The passing of new reservation policy by the Parliament for the ‘poor’ forwards is seen as a game changer for the ruling party, after their defeat in the three Hindi heartland states. Remember the poor is the one who earns over Rs 66,000 a month and owns less than five acres of land with a residential house below 1000 sq. feet. By that standard over 90% of the Brahmins, Baniyas, Patels, Marathas, Gujjars, Thakurs, Muslims and Christians could be covered which means that over 90% of the forward sections are now entitled for reservations!
The introduction of fundamental policy shift, with just less than 100 days to go for general elections and brought on the last day of the Lok Sabha’s winter session only proves the desperation for a new political narrative after the ‘Sab ka sath sab ka vikas’ failed. As the five-year term of the vikas purush comes to an end, the new quota for the ‘poor’ forwards only highlights that the Gujarat model’s failure. There are not enough jobs created and the educated in all sections including forwards are unable to be part of the so called India’s growth story leading to the upper castes like the Marathas, Patidars and Rajputs demanding reservations for them.
In 1990 when V.P. Singh decided to implement the OBC reservations, the present ruling party fiercely opposed the ‘mandal politics’ and introduced it’s own variety of ‘kamandal politics’ of Ram temple at Ayodhya. The present ruling party has never been a great supporter of social justice through reservations. They rejected V.P. Singh’s proposal of economic-based 10% quota then. In 2015, the RSS chief had called for a review of the reservation policy. The Modi bhakts always believed that his rise in 2014 would lead to the doing away of reservations. It could be argued that the reservations for the ‘poor’ forwards is a step in that direction i.e. replacing the caste with economic criteria and in a way strengthening the core base of the Brahmin-Baniya Party. But that would be against the very spirit of affirmative action.
Due to the impending elections the opposition parties though questioned the timing of bringing such a policy, their support for the constitutional amendment has done immense damage to the constitution and its core values of social justice. But then at election time such niceties always take back seat. Politicians always consider the Indian electorate with contempt and as bunch of ignoramus who can be swayed by such carrots. But the fact of the matter is, it is they who come with stupid ideas when they are in their last lap. Remember in 2014 UPA II introduced such a reservation for Jats a day before the general elections were announced. The results of 2014 elections still stare at them. History tells us that V.P. Singh himself could not harvest what he had sown in 1990.
The legal tenability of the quota for the ‘poor’ forwards is doubted by almost every constitutional expert (except possibly the finance minister) who thundered that the 50% cap is applicable only to caste categories. Such a argument was not acceptable to the Gujarat High Court which struck down a reservation above the 50% rule made in favour of Patidars. The new 10% quota without any detailed scientific and technical assessment and the most important requirement of inadequate representation of the ‘poor’ forwards in the services is bound to face intense judicial scrutiny.
The courts have normally frowned upon economic criteria as a measuring rod of backwardness and the below 50% rule has been heart and soul of reservations since the sixties of the last century. When V.P. Singh’s OBC reservations was upheld, P.V. Narasimha Rao’s economic criteria was struck down.
The court held primary purpose of reservation was to ensure participatory justice and not redistribution. Six out of nine judges in the Mandal case rejected the economic criteria. The Supreme Court was loud and clear that backwardness cannot be determined exclusively on economic criteria…. it must be social backwardness with educational and economic backwardness being used as a tool to measure social backwardness with inadequate representation in public employment. The court was clear that reservation is not meant for economic upliftment.
The ‘poor’ forwards who earn about Rs 66,000 (the non-taxable limit of an individual is Rs 2,50,000) can never be classified backward within the meaning of article 16 without social and educational backwardness. That was the essence in the mind of the framers of our constitution who considered the caste system prevalent in the country and made provisions for affirmative action. A former secretary in the ministry of social justice has correctly summed up the reservation policy – ‘it was not a programme to eliminate poverty. It was part of the national enterprise to remove inequalities created by the caste system – there are poor in all castes – they need comprehensive scholarship, educational loans, skilled development assistance – they require only economic support, not reservation’.
Whichever way you look at it the new policy is bound to have long lasting impact. It has created a myth of putting individuals and classes in the same basket. The cry for increase over 10% is bound to be there. The existing reservations are bound to be affected. How the Supreme Court and the country shall react to this cynical policy would be seen after the general elections.
V.P. Singh the messiah of the OBC reservation was always attacked and mocked by the forwards for creating divisions in society. With the present policy rammed through the parliament, he stands triumphed. He has the last laugh, wherever he is!
(The writer is practising advocate, senior faculty in law and political analyst)
