The intricacies of Indian social
setup have always given a tough time to the policy makers of the country to put
in place public welfare schemes, which may serve the purpose of one and all
alike. Thereon, when the society is already divided on religious, communal and
various other grounds, what is the need to divide it further by drawing lines
in the name of the reservation? Reservation if on one hand is the only ray of
hope for some socially disadvantaged sections of society to move forward in
life, on the other hand it is the same reservation, which is preventing a sick
and an ailing person from becoming healthy.
The
reservation issue raised in Gujarat is a reminiscent of the Mandal Commission
Protests of 1989 and reflects the glimpses of 2008 reservation issue, raised
then by the Gujjars of Rajasthan, demanding 5% reservation from Rajasthan
government. The Gujjar agitation of Rajasthan assumed the ugly shape, the
moment Gujjars from the adjoining states started showing solidarity with them
and ultimately resulted in the incidents of killing, vandalism, arson and many
more. Of late, the Patel community of Gujarat has taken the Gujarat Government
and the state as a whole hostage by coming on roads in support of their demand.
The Patel community of the Gujarat wants to be included in the OBC category, so
that the community may reap the 27% reservation benefits in all Government jobs
and other service sectors. There is an urgent need that the agitation be nipped
at its infancy by preventing/discouraging any type or kind of solidarity from
any quarter, which otherwise may turn things uglier than what we saw during
Rajasthan Gujjar agitation.
Primarily,
the fundamentals of the Indian reservation policy appear too weak to justify
the fairness of the scheme. It seems the decision pertaining to upliftment and
betterment of socially disadvantaged sections of Indian society was taken more
on emotional grounds, rather than by having an objective approach towards the
problem. There is no denying in the fact that the majority of the downtrodden
and needy people belonged to the socially disadvantaged sections of the Indian
society, but that should have never been a parameter to sideline the poor and
needy people belonging to the so called upper caste groups. How far it is
justified that welfare measures be extended to people under constitutional
guarantee on the basis of his/her caste, community, region or religion and not
on the basis of his/her social standing. It is always desirable that any
welfare scheme be extended to all needy and deserving people irrespective of
their religious, community and caste affiliations.
It is a
known fact that people belonging to socially disadvantaged sections of the
society generally have lesser access to opportunities for various reasons, but
the foremost reason for their social backwardness is directly related to their
economic backwardness. Any individual belonging to any well to do family has
always better access to all such means, which can contribute to changing
his/her social standing. Whatever reservation practices are in place, the
benefits are mostly reaped by the few belonging to all such identified
sections.
Even today,
one can quote instances whereby a sizeable population of so called upper caste
families across the country are earning their two square meals a day by doing
all kinds of odd jobs. We may find the children belonging to well off upper
caste families, who despite having ample opportunities, fail to excel in life.
On the other hand, there are children from poor families who do exceptionally
well in both their academic attainments and do excel in other social spheres.
Given the
fact, where do our reservation welfare measures justify their uniformity for
one and all on the basis of their economic soundness. How far is it justified that
a destitute belonging to one group be extended with all possible help and the
other be deprived of only because he/she belongs to a particular caste, group,
etc. How far is it justified to adopt two different yardsticks to measure a
common problem on the basis of religion and caste affinity of an individual?
Today it is
the Patel community of the Gujarat and tomorrow some other group and the day
after some more groups may come forward over the issues of reservation and
ultimately we may find no stopping. Perhaps, the time has come when the
Government of India should revisit the reservation policy issue. The bigger
fact remains that the decision taken at a particular point of time does not
necessarily mean that it will have relevance in the times to come. Patels’ of
Gujarat are known for their economic soundness and still if they are pressing
for their reservation in jobs and other service sectors corroborates the fact
that people no more correlate their economic soundness as a reason for their
reservation and deem reservation more as a matter of right, for having
constitutional guarantees. The economic soundness has lost its relevance with
the reservation issue, hence once again questioning the need to put up a better
parameter with a better mechanism to identify the true beneficiary under any
welfare scheme.
Besides, it
is an open secret that the reservation policy of Government of India, which is
in place for over 65 years, has failed to yield the desired results for which
actually the policy was framed. It is the urbanities of so called downtrodden
and socially disadvantaged sections that reap most of the benefits of all such
welfare schemes, while their rural cousins remain deprived of all such
benefits.
Needless to
say that the reservation sops offered to the weaker sections of Indian society
were aimed to support and enable them to stand on their own legs and not to
attach these walking aids to their bodies as extra limbs, which are being
misused by the beneficiaries to run an extra mile for their greater advantage.
These beneficiaries have somewhere forgotten that the reservation support is
there to encourage them, to move alongside the society with all dignity and
self esteem. Ironically, things seem to be have gone contrary to what they were
actually aimed at. In the process, the beneficiaries indeed have moved ahead,
but have somewhere in-between lost the touch of fellow feeling, which has
resulted into disproportionate use, misuse and abuse of all such schemes,
whereby the needy and deserving destitute stand distantly marginalised from the
ambit of all such schemes. The abuse of welfare measures has made it further
difficult for sociologists to ponder over the basics of the reservation policy.
Time and again, the subject has been discussed threadbare and the more it is
being discussed, the more it gets entangled between the two extremities, as
whether the reservation should be continued or we should do away with it.
Whatsoever,
it is a proven fact that all such welfare measures in their present form are
not serving the purpose, the way they should have been. So, it is high time to
reorganise all such welfare schemes to the suitability of those, for whom the
schemes are actually meant. The only thing which emerges from the reservation
maelstroms is that reservation has become a reason to create a further divide
in society on the basis of caste, colour, creed, region, religion, cult, clan,
community, etc. and the time has come when people belonging to different
sections of society are to be treated at par without any prejudice. The policy
makers should revisit the reservation policy with a more holistic approach,
whereby lines of divide be obliterated by introducing and extending welfare
schemes irrespective of religious or caste affiliation of the needy and
deserving with zero or minimal constitutional guarantees
No comments:
Post a Comment