Context of Quotas
Caste in India has been the root cause of a high degree of social stratification and inequity. Much of the modern research on Indian society in anthropology, sociology and history has concentrated on the caste system even as all the reform movements in the 19th century tried to dispense with it and the inequities that it gave rise to. What is caste? The word itself is derived from Spanish and Portuguese `casta’ which means lineage. It was first used by the Portuguese to describe inherited class status in their own European society. The Oxford dictionary describes caste as “Indian hereditary class, with members socially equal, united in religion and usually following the same trade, having no social intercourse with persons of other castes”. The hereditary classes are distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or pollution and social status. Anthropologists generally use the term “caste” to refer to a socially endogamous and occupationally specialized group of people in societies with low social mobility. In such a society, an individual’s occupation and marriage prospects are determined by his or her birth and cannot be changed by any action on the person’s part. His or her position in the social hierarchy remains the same. Class, on the other hand, takes into account factors such as education, economics, occupation and others independent of birth and hence implies social mobility based on one’s achievements. It is based on far more egalitarian parameters than caste.
The endeavour to create social equality in a traditionally highly stratified and iniquitous society found its way in affirmative action embedded in the Constitution itself.[1] The idea was that certain groups of people had been traditionally kept out of positions of authority and had now to be given an opportunity to be a part of it. Hence caste-based quotas in government jobs were introduced. They were to be reviewed after a period of ten years but have continued to date and many would argue that it is not just due to a desire to create social equality but also to maintain leadership through vote bank politics. While there is consensus on quotas for Scheduled Castes, a euphemism for the erstwhile `untouchables’ and for Scheduled Tribes, the issue of Other Backward Classes has been contentious right from the beginning.[2] This is evident from the Kaka Kalelkar Commission,[3] the Mandal Commission[4] and from the numerous court cases pertaining to them. Kaka Kalelkar had himself realized the divisiveness of caste-based politics and had ensured that his Commission’s report was not accepted.
When quotas were expanded to accommodate the Other Backward Classes in government jobs in 1993 to the tune of 27 per cent over and above the existing 22.5 per cent for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, bringing the total to 49.5 per cent there was widespread and violent student agitation. Further expansion of quotas for Other Backward Classes took place as reservation of seats in institutions of higher education in 2006. Once again there was student agitation, but it was not as violent as in 1993. One reason for this difference could perhaps be the liberalization of economy which has shrunk the job opportunities in the government sector but created much greater and often more attractive job opportunities in the private sector. Also, liberalization and globalization has led to a wide expansion of higher education, especially technical and professional education in the private sector enabling the better off to avail of it. As Pawan Agrawal points out, growth trends in higher education in India have been changing since 1980 when there has been a clear trend towards privatization of higher education.[5] Figures upto 2005-06 show that now nearly 30 per cent enrolment is in private unaided institutions. These institutions offer professional courses for which there is a high demand. In addition, private universities and foreign education providers are also emerging on the scene. This is because demand far outstrips supply and a burgeoning middle class is able to pay the higher fees.
However, what all this history of contention about quotas has done is to lead to a much greater caste consciousness than before because of the benefits that can come by belonging to a certain caste. What was meant to wipe out inequity and injustice is now seen as a badge of privilege. Caste can thus become an asset or a liability for individuals and this creates divisiveness in society that spills into violent clashes between castes as was witnessed in the Gujar-Meena agitation in Rajasthan in 2006. The Supreme Court aptly remarked, India must be the only country where people line up to be counted among the backward because the label of backwardness is now a passport to privileges of scarce educational opportunities and coveted government jobs.
Other questions arise when quotas are extended to institutions of higher education. There is still a consensus as far as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe are concerned because the injustices against them have been so severe and for such a length of time that it is accepted that the damage caused would take a long time to be overcome. Caste-based atrocities continue even today on the Dalits. However, the Usha Mehra Commission is said to have raised some issues about this category also indicating that vested interests may have developed and the benefits may not be reaching the truly needy even in this group.[6] Similar concerns have been expressed by Justice Pasayat and Thakker in the Ashok Thakkur case (2006). They cite the research conducted by A.N. Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna that has revealed “a dual society among harijans, with a tiny elite gobbling up the benefits of reservations and the darker layers sleeping distances from the special concessions.”[7]
As far as Other Backward Classes are concerned, there is no consensus as many castes among them are fairly well off and are mainly landowning classes. So, it is argued, they have the means and opportunities to compete. This is what has led to the concept of creamy layer enunciated in the Indra Swahney case (1993)[8] which has been reinforced in the Ashok Thakkur case (2006). The debate is that if such castes are being given reservation what about some members of the `forward’ castes who may also be equally socially and educationally backward due to poverty? The debate may get more heated as the economic bar to be excluded from the creamy layer has been raised from an annual income of Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 4,50,000/-. This makes fairly affluent OBCs entitled to preferential quotas, while the economically worse off `forward’ castes receive no state support.
Expansion of reservations brings to the fore the issues about the extent to which individual rights can be circumscribed by group rights without violating the principle of equality. The court had put a ceiling of 50 per cent over quotas but even this has been violated by some states, for example, Tamil Nadu, which has 69 per cent reservation. Besides, it has to be remembered that it is the individual who enters an educational institution and not a group and it is this individual who has to cope in the classroom. As Justices Passayat and Thakker point out in the Ashok Thakkur case, that discrimination is not the only problem exacerbated by reservation. Given that reserved category students gain admission with lower marks, they are also likely to exhibit less confidence in their studies when pitted against the general category. They cite the work of Marie Gryphon, a policy analyst for the Cato Institute in Washington DC on the unintended consequences of preferential treatment for minorities in college admissions in the United States. She writes: “Recent research shows that affirmative action impedes academic achievements by undermining minority students’ confidence.”[9]
Preferences harm students’ self-images, and this affects their grades and graduation rates. The study builds on earlier work by Stanford University sociologist Claude Steele, who coined the term “stereotype threat” to refer to the decline in performance suffered by members of groups because of negative group stereotypes. Steele tested his theory by giving standardized exams to groups of white and African-American undergraduates at Stanford University. When some black students were asked to indicate their race on the exam, they did worse than the African American students who had not been asked to do this. This showed that even minority students who do not need preferences respond to an environment characterized by the relative academic weakness of minorities by worrying about confirming a negative stereotype and thus get lower grades. The point that the state was trying to make was that affirmative action could produce consequences that outweighed its supposed benefits.[10]
When individuals are given admission at much lower eligibility standards because of belonging to a particular group and there are reservations to the tune of 50 per cent or more, the idea of merit becomes marginalized if not irrelevant. Social engineering dominates over the maintenance of standards and excellence which can be detrimental to the educational institutions and eventually to the nation as a whole as good higher education is the key to development.
Have the Quotas in Higher Education Worked?
But before caste-based quotas and their expansion can be accepted or rejected, it must be evaluated in a systematic manner which unfortunately has not been done. Prof. Thorat’s Nehru Memorial Lecture to the University of Mumbai in 2006 raises some vital issues of concern.[11] He points out that although the reach of higher education has increased dramatically since independence, it still leaves a lot to be desired at all levels of access, inclusiveness and quality.
