BOOK REVIEW

Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 30, 2014 vol xlIX no 35 41

Affi rmative Action, Reservation or Appeasement

Ram Puniyani

The political scenario in India is heavily dominated by quota and reservation politics. The imple-

mentation of the Mandal Commission report by V P Singh in 1990 totally changed the political scenario and con-tinues to affect it. Reservation for women in panchayats sailed through but reser-vation in Parliament is mired in innu-merable problems. Based on the fi ndings of the Sachar Committee and Ranganath Mishra Commission there have been demands for reservation for Muslim minorities in some states, but the proposal has met with such hostile opposition that it is practically impossible that such a step can be contemplated for imple-mentation. Besides, with the change of regime in May 2014 and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government coming to power at the centre, such issues will be relegated to the past. It is against this background that this path breaking book written with deep insights into the Indian social reality and the unevenness in all sections of society needs to be giv-en serious consideration and debated in different social and academic forums.

Rudolf Heredia, whose previous inter-vention, Changing Gods engaged with the issue of conversions which have been the bone of contention and the axis around which the Rashtriya Swayam sevak Sangh (RSS) constructed its politics for decades was again deeply rooted in Indian reality. It demonstrated the genesis of the issue and the need to understand “why con-version” rather than raising tempera-tures on this phenomenon. In Taking Sides Heredia takes pains to go into the lack of proper process of secularisation-democratisation which led to the present morass where multiple sectors of society suffer from the disadvantages due to their caste, religion or gender. His premise is very humane, for him the central concern is justice, “A ‘just socie-ty’ involves our understanding of justice

as much as it does our under standing of society” (p x). Justice must be done and seen to be done and not just debated. There is a need for practical action be-yond the debating rooms. This again re-quires the consent of the gover ned for different actions leading towards jus-tice in society. The limits of our actions in this direction are guided by consen-sus and legitimacy and how far they can be stretched. This book sets out to ex-plore those outside limits of action.

Majoritarian Understanding

The author points out that the notion of justice which revolves around a majori-tarian understanding articulated in the public sphere and the society is unjust. This is what leads the author to the cen-tral concern of his contribution, “an in-clusively just society”. That is, the striv-ing towards equality and freedom of the individual: groups are the foundations and the justice mechanism has to be structurally incorporated into the system. He points out that despite more than six decades of independence we continue to be ambiguous about the socially excluded and our vulnerable minorities continue to exist in deprivation. The author makes a crucial point that these structural inequalities show us the un-fi nished business of our freedom struggle and so the effort of the magnitude of the “second freedom struggle” is needed to overcome these inequalities.

These inequalities also lead to viole-nce against the vulnerable sections of society. The ruling classes which have been the major benefi ciaries of the free-dom movement are least concerned about overcoming these inequalities; a just society is not on their agenda. Under the garb of merit and effi ciency they are

pursuing their hidden agenda of self-fulfi lment. He challenges us by posing the question: “can we strive for an equi-table and egalitarian society, justice for all and equality for each?” He calls for application of public morality in contrast to political pragmatism.

He also lays the foundation of the debate by underlining the “exclusive dem ands” and compromise on the rights of “others”. As such this is an effort to prepare the levelling of the ground, but in due course it also leads to the rise of identity politics. He goes on to elaborate the central concern of our Constitution – to include the excluded. Starting with the colonial period, he sees the begin-ning of this inequality in the focusing of the issue on reserved quotas and reserved constituencies. It is this that has led to the binding of the excluded in a divide and rule agenda. The Census initiated by the British played the role of crystallising caste and homogenising religion. Gender remained out of this discourse. The excluded sections also came up with subaltern movements, building the legacy of liberation ideo-logy in the North and empowerment of the self respect movement in the South. The Constitution’s quest for justice got refl ected in the Fundamental Rights, the attempt to outline the notion of a “just society through just means” which also seems to be author’s favourite phrase. This logic ally leads to going be-yond the social contract and to the more desirable “just society”.

Diversity in Unity

His notion of equality is deeply linked with justice and also with evolving a consensus for the same. The title of one of the chapters of the book sums up a comprehensive understanding of the topic, “Equality for All: Justice for Each”, and so the concepts of affi rmative action, positive discrimination and reser-vation in different situations and circum-stances are put in the proper context. The reservation paradox becomes compli-cated as different castes start com peting for inclusion in the reserved category and a competitive politics eme r ges, which is very diffi cult to negotiate, and also creates different competing caste

Taking Sides: Reservation Quotas and Minority Rights in India by Rudolph C Heredia (New Delhi: Penguin), 2012; pp 383, Rs 499.

