Reservation: A victim of
vote-bank politics
By Prabhat Jha

TIMELINE 1918: Reservations introduced for the first time for select castes in Madras Presidency. 1935: Legislative seats reserved for the first time after the Poona Pact. 1980: A commission under B.P. Mandal submits report on reservation for OBCs to home minister Buta Singh. 1989: A beleaguered V.P. Singh accepts the report. 1989-90: Anti- Mandal protests engulf India 1992: Supreme Court finally clears all legal hurdles to its implementation. 1993: Mandal recommendation extended to all Central Government jobs. 2006: Mandal II is implemented by Arjun Singh in all central universities, IIMs and IITs. (Source: India Today)

The issue of Reservation is such that even if it doesn’t inspire anything constructive, it always manages to kick up a great deal of controversy. After the unfortunate experience gained years ago while implementing Mandal Commission’s recommendations, the Government should have exercised greater caution this time round.

It would be wrong to assert that society abhors change because change has been a dynamic social reality from the beginning. The one aspect which makes a difference is whether proper steps were taken to prepare the society on a psychological level before bringing about that change. If necessary precautions and procedures precede important decisions then a positive action takes place otherwise there is a reaction, a recoil.

Before Independence Congress was a movement, but later, it became a political party which was no longer connected to the freedom struggle but concentrated solely on votes which along with its lust for power became the focal point of all its policy decisions. Congress’s hunger for power was natural and kept growing in the absence of a healthy Opposition which was nonexistent after Independence and took a number of years to come into being. In that period of nearly 40 years, apart from a few brief spells, Opposition parties kept emerging at the Centre and State level but were not in a position to pose a direct challenge.

TELLING FIGURES 1 lakh Estimated number of Government jobs under quota vacant across the country 37.82% Literacy rate among Scheduled Castes 79.88% High-school drop-out rate among Scheduled Castes 6% Class I Central Government jobs held by SCs and STs 89% Class I Central Government jobs held by others who constitute only 25% of the population (Source: India Today)

With no one to question authority, those in power tend to take all decisions as they please. This is exactly what happened with the Congress party and led it to take the self-destructive decision of imposing Emergency on the nation. It doesn’t matter which party is in power, the views of all other parties must be considered, especially if it is a matter of national importance in which everyone must be taken into confidence under all circumstances so that it becomes a collective decision. This is the democratic responsibility of the government. Taking unilateral decisions by ignoring the Opposition may not be a crime against the Constitution, but it can certainly be classified as a crime according to principles of Democracy.

In the beginning, there was no opposition to recommendations of Mandal Commission, but when the then Prime Minister V. P. Singh implemented them, he did not carry out the necessary process to prepare the people or collect public opinion. He did not even take any initiative in this direction. We know that all those issues which effect energetic youngsters, which are directly connected to combustible youth should be handled with extreme care.

If this had been kept in mind at that time, the nation wouldn’t have gone up in flames and no Goswami would have offered himself to fire. There is an old saying, that as long as kajal remains in the eye, it enhances beauty, but in any other place it is nothing but an ugly stain.

The controversy caused by recent statements of Shri Arjun Singh regarding Reservation are yet another example of how the necessary steps have not been taken for respecting public opinion. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Shri Singh may be right, shouldn’t he have exercised the caution of following the proper procedure before saying a word on such a weighty issue?

There is no harm in having discussions with all sections effected by a decision. In this case there were no extensive discussions even amongst members of the Central Cabinet. If this hadn’t been the case, why would Shri Kapil Sibal stand up in opposition to Shri Singh in spite of the fact that both belong to the same party and are members of the same Cabinet! What is the reason for this curious contradiction?

Isn’t it a violation of democratic principles to keep the Opposition parties away from such crucial matters? The Prime Minister’s silence on this issue is not supporting Shri Arjun Singh’s decision and on top of that comes a recent response of Rahul Gandhi to reporters’ queries that Reservation is a sensitive issue which needs to be considered in the AICC.

It is ironical that while the political newcomer Rahul baba appears to understand the gravity of this situation, the much senior Shri Arjun Singh is completely indifferent to it. Rahul Gandhi’s statement that he would like to meet the protesting students shows that there were no discussions within Congress or the Central Government before such a serious decision was taken.

An important incident highlights the inherent contradictions in this affair. When Arjun Singh met the students protesting against reservations, he said that he would fix an appointment for them to meet the Prime Minister. By this manoeuvre he neatly tossed the ball in PM’s court and led the people to conclude that no discussions on this important issue been held between Arjun Singh and the Prime Minister.

Today the situation is so critical that the moment ‘Reservation’ is mentioned the common man has visions of arson and bloodshed. Since any decision on this issue is immediately followed by extreme reactions, it was imperative that Arjun Singh should have had consultations within his party and his Government. But his indifference was revealed when he announced his decision about Reservation during Assembly elections of five States. Was he not aware of the Model Code of Conduct? Can this act be treated as a mere slip of the tongue? Shri Arjun Singh may be able to satisfy the Election Commission’s queries with a carefully-worded reply but he cannot mislead the citizens of a democratically mature India.

Arjun Singh has been caught in the web of his own making. In spite of all his cleverness, one thing is quite clear—that he never intended to get Reservation for backward classes. If he had been sincere, he would have made an honest effort and followed the proper procedure before taking his decision.

No one has the right to use Reservation for creating divisions in the country. Arjun Singh has been checkmated in the political chessboard on this issue. A dishonest act never bears fruit and its fallout cannot be suppressed for long. This is why the entire country is fearful that the horrifying events of Mandal Commission might be repeated. If that happens, a question will be asked: ‘Who is to blame?’, and the only answer will be—‘vote-bank politics’.