Opinion EWS Quota: A political freebie

In the context of reservation for EWS, it can be argued that the children of the poor from the upper castes — vegetable vendors, construction labourers, challenged individuals, self-employed or unemployed widows — deserve reservation at least as much as the children from Dalit households, who have enjoyed high economic and social status, say, for two generations. It would not be surprising if the above stipulation enjoys a large measure of support among a cross-section of political parties and general population. However, the question is: “Was this the principle based on which this new quota has been proposed and supported by the opposition with some minor dissent?”

Given contemporary realities and institutional infirmities, is it possible to ring fence this 10 per cent quota? The finance minster, while talking about direct tax collection, has often argued that given our democratic structure, it is difficult to work out clear operational criteria to identify the people who must pay taxes. Even after more than five years after demonetisation, the government has not taken action against the account holders who deposited old currency well above their normal cash balance or indulged in other malpractices. Interestingly, the opposition has made no demand for it. Clearly, they all fear losing their vote bank.

The dearth of will and capacity to target the new quota to the actual poor is evident from the criteria that are likely to be fixed for identifying the potential beneficiaries. Persons from households with annual earning below Rs 8 lakh, possessing agricultural land below five acres, a plot less than 100 yards in a notified municipality or below 200 yards in the non-notified municipal area would be eligible for the reservation. The amendment also allows the states to set income cut-offs to decide who constitutes EWS. They can even relax the criteria set by the Centre. It also allows the states to notify EWS “from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage”, even if they are “adequately represented” in government jobs.

SCs, STs and OBCs account for 70 per cent of the population and are entitled to 49.5 per cent reservation in the government sector. The eligibility issue thus pertains to the remaining 30 per cent or 42 crore people who fall under the general category. Calculations based on available data suggest that about 95 per cent of the people in the general category will be eligible under the proposed criteria.

Given the massive number of eligible people among the upper castes and a small window of opportunity, it is not difficult to understand who would be the real beneficiaries of the rather generous eligibility criteria. It is very likely that the middle class, those who work in the private sector, where it is difficult to establish the actual income, the unscrupulous who can manipulate the system through false declarations, would grab the benefits, along with political pressure groups. The children of street vendors and agricultural labourers have very little chance to benefit from the new quota.

Indeed, whenever any committee has shown the benevolence of defining poverty with a high cut-off point, the outcome has been the top 10 to 20 per cent among the eligible grabbing all benefits. It is not a level-playing field. And the poor, as defined by the Tendulkar or Rangarajan Committees, stand very little chance of benefiting from the new quota. It is absurd to believe that Muslims would benefit from the quota, simply because they have a higher share among the poor. Very few Muslims would be in the top 20 per cent among those eligible for the EWS quota. The poor do not constitute a vote bank and can be swayed by promises. When they realise who the real beneficiaries are, it will be too late.

Kundu is Senior Fellow at the World Resources Institute