BOOK REVIEW

august 30, 2014 vol xlIX no 35 EPW Economic & Political Weekly42

groups. Many of these inclusions and ex-clusions are fairly arbitrary. Heredia does regard the constitutional context in which the minority rights were en-shrined as the defi ning moment of our republic. The focus issues are different for different minorities, for Muslims it is discrimination and marginalisation, for Christians it is religious freedom and secular tolerance. One of the major issues complicating the debate on reservations is that the Scheduled Caste (SC) quota for dalit religious minorities has not been ex-tended beyond Sikhs and Buddhists. The SCs amongst the Muslims and Christians are deprived of this. He makes the apt point that “The challenge of old plurali-ties and a new pluralism will demand not just unity in diversity but also diver-sity in unity.” The issue of reservations for women is an equally painful chapter where the process has begun in some ways but continues to be in various stages of transition. We do not want an assimi-lative majoritarianism so our divided so-ciety does require an inte grative politics. That protects the community’s diversity.

Despite these provisions, one can say that reservation has done little to alleviate the situation of the sections for which it was intended. It has pro-vided little succour to some communi-ties but the stru ctural obstacles remain. Another fact which is changing the contours of the situation is the changing economic- industrial structure. It is trans-forming the ground reality and some from the disadvantaged sections have become part of this new situation also. The emergence of the “creamy layer” who have benefi tted from reservations and continue to demand the same also persists.

It is true that the sign of a just regime should be in a just outcome, not only in laying down laws and procedures. The most diffi cult task for the government is to see that quotas for vulnerable groups are complementary to the interests of other vulnerable groups. And this is where the divergent political parties have different and confl icting approaches. We can also divide political parties into two groups. One aims for such a just society by various means, the other being those which want to leave the

process at the prevalent “formal” equality and so being for a totally unjust situation. Those against reservations or affi rmative action in a way are opposed to substan-tive justice and equality, the status quo being their hallmark. These parties op-pose reservations, affi rmative action, and discussion on minority rights and in a way are opposed to the constitutional morality of liberty, equality and frater-nity. On the other side the legislatures have been restrained by the judiciary when they cross the limits imposed by constitutional legality to keep such actions within the “structure of Consti-tution”. Affi rmative action and reserva-tion quotas have to be reconciled and balanced with the fundamental rights as affi rmed in the Fundamentals Rights in Articles 14 to 17. The minority rights have to be in consonance with the Fun-damental Rights in the Constitution.

Covering a lot of ground the book takes us through a journey of the ine-qualities prevalent in all sections of society and the multiple issues raised thereby. It becomes clear that the Hindu right, the RSS progeny currently in power is by and large opposed to all sorts of affi rmative action. In the name of equality it wants status quo and formal equality. Heredia does well to sum up by stating that

In India, caste, religion and patriarchy em-e rge as three most resilient obstacles for a just society through just means. One is hit-ting against the solid wall of majoritarian-ism if one talks about reservation for reli-gious minorities, despite the fact that the condition of this section is abysmal. Very aptly the challenge is our quest must move against and beyond the injustices that these institutions (caste, religion and patriarchy) have imposed on our people, without bur-dening them with new one’s or consolidating old ones.

This is quite a tall order, more so in situations where the privileged groups, upper castes, majority religion and men are asserting their privileges through the politics of the Hindu right. We do need a “second freedom” struggle to over come the present impasse over social change. The policies of inclusion have to be planned and implemented with commit-ment, which is lacking; and care, which is nowhere to be seen. In the abse nce of

powerful social movements the policy-makers do not feel duty-bound to pro-vide justice. It is only due to the pressure of social movements and the disadvan-taged groups that the state and poli tical parties will pay attention to this issue.

Retrograde March

During the last three decades the march of social change is in the retrograde direction. The whole exercise of the Mandal Commission was offset by the Ram temple movement and the accom-panying assertion of communal politics. One must say that this remarkable book looks at the deeper foundation of the is-sues involved. It begins with the preva-lent ideas and notions, and traces the roots of social inequalities and the struc-tural constraints in the direction of so-cial change for equality. While the au-thor has done a commendable job in out-lining the deeper issues and challenges involved, he misses underlining that in the current situation the forces of social change for a just society are being seri-ously undermined by the RSS combine, the Sangh parivar and its vision of a uni-fi ed Hindu society living in harmony with its deeper inequality. Such a book needed an elaboration of this main ob-stacle to social change. It also misses out on the social transformation which has come due to economic changes leading to a section of the deprived now joining the privileged groups like the IIT-MBA class, and talking in the language of formal equality. Movements like Youth for Equality with their adverse impact on social change needed comprehensive treatment.

The book engages with the diverse di-mension of the issues involved and the need to overcome them through affi rm-ative action, reservation or positive dis-crimination. Its strength lies in its treat-ment of a comprehensive relationship between different inequalities and ex-clusions. It is a valuable intervention in the ongoing debate of reservations for religious minorities, disadvantaged castes and women.

Ram Puniyani (ram.puniyani@gmail.com) is a writer, social activist, teacher and public speaker.