FOCUS

PATELS, ANSARI & KALAM:
THE RESERVATION CONUNDRUM

“I will not be presumptuous enough to say that my life can be a role model for anybody; but some poor child living in an obscure place in an underprivileged social setting may find a little solace in the way my destiny has been shaped. It would perhaps help such children liberate themselves from the bondage of their illusory backwardness and hopelessness”

The above statement, attributed to former President of India, late Dr APJ Abdul Kalam has to be dissected verbatim to let the world know, the beauty of the personality of Dr. Abdul Kalam, born into a Muslim family, died a practicing Muslim, yet like Mahatma Gandhi “World will scarce believe that such a one as this would ever have walked upon on this earth in flesh and blood.”

Indeed Dr. Abdul Kalam is the most acceptable human being in India’s public space, where 80% of its population constitutes Hindus.

He was, as he writes in his autobiography “WINGS OF FIRE”, born in Rameshwaram, a non-descript town, without the paraphernalia of modernity with no facility of a high school or a hospital. He was born into an unlettered parentage without much wealth, but just enough to live with essentials. Yet, as’ The Hindu’ commented on his autobiography “Deeply passionate story of a common boat owner’s son, who has become India’s most distinguished living technocrat…”

All through his working life of some 35 years, he worked for Government of India agencies of Ministry of Defense. It was under his stewardship that India achieved a significant self reliance in space and defence technologies. A grateful nation not only awarded him with the nation’s highest recognition, “Bharath Rathna” but also made him the 1st citizen of the country by anointing him as the 11th President of India. In his entire journey of close to 70 years, prior to his occupancy of Rashtrapathy Bhavan, he only practiced what John F Kennedy had asked his countrymen. “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

And comes, the Vice President of India, Mohammed Hamid Ansari, who is the only person to have been elected to the position of Vice President of India twice after Dr.S. Radhakrishnan. Thus, he is the Vice president of India since 2007 and shall continue to be so, until Aug 2017. Born into a political and affluent family of a former Congress President Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari, he did not experience any hardship on the way to adulthood as Dr Abdul Kalam has experienced: An MA in political science from Aligarh Muslim University, he started his career as an IFS appointee, represented India in the U N, was High Commissioner to Australia, was Ambassador to the UAE, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia. He was made chairman of Minorities Commission, which he resigned to become the Vice President of India. Thus it is very clear, he lived much better life and was politically supported by the government of the day, in all his appointments indicating his proximity to the ruling class.

On 31st Aug 2015, he addressed the 50th Anniversary of All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM), a body, which reportedly opposed reforms among Muslims.

Commending the objectives of “Sab ke saath,Sab ka Vikas” of the present government, he complained stating “Identity and security, education and empowerment, equitable share in the largess of the state, besides fair share in decision making are the principal problems of India’s Muslims” “These are rights of citizen and this discrimination has to be corrected.” 

Clearly, this was not an address of nation’s Vice President. He spoke like a Muslim politician. He was making veiled reference to Reservations to Muslims. So late in the day, he is bordering on 80, he suddenly realized, after 68 years of independence that Muslims in India need state largesse. Because he belonged to Muslim elite with political connection, he didn’t need help from state for advancement. Life has been fairly hunky-dory for Ansari. Not so for Dr. Abdul Kalam, he had to strenuously work his way up. He is a classic example of dedicated commitment to the national cause. Unlike Ansari, who spoke about rights, Dr. Kalam only thought of his duties. That was how he made that epochal statement that “Country is bigger than an individual.” 

Tufail Ahmad, director of South Asian Studies at the Middle East Media Research Institute in Washington, responded to Ansari’s speech with a piece “WHY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL PATH FOR MUSLIMS?” He recounted “At the AIMMM event, Ansari spoke as the leader of Muslims, not as the nations Vice President. Indians are in search of a Muslim politician in the mould of APJ Abdul Kalam, not Hamid Ansari.” According to him “India is yet to produce a Muslim who could present himself as the leader of all Indians.” He also feels “Qualitatively, Indian Muslims do not qualify as a minority. Only women, Scheduled castes and Tribes are India’s first sociological minorities because they are subjugated, while Muslims conduct themselves as a politically vocal group. This is not a sign of subjugation”. He asserts further “Ansari must keep in mind: Sachar like reports were produced to serve official secularism.” That was a kind of nail, that almost asked Vice President Hamid Ansari to ‘take a walk’.