Thorat cites from three alternative methods used to estimate the extent of access to higher education: Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER), Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) and Enrolment of the Eligible Ratio (EER). GER measures access by taking the ratio of persons in all age groups enrolled in various programmes to total population in the age group of 18 to 23 years. The Net Enrolment Ratio measures the extent to which the population eligible to participate is enrolloed. EER measures the level of enrolment of those who completed the higher secondary level of education. Data on student enrolment is provided mainly through three sources: Selected Education Statistics (SES), National Sample Survey (NSS) and Population Census (PC).
Accurate data is a problem. For example, GER based on the Selected Educational Statistics (SES) was 8 per cent in 2000, but the National Sample Survey (NSS) and Population Census (PC) put it at 10 per cent and 14 per cent respectively. The differences could be for two reasons: SES does not take into account enrolment in unrecognized institutions and also some State Governments do not report their enrolment annually. The NSS and PC report higher per centages because their data is collected from households and hence may include those who are doing diploma or training programmes like computer training in unrecognized institutions. The PC data also does not distinguish between professional degree and diploma programmes.
Thorat studies disparities under seven heads:[12] (i) rural and urban; (2) inter-state; (3) inter-caste; (4) inter-religion; (5) male-female; (6) occupation group and (7) poor and non-poor. The disparities revealed show that caste cannot be considered as the only factor in ascertaining deprivation although caste can be an important factor in these indicators.
The inter-caste data of 2003-04 shows that the overall GER was about 13.22 per cent. However it was much lower for ST, SC and OBC being only 5 per cent, 7.5 per cent and 11.34 per cent respectively compared to 24.89 per cent for Others. Between SC/ST and OBC the GER was higher for OBC and between SC and ST, the GER was higher for SC by about 2.5 per cent point. Thus the GER was the lowest for ST.
The Population Census figures reveal a similar disparity in GER. The general Hindu population has a GER of 15.57 per cent and for SC and ST, it is 8.39 per cent and 7.46 per cent respectively. The EER, however, reveals a different pattern. In 2003-2004, it was 54.4 per cent for ST, 57 per cent for SC, 54.8 per cent for OBC and 62.5 per cent for the Other Hindu population. This shows that the general Hindu population has a higher EER compared to SC, ST and OBC but the difference among them is marginal. It indicates that once the school level has been crossed, there is greater convergence in the proportions that enter higher education. Hence it is necessary to strengthen the system at the school level so that more people become eligible to enter higher education. The figures also show that based on GER the OBCs, have a higher enrolment rate compared to SC and ST, but a smaller proportion of them enter the higher education stream after completing the higher secondary stage than the higher castes. It raises the question on whether there can be other factors besides caste that influence decision-making in this regard, for example like socio-economic factors.
Other Indicators Besides Caste
Thorat provides data on some other relevant factors besides caste and also points to the interlinkages between caste and rural areas, occupation, and location.[13] Disparities are evident between rural and urban areas using data from any source. In 2003-2004, the GER for rural and urban area shows a wide gap being 7.76 per cent and 27.20 per cent respectively. Hence the GER in urban areas is four times higher than rural areas. The Population Census figures of 8.99 per cent for rural areas and 24.52 per cent for urban areas in 2001, also indicate that the rural area enrolment is three times lower than the urban area. The EER worked out to 51.1 per cent for rural and to 66 per cent for urban areas showing the latter to be about 15 per cent higher.
Second, there are wide inter-state variations. The GER at the aggregate level is 13 per cent but there are states like Nagaland (38.6 per cent), Goa (27.3 per cent), Kerala (24.2 per cent), Manipur (24.7 per cent), Himachal Pradesh (20.0 per cent) and Jammu & Kashmir, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (18 per cent) that show more than the national average. On the other hand, there are States like Tripura (3.2 per cent), Assam (6.6 per cent), Meghalaya (7.2 per cent), Chhattisgarh (7.6 per cent), Orissa (8.2 per cent), Jharkhand (10.3 per cent), West Bengal (9.7 per cent), Bihar (10 per cent), Sikkim (10.8 per cent) and Rajasthan (11 per cent) where the GER is lower than the national average.
The EER is a useful indicator as it estimates the access to education to those who have completed the higher secondary stage. In 2003-04, 59 per cent of those who completed the higher secondary entered higher education. The ratio is much higher in states like Mizoram (87.1 per cent), Manipur (87.7 per cent), Nagaland (85.6 per cent), Jammu & Kashmir (76.6 per cent) and Kerala (70.6 per cent). By national comparison the ratio is much lower in Tripura (37.8 per cent), Chhattisgarh (49.6 per cent), Orissa (50.2 per cent), Arunachal Pradesh (53.5 per cent). In the rest of the States, it was around the national average of 59 per cent. This again indicates that it is imperative to strengthen access and retention at the school level. Merely expanding higher education is not likely to solve the problem of access at the level of higher education.
Third, the access varies among the various religious groups as can be seen in the 2003-04 figures. The GER is the highest for Jains followed by Christians, Sikhs/ Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims which stand at 57.43 per cent, 27.29 per cent, 15 per cent, 13.47 per cent ad 8.19 per cent respectively. The EER is similarly varied with Jains and Christians on the top, their EER being 74.7 per cent and 71.3 per cent respectively. Next come the Buddhists and Hindus with about 60 per cent. The EER is low for Sikhs, being 52.8 per cent.
Fourth, gender impacts the access to higher education. It is lower for girls than for boys and this is more pronounced in rural areas. Significant male-female disparities also exist in EER. In 2003-04 the overall EER was 62.9 per cent for males and 54.1 per cent for females indicating that the girls are 9 per cent points lower than boys. The gender disparity is aggravated by caste and religion. For instance, in 2000 as against the overall average of 9.4 per cent for females, the GER for females in different categories was 2.4 per cent for ST followed by 4.7 per cent for SC 7.6 per cent for OBC and 17.2 per cent for other females. In case of religious groups, the GER of Muslim females was 6.3 per cent compared to 10.8 per cent for Hindu and 12.7 per cent for Sikh/Buddhist females. If EER is taken, we see that it is 50 per cent for SC/OBC females and 57 per cent for ST/other high caste females. At 48 per cent it was the lowest for Muslim female compared to females belonging to other religions being 54 per cent for Hindu/ Buddhist females, 56 per cent for Sikh and about 69 per cent for Jain/ Christian females.
