Copping out on reservations
Not one opposed reservations for OBCs per se, yet all papers assumed that there is some merit in the case that the OBCs donøt need reservation.
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Where do our major newspapers stand on reservations, whether for OBCs or SC/STs, whether in government jobs or in educational institutions? The short answer, dear readers is nowhere. They want to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. Nor, shockingly, did any newspaper except the Business Standard take note of the dangerous statement made by V P Singh that "it is not just a matter of the Constitution but also democracy. It is unfortunate that we do not have the provision for a referendum." No one else asked how he could pit one against the other.
Just consider what they wrote after the Supreme Court stayed the government`s move to reserve 27 per cent of the seats in institutions of higher learning for the OBCs. Not one of them opposed reservations for OBCs per se, except in some sort of colleges such as the IITs and the IIMs (though not medical colleges). All of them assumed that there is some merit in the case that the OBCs don`t need reservation. All did, however, say that the rich amongst them should not be the beneficiaries of reservation.
The Hindu described the reservations policy as "a major social justice measure that struck a fair balance between the interests of different sections." Clearly, if you publish from Chennai you don`t say that OBC reservations are bad, especially not when the government itself calls for a bandh against the judgment. The paper also expressed surprise over something that is trivial both in itself and in the overall context. "What is surprising is that the court should have stayed the operation of the law so close to admission time, and that when the institutions were preparing to increase the number of seats over three years to provide for reservations."
Then it questioned the court`s decision to question the basis on which the government wanted 27 per cent reservation. "In essence, both the identification of the Other Backward Classes and the 27 per cent figure for reservations followed the earlier government order that reserved posts in government services on the basis of the Mandal Commission recommendations. A nine-member bench of the Supreme Court upheld that order. Yet this time round the court chose to question the validity of the use of the 1931 census as the basis and point to the absence of any new survey of backwardness as a major infirmity in the reservations system."
The Telegraph took a more sensible view saying that the "Supreme Court sees the issue of social justice from a wider perspective… The court order, in fact, takes the wind out of their sails by substituting political expediency with genuine social concern as the plinth for social justice. It categorically mentions that the law for OBC reservations cannot be implemented "unless and until" the government is able to determine which sections of the population truly need the benefits of the policy of positive discrimination."
The Pioneer did its usual number, using the occasion to take a swipe at the UPA and the Communists. But it too did not question the need for OBC reservation. "The court has not taken a puritanical or theoretical stand against all quotas; hence, those Communist leaders who have accused it of a "retrograde" verdict are going way over the top. It has only argued that data from the 1931 Census can hardly be the determining factor in the administration of a caste-based affirmative action programme."
It then added that if "caste has to be reintroduced as a query in the 2011 Census and all future enumerations. Should that not be deemed appropriate, then an alternative but equally authoritative source of demographic data, for example, reports of the National Sample Survey Organisation, needs to be accessed and institutionalised as the final arbiter"
The Indian Express, as it does sometimes, went off at a tangent. "…beyond the professional name-calling, the apex court judgement can also afford public debate in our country some crucial space to take up issues that have been unfortunately shelved in the fiercely political quota debate…. The court`s latest intervention does well to again ask why in a quick-changing India, an over seven decades-old census is used to answer that question." Then came the copout. " But there are other questions as well that must come to centrestage in the pause decreed by the court. What is the real crisis in higher education in India?" etc.
The Asian Age said "The Supreme Court assesses the pros and cons of caste-based reservation purely from the Constitutional and legal angles. For the political class, the issue is solely a political one and nothing else….Between now and August, when the court will consider the issue again, the Centre must devise a formula that will help cool down tempers".
The Business Standard, which does not represent any political party summed it up best. " the genie has been let out of the bottle and no one can put it back. No political party can afford to not support the OBC cause, and so there is no room any more for reasoned argument or the exploring of alternatives to reservation like expanding the number of seats so that scarcity is addressed and there is no need for reservation any more. All that can be hoped for is that the government will be sensible and not seek confrontation with the court."
Subscribe To The Newsletter