With Some Reservations

The starting point is a proposition we are re- luctant to admit, since it is assumed to be polit-ically incorrect. All reservations are inefficient, be it for women, SC/STs, OBCs, or brahmins as temple priests. Reservations constrain choice and constrained choice cannot be as efficient as unconstrained choice. It is a separate matter that we may be prepared to tolerate the ineffi-ciency for non-economic reasons.

Thus, the book begins with Jawaharlal Nehru’s letter to the chief ministers, on June 27, 1961, where he argued: “But 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… This way lies not only folly, but disaster.” This is not an argument against anti-poverty programmes or positive affirmation in favour of disadvantaged seg-ments.

Shourie writes: “We should be alert to the way catch expressions—‘the poor’, ‘the backwards’, ‘social justice’— are being used to undermine standards, to flout norms, to put institutions to work—not for the millions in those categories but for the ones who have fooled those millions with those catch phrases… After it has been in effect for a while, subject every concession to empirical evi-dence.

Shift back from the figment, equality of outcomes, to equality of opportunities. And in striving towards that, compel politicians to move away from the easy option—of just de-creeing some reservations, etc—to doing the detailed and continuous work that positive help requires, the assistance that the disadvan-taged need for availing equal opportunities… The individual, and not the group, should be the unit of state policy.”

This is a key point and occurs in the last chapter, ‘The Other Way’, because the book’s focus is somewhat different. This is the key be-cause it forms the core of all public interven-tion. The backward and the poor need to be identified. There are many factors that lead to backwardness and caste is only one explana-tory variable. Indeed, by using any collective identity to target, one encounters the problem of subsidising those who do not deserve it and excluding others who should have benefitted.

To get back to the meat of the book, it is a disturbing historical sketch of how a perversi-on of the Constitution came about. Classifica-tion based on caste became the rule. Enabling provisions became mandatory. A mythical 50 percent figure surfaced. There was no attempt to preclude a creamy layer. Reservations at en-try became reservations in promotions, later transformed into a right to accelerated promo-tions and accelerated promotions with conse-quential seniority. There was a right to dilute prescribed standards, which were then waived.

The courts, and the state, fell over backwards to comply. Two of the most interesting parts of this book are discussions of the Censuses and the 52 percent figure for OBCs. One tends to as-sume that caste classifications are given exoge-nously and the Census merely enumerates them. Arun Shourie demonstrates that caste determination became endogenous to the enumeration exercise. As for the Mandal com-mission’s 52 per cent figure for OBCs, the em-pirical basis for this figure is shakier still.

Given the controversy reservations have gen-erated, this book should be mandatory read-ing. So that the facts are in place. “Restoring su-bstance to public discourse, thus, is the prerequisite we need. And the pre-requisite for that is the courage to stand in the face of intel-lectual fashions. And a little obstinacy—that we will shun superciliousness, that we will ex-amine each issue in depth. After all, the future of our country depends on the outcome.” Are we ready for the truth and the challenge?