One of the directive principles in the Constitution, under Article 45 is that, “The state shall endeavour to provide within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory Education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.” A great provision for removing inequalities within the society. However, had we achieved even a small percentage of this, we would not have had to pass the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act on 4 August 2009, a good 60 years after the provision made under Article 45. Articles, 15, 16, 46 and a 50% reservation in education for socially backward communities notwithstanding, today the governing masters further felt the need to enact another amendment that grants 10 per cent reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), in general category. Is this a failure of our systems or the failure of our masters? The Government of the day is ecstatic over the development and feels that it can surely pitchfork them to a second term, come this May. Is it misplaced?
How useful is the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota in educational Institutions for those from the so called ‘upper castes’ especially when it will only be implemented in government-run higher education institutes as of now and not in private sector ones is anybody’s guess, since the legal position does not allow reservation in private educational institutes. We are all privy to erstwhile Andhra Pradesh government providing a tuition fee waiver to most of the students, irrespective of the caste they belonged to and ending up unable to reimburse the private institutions, hence pegging the tuition fee itself to ridiculously low value to offset its own liability, leading to a general decline in both standards and outcomes. This is a classic example of how to kill a good initiative. Whether tax payer’s money can be used for funding education in private institutions, the courts can debate and the activists can agitate.
Further, the centrally funded Institutions will have to find their own funds from their generated resources, which is as per the proposal moved by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE), and approved by the Union cabinet on 7th January. The funding predicament, seems to be in sharp contrast to the 27% reservations in 2006, for the OBC candidates, by the UPA Government, where the CFI’s were provided financial support for the additional drift. With almost 9.5 Lakh seats available in CFI’s currently, a 10 % increase in overall intake would entail an expenditure of Rs. 2500 Cr and if interpreted differently as available to each category of reservation, would entail anything in excess of a hefty Rs. 5000 Cr. Passing on this to the CFI’s generated resources would be simply untenable.
Another dimension of quota dynamics would affect the current academic mix of our Institutions. What the 10% quota would actually do is cause a lateral shift of students across the ecosystem and leave several rural ones gasping for breath. An increase in quota does not mean more students will occupy the available space raising the GER since the economic deprivation necessitates such people to also work and support their families. This is borne out of the fact when only a marginal increase in the enrolment numbers in 10th and 12th standards is seen for the past five years. Instead, a rationalisation and simplification of the online education delivery would have been more effective. Scholarships would have served a social cause apart from raising the GDP.
In the absence of data, speculating trends, is not rewarding. However, it is rational to assume a large number of socially backward people as also economically backward. If for example, in the 10% quota, a large percentage were to be also socially backward, what would be left of it, to the so-called upper cast poor? On the contrary, if it was to be the other way round, and since the constitution allows equality of law to its citizens, can the communities under the 50% category, demand 50% of the new 10% quota with pro rata percentages for various categories within? The flip side a royal mess we will inherit may see in implementation of such complex arithmetic.
Be that as it may, the debate will surely veer around how useful, is the 10% reservation to the general category. Do people see quotas as a means of realising their aspirations? Where has the human spirit gone that so eloquently can innovate and improvise for our living? Have the boundary conditions changed so irrevocably that our political masters and our people see quotas as the only source of redemption even after 70 years of independence? Probably, this is a collective failure of our priorities in ignoring adequate investment in education and health. Six years ago, in 2012-13, education expenditure was 3.1% of the GDP. It fell in 2014-15 to 2.8% and registered a further drop to 2.4% in 2015-16. The latest National Health Profile (NHP) data reveals, we currently spend a little over 1% of GDP on health, far below Singapore which has the lowest public spend on health at 2.2% of GDP among countries with significant universal health coverage service. Has any politician or any protesting groups ever protested for an increased outlay for improved education or health services? Has this erosion of human capital not compounded the problem of jobless growth? Are the deep fault lines we see in our society also not a reflection of our intemperance?
Amendments apart, the new 10% quota will have to pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court in light of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, 1992 case, where the court capped caste-based reservation to 50%, ruling “no provision of reservation or preference can be so vigorously pursued as to destroy the very concept of equality” and any reservation beyond 50% would be liable to be struck down.”
If the SC in its wisdom, upholds the recent amendments as good in law, it will be a modification of the thought process that resulted in the 1992 judgement. Would then, future politics be vigorously fought on more reservations? If it brings equality within society albeit by acts of omission or commission, it may still be welcome. The British may have left. Their policy of divide and rule seems to have been honed to a finesse by our politicians.