I was at my alma mater, SJCE last Sunday afternoon to try and play devil's advocate with the debaters at the annual literary fest Shabd. I have been told, often with a sneer, that argument is the only form of conversation I know. The jibe, though, transforms into a confidence boosting cheer when I am expected to dissect and dispute claims.
After the first two rounds, I felt it would help everyone remain involved in the debate if a controversial topic was thrown at the participants. From the list that the organizers had put together and publicized earlier, I chose to ask our debaters if the time had come to revisit the reservation laws. There were two teams of three folks arguing for and against the idea, their positions determined by a toss of the coin. The event is called Sansad, and I thought it might help them appreciate ideas better if they had to randomly oppose or defend them, combing for, as needed, the good and the bad aspects inherent to an idea.
This particular debate, however, seemed to lose focus again and again, as the participants struggled with their own emotional reactions to the word reservation. While some said that reservation was holding India back, others insisted that reservation is a necessity. There was the usual leaning on numbers to state how the few unreserved seats in educational institutions curtail opportunities for many, while some stated, based on their own observations, that those propped up by reservation were being better and more determined students. One participant made the most significant claim in saying that many people he knows do not go to Government hospitals because they are not convinced of the efficacy of doctors cast ahead of meritorious competition by caste. Another built upon this claim to make the case for reservations: reservations must be there till people do not choose their doctor by caste.
Both the claim and the counterclaim were strong, but revealed an inherent contradiction in the present reservation regime as regards its objective and its efforts. We have to remember that the reservation scheme that exists was created in response to a society that was emphatically divided by caste, and where economic endeavors were indexed to the social hierarchy. Therefore, it was exigent to economically empower the marginalized to redress their standard of living even as it was imperative to integrate everyone into a united Indian society. The discretionary preference accorded to further the education, income and enterprise of the historically oppressed classes was fully justified.
Turn to today's scenario. Undoubtedly reservation has to a degree achieved its goal of economic amelioration, and there is a wealthy, middle and poor class in each caste. But, the caste fault lines have not been sealed. This perpetuation of division is actually the effect of the positive feedback system that our reservation scheme is.
Consider the possibility of a General Merit student - yes, GM is now a category in itself! - vying for admission into an institute through a competitive examination. If she were to be pipped to a seat by someone with a lower ranking on account of the latter's caste, it would undoubtedly disappoint her. The disappointment, however, could become more distressing if she knew that her fellow student propelled forward by professed backwardness belonged to a well-heeled family, and consequently been through the best educational voyage possible. So, how should she reconcile with this seeming anomaly, wherein a person who has been groomed with all the requisite resources has been favored at her expense, when she has had to contend with fewer amenities and opportunities?
One option for her would be to buy into the myth venerated by some of her forbears: that the very fact of her birth in a non-backward caste was the greatest advantage she could have had, and she had failed to make the most of it. Such an acceptance would only engender or reinforce discrimination in her mind, and even if it weren't to make her more hostile, it would certainly not nudge her any closer to embracing an egalitarian view, what with the spectre of superiority resurrected in her mind. Or, she might just concur with the line of thought that the system is skewed against herself and her kind, festering in her a resentment of the undeserving usurpers. It is, either way, bound to be very difficult for her to come up with a benign rationale for her situation.
At the same time, if the person uplifted by her caste despite her affluent upbringing were to be troubled by an inquiry into her deserving such a push, she would have to arrive at her own set of conclusions too. What might she think? That it is only fair that she be favored as recompense for the deprivations to which her ancestors were subjected to? It certainly would be disastrous if she were to water down her sense of self with a sense of natal inferiority. Neither case would infuse her with the conviction necessary to be a champion of equality.
Staying with the competitive examination instance, those selected from among the candidates benefiting from reservation are again picked on the basis of their scores. So, someone who has edged out another solely owing to the superior learning environment that their families could afford, would essentially be keeping out a person more in need of an aid, one who belongs not only to a caste that has traditionally been wronged, but also belonging to the most modest economic class within her community. This, if anything, would only create a few more wrinkles in the social fabric, crumpling it along financial lines.
Staying with the competitive examination instance, those selected from among the candidates benefiting from reservation are again picked on the basis of their scores. So, someone who has edged out another solely owing to the superior learning environment that their families could afford, would essentially be keeping out a person more in need of an aid, one who belongs not only to a caste that has traditionally been wronged, but also belonging to the most modest economic class within her community. This, if anything, would only create a few more wrinkles in the social fabric, crumpling it along financial lines.
If it is indeed true that individuals are shaped by the nutrition, education and exposure their families can afford, wouldn't it seem a better idea to give the economically weak a fillip irrespective of their caste? While this may not entirely eradicate the menace of caste, it would perhaps encourage people to make peace with the bitter befallings from the past, and would surely not incentivize their clinging on to their caste-based identity. For true social integration to ever occur, caste should cease to have utility. But, as long as they continue to breed affiliation and alienation, we need to look for more effective cures than the remedy presently prescribed. Yes, economic inequality will still persist, and will require corrective measures of its own. But, that would be an issue sufficiently divorced from societal fragmentation.
Comments