amendment Act -- to reserve seats forsocially and educationally backward castes in private unaided institutions onDecember 21, 2005 stated that the ambience for bringing such a Bill forward hadbeen created by the Congress leadership, including Prime Minister Dr ManmohanSingh. Clearly, Dr Singh had been very much in the loop as far as thisparticular HRD ministry proposal is concerned.

As is well known, the widespread political consensus on reservations ensuredthe Bill’s passage. Even the CPI (M), which raised a point of order on the "constitutionality"of the Bill arguing that it would be used with impunity by minorityinstitutions, went along. The CPI (M) naturally is sensitive to the mood amongpartymen against such institutions in Kerala! The BJP, too, for all itsminority-baiting, finally voted in favour of the Bill. The across-the boardpolitical support for this proposal should be a reminder to those who doubtwhether the proposed Bill on reservations in IIT and IIMs will go through.

Gratified with this overwhelming support, Arjun Singh in his reply to thatparliamentary debate noted that a query had been raised that the 104thAmendment, no doubt, brings rights to OBCs in private unaided colleges but thesedo not obtain in many central institutions. "It is a very pertinent question",admitted the HRD minister who went on to assure the House that after the 104thAmendment was passed, "the question of reservation in Central institutions willbe addressed frontally and in a holistic manner." The Reservation of Seats inCentral Educational Institutions, 2006 indeed reflects that assurance.

The union HRD minister thus has only done what he originally set out to do --a fact that that does not quite fit with the Judas characterization. To takecare of the objection that the Constitution does not recognise OBCs as such, hislatest draft Bill clearly states, "Other Backward Classes means the class orclasses of citizens who are socially and educationally backward, mentioned inarticle 340(1) of the Constitution." Clearly, this meets the requirements ofOBC MPs who wanted a specific provision in this regard that backward castes areincluded in quotas to be implemented by private unaided institutions. 

The deafening silence on Dr Singh’s part thus is understandable.  ArjunSingh interpreted the enabling provisions of the 104th Amendment -- that wasoriginally intended to overturn the Supreme Court order of August 12, 2005declaring quotas in unaided colleges as "unconstitutional" -- as mandatingOBC reservations in the IITs and IIMs and so on. What is worrisome is that theHRD minister is not alone in this regard as the CPI (M) believes that the UPAgovernment’s decision to come up with the enabling draft Bill is only a "consequentialaction" after the 104th Amendment was passed.

To be sure, the Union HRD ministry’s draft Bill will be challenged in thecourts. The former chief justice of India whose 7-judge bench had ruled againstquota in private colleges says the quota bill as well as the amendment toArticle 15 (5) of the Constitution could be struck down: "The ball will bein the court's court now". But there should be no denying the widespread political support for thismove, if the parliamentary debate of December 21, 2005 is any indication. Thereare also no prizes for guessing that what is keeping the Prime Minister silentis the inexorable logic of this affirmative action drive in institutions ofhigher learning that will force him one day to go along with reservations alsoin the private sector.

Since Arjun Singh has been cast in the role of Judas in this controversy,there are also those who point to the recent revelations about the Gospel ofJudas, according to which Judas was only acting on Jesus' directions. The ironycouldn't be more pronounced. There are also those who are going through everypronouncement of the Prime Minister, and are willing to read much even into his cryptic remarksin a different context as he gave away the Goenka Journalism awards: "Massmedia may give greater expression to those who are vocal and articulate, but itis the electoral process that reflects the will of the silent majority. Nodemocratically elected government can ignore the interests of the silentmajority."

Contrary to the simplistic interpretations of the reservation controversy, l’affaire Arjun Singh is yet another illustration of the difficulties ofworking in a rainbow coalition in which the Left has a significant constituencywithin the ruling Congress party itself to exert pressure for affirmative actionand social sector spending than reforms per se. Dr Singh has so farsuccessfully dealt with Natwar Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar but responding toArjun Singh’s draft Bill is not going to be that easy as his idea is also onewhose time has perhaps come!

N Chandra Mohan is a Delhi-based analyst of economic and business affairs