The Reservation Debacle
Society is an intrinsically developed floral pattern, with each design being an individual. Carved and strengthened for over numerous centuries now, every society grew specific defining characteristics, and these over the times consolidated people’s beliefs in such ‘iron cage’ constructs. One such construct in the Indian subcontinent is the caste system. Started as a mode of social stratification for better organization and more accessible governance, it soon turned into strong shackles of orthodox narrow-mindedness, suppressing and exploiting millions. It affected every hombre of the society and hence has been a social issue for countless years now. Our constitution makers were well aware of this deplorable and egregious praxis. They, therefore, introduced the concept of reservation in our constitution itself to establish our efficacious commitment against such ghastly discriminatory practices. This provision has been one of the most debated ones in the nation, and today, it is once again in the headlines.
The supreme court recently issued a six-part questionnaire to State governments, seeking their stances and views on areas related to the much controversial reservation provision in India. The questionnaire includes questions like the need to revisit the landmark Indira Sawhney v UOI judgment of 1992 and infringement of the federal structure from Article 342(a) added recently through the 102nd amendment of the constitution. Led by Justice Ashok Bhushan, this constitutional bench consisting of 5 judges scrutinized the necessity to revisit the set 50% cap. Interesting to note, if the SC reconsiders the limit, it will have to constitute a constitutional bench of 11 judges to do so. This fiasco compels us to dive into the issue at hand. Why do we need to revisit it, and what shall be its implications?
This social issue has a long withstanding history. Reservation on caste lines in India has been a hotbed of clashes both in the legislature and the judiciary. An ethical dilemma persisted for a long time regarding whether caste should and can be a parameter? Kaka Committee’s report of 1953, Balaji judgment and Chitralekha judgment of 1962, and a few others noted that backwardness has to be a crucial element and caste lines can not solely be a defining parameter. Rajendran Judgement of 1967 flipped this precedent, wherein it recognized caste to be an essential parameter and independent of economic level. Next came the landmark Indira Sawhney case, popularly known as the Mandal commission case of 1992. A historic 9-judges bench recognized the need for reservation, it being a crucial part of the Indian Constitution. Alongside, the need for an upper cap was conspicuous. In a general sense, SC noted a maximum of 50% reservation in educational institutions and jobs. Although the government can cross this specified limit in an exceptional situation, it will be binding in most cases. This provision of an ‘exception’ is what sparked the current controversy.
The background of the case is crucial too. Maharashtra Government in 2018 passed a law based on the report of Maharashtra State Backward Commission(MSBC) to give 16% reservation to the Maratha community. This provision exceeded the set 50% limit, and subsequently, the center challenged it in the Bombay High Court, where KK Venugopal represented the Centre. Mukul Rohtagi, representing the Maharashtra government, defended it by citing the ‘exceptional circumstances’ gateway under the Indira Sawhney case. Bombay HC reduced the reservation to 12% in educational institutions and 13% in jobs, which still exceeded the prescribed limit. Hence, this issue is now in SC, and through this fiasco, we now are at crossroads to reevaluate reservation and the caste system as a whole. Today is the time wherein we could make epochal changes in the social norms and change the course of our social perception and politics in India.
The first and the foremost social problem facing us the increasing disparities and decreasing government jobs. In a world, where the upper castes want to comfortably hide in the veils of meritocracy and be oblivious to the social privileges they enjoy. The whole debate for so long has only been on the provision of reservation and not on the caste system. This accentuates our callous attitude and jealousy towards the provision that a certain section is granted. It might be related to the famed thought that “When you are accustomed to privileging, even equality seems like oppression.” There are additional issues like that of the stability of the federal structure of our legislature which is an innate part of our society and certain legal technicalities which might have widespread social implications.
In a nutshell, it is high time that reservation should be revisited and revised, to make it compatible with the current social scenario and implementation of the concepts of creamy layer. However, this should not be our guiding principle for the long run. We have to acknowledge that the caste system, and not the reservation, should be our object. We should acknowledge and uphold the human rights of everyone, irrespective of their strata or identity in society. It should be our inherent responsibility to eradicate this calamitous practice and establish true meritocracy. Underlining that this ideal will take many years to undo the harms done from past hundreds of years, it is indispensable that the upper castes acknowledge the knapsack of privileges they ascribed. The caste system has claimed millions of opportunities that could have changed generations of those who today live in flagitious conditions for no fault of their own.
Having a selective and partisan attitude towards reservation while ignoring the impending whims of the caste system, will in turn consolidate the caste constructs and further aggravate the issue. In order to deal with this social evil, we need to accept that all humans deserve basic rights and opportunities and that these provisions are not debatable.
Written by Rehan Kunal Jagota