As one would expect from a person of his judicial background, Rajindar Sachar made a dispassionate analysis of the problem of the OBC reservation issue (April 16, 2007).
However, not having direct experience of the education system, he cannot know the ground realities. Hence, his conclusions need some modifications.
Even though it is more than likely that the proportion of the OBC population is in excess of the 27 per cent quota proposed by the government, the court has decided to proceed with caution.
That caution is necessary on two grounds: One, it is important to decide who the OBCs are today and not who they were 75 years ago.
Two, it is necessary to check whether backwardness of OBCs in 2007 is the result of 5,000 years of tradition, or whether it is a creation of 50 years of education (mis)management?
The government’s own top policy body supports the view taken by the court for objective analysis and contradicts the stand taken by the HRD ministry.
Even where service providers exist, the quality of delivery is poor and those responsible for delivering the services cannot be held accountable.
Reacting to this statement, finance minister P Chidambaram has written:
“It can be argued that you do not repair a leaking water supply pipe by simultaneously stepping up the water pressure”.
Thus, at the highest levels of government there are deep concerns about accountability and about the acts of omission and commission of the HRD ministry that have led to the current poor performance of the education sector.
Inclusion is the fashionable expression these days; it has attained the status of moral imperative. Inclusion is the policy by which the HRD ministry swears by.
The actual ground situation is different.
Thus the poor quality education that the Approach Paper complains about is largely confined to government controlled schools; the better off sections have escaped the malaise by opting out of government and government-aided schools.
That enquiry is moot because most chief ministers and almost all education ministers are OBCs. Therefore, the ground situation is quite different from the caste divide painted by the HRD ministry.
Before Independence, in many parts of the country, OBCs controlled land and forward castes concentrated on educated employment.
Income from land has dwindled and the OBCs are seeking to take over the economic space that was occupied by forward castes.
In the case of higher education, the Approach Paper has set three
goals: expansion, inclusion and excellence.
It is politically fashionable these days to paint forward castes as amoral and anti-social. The Supreme Court may like to consider enquiring how far this allegation is true.
In the Mahabharata, Yudhishthira begs for five villages for himself and his brothers.
The Kauravas rejected even that modest request on legalist grounds.
Is not the current situation similar?
Is it not the fact that the political class is rejecting a modest request that at least a few IITs and IIMs be left free to pursue excellence, not exclusively for forward castes but for one and all and without caste bias?
Finally, which is the true divide: Forward-backward castes or is it politically over-privileged castes (POPs) and politically under-privileged castes (PUPs)?
P V Indiresan
The writer is former director, IIT Madras.