Avoiding the R-word

Recently, an important development which did not get as much attention as it should have, was that of the human resource development ministry opposing the creation of the equal opportunity commission (EOC), as proposed by an expert group set up by the ministry of minority affairs and led by N.R. Madhava Menon. The EOC, incidentally, is a direct fallout of the prime minister’s high-level committee set up to examine the social, economic and educational state of Indian Muslims in 2005 and is intended as a body that documents the evidence on opportunities available to Indian citizens of all kinds, of all possible social descriptions.

The Indian Constitution, in terms of public employment and opportunities in state educational institutions, guarantees equality and special provisions for socially deprived sections in Articles 15 and 16. In the areas of nutrition and health, it makes a case for access to all kinds of groups through the Directive Principles. It is this spirit that the EOC hopes to be about.

With a number of commissions like the Scheduled Castes’, Scheduled Tribes’, Backward Classes’, Women and Minorities’ Commissions already working under different ministries, opposition from them is understandable to an extent. The EOC, by its very definition would subsume the working of all previous commissions and provide one window.

But, behind the opposition by different groups to working on betterment or improvement of any particular socially, economically and educationally deprived group are basic differences in philosophies over affirmative action. It’s an issue that should have been widely and loudly debated, but that was not to be, given the political tumult in the country for one reason or the other in recent months.

As was most recently and assertively argued by Gurjjar leaders, there are several leaders and academics who feel reservation is the way out of backwardness; whether it is Kerala now trying to make a case for poor Forwards, as Mayawati had done for poor upper-castes. Even Muslim leaders have and continue to try to enable better representations for their respective groups. The drive to “reserve” seats as the best way to do things for “deprived sections” found a strong political voice after the Mandal report was made operational in the early ’90s;and the OBC leadership succeeded in making it appear like a winning formula, a method that worked for their constituencies, which were looking for a quick-fix.

Close cousins of the “reservationists” if you like, are those who have, especially in the recent past, been arguing for a “sub-plan” for Muslims. This essentially means apportioning a certain part of plan funds for a particular group, ostensibly to enable better targeting. (Sub-plans have historically been in existence for scheduled castes and tribes). Their efficacy has never been established. However, the argument for a sub-plan was also made by the HRD ministry’s sub-committee set up under M.A.A. Fatmi’s chairmanship to examine higher education and minorities. The impetus for the HRD ministry rejecting concepts like the EOC may have stemmed from a desire to be seen making visible concessions for a social group.

... contd.

Ads By Google

Message*	Maximum characters allowed

Name*		Email ID*
Subject*		Country*

TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

I agree to the terms of use.