If certain sections of political pundits and political parties are to be believed, the government’s decision to grant 10 per cent reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), in general category, has helped reignite confidence among NDA allies, which in recent times has seen stress. Can a reservation in employment, in short supply, guarantee a party’s return to power? If it does, it merits to be the most important reform this century. The cardinals However, point to a story that may not be as straight as this. A nation that has 1.3 billion people, 65% of them young, below 30, and rearing to go, must be able to gainfully employ them, if its rulers wish to rule without being interrupted.
Inequalities have existed in societies across the globe from time immemorial. They have been dealt with in a variety of ways. Quotas favouring certain castes and other communities existed before independence too, in several areas of British India. Shahu Maharaj of the princely state of Kolhapur, introduced reservation in favour of backward classes, much of which came into force in 1902. Separate reservations were provided for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans in the pre independent British Raj through the Government of India Act of 1909. The then Government in 1932, allowed the SCs and STs, a number of seats to be filled by election from constituencies in which only they could vote.
The country’s affirmative action programme set by its constitution, was launched in 1950 and is the oldest such programme in the world. The articles 15, 16 and 29 (2) allow the States to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the SC/STs. Article 46 promotes the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, in particular, of the SC/ST’s and protects them from social injustice and exploitation.
Availability of jobs is a complex subject to estimate in India, since more than 90%, of them are in the informal sector. Various figures have been cited by both the protagonists and the antagonists as it suits them. The Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (PMEAC) website hosts, Surjit Bhalla and Tirtha Das’s background paper, titled “All you wanted to know about jobs in India, but were afraid to ask” which claims, “While there are no official employment surveys post 2015, there are several individual pieces of data suggesting a healthy growth in employment in 2017/18” and concludes: “For the 2013-2017 period, the net job creation was 22.1 million, considerably higher than the 11 million jobs created between 2004/5 and 2011/12”. The report appears to preview what is wished to be consumed as truth. When the population grows, the labour force too grows. One should have looked at the worker to population ratio (WPR) and the unemployment rate (UR). The annual report of the ministry of labour and employment (MLE), 2017-18, shows that between 2011-12 and 2015-16, the WPR has gone down from 51 to 48, and UR has gone up from 3.8% to 5%, both for rural and urban areas, and for both genders, pointing to a difficult employment situation.
The background paper further reveals that 3.85 lakh jobs were added between January and October 2017, or approximately 4.6 lakh jobs in 2017 and concludes that if extended to the entire non-farm economy, the employment change was close to 8 million in 2017. Citing again the annual report of the MLE for 2017-18, the yearly employment generation has steadily fallen from 0.419 in 2013 to 0.135 in 2015 to 0.1 million workers in 2017, seriously questioning the projection made in the background paper for 2017.
A Study by the Azim Premji University’s Centre for Sustainable Employment too reports that even as GDP growth rates have risen, the relationship of growth and employment generation has grown weaker over time. Whereas the GDP growth, in the 1970s and 1980s was 3% to 4%, the employment increased by 2% per annum. In the 1990s, post liberalisation of the economy, this slowed down to 1% or even less, currently being less than 0.1 pointing to a GDP growth without commensurate employment growth.
Be that as it may, how useful is a 10% reservation in employment to the general category? India’s per capita nominal income was $1670 per year in 2016, ranked at 112th out of 164 countries by the World Bank, while its per capita income on purchasing power parity (PPP) basis was US$5,350, and ranked 106th. A Gallup survey of 2013 shows that the annual median per capita income in India stood at $616, the 99th position among 131 countries. Accounting for inflation and a possible rise in the figures for 2018, it still is way below even the half way mark of 8 lakhs per annum fixed by the government for the would-be beneficiaries of the 10% quota. It further means that almost everyone would be eligible for the supposed largesse, not just the so called upper castes, notwithstanding the implementation nightmares.
The current socially backward based 50% reservations do not include economically weaker sections. The constitution allows equality of law to its citizens. Can then, the communities under the 50% category, demand 50% of the new 10% quota with pro rata percentages for various categories within?
The Supreme Court in 1992, ruled that reservations could not exceed 50 percent, since it would violate equal access as guaranteed by the Constitution. However, there are state laws, like in Tamil Nadu, that exceed 50% limit and are under litigation in the SC. The current 10% EWS reservation also needs to pass muster of the top Court. The government to its credit, has proposed amendments that were passed by the Parliament last Wednesday, by adding new clauses to Article 15 and 16, but left out amending Article 46 for reasons unknown. It is another matter that the amendments may have far reaching consequences in years to come.
Assuming, the SC upholds the amendments as legally tenable, what would be left of the sanctity of the 50% ceiling? The sanctity gone, future politics would be just about new reservations, until the beast of burden is beaten to death. The flip side would be ushering in of a truly egalitarian society. Would the future Governments use this as a new norm to unite or divide, as it suits and rule as it pleases?