Is this the ‘beginning of the end’? With the UPA government now deciding to introduce a 27% quota for OBCs in all higher education institutions, starting starting 2007, this at least is what those in the forefront of the anti-quota stir are likely to believe. The rapidity with which the government came to this decision, without engaging with the many counter-arguments advanced by those opposed to a regime of escalating quotas, may impel such a view.But, like all knee-jerk and extreme reactions, such a view is likely to be mistaken. This is not either the ‘end of merit’ or a fresh fuelling of a caste war. All we are likely to witness, given the efficiency with which the government engages in its pronouncements for advancing social justice, is that the already fierce competition for scarce seats in desirable institutions will become more fierce. The rules for entry have been altered and all of us having little choice will fall in line. Alternatively, those who can so afford will attempt to access education and training elsewhere.This may sound cynical, but given the fact that over some decades now governments have done little to enhance the number of quality institutions of learning, if not let many more become moribund and slip into mediocrity, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. One had expected that with the setting up of a Knowledge Commission, mandated to come up with proposals to revitalise our knowledge systems, we would see action on this front. Unfortunately, with the unseemly spat between the HRD ministry and the Commission, this initiative too seems to be heading towards extinction.Whether or not the UPA government gains brownie points for its symbolic commitment to the disprivileged, the greater tragedy of the announcement has been the foreclosure of what might have become a worthwhile public discussion on efficacious modes of affirmative action. The exchange between Pratap Mehta and Yogendra Yadav (IE, May 24) is marked by a civility unusual in charged situations. Nevertheless unless both sides are pushed into elaborating their stands further, we may end up where we began. Yadav points out that both the Knowledge Commission and Mehta have so far failed to advance any proposals to enhance social inclusion while maintaining quality other than asserting that the quota route is inefficacious. In so doing they have inadvertently aligned themselves with the vocal minority of anti-reservationists whose public symbolism, let us admit, smacks of upper caste prejudice. Further, he points out that Mehta is expressing surprising (naive?) faith in the goodwill of civil society and institutions whose track record of advancing social inclusion is suspect. Finally, Yadav points out that corrective radical social engineering has always emanated from the state.Nevertheless, one might ask why the same state over so many years has failed to make a great success of its quota regime. After all, if state supported institutions fail to fill their quotas, and over decades, and face no penal action for not meeting their constitutional obligations, surely some of the blame must fall on the state. Similarly, what has come in the way of institutions running quality remedial programmes to help those from less privileged backgrounds compete and perform well? Or is it that once having instituted a regime of quotas, interest in affirmative action wanes. Worse, why is it that over all these years we still don’t have authoritative studies on the working of different affirmative action schemes, including quotas?The debate is not about whether caste matters, or even the reality of social exclusion. This, more for Dalits than the OBCs, is undeniable. Nor can anyone contest that quotas helped break the social exclusiveness of our public sphere. The more relevant question is whether policies which served a useful function in particular a social and historical context, continue to do so in changed circumstances. Quotas are an instrument of policy, after all, not a matter of principle which has to be defenced in all situations.At one level, the arguments on either side of the divide are somewhat disingenuous. In the absence of reliable data on what works, to what degree, in what situation, we are left with reiteration of ex-ante positions. It is a matter of considerable dismay that for all our claims to scholarship we still have to turn to foreign scholars when debating issues concerning our society. It was left to Mare Gallanter to produce the authoritative tract on law and the backward classes (Competing Equalities). Today, we might benefit from exploring the suggestions advanced by Thomas Weisskopf (Affirmative Action in the United States and India). Then, hopefully, the discussion will shift to the outcomes and consequences of different positive discrimination policies. Weisskopf’s book provides many clues about the kind of indicators we need to develop to capture outcomes. If only our scholars take the cue and generate the needed data, instead of only positioning themselves, our debate may finally operate on a rational terrain.The writer is contributing editor, ‘Seminar’seminar@vsnl.com