Thus it was very clear to Tufail Ahmad, that Vice President should not have stated what he stated at the AIMMM event, while stressing “Any attempt by Ansari and others to insert Islam as a criterion of politics must be condemned. It is time India’s youth spoke against leaders who advocate quotas in the name of religion and caste.”

So you have two constitutional figures, one former and the other current. One exhorted the youth to ‘Liberate themselves from the bondage of their illusory backwardness and hopelessness.’ The other is demanding reservation in the state largesse for his community. Besides the common constitutional position both had - one as President and the other as Vice President, both are practicing Muslims. Of course Dr Abdul Kalam is no more.

Now going back to the title of this Focus, we have dealt with Dr Abdul Kalam, and Mr Hamid Ansari, hence are left with Patels.

On July 6, first of the many rallies by Patels of Gujarat was held in Mehsana. It was reportedly led by a young man- Hardik Patel, all of 22. The rally was to seek OBC status for Patels, to get reservation in education and employment. It was followed by a rally on 23rd July in Visnagar in North Gujarat. Reportedly it turned violent. On Aug 17, Surat saw another rally, reportedly over 3 lakh Patels took part. A ‘Maha Kranthi Rally’ in Ahmadabad followed on 25th Aug, with lakhs of Patels on the street. Reportedly city came to a standstill. Consequent to a Gujarat Bandh call, state, too reportedly, came to a standstill. Bandh turned violent, and some 6 people died. Internet and social media was banned.

Reservation, as envisaged in the constitution is for those who are in the margins, deprived of opportunities and means for better education and employment. But Patels are a dominant community with solid means. According to published accounts, they dominate hotel industry, pharma manufacturing industry and pharma distribution, chemical, plastic, real estate, ceramic and diamond industries, not only in Gujarat but in many places outside Gujarat. They are also into big time politics with 3 chief ministers in the past and the current incumbent being Anandhiben Patel. There is a huge Patel NRI group all over the world; In U.S there used to be jokes making its round-from Hotels to Motels to Patels – indicating their dominance in hotels and motels in the U.S. Thus, it’s a community which is powerful with not only in money power, but also in political power. So Reservation is clearly a politically inspired arm twisting exercise. Keshubhai Patel, a former Gujarat chief Minister, never concealed his dislike of Narendra Modi’s growth trajectory. So, is this an attempt to check-mate Modi! Historically Patels always opposed reservation. In 1981, when it was introduced by Solanki government, riots erupted which led to some 100 deaths. In 1985, anti-quota agitation by Patels turned violent and some close to 400 died. Solanki government was dismissed as a result. So, why suddenly the stand of Patels against reservation reversed?

On the face of it there is absolutely no scope for further reservation. Things are going to be extremely dicey with Marathas in Maharashtra, Gujjars is Rajasthan and Jats in Haryana waiting in the wings to be included in the quota, or to fish in troubled water!

So what is the solution?

Probably disband quota based on discriminative caste and religion. Make quotas only on economic model. Then all would be covered, irrespective of caste, languages and religion. There would be no hankering from Patels, Gujjars, Marathas, Jats and Muslims, once economic criteria is accepted. Even the father of constitutional reservation on caste basis, Dr Ambedkar, did not want it to continue beyond 10 years.

Of course, those who are already covered by 49.5% reservation in force, there has to be ways and means to slowly dismantle the quota regime, and have large scale skill development schemes for jobs, coaching classes for educationally backward classes and other reach out initiatives.

Surely, the present government in Delhi has to get down from its ivory tower mentality to talk to all political parties to have consensus and then take all stake holders on board to make quota of reservation a thing of the past, and make state largesse distributed on more equitable model.

Certainly this is easier said than done. But a national debate may have to be set in motion ‘towards a quota free society’ where only meritocracy rules.

 Are Quotas Rational & Moral?