Poverty also creates disparities. In 1999-2000 the GER for the poor was 2.4 per cent as against 12.91 per cent for non-poor, the average being 10.10 per cent. Similar disparities are seen for the poor in rural and urban areas. The GER for poor and non-poor in rural areas was 1.30 per cent and 5.51 per cent compared to the poor and non-poor in urban areas – 7.12 per cent and 27.15 per cent respectively. Poverty is also tied into caste and location, that is rural and urban areas. Among the poor, the GER was the lowest for ST and SC followed by OBC and others. The GER for the poor belonging to ST, SC, OBC and other is 1.55 per cent, 1.89 per cent, 2.30 per cent and 3.58 per cent respectively. A similar pattern is observed for the poor in rural and urban areas. In rural areas, the GER is the lowest for ST being 1.11 per cent followed by 1.35 per cent for SC, 1.13 per cent for OBC and 1.66 per cent for others. The overall GER in rural areas is 1.30 per cent. In urban areas, the GER for the urban poor is 3.86 per cent, 4.78 per cent, 5.10 per cent and 7 per cent respectively for SC, ST, OBC and Others – the average being 5.51 per cent. Among the non-poor, the GER for ST, SC and OBC is lower than for Others. The GER for SC, ST, OBC and Others is respectively 6.68 per cent, 9.7 per cent, 8.69 per cent and 19.73 per cent respectively. The all India average is 12.81 per cent.
Occupation is another factor, and can be clearly seen across occupation groups in rural and urban areas. In rural areas, the GER is 5 per cent being generally higher for self-employed households engaged in farm and non-farm economic activities compared to 1.41 per cent for those who worked as farm wage labour and 3 per cent in non-farm wage labour activities. Similarly in urban areas, the GER was much higher for those engaged in business, regular salaried and other activities compared to casual labour. The GER 28 per cent, 15.74 per cent and 3.21 per cent respectively for self-employed, regular salaried and casual wage labour. Thus in both rural and urban areas, the enrolment of the casual wage labour was the lowest as compared to the self-employed and regular wage earner. The GER was particularly low for farm wage labour.
Occupation can be correlated to caste. The GER is generally low for wage labour and particularly low for SC/ST compared to other groups. For instance, while an overall level for wage labour in rural areas is 1.41 per cent, that of the ST, SC, OBC and Others in this group is 0.67 per cent, 1.63 per cent, 1.16 per cent and 1.93 per cent respectively. In the urban areas, the GER for casual labour is 3.26 per cent at overall level as against 1.53 per cent, 2.61 per cent, 3.34 per cent and 4.30 per cent for ST, SC, OBC and Other wage labour.
Similar inter-caste differences are observed in the case of self-employed cultivators in rural and urban areas. The overall GER in rural areas for self-employed in agriculture is 3 per cent, 3.95 per cent, 4.21 per cent and 8.33 per cent for ST, SC, OBC and Others respectively as against an overall average of 5.64 per cent. The GER for self-employed in business in rural areas is 2.53 per cent, 3.77 per cent, 3.97 per cent and 7.73 per cent for ST, SC, OBC and Others. In urban areas, the GER for self-employed among ST, SC, OBC and Others works out to 6.15 per cent, 7.37 per cent, 10.0 per cent and 22 per cent respectively. Among the self-employed and wage labour, the enrolment is particularly low for the poor among them.
Similarly in the urban areas while the enrolment rate at overall level is 15.74 per cent, 28.10 per cent, 3.26 per cent, 50.15 per cent for self-employed, regular salaried, casual labour and other households respectively, it is 4.59 per cent, .6 per cent, 2.38 per cent and 14.39 per cent respectively for poor households belonging to self-employed, regular salaried, casual labour and other households. In other words, the enrolment is lowest among the poor casual wage labour household in rural and urban areas. It works out to 0.86 per cent, 0.37 per cent and 2.38 per cent respectively for agriculture labour, other labour in rural areas and other labour in urban area. It is particularly low among the same poor group for the ST/SC/OBC. The enrolment rate for agricultural labour for ST, SC, and OBC is 0.9 per cent, .01 per cent and 0.93 per cent. Similarly, it is nil for ST and SC and only 0.52 per cent for OBC casual non-farm wage labour in rural areas.
All the above data shows that in spite of the efforts of sixty years, the access of SCs STs to higher education is low. Caste factors are undoubtedly important but equally important are other factors like occupation, gender, poverty and the disparity in the rural and urban areas of development. Caste also aggravates the deprivation caused by other factors. But what is vital is schooling because as the following data will show, there is a high drop out and failure rate at the school level with little or no alternative mechanism for remedial action. This again is higher for the weaker sections of society. Unless school education is strengthened, access to higher education cannot be improved.
School Education
Dayanand Dongaonkar paints a grim picture of the state of school education both for the population in general and for the SCs and STs.[14] According to the Population Census 2001, the literacy rate is 65.38 per cent indicating that about 35 per cent of the population is still illiterate. The following table indicates that the drop out rates are very high hence mere enrolment has no meaning:-
Dropout Rates at Primary, Middle and Secondary Stages
| Year | Primary (I-V) | Middle (I-VIII) | Secondary (I-X) | ||||||
| Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | |
| 1960-61 | 61.7 | 70.9 | 64.9 | 75.0 | 85.0 | 78.8 | N.A | N.A | N.A |
| 1970-71 | 64.5 | 70.9 | 67.0 | 74.6 | 83.4 | 77.9 | N.A | N.A | N.A |
| 1980-81 | 56.2 | 62.5 | 58.7 | 68.0 | 79.4 | 72.7 | 79.8 | 86.6 | 82.5 |
| 1990-91 | 40.1 | 46.0 | 42.6 | 59.1 | 65.1 | 60.9 | 67.5 | 76.9 | 71.3 |
| 1992-93 | 43.8 | 46.7 | 45.0 | 58.2 | 65.2 | 61.1 | 70.0 | 77.3 | 72.9 |
| 1999-00* | 38.7 | 42.3 | 40.3 | 52.0 | 58.0 | 54.5 | 66.6 | 70.6 | 68.3 |
| 2000-01* | 39.7 | 41.9 | 40.7 | 50.3 | 57.7 | 53.7 | 66.4 | 71.5 | 68.58 |
| 2001-02* | 38.4 | 39.9 | 39.0 | 52.9 | 56.9 | 54.6 | 64.2 | 68.6 | 66.0 |
| 2002-03* | 35.85 | 33.72 | 34.89 | 52.28 | 53.45 | 52.89 | 60.72 | 64.97 | 62.58 |
| 2003-04* | 33.74 | 28.57 | 31.47 | 51.85 | 52.92 | 52.32 | 60.98 | 64.92 | 62.69 |
* Provisional
Source: India, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Abstract of Selected Educational Statistics: 2003-04
Cited by. Dayanand Dongaonkar in AIU Occasional Paper 2006
In 2003-04, the average dropout rate is 62.69 per cent. It is even higher for Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribe students:-
Dropout Rates of Schedule Caste Students at Primary,
Elementary and Secondary Stages:
| Dropout Rates of SC Students at Primary, Elementary and Secondary Stages | |||||||||
| Year | Primary (I-V) | Middle (I-VIII) | Secondary (I-X) | ||||||
| Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | |
| 1990-91 | 46.3 | 54.0 | 49.4 | 64.3 | 73.2 | 67.8 | 74.3 | 83.4 | 77.1 |
| 1994-95 | 45.1 | 49.8 | 47.0 | 66.4 | 72.2 | 68.7 | N.A | N.A | N.A |
| 1995-96 | 43.7 | 48.5 | 45.7 | 64.7 | 70.5 | 67.0 | N.A | N.A | N.A |
| 1996-97 | 41.0 | 45.2 | 42.7 | 61.9 | 68.3 | 64.5 | 75.5 | 81.0 | 77.6 |
| 1997-98 | 43.4 | 46.4 | 44.7 | 60.6 | 67.2 | 63.3 | 68.1 | 77.7 | 77.2 |
| 1998-99 | 40.5 | 42.8 | 41.4 | 59.9 | 65.4 | 62.2 | 72.7 | 78.2 | 74.9 |
| 2001-02* | 43.7 | 47.1 | 45.2 | 58.6 | 63.6 | 60.7 | 71.1 | 74.9 | 72.7 |
| 2002-03* | 41.1 | 41.9 | 41.5 | 58.2 | 62.2 | 59.9 | 69.7 | 74.9 | 71.9 |
| 2003-04* | 36.8 | 36.2 | 36.6 | 57.3 | 62.2 | 59.4 | 71.4 | 75.5 | 73.1 |
Source: India, Department of Secondary and Higher Education. Abstract of Selected Educational Statistics: 2003-04
Cited by Dayanand Dongaonkar in AIU Occasional Paper 2006
This indicates that the overall dropout rate of SC students is 73.1 per cent compared to the overall average of 62.69 per cent. There is also a fair degree of inter-state variation.
