Devaluing education with quota politics

I have also shown how the present government8217;s extraordinary leniency towards the Italian fugitive Ottavio Quattrocchi, who had played the key role in channelling the political payoffs in the Bofors scandal, is completely out of character with the principled manner in which Pandit Nehru and his son-in-law Feroze Gandhi who is the father-in-law of Sonia Gandhi had conducted themselves in the infamous Mundhra scam in 1958.

There is also the curious case of the Congress party withdrawing its support to the I K Gujral-led United Front government in 1998. The stated reason for toppling the second UF government was that Gujral8217;s cabinet had a minister from the DMK, which had been indicted by the Jain Committee in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The Congress had already toppled the H D Deve Gowda-led UF government in 1997 on flimsy grounds. Seven years later, the Congress had no qualms in taking the DMK as its ally and its members as ministers in the UPA Government.

On Thursday, the Congress leadership gave another demonstration of either ignorance or selective amnesia about a stand that both Pandit Nehru and his son Rajiv Gandhi had taken on the issue of reservations. I refer to HRD Minister Arjun Singh8217;s announcement about reserving 27 per cent of the total seats in IITs, IIMs and Central universities for OBCs, taking the aggregate reservations in these institutions of higher studies to 49.5 per cent. So far, 22.5 per cent seats were reserved for SCs 15 per cent and STs 7.5 per cent.

Nehruji used to make his mind known on various issues of national importance through his regular, and amazingly detailed and candid, letters to chief ministers. In one such letter to CMs, written on June 27, 1961, he dealt with the sensitive issue of reservations, including religion-based reservations. Incidentally, the Congress led by Sonia Gandhi is also aggressively pushing for religion-based reservations, a topic I shall deal with in a subsequent column. Today8217;s is limited only to the OBC quotas.

Read these forthright words of India8217;s first prime minister: 8216;8216;I have referred above to efficiency and to our getting out of our traditional ruts. This necessitates our getting out of the old habit of reservations and particular privileges being given to this caste or that group8230;I dislike any kind of reservation, more particularly in services. I react strongly against anything which leads to inefficiency and second-rate standards8230;If we go in for reservations on communal and caste basis, we swamp the bright and able people and remain second-rate or third-rate. I want my country to be a first-class country in everything. The moment we encourage the second-rate, we are lost. I am grieved to learn how far this business of reservations has gone based on communal considerations.8217;8217; Nehruji8217;s final words of warning ring louder today than they did 45 years ago: 8216;8216;This way lies not only folly but disaster.8217;8217;

And what was Rajiv Gandhi8217;s position on extending reservations to OBCs? Public memory is short, but perhaps not as short as to make Indians forget that, in 1990, he had vociferously opposed the then prime minister V P Singh8217;s Mandal politics. In what was his longest speech in the Lok Sabha, on September 6, 19908212;he spoke for 150 minutes in the debate on the Mandal Commission recommendations8212;Rajiv, as the leader of the opposition, charged V P Singh with threatening the 8216;8216;unity and integrity8217;8217; of India. 8216;8216;You have ignited caste violence all over the country,8217;8217; he thundered.

Rajiv Gandhi based his opposition to the Mandal Commission recommendations on OBC quotas on the 8216;8216;creamy layer8217;8217; concept, which is absolutely relevant in the context of extending OBC reservations to IITs and IIMs. Citing the case of a judge belonging to a backward caste who had served in that position for 15 years, Rajiv said: 8216;8216;Suppose the judge joins politics and becomes a minister. Should he be given the benefit of reservations? Should his children be given such assistance? The assistance should go to someone else who needs it. Do we want the benefits of reservations to be cornered by the ministers, their sons and their families? Do we want these benefits to go to landlords who have big properties?8217;8217;

Let me strike a personal note here. When I was in IIT Bombay, we had the son of a cabinet-rank minister in Rajiv Gandhi8217;s government getting admission through the SC quota. The minister had been elected from a reserved constituency five times. He had amassed a lot of wealth, a partial proof of which was the palatial house he had built for himself in his hometown. There are examples aplenty of the children of ministers, MPs, MLAs and IAS officers benefiting from quotas even when they stand way down in the merit list. Clearly, the time has come to apply the 8216;8216;creamy layer8217;8217; logic to wealthy SC and ST families. Although the Supreme Court has upheld the exclusion of the 8216;8216;creamy layer8217;8217; in the implementation of Mandal recommendations, many from that layer have found ways of still creaming the quota benefits.

A shocking aspect of the Government8217;s decision to introduce 27 per cent OBC quotas in IITs, IIMs and central universities is the total lack of prior debate and consultations. The Government is defending its latest quota decision by referring to the 104th amendment to the Constitution, passed during the Winter Session last year, for the introduction of quotas in all unaided educational institutions. However, among the several questions that those in the Government will have to answer is this: Why are there no reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs in minority education institutions?

As everyone knows, many professional educational institutions of high repute and long standing are run by minority education trusts. In recent years, a large number of minority-run private engineering colleges, management institutions, medical colleges, dental colleges have also come up. In many states, their growth surpasses that of non-minority institutions. If these are excluded from the ambit of quotas for SC, ST and OBCs, how can the Government claim that the 104th amendment was introduced solely to 8216;8216;empower the SC, ST and OBCs8217;8217;?

All in all, we see how the present Congress leadership has allowed itself to be guided by partisan and short-term electoral considerations at the cost of a long-term, holistic and inclusive vision for the development of education in India. In the process, it has opened a Pandora8217;s box on reservations and reservation-based politics.

write to sudheen.kulkarniexpressindia.com