A measure of justice

Unfortunately, this is a problem with no easy solutions. International experience over time suggests that the magnitude of inter-group disparities and the extent of discrimination against stigmatised groups are independent of the country’s overall prosperity level, its rate of growth and the extent of market orientation of the country’s economy. Thus, growth enhancing policies and universal welfare programs, while important, cannot address under-represented groups, such as Dalits in India or blacks in the US. Hence, countries like the US, South Africa, Brazil and others have been experimenting with different policies.

So far India has addressed the issue mainly via quotas confined to public employment and education, and only for SCs, STs and now, OBCs. Given the multifaceted nature of group disparities, this approach is insufficient to increase the presence of the major under-represented groups in the entire economy. The Sachar Committee Report demonstrated, for example, the enduring marginalisation of Indian Muslims. The ministry of minority affairs appointed an expert group to create a Diversity Index (DI) to measure diversity in public spaces — education, employment and housing.

To begin with, the DI measures the gap between the proportion of the group (say, Muslims or women, or Dalits) in an institution and its proportion among the “eligible population.” Thus, for a bachelor’s degree, all those high school graduates constitute the eligible population. This gap is then calculated as a proportion of the share of the group in the population. The gap can be positive (for over-represented groups) or negative. The DI quantifies under-representations, so it only takes into account negative gaps. There are three broad dimensions across which the DI is calculated separately: caste, religion and gender. The different numbers are integrated horizontally (across the three social categories, using semi-flexible weights, reflecting the needs of the institution) and vertically (across the different tiers) to yield one number — a composite measure of diversity. The next step is to classify institutions (whether public or private) according to whether diversity is low (DI value between 0 and 1/3), medium (between 1/3 or 2/3) or high (between 2/3 and 1), and tied to plan allocations by the government.

The idea is to link the DI of an institution with financial rewards/penalties, so the exercise becomes a part of the country’s social ethos. Thus, the group has proposed the creation of an autonomous Diversity Commission at the national level. This body (and its corresponding lower level institutions) would have the task of evaluating and publicising the status of institutions annually in a Diversity Report. This public report would provide other rewards for institutions which value their reputation.

The proposed system is transparent, includes the major social groups, allows institutions flexibility in choosing weights to be applied to the social groups, is applicable across the board, and makes the target institutions stakeholders. It is not rigid and mechanical. India offers plenty of examples of how a state of persistent exclusion generates resentment that manifests itself in violence. The urgency of increasing diversity cannot be overemphasised.

The writer is Professor, Delhi School of Economics, and a member of the expert group on the Diversity Index)