The problem that has plagued India since Independence has flared up again: caste-based reservations for education, employment and career promotions. In the last four decades of living in Europe, I have heard both sides of the debate. As an Indian living abroad, it appears to me that these debates actually raise one single question: Are Indians irrational or immoral, or both? This is the un-debated side of the reservation discourse in India. Let me explain. Is caste-based reservation a rational policy to follow? The answer to this question does not require a definition of ‘rationality’. Instead, the issue is: does this policy eventuate in irrational consequences or effects?

Consider two individuals: one outside the reserved category, the other within. The former knows that to get an admission in a good university, he should belong to the top 0.5 percent of the applicants. He knows too that he will not be part of the very few, who make the grade. Thus, what is the most rational thing for him to do? If putting in enormous effort and taking it easy, both produce the same result, it is rational for him to extend less effort. Consider the later. He knows that to get a seat in a good university, he only needs 35 percent. Getting more marks will not increase his chances. No matter how little effort he puts in, he will get the desired seat. As a rational agent, therefore, he too takes it easy. Because knowledge and competence are mostly commensurate with the efforts put in to acquire them, expending little effort implies equivalent increase in ignorance and incompetence. 

Since the caste based reservation makes it rational for people both in and outside reservation to choose to be lazy, there is an incentive to remain ignorant, incomplete and inefficient. If this attitude is generalized (in college, courts and bureaucracy), it produces and reproduces such people. Result: the institution they run cannot be more efficient than them. The inevitable consequence is the collapse of both the society and its institutions. That is how outsiders perceive India today: her courts, educational institutions, bureaucracy, police, governments, are in the process of breaking down.

Why does this rationality argument not figure in Indian discourse? There is a well-known answer: the reservation is the reparation for the injustice committed by one group of people against another over two millennia or more. In that case, moral considerations trump rationality. If we accept that it is irrational to follow policies that lead to the collapse of society because everyone is rationally encouraged to pursue irrational goals, the question becomes: is it moral to be rational?

In and of itself, there is nothing absurd about it. One can indeed speak of local rationalities, such as scientific, technological and ecological rationalities and raise ethical questions about them. So, let us ask: irrespective of its rationality, is the caste-based reservation system moral?

Today, it is common sense to say that there is oppression of one group of people across the whole of India by another group of people spread equally widely across India. However, there can be no empirical evidence for this claim because say ‘Dalit’ or OBC (Other Backward Caste) is neither one social group nor one particular caste. Both names refer to sets of groups. It is only correct to say then that multiple groups have oppressed multiple other groups in the millennia in India. One could, of course, name the oppressed groups as the Dalits or OBCs. Sadly, this fact of oppression is true for all human civilizations. Therefore, if the reservation system is a moral critique of oppression, it would have to follow that all other societies except the Indian are immoral, because they do not have such a system. This suggestion is implausible. Is the reservation system a payment for the sins of our forefathers, who instituted an unjust social system? This could be true, but only if one argues that the children of oppressor have to pay for the sins of their forefathers.

This moral stance is unique to the Judaic tradition, where the sins of the fathers visit their sons. No other moral tradition has coherently argued this. I am aware that some Indians do talk in this fashion but theat is incoherent within the framework of Indian culture.

Rightly or wrongly, ideas like karma and punarjanma require that only the agent pays for his misdeeds. If one has to pay for the misdeeds of another, what do karma and karmaphala mean? The entire set of Indian tradition would become totally incoherent. Therefore, you cannot assume this ethical stance unless you are a Jew yourself. But Jewish Israel has no reservation system. Neither are Indians Jewish. Hence, this moral justification does not work.

Can we not say that the reservation system is the reparation of past damages, whether inflicted on one group or multiple groups? Maybe. In the case of the Native Americans, for example, the white settlers took away their lands and became wealthy as a result. The Nazis deprived the Jews: of property, wealth, and life itself. African-American were displaced and transformed into slaves.

Perhaps, one could also address the British: for the damages inflicted by colonialism. In all these cases, a specific group appropriate unjustly what belonged to another specific group. Again, there is no historical evidence to indicate that there was dispossession of the property of one particular group by another specific group all over India.