Dropout Rates of Schedule Caste Students in Developed and Developing States
| Dropout Rates of SC Students at Classes I-V, I-VIII and I-X (2003-2004) | ||||||||||
| States/UTs | Classes I-V | Classes I-VIII | Classes I-X | |||||||
| Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | ||
| Bihar | 46.88 | 45.42 | 46.36 | 83.37 | 84.68 | 83.85 | 89.31 | 91.46 | 90.02 | |
| Goa | 34.88 | 31.21 | 33.1 | 43.12 | 41.90 | 42.53 | 57.56 | 59.40 | 58.52 | |
| Maharashtra | 17.02 | 18.21 | 17.59 | 30.03 | 38.22 | 33.98 | 51.46 | 55.89 | 53.59 | |
| Uttar Pradesh | 45.69 | 56.40 | 49.84 | 63.46 | 75.45 | 67.96 | 73.78 | 90.21 | 79.93 | |
| Delhi | 32.64 | 49.05 | 41.62 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 76.27 | 77.30 | 76.75 | |
| India | 36.83 | 36.19 | 36.56 | 57.33 | 62.19 | 59.42 | 71.41 | 75.49 | 73.13 | |
Source: India, Department of Secondary and Higher Education. Abstract of Selected Educational Statistics: 2003-04
Cited by Dayanand Dongaonkar in AIU Occasional Paper 2006
The data shows that interstate variation for SC students ranges from 53.5 per cent in Maharashtra to 90.02 per cent in Bihar. Similar dropout rates can be seen from ST Students:
Dropout Rates of Scheduled Tribe Students at Primary, Elementary and
Secondary Stages
| Dropout Rates of ST Students at Primary, Elementary and Secondary Stages (2003-04) | |||||||||
| Year | Primary (I-V) | Middle (I-VIII) | Secondary (I-X) | ||||||
| Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | |
| 1990-91 | 60.3 | 66.1 | 62.5 | 75.7 | 82.2 | 78.6 | 83.3 | 87.7 | 85.0 |
| 1994-95 | 56.9 | 61.3 | 58.6 | 74.5 | 80.0 | 76.7 | N.A | N.A | N.A |
| 1995-96 | 55.0 | 58.9 | 56.6 | 62.3 | 71.2 | 66.0 | N.A | N.A | N.A |
| 1996-97 | 54.4 | 60.0 | 56.5 | 73.0 | 78.3 | 75.2 | 82.5 | 86.8 | 84.2 |
| 1997-98 | 52.9 | 58.1 | 55.1 | 71.3 | 75.5 | 73.0 | 72.5 | 80.4 | 75.8 |
| 1998-99 | 54.8 | 56.8 | 55.7 | 70.1 | 75.7 | 72.4 | 79.8 | 85.1 | 82.2 |
| 2001-02* | 51.0 | 54.1 | 52.3 | 67.3 | 72.7 | 69.5 | 79.9 | 82.9 | 81.2 |
| 2002-03* | 50.8 | 52.1 | 51.4 | 66.9 | 71.2 | 68.7 | 78.4 | 83.0 | 80.3 |
| 2003-04* | 49.1 | 48.7 | 48.9 | 69.0 | 71.4 | 70.1 | 77.9 | 81.2 | 79.3 |
Source: India, Department of Secondary and Higher Education. Abstract of Selected Educational Statistics: 2003-04
Cited by Dayanand Dongaonkar in AIU Occasional Paper 2006
The above table indicates that the dropout rate of ST students is even higher than for ST students. It is 79.3 per cent compared to 73.1 per cent for SC students.
Drop-out Rates of Scheduled Tribe Students in Developed and
Under Developing States
| Dropout Rates of ST Students at Classes I-V, I-VIII and I-X (2003-2004) | ||||||||||
| States/UTs | Classes I-V | Classes I-VIII | Classes I-X | |||||||
| Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | Boys | Girls | Total | ||
| Bihar | 62.28 | 59.51 | 61.22 | 81.71 | 84.39 | 82.84 | 88.14 | 90.14 | 89.05 | |
| Maharashtra | 34.42 | 42.82 | 38.38 | 59.12 | 65.14 | 61.91 | 70.51 | 82.44 | 76.18 | |
| Uttar Pradesh | 25.6 | 19.40 | 23.11 | 34.03 | 31.75 | 33.07 | 46.01 | 60.69 | 52.11 | |
| Delhi | 78.66 | 82.72 | 80.62 | 79.62 | 81.42 | 80.49 | 77.81 | 79.81 | 78.83 | |
| India | 49.13 | 48.67 | 48.93 | 69.04 | 71.43 | 70.05 | 77.92 | 81.16 | 79.25 | |
Source: India, Department of Secondary and Higher Education. Abstract of Selected Educational Statistics: 2003-04
Cited by Dayanand Dongaonkar in AIU Occasional Paper 2006
Then, there are interstate variations ranging from 52.11 per cent in Uttar Pradesh to 89.05 per cent in Bihar for ST students.
The high dropout rate is worrying because it throws children out of the education system without providing a viable alternative of remedial action or skill development. School education therefore, obviously needs to be strengthened both for the general category and for the less privileged before better access can be provided in higher education. Further when the national overall dropout is 62.69 per cent, very few students are in any case eligible to enter higher education. The approximate passing rate is about 45 per cent of those who appear in the 10th and 55 per cent of those who appear in the 12th or in school. Thus when the dropout rates and the success rates are placed side by side, it is seen that a very large number of young students are being pushed out of the system with no alternatives.
There is another vital issue; the capacity to cope with higher education. It has been completely overlooked. No studies are readily available on the challenges of diversity in class rooms, the pedagogical methodology required for effective teaching and the actual current outcomes of access. Unless there are successful outcomes, mere access or enrolment is not enough as it does not benefit anyone.
Can Caste Be the Only Criterion for Affirmative Action?
