There’s no merit in this argument, alas

Nariman mocks at the Bill, on the ground that “this would necessarily put a premium on sloth and inefficiency in the higher echelons of administration and make a mockery of merit in all government services, which is the linchpin of all good governance”. Like most apologists of meritocracy, Nariman goes along the theory that the State’s sole role is to maintain law and order and and allow “civil society” to set its own socio-economic and cultural life. The learned lawyer raises two interlinked questions here.

First, he assumes that by lowering the eligibility criterion, inefficiency in governance will creep in. Second, by implication, he gives the State no role other than that of policing. But do his arguments hold?

According to the Report referred to earlier, about 87 per cent of the Group A Central Government positions are held by merit-wallahs. Nariman, and his ilk, tend to sheepishly turn their backs when confronted by facts. We, however, would like a fresh debate. We would welcome a credible, nation-wide survey to find out what proportion of people think Indian bureaucrats efficient and honest? We must also find out which State-run institutions have not deteriorated after Independence? According to Commission’s report, the Judiciary is one organ that has remained unpolluted by the presence of Dalits. Can Nariman contest our perception that the Judiciary the most inefficient arm of the State?

Nariman quotes several Articles of the Constitution to strengthen his case. But doesn’t he quote the Preamble? Even an average student of law would be able to explain that the Preamble is the Objective of the Republic. In fact when Nehru moved it on December 13, 1946, it was officially termed the Objective Resolution.

Mr Nariman can go through Constituent Assembly debates and find out what the Objective Resolution stood for. Why the words “…resolved … to secure to all its citizens: Justice (social, economic and political), Liberty, Equality etc…” were inserted? The Constituent Assembly felt that “although India has evolved into a Sovereign Democratic Republic, but the traditional society continues structured along Chatur-Varna lines where Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity do not exist, and therefore, the Indian Republic must secure it to all its citizens”.

Why do graduates from IITs or trained doctors prefer the IAS or the Revenue Services over their own professions? It’s simple really. People who have enjoyed the benefits of an inherently oppressive Chatur-Varna order, perceive the State as a gold mine, to be plundered. Often the people who have suffered from that oppressive order perceive the State as an emancipator and display an amazingly high degree of commitment to it.

We, the responsible citizens of this nation, wish to know from the “learned constitutional expert” what the prime objective of the Republic is “good governance in order to maintain law and order” or “good governance in order to re-structure traditional society into a modern, democratic, equitable order as visualised in the Preamble of the Constitution”? Surely the evidence of five decades is enough to prove that “merit” is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Prasad is president, Dalit Shiksha Andolan, and `Bechain’ is the convenor of the Dalit Writers’ Forum