If none of these arguments work, why does this policy appeal? Is it because of the demand of justice in general and of social justice in particular? If this is the case, one should give the criteria of justice and of social justice that make sense of caste-based reservation. Nobody has done so. Surely, those who question the morality of rationality mean something other than all these flawed arguments.

Here is one such. Just structures are preferable, since they always generate just consequences. However, it has been shown that structures, in certain contexts, produce unjust consequences. Therefore, this claim is not a logical truth; we are compelled to show empirically that the reservation system is not generating unjust consequences. If that were to be the case, there would be no Patel, Gurjar or Jat protests, nor mandal commission. Thus, the reservation system is not an embodied critique for a local rationality (‘the’ case system) nor it is about the morality of rationality.

Consequently, the caste-based reservation system is neither rational nor moral. One has to say that Indians are either irrational or immoral or both, if they defend reservation. The British were reluctant to give self-rule or independence to India because many were convinced that Indians were immoral and irrational. Looking from the outside today, one is compelled to ask: were the British telling the truth, after all?

The writer is a Prof at Ghent University, Belgium and Director of India Platform and Research Centre, Comparative Science of Cultures.

************

CONFESSION OF AN UNKNOWN INDIAN

I am an OBC by the constitutional classification of the Indian nation. I have had no role in being within this OBC. Quite frankly it matters nothing to me as an individual. This classification was affected by the constitution makers ostensibly to help the person within this group like so many other groupings, for some government handouts and possibly some positive discrimination by the state.

I grew up like most Indians of lower middle class. Having had schooling in some government school; for which I did not have to pay. I am from coastal Karnataka district of Dakshina Kannada. Life was largely uneventful. Managed to complete the school. So far the system was taking care of my education. I was just an average student without any academic brilliance.

College education required payment of fees. I enrolled myself into a commerce college in the city of then Bombay, where my father was a small time shopkeeper. Without much of expectation or rather not knowing what to expect, life trudged along.

One day my father sold his business interest and shifted back to the village in Dakshina Kannada.

Suddenly life experienced a bit of an upheaval. I had a lot of relatives in Mumbai, yet I was alone. Managed to take up a small job. Meeting two ends with college fees, boarding & lodging was not easy, but there was no choice. Being just an average student I took more years to clear my graduation than what was required. Managed to join a big business group as an Accounts Assistant. But big people are not always big at heart. Payment was poor. Then managed to join a German pharmaceutical company in its Accounts Department with better payment and better working environment. Life slightly improved.

I also had the responsibility of assisting the family back in Dakshina Kannada with younger sibling’s education being of importance. Life was not easy but definitely better than lot of Indians of the time. It was a struggle alright, but a struggle which I had accepted. I had no complaint against the society of the time. Neither did I expect the government to look after my needs, or that of my family. I even gave tuition and taught in a tutorial college to make some extra money. But fortunately I had a saving streak. I was not a spend thrift. In the mean time I managed to complete my M.com from the University of Bombay in my 2nd attempt. So also completed my intermediate ICWA. With the experience I gained in the accounts department of this German pharmaceutical company and additional qualification, scouting for a vertical change began. Managed to get called for some bigger and better positions. Suddenly an opening in Muscat, Oman came calling and my experience and qualification suited like a round peg in the round hole. For almost 20 years I worked in Muscat, which included a stint as trader and civil contractor. Worked very hard for all the 20 years, sometime even as long as 15 hours.

I strongly believed hard work did not cheat anybody. Thus working long hours became an attitude. While being in the Middle East, I had wild ups and downs, especially when I tried to be on my own. With law heavily loaded in favour of the locals, one had to tread rather cautiously. I have been able to manage decent savings which helped me launch on my own back in India.

Looking back, especially in the context of politics of reservation and Sachar Committee reports on minorities, I deem it a privilege to tell all Indians that if you do not come out of dependency syndrome, you will be condemned to remain dependent on whimsical politics of reservation and politically oriented largesse. Our 68 years of post-independence experiment in social justice has only made us dependent. Is this the freedom we deserve? Biggest empowerment comes from within. Develop a mental freedom. Empowerment is only as far as that. 

As told to I&C