Another question that has begun to arise is whether the giving of group rights leads to all the members of the group being benefited. The question has been raised continuously in the case of OBCs with respect to jobs and is also beginning to be asked in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The pivotal issue is whether caste can be taken as the sole criterion of backwardness. Amartya Sen points out that India has had a terrible tradition of social asymmetry, of which the caste system is only one.[15] In fact, B.R.Ambedkar who chaired the committee that drafted India’s Constitution indicated this when he said: “On January 26, 1950 we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.”[16] But as Amartya Sen asserts, there is a connection between democracy and resistance to economic inequality because arguments and agitations provide a ‘voice’ to demand equality in different spheres of life. “The nature of stratifications,” he says relate “to class, caste, gender and other barriers” and “depend critically on how they are addressed in political engagement and participatory social actions in the country.”[17]
The Indian Constitution itself provides for space to these issues in the democratic sphere. While the ‘fundamental rights’ guarantee freedom of speech, association, equality before law and others, there are also Directive Principles that delineate a set of specific social and economic entitlements for the people and goals for the government. Democracy has created a lively debate and struggle pertaining to them so that they have been a basis for both legal decisions by the Supreme Court and of widespread popular agitation. It has also brought the involvement of political leaders from disadvantaged classes and castes in Indian politics today.
However, emphasizes Sen,[18] class is not the only source of inequality and it has to be seen as part of a bigger picture that includes other divisive influences like gender, caste, region, community and so on. Class can accentuate these inequalities. The issue gets further complicated by what Sen calls, “friendly fire,” borrowing a military term which means that an army is hit by its own firing rather than by enemy shelling. That is why he says that the actual impact of supportive public institutions and public policies has to be constantly scrutinized. Action taken has to be constantly adapted and evaluated open-mindedly rather than be implemented in a fixed, formulaic way. For example, differences of caste cause disparity, but the impact is much greater when the lower-caste families are also very poor. The trials of the Dalits or people from the other disadvantaged castes, or of members of the Scheduled Tribes, become magnified and severe by abject penury. Even the violence associated with caste-related conflicts involves more than just caste. The most impacted are the poor of that caste. Sen argues that this recognition does not make caste unimportant but only places it in a broader context in which not just caste but class is also factored in. He points to considerable evidence that affirmative action in favour of lower castes has tended to benefit the economically better off among them rather than those who also have to bear the additional brunt of extreme poverty. For example, ‘reserved’ posts often go to relatively affluent members of disadvantaged castes. Therefore, for a policy of affirmative action to succeed not only does caste disadvantage have to be seen but also the class background because that can make a substantial difference. Therefore, Sen is essentially arguing two things: that there are other sources of disparity apart from caste and class; and that while these disparities are important on their own, they are intensified by other forms of disparity.
There are many different forms of deprivation like poverty, illiteracy, political disempowerment, absence of health care, and others that can individually lead to different analytic results. Also, there can be a strong temptation to see deprivation only in terms of poverty but this can be quite misleading. However, all these factors can come together and lead to such severe deprivation that a big gulf is created between the comprehensive ‘haves’ from the comprehensive ‘have-nots.’ Yet often enough, as Sen points out, the same people are poor, illiterate, work hard for minimal remuneration, not influential in politics, lack social and economic opportunities and are treated with brutal callousness by the police.[19] This understanding and acceptance is necessary for effective affirmative action. Otherwise, the programmes for the disadvantaged can be cornered by those who have some vulnerability or deprivation but are certainly not the absolutely underprivileged society. They may even end up worsening the deal for the really deprived or those who are at the bottom layers of society and strengthening class divisions rather than weakening them.
Intent of the Constituent Assembly
The question arises whether any other method can be used to take the benefits to those who really need it. At least two alternatives have been suggested. One is the use of purely economic criteria and the other to use diverse inputs to form a deprivation index as was done in JNU and later suggested by the Sachar Committee. Affirmative action based on economic criterion has been a persistent theme in the quota discourse in India. It was extensively debated in both the Indra Sawhney case (1993) and in The Ashok Thakur case (2006). Justice Dalveer Bhandari in the Ashok Thakur case has linked economic criterion to social backwardness while tracing the history of Art.15(4) of the Constitution. He has pointed out that a careful analysis of the Constituent Assembly Parliamentary Debates reveals that the aim was to achieve a casteless and classless society for which socio-economic inequalities had to be urgently removed. Citing the Constitution Assembly Debates on Art.15(4) he says that Shri M.A. Ayyanger wanted to add `economic’ to ensure that the rich SEBCs did not receive special provisions: Shri Ayyanger said:
I thought `economic’ might be added so that rich men may not take advantage of this provision. In my part of the country there are the Nattukotai Chettiars who do not care to have English education but they are the richest of the lot, should there be a special reservation for them?[20]
He was satisfied that the term `economic’ was included in the term `social’. Hence the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the `richest of the (backward) lot’ would not benefit from the special provisions. Also, citing the Parliamentary Debates on the First Amendment Bill, Justice Dalveer Bhandari has pointed out that the First Parliament too believed that `economic’ was included in the `social’ portion of “socially and educationally backward”. Prime Minister Nehru said:
One of the main amendments or ideas put forward is in regard to the addition of the work `economical’. Frankly, the argument put forward, with slight variation, I would accept, but my difficulty is this that when we chose those particular words there, `for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes, we chose them because they occur in Art. 340 and we wanted to bring them bodily from there. Otherwise I would have had not the slightest objection to add `economically.’ But if I added `economically’ I would at the same time not make it a kind of cumulative thing but would say that a person who is lacking in any of these things should be helped. `Socially’ is a much wider word including many things and certainly including `economically’. Therefore, I felt that `socially and educationally’ really cover the ground and at the same time you bring out a phrase used in another part of the Constitution in a slightly similar context.[21]
Therefore, it was only because of the desire to achieve symmetry that the word `economically’ was not included.
The question is whether the original framers intend to provide caste-based reservation only in jobs or also in education. J. Dalveer Bhandari argues that Art.15(4) was only added through the First Amendment and was a deviation from the goal of a casteless society.[22] He points out that the original framers of the Constitution wrote prolifically and produced the world’s longest Constitution in an attempt to remove as many doubts as possible. While they introduced a number of articles to reserve seats for various groups, they also imposed various limitations on reservation and these provide insights into the compromise they made between formal and substantial equality. Reservation was only provided for certain groups — SC, ST and Backward Classes — in certain areas like jobs in the government, seats in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies. Dr. Ambedkar stated that “the report of the Minorities Committee provided that all minorities should have two benefits or privileges, namely representation in the legislatures and representation in the services.”[23] Hence additional benefits had to be added cautiously. In discussing draft Article 10 which found itself as Article 16(4) of the Constitution, Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru observed:
We are all aware that when the Report of the Minorities Committee was considered by the House, the entire House was anxious that reservations of whatever kind should be done away with as quickly as possible. Whatever protection might be considered necessary now, should be granted temporarily only, so that the population of the country might become fully integrated, and no community or class might be tempted to claim special advantage for itself.[24]
Instead of gradually removing reservations, the Parliament had gone the other way extending time limits and adding beneficiaries. Article 15(5) was just the latest example.
