Opinion Backwards logic

Despite many things in common,the recently concluded convention appears to be more significant,for two explicit reasons. One,serious deficits of Muslims in the public sphere,namely public employment and education is no longer a matter of conjectures. It is a fact established by none other than the prime minister’s high powered panel. Secondly,the Lok Sabha polls are round the corner. It is around this time the race for poaching every politically significant constituency intensifies.

Why reservation for Muslims? The standard arguments for are as follows. The educational and economic status of the community has slipped to the status of SCs (Dalits). The reason is obviously latent discrimination,which excludes the community from the schemes of distributive benefits,and nothing but a fixed quota is necessary for ensuring fair representation. It is also argued that a democratic state is morally bound to ensure equal participation of diverse ethnic groups in public spheres. Impossible though it may seem for any system to ensure that distributive benefits simply mirror its societal diversity,the huge persisting disparities along religio-ethnic axes is a deeper political issue. This has led many democratic countries around the world to opt for preferential policies for disadvantaged minorities. As a fixed quota for other disadvantaged communities is in place for representation in public employment and institutions of higher learning,fairness demands that same remedial measures be taken for Muslims.   

While these arguments are not entirely without merit,the advocacy for reservation is problematic. True,the Muslim community as a whole lags behind,yet the response of different sections within the community to expanding educational and economic opportunities is remarkably varied. The simplification of Muslims as an undifferentiated category is irrelevant for policy purposes. Secondly,it is the upper middle stratum of a group that aspires for higher education and white-collar professions. The benefits of reservation,therefore,essentially accrue to the tiny segment within the disadvantaged community. Past experiences have already confirmed that the benefits of reservation hardly trickle down to the large majority of people,who awai social inclusion. Thirdly,the overall well-being of any group depends on how far those at the bottom make their way to the middle. And this mobility could be accelerated by way of providing them with access to education and other resources. If so,we needto activate processes of empowerment or capability enhancement from below. Reservation actually does otherwise,further empowering the empowered. What is thus needed is not reservation but a wider,more inclusive policy framework.

If reservation does not offer a viable solution why is it so beloved of the vocal classes? For one,fairness in democracy is generally seen as representation of the group in public spheres,namely administrative positions and white-collar professions in proportion to its share in total population. When the vocal sections of a group feel that they are left out in the cold,they jump on the backwardness bandwagon and project their inability to getting on with available opportunities as the problem of the whole group. 

While this is not to deny that redistribution of elite positions by way of reservation overcomes the alienation of the elite of the disadvantaged group to some extent. But it would be better for the community and the socio-political system as a whole,if both turn a blind eye to such narrowly conceived proposals and work out better ways to deal with the problems faced by the majority of the community.    

The writer is associate fellow at Lokniti,Centre for the Study of Developing Societies