OVER the years reservations have become the standard format for groups demanding equality of results. There is a great degree of political pressure to extend reservations to include communities other than Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). On the other hand there is little attempt to reflect upon what reservations were meant to achieve and, indeed, to review this policy which has been in operation for over 50 years. In order to accomplish this task it is necessary to contextualize reservations within the framework of democratic governance. Only then can we adequately finesse it or plot its future.

With the gradual ascendance of primordial politics and the tendency to think of vote banks along caste lines, the necessity for critically assessing reservations has been put aside. No doubt, this requires a serious intellectual engagement that does not quite fit in with the exigencies of populist, short term politics. This is why, for the most part, reservations have become a kind of holy cow in public circles. Nobody dare question its relevance, and, what is worse, many are more than willing to extend reservations to cover other groups by arguing that they had been victims of some kind of historic injustice.

Without a doubt, while some classes, categories and communities in society have enjoyed privileges, perhaps for centuries, there have been others that have faced discrimination of one sort or the other, either in recent times or in history. If one were to grant reservations to all of them, then it would be very difficult to establish a democratic society where the individual is paramount, and where rewards and social worth are judged on the basis of individual accomplishment. The argument that is often put against such assessments of individual worth is that when groups have been downtrodden and exploited for centuries then the scope for considerations on merit must make room for social equality. Before we talk of the individual, is it not important to take care of poverty first?

At first sight, reservations may look like an anti-poverty measure. This is because the target community is usually very poor. There is a strong statistical correlation between being a member of a particular caste, tribe or religious community, and being poor. For this reason the cultural mark of ascription serves the purpose well for it is a ready reckoner in determining who are to be the beneficiaries of reservations. If, in this process, a few well to do families get an undue advantage, then so be it. This is a minor matter in the light of the fact that an overwhelming majority of people belonging to a certain group or community are wretchedly poor and, what is more, this poverty is the result of grave historic injustices against them.

This handicap weighs heavily on them even today. Therefore, they need positive discrimination to get that extra push to move up and claim their rightful position in a democratic society. This is how reservations were supposed to increase fraternity and broad-base democracy. As we all know, liberty can be established by law, equality by dictat, but for fraternity to happen it requires a substantial realization of citizenship. The founding figures of the Indian constitution knew this problem only too well. In fact, this was the subject of Dr. Ambedkar’s famous speech on 26 November 1949.

Why is it that those who press for extending the scope of reservations never really raise issues that relate to economic development? After B.R. Ambedkar, rarely do we come across Dalit activists who demonstrate any concern with problems relating to the structure of economic relations. They are more interested in the issue of identity and, consequently, their energies tend to focus around the politics of reservation (Vora 2004: 283; see also Shah 2001). Rarely, if ever, have they voiced strong opinions regarding capitalism, globalization, agro-industrial development and, sadly, about the quality of education and training available to Dalits across the country. In fact, quite often, some of the Dalit activists tend to believe that these are matters that take attention away from their major concern, viz., reservations. That it is important to enable Dalits to acquire skills and assets that are socially valuable so that they can compete as equals, in the not too long run, is not seriously entertained.

The beneficiaries of reservations so far have been across different classes. There is no doubt that there are today a much larger number of Dalits in Grade I services than what was the case after Independence. According to current estimates Dalits occupy a little more than 12% of Grade I positions in the public sector. As one goes down the ladder the number of Dalits keeps increasing till we come to the Grade IV level where they are actually over-represented.

These figures are very interesting and most striking is the increasing presence of Dalits in Grade I services over the past 50 years. Soon after independence the proportion of Dalits in Grade I services was hovering around 1%. Today it is over 12% (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 2002-3) and before long it will become 17%, which is roughly equivalent to the proportion of their population in the country.

The fact is that most private sector companies have serious problems regarding their hiring policy. Very few of them have a transparent system of recruitment. In most cases it is the network that counts. This network excludes certain people rather than discriminates against them. In other words, regardless of one’s caste background, if the network is not supportive of the applicant then the chances of making it to the post are extremely limited.

Rarely does one see regular advertisements for jobs in the private sector. This is primarily because employers in these companies generally prefer applicants that are recommended. They are reluctant to go to the open market to search for prospective employees. This smacks of a lack of professionalism, which is why their plea of upholding standards sounds hollow to many. Most private sector organizations choose only between those who are network recommendees. This excludes a vast majority of potential applicants from any active job consideration in such organisations.

So it is not as if SCs and STs are purposively discriminated against. Perhaps SCs and STs do not make it to the private sector because they lack those critical network connections. Otherwise, in a large number of major private companies, particularly the transnationals and multinationals, there is no real interest regarding the caste background of a person. In fact, if anything, there is a strong possibility that Muslims would be discriminated against, especially in family run private organizations.

But to get back to the earlier point about caste based discrimination, it must be said that private sector executives, in general, are wary of employing anyone who has not come to them through their networks. So even those who are not SCs or STs, but lack network connections will be discriminated against. To think that private sector employers go out of their way to ascertain the caste of their prospective employees is, generally, wide off the mark. The rule of thumb for private sector recruitment in most cases is: no network connections, no jobs.

Affirmative action includes policies that advocate representation of different communities and groups, and not just caste. In addition, affirmative action also encourages and rewards those companies and institutions that get state funding when they show a satisfactory mix of communities on their employment rolls. The ingredients of this mix are generally left open which is why the quota system, as in reservations, is resisted in affirmative action. Thus, even though affirmative action is not the same as reservations, in this case too it is the state that plays the lead role for the policy applies only to the public sector and those who depend on state funding. This version of affirmative action is best exemplified in America.

To argue that as long as there is prejudice there should be reservations is simply incorrect. Prejudice can never be fought with policies. Prejudice can be contained when there are proper laws that are intolerant of discrimination. But most significantly, prejudice is best combated when its victims are strong enough to take the battle up to the victimizers in the court of law. Reservations were meant to create this strength and confidence among SCs and STs.

Unfortunately, prejudice lurks everywhere. If some people are able to escape prejudicial and discriminating treatment against them it is because they are strong enough to hit back. There are prejudices against linguistic groups, against regional backgrounds, against religious communities, against sects, and against those who have different dietary preferences, and so on. In most of these instances there is no need for special social policies as the people concerned are both willing and able to stand up for their rights. Likewise, the SC and ST elite should set the trend in their communities and fight back against discrimination with all the legal and constitutional means at their disposal. This is ultimately how attitudes against Dalits will cease to be expressed in social practice, whether or not prejudice exists at multiple personal points.