Justice Bhandari points out that while the original framers of the Constitution went out of their way to put SC/ST in the Parliament and State Assemblies and in government service, they did not reserve a single classroom seat. Instead, Article 29(2) prohibited caste-based discrimination in admissions, and Article 15(2) prohibited caste-based discrimination in general. Education was to remain reservation-free. When preferential treatment was given in regard to education, it was limited to educational grants and did not extend to reservations.
Rather than advocate for reservation, the original framers preferred free/compulsory education and scholarships. In the debate on Draft Article 294, Shri Brajeshwar Prasad noted that reservation in legislative bodies would fail to uplift SC/ST. Instead, he suggested that:
It should be laid down clearly in express terms that free education shall be imparted to them. (and) for the tribals and Harijans provision must be made in the Constitution that free agricultural lands should be given to them. If we cannot give any one of these, I am quite clear in my own mind that by giving them a few seats here and there, their economic condition and their educational level will in no way be improved. [25]
In the Champakam Dorairajan (1951) case, the Union of India argued that Article 15(4), the First Amendment to the Constitution, reflects the intent of the original framers because it was passed by the same members that drafted the original Constitution. In the Parliamentary debates in 1951, Prime Minister Nehru argued in favour of amending the Constitution to overturn the judgment. This according to J. Bhandari, was a departure from the intent of the original framers who had drafted the original Constitution. Prime Minister Nehru displayed his awareness of this when he stated that Art. 15(4) would give effect to “what was really intended or should be intended.” But what `should be intended’ is always difficult to ascertain and so concludes Bhandari, Article 15(4) cannot be said to be the intent of the original framers.[26]
Poverty as an Indicator of Social and Educational Backwardness
The issue of affirmative action can be seen in at least two ways: is it compensatory justice for past wrongs or is it distributive justice in the current scenario? Of course, past wrongs have had an undesirable impact on the present deprivation for certain sections but mere compensatory justice is simplistic and can progressively prove very divisive as time passes and the economic and developmental situation changes without adequately achieving what it seeks to do. The situation, as J. Kuldip Singh in the Indra Sawhney case points out is far more complex, than what mere quotas can achieve.[27] He cites from Andre Beteille’s book The Backward Classes in Contemporary India in which Prof. Beteille argues that the problem of backward classes in India has been reduced largely to job reservation. However, their problems are too varied, large and acute for this to be done. Job reservation has not only done little to solve them but has also diverted attention from the masses of Harijans and Adivasis who are too poor and lowly to even be able to avail themselves of the reserved job opportunities provided in their name. Job reservations, he argues, can only serve middle class Harijans and Adivasis. The others like the rest of the Indians will remain outside it for the next several generations. Job reservation, says Beteille, is more a way of buying peace than of solving the age-old problems. Beteille makes a distinction between reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes and Backward Classes. Reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, for all their limitations are directed basically towards the goal of greater overall equality. But reservations for other Backward Classes and for religious minorities, whatever may be their advantages, are really directed towards balance of power. The former says Beteille, are in tune with the spirit of the Constitution, the latter must lead sooner or later to what Justice Gajendragadkar has called a “fraud on the Constitution.”
He added that protective discrimination in the shape of job reservations has to be programmed in a way that the most deserving of the backward classes benefit and for this a means test could be devised. Backward classes can never be identified in a way that ensures that every member of that class is equally backward because there are bound to be disparities in the class itself. Some of its members may have individually crossed the barriers of backwardness but when identified with the class to which they belong they would come within the collectivity and be eligible for quotas. It can often be seen that there are some comparatively rich people in the backward class who may not have acquired any high level of education, but they move in society without being socially discriminated.
The members of the backward class, analyses Beteille, can be differentiated into superior and inferior. The discrimination that has been practised upon them by the superior class is in turn practised by the affluent members of the backward class on the poorer members of the said class. The benefits of special privileges like job reservations inevitably go to the richer or more affluent sections of the backward classes so the poorer and the really backward sections among them keep getting poorer and more backward. Standards of deprivation and the extent of backwardness can only be put in place after looking at the lowest level of the backward class. The jobs are so few compared to the population of the backward classes that in any case it is difficult to give them adequate representation in the state services. Since it is necessary for the benefits of reservation to reach the poorest and the weakest section of the backward class, an economic ceiling to cut off the backward class to allow the benefit to reach the weakest section of the backward class is needed. What Prof. Beteille is pointing to is the disjunct that takes place gradually between the levels of the individuals and of the group as a whole. Hence compensatory justice must gradually move towards distributive justice in order to benefit the most deprived individuals.
J. Kuldip Singh, is in favour of using poverty as the dominant criterion for determining those who are socially and educationally backward as according to him it is the main cause of all kinds of backwardness.[28] A poor man is kept away from education and other societal benefits. Being caste neutral, poverty breeds social, economic and educational backwardness in any class so how could one reasonably say that a person living below the poverty line is not backward under Art.16(4). Two reasons are advanced against using only the economic criterion. One is that since social backwardness is a mandatory requirement under Art.16(4), poverty alone cannot be an indicator for ascertaining backwardness under this article. The second is that in India, except a small per centage of population, people are generally poor and hence they would all require reservation. This would defeat the purpose of reservation as reservation for all is really reservation for none.
J. Kuldip Singh has answered both the arguments.[29] He thinks that the courts have erred in their reading of Arts.16(4) and 15(4). He points out that there is a distinction between them. The expression used in Art.16(4) is `any backward classes’ and Art.15(4) it is `socially and educationally backward classes.’ Hence the scope of Art.16 (4) cannot be limited by reading the expression “socially and educationally” which is used in Art.15(4) but not in Art.16(4). The object of Art.16(4) is to provide job reservations for those backward sections who have not found adequate representation in State service and in this context, the economic criterion is essentially relevant. In any case, any class of citizens living below the poverty line would come under “any backward class”. Since poverty has a direct nexus to social backwardness, a rich person from a backward caste may or may not be socially backward, but a poor Brahmin struggling for his livelihood invariably suffers from social backwardness. The reality of present-day life says J. Kuldip Singh, is that money confers social status on individuals. A poor person, however honest, has no social status, whereas a rich smuggler moves in high society. There are millions of people who belong to the so-called elite castes but are not only poor but even poorer than a very large proportion of the backward classes. It is a fallacy to think that a person though earning thousands or holding higher posts is still backward simply because he happens to belong to a particular caste or community, whereas millions of people living below the poverty line are forward because they were born in some other castes or communities. Poverty does not discriminate and binds all castes and religions in its common thread. Those who live in chronic cramping poverty are per se socially backward. He concedes that there are historical causes of poverty but it is not possible to say that those who live under poverty conditions or below the poverty line are not socially backward. Hence according to him, it would be doing “violence to the object, purpose and the language of Art.16(4) to say that the poor of the country are not eligible for job reservations.” They cannot be denied their right simply because the claimants are very large in numbers.
In any case, J. Kuldip Singh points out; the numbers identified for reservation on the caste basis are equally large. Mandal identified 52 per cent of the population as backward in addition to the 22 per cent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Thus in a way the demand is for reserving 74 per cent for the so-called backward classes. So it can hardly be said, says J. Kuldip Singh that 40 per cent of the poor can be denied job reservations. He then goes on to enumerate other indices that can be factored in like income, occupation, conditions of living such as slum dwellers, rural or urban and priorities can be worked out. It is high time, he feels that the dogmatic approach of making reservations in public services on the basis of caste as a symbol of backwardness is given up.
However, the Court is aware of the difficulties of drawing lines as determining factors of backwardness. So in the opinion of Justice Pasayat and Thakker,[30] the basis of exclusion should not be merely economic unless the economic advancement is so high that it necessarily means social advancement. Further, there are practical difficulties in imposing an income ceiling. It has to be such that it signifies social advancement. For example, an annual income of Rs.36,000/- may not be much in metropolitan towns like Delhi, Mumbai or Kolkata but would be a substantial income in rural India. The line that is drawn has to be a realistic one. Another question is whether such a line should be uniform for the entire country or for a given state or should it be different in rural and urban areas? Also the income from agriculture may be difficult to assess and so for agriculturists, the line may have to be drawn with reference to holding. Further, there are certain positions, the holding of which means social advancement as for example, the civil services.
The question really is, whether poverty indicators would be reliable enough to enable the truly needy to benefit. R.S. Deshpande and Amalendu Jyotishi maintain that the poor in India live largely in rural areas and are usually agricultural labourers by occupation.[31] The density of labour is the highest among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The historical reason for this is that these groups of population because of a high degree of stratification based on caste were forced to remain at the lower rung of the economic hierarchy and had no occupational mobility. Consequently poverty is largely concentrated in this group of society. The National Sample Survey data (1993-94) indicated that 52.17 per cent of Scheduled Caste population was below the poverty line and 4 per cent of Scheduled Tribes were living even below the bare minimum threshold. The highest share of poor is concentrated among households of agricultural labour and other labour households. Poverty is less in the households belonging to the category of other household occupations and self-employed in the non-agricultural sector.
Even though the majority of the poor are agricultural labourers, there are no clear policy programmes focusing specifically on them. Agricultural labourers belonging to Scheduled Castes have also not been able to benefit from governmental policies because they are not organized and hence unable to plead their case. Even the Minimum Wages Act by which they could benefit somewhat is more on paper than in practice. There are very few facilities available in rural areas and they are even worse for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Only about 5 per cent of SC and STs for example, have even proper toilet facilities. All factors point to an urgent need for larger investment towards development of infrastructure, especially for the weaker sections.
T.N. Srinivasan points out the inadequacies and uncertainties in determining poverty lines and consequently of the efforts to provide ameliorative measures for the weaker sections based on them.[32] However, economists like Bibek Debroy talk of multiple indicators to determine the segment of population that needs to be helped as does Ashwini Deshpande in his analysis “Affirmative Action in India and the United States”.[33] Caste cannot be the determinant. He points out that when the Courts imposed a ceiling of 50 per cent on reservations in 1963 in the Balaji case (AIR 1963 SC 649) 50 per cent of India’s population was actually below the poverty line. The National Sample Survey data shows a BPL figure of 27.5 per cent in 2004-05 according to one method and 21.8 per cent according to another. Hence, if we continue to harp on 50 per cent he feels we fail to recognize that India has changed. There is a tendency to assume that all SCs, STs and OBCs, women, physically handicapped, ex-servicemen, those born from inter-caste marriages, dependents of armed forces personnel killed in action and Muslims are poor and so must benefit from quota reservations. The situation gets worse when caste is confused with class. The idea of caste-based quotas is based on two assumptions: one, that everyone from backward castes is economically backward. Second, that everyone in a forward caste is economically forward even if he comes from the poorest areas of the country. But this is not borne out by data. For example, Orissa has 46.4 per cent population below the poverty line but the combined population of SCs/STs/OBCs based on NSS of 1999-2000 is 29 per cent. On the other hand, it is 66 per cent in Tamil Nadu which is a more prosperous state.
Debroy argues that there is deprivation among backward classes but it is of individuals and not of a group and so cannot be ascribed merely to a caste or geographical location. According to him, the mode of affirmative action can be debated but the more important issue is to identify the poor and poverty is not economic alone. Other indicators also need to be used like locations that lack any social or physical infrastructure worth the name. Other such collective elements can be factored in as has been suggested by scholars like Purushottam Agrawal, Yogendra Yadav and Satish Deshpande as also by the Sachar Committee.[34] The Planning Commission too has put forward thirteen parameters. Whatever method be used, says Debroy, the overall beneficiaries should not be more than 20 per cent for it to be truly beneficial. The index too cannot be too complicated. The UNDP, for example, has a simple human development index based on per capita income, education and health. Other alternate indices can be devised.
The Diversity Index
Gender, poverty, caste, religion, region, occupation and habitation are at least some of the factors that reduce equality of opportunity and deny or reduce access. The Jawaharlal Nehru University devised a deprivation index which it uses in its admissions with a fair degree of success as the data of 2002-07 shows:
Diverse Background and Regional Profile of JNU Students
in Respect of the Last Five Years (2002-07) Admissions
| Students Group | Average of Last Five Years ( per cent) |
| Scheduled Castes | 14.89 |
| Scheduled Tribes | 08.84 |
| Other Backward Classes | >21.0 |
| Minorities | >10.0 |
| Differently-abled | 02.79 |
| Men | 65.86 |
| Women | 34.14 |
| Rural Background | 35.87 |
| Urban Background | 64.12 |
| Public School Background | 27.21 |
| Other School Background | 72.77 |
| Income below Rs.3000 p.m. | 21.37 |
| Income Rs.3000 to 6000 p.m. | 21.84 |
| Income above Rs.6000 p.m. | 56.77 |
Compiled by Prof. R.K. Kale, Professor in Life Sciences: and Dean of Students, JNU from the JNU Annual Reports
This was done to achieve a measure of social justice without compromising on standards. The JNU students says R.K. Kale come from 28 States and 7 Union Territories.[35] They have done their bachelors’ degrees from more than 130 Indian universities/ institutions/ boards. Another interesting feature is that only 27 per cent of the candidates had their schooling in public schools and 73 per cent came from Municipal and non-public schools. While there was no mechanism available to count social groups like minorities, according to a rough estimate more than 10 per cent of the students on campus were Muslims. If other minority religious groups were also included, the number of minority students would be even greater.
OBC candidates were drawn from the lists drawn up by the Government of India excluding the creamy layer and excluding income tax payers. Women OBC candidates were awarded 10 deprivation prints and the men five. The university recognized the rural and urban divide and realized that it is a significant cause of lack of access, equity, equality and quality because of the kind of education imparted in rural India. JNU undertook an extensive exercise to characterize and categorize all the districts in the country and group them state-wise. These were placed in different Quartiles according to their backwardness. Deprivation points were awarded to all candidates including the OBCs who had passed the qualifying entrance exam. Those coming from Quartile one District were given five points and those from Quartile two, three points. Three parameters were used to place the districts in Quartile one or two:
- Literates as per centage of total population after excluding the population of children from 0-6 years according to figures of Population Census 2001;
- Non-agricultural workers as percentage of total workers according to census 2001 and
- Agricultural productivity per hectare averaged over 1997-98 and 1998-99.
The use of such indices resulted in 21 per cent OBC students being admitted from the non-creamy layer.
Following the recommendations of the Sachar Committee to establish an Equal Opportunities Commission two expert groups were formed. One was chaired by N.R. Madhava Menon to design an Equal Opportunities Commission and the other by Amitabh Kundu to design a Diversity Index to measure diversity in public spaces of education, health and housing.[36] The Kundu Committee points out that affirmative action is a set of positive anti-discriminatory policy measures to increase the presence of under-represented groups in various social spheres, particularly in preferred positions and levels in the society. It cites Thomas Weisskoff who made a useful distinctive between two forms of Affirmative Action: preferential boosts and quotas. Preferential boosts imply implicit or explicit points given for being a member of the target group. The Diversity Index is an example of the preferential boost system. Both modes are employed internationally.
The Expert Group pointed out that affirmative action through quotas has produced uneven results. Through the diversity index it would be possible to see clearly where a difference has been made and where more needs to be done. The Expert Group strongly felt that its deliberations should transcend the unidimensional division between religious majority and minorities and capture other dimensions of exclusion as well. It felt that there was a need to bring together different kinds of exclusion into a common index which should be able to respond to the requirements of specific policies not necessarily confined to the minority-majority religious issues.
Ajay Mehra, a member of the Kundu Committee points to the World Development Report 2006 (Equity and Development) which states that disparities among different sections of society arise owing to various factors such as caste, gender, schooling, work/occupation and sources of income generation. A diversity index based on such factors is needed because it is not enough to work out strategies for the underprivileged based on poverty alone. Poverty rates computed at national or state levels have only limited utility as they are not much help in targeting policy towards the poor or those who need special assistance. To do that, poverty figures would be needed for district or even lower levels. The diversity index is an attempt to devise a quantitative measure to provide a working estimate of deprivation in specific areas which can be used for both inter-institutional comparisons and to assess patterns over time.
It is accepted that devising anti-discriminatory practices or identifying areas of discrimination requires a deep understanding of social, historical and political environments, but statistical measures are vital for policy targeting. Although their use has been a contentious issue accepts Mehra, but experiences in the UK, France, the USA and Canada have amply demonstrated that they are useful in devising policy based on properly developed indicators, while reservations can be used in certain specific situations. But for a long-term solution for a systematic change, incentives and disincentives based on a Diversity Index could be more effective and hopefully more acceptable being less divisive than quotas. Every institution needs to develop a non-discriminatory and non-exclusionary framework and most constantly evolve norms and practices that ensure greater diversity over time.
Conclusion
The case for Affirmative Action for disadvantaged groups can be made both on account of historical deprivation as well as for persistence of disparity and continuing discrimination. Dalits in India have historically suffered deep injustices, disparity, deprivation and discrimination. Compensatory policies can be designed for these historical wrongs, but over time they become highly contentious and gradually may not even reach the targeted groups. There is also evidence to suggest that the current economic and social systems perpetuate patterns of group-based disparities in all spheres of life, education, occupation/ work, income/ consumption and health indicators. This is seen in the access to schooling that the underprivileged have and their poor rates of success. A diversity index becomes a set of secular indices to target the most needy and devise policies accordingly. It can be more effective and more nuanced and also less contentious as it targets needy individuals rather than groups merely based on caste or religion. The Kundu Committee’s recommendations have unfortunately been rejected by the Ministry of Human Resource Development without being given a chance to be debated and discussed in the public domain. The continued use of caste can lead to further divisions in a society getting progressively fragmented.
(Kavita A. Sharma)
[1] See Arts. 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
[2] The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Also see Art.342 of the Constitution of India.
[3] Art. 340(1) of the Constitution gave the Government the power to establish a Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes. The First Backward Class Commission was set up in January 1953 with Kaka Kalelkar as the Chairman. Its report was submitted in 1955.
[4] The Mandal Commission was established in 1979 with the parliamentarian Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal in the Chair. It gave its report in 1980 which advocated that 27% of government jobs be reserved for Other Backward Classes in addition to the 22.5% already reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
[5] Pawan Agarwal, Privatization and Internationalization of Higher Education in the Countries of South Asia; An Empirical Analysis, October 2008 (Unpublished).
[6] There were complaints from many States that reservation had led to disproportionate benefits to certain sections of the Scheduled Castes at the cost of other sections. Hence, the Union Government appointed a Commission headed by Justice Usha Mehtra to go into the issue. The Report of the Commission was submitted in May 2008 which reportedly favoured the classification of the Scheduled Castes into sub groups with a view of uplifting the status of the deprived groups among them.
[7] Cited by Justices Pasayat and Thakker in their combined opinion in Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India (2006)
[8] Cited in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
[9] Ashok Thakur Vs. Union of India 2006
[10] Ibid.
[11] Sukhadeo Thorat, Higher Education in India: Emerging Issues Related to Access, Inclusiveness and Quality, Nehru Memorial Lecture, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, Nov. 24, 2006.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid. The discussion that follows is based on an analysis of Thorat’s memorial lecture.
[14] Dayanand Dongaonkar, “Missing Links in Education System in India,” AIU Occasional Paler, 2006, New Delhi: Association of Indian Universities, 2006.
[15] Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian.: Writings on Indian Histroy, Culture and Identity London Lane, 2005, pp. 204-219
[16] Cited by Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian, p. 36
[17] Ibid pp 204-219
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ashok Thakur Vs. Union of India (2006). See also, The Framing of India’s Constitution: A Study, 4 Vols. Delhi; The Indian Institute of Public Administration, 1968.
[21] Cited by Justice Dalveer Bhandari in Ashok Thakur Vs. Union of India (2006)
[22] Ibid.
[23] Cited by Justice Dalveer Bhandari in Ashok Thakur Vs. Union of India (2006)
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Cited in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ashok Thakur Vs. Union of India (2006).
[31] R.S. Deshpande and Amalendu Jyotish, “The State Policy and Poverty in India: An Understanding in Retrospect”, June 2001 www.uregina.ca/sipp/documents/pdf/despande.pdf
[32] T.N. Srinivasan, “Poverty Lines in India: Reflections After the Patna Conference,” Revised and Expanded version of the paper presented at the International Seminar on “Revising the Poverty Issue: Measurement, Identification and Eradication”, Patna, July 20-22, 2007.
[33] Ashwini Deshpande, “Affirmative Action in India and the United States”, Equity Development, World Bank Development Report 2006. See also Ashwini Deshpande, “Caste at Birth? Redefining Disparity in India,” Review of Development Economics, 5(1), 2001, pp. 130-144.
[34] Sachar Committee, High Level Committee for Preparation of Report on Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, Government of India, 2006.
[35] R.K. Kale, “Diversity on Campuses: JNU Shows the Way”, University News, 45(53) December 31, 2007 – January 06, 2008, pp. 4-13.
[36] Amitabh Kundu and others, Report of the Expert Group to Propose a Diversity Index and workout the Modalities of Implementation, 2008.