In December 2012, the Lok Sabha witnessed a repeated uproar before the quota in promotion bill was to be taken up for consideration, with the Samajwadi Party members storming the Well in protest against the measure. As Lok Sabha reassembled at noon after an adjournment soon after question hour began, SP members again trooped into the Well raising slogans against the Constitution (117th Amendment) Bill, which provides for quota in promotions for SCs and STs in government jobs.

At that time, the Centre had planned to introduce in the Rajya Sabha, a bill to allow reservation in promotions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government jobs. The Union Cabinet cleared a proposal that seeks to amend four key articles of the Constitution to make that possible. Amending the Constitution became necessary after the Supreme Court, in April 2012, struck down a decision made by former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati to provide reservation for SC and STs in promotion to higher posts in government departments. At an all-party meeting in August, most political formations supported quota in reservations. But Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati has warned the government that any law on the reservations issue should be framed with extreme caution because it is likely to be legally challenged. The UPA then requested the Opposition party, the BJP, to help pass the Bill; the BJP disallowed either House to function for 10 days demanding the Prime Minister’s resignation in connection with a coal scandal. But the party admitted that it supports the reservation-in-promotions Bill. When it quashed the Mayawati decision, the Supreme Court had questioned this criterion for promotion, saying the government needed to quantify that Dalits and backwards were insufficiently represented in the public services and therefore needed this quota. The court had said that three aspects needed to be looked into for reservations in promotions: backwardness, representation and overall administrative efficiency. Constitutional expert P.P. Rao said if the government brought in amendment without “curing the defects” pointed out by the Supreme Court then it may not stand legal scrutiny. On December 17, 2012, a Constitution Amendment Bill providing for quota for SCs and STs in government job promotions was passed by the Rajya Sabha with an overwhelming vote of 206 in the 245-member House. Around 10 votes were polled against the proposed legislation, which was strongly opposed by UPA ally Samajwadi Party but pushed by another supporter BSP. DW spoke to two experts, professor and social activist Kancha Ilaiah, who has been talking about Dalit rights for years now, and Anand Kumar, professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. We quizzed them on five points—the merit of the decision, the disadvantages and advantages, and the blow to meritocracy (if any). Here is what they had to say.

KANCHA ILAIAH// How do we decide whether a habit is healthy or not? If it is a personal one, whether it is or not, it does not matter. However, when it is a social one, it needs to be scrutinised. Practising caste discrimination is a social habit of (so-called) uppercaste officials, whether at the entry-level or at the promotional level. In every office there are methods of discrimination—promotions may be governed by qualifications, but these qualifications are acquired or are given to only upper-caste employees, through caste preferential treatment. Those who head offices, by and large, are upper caste officials with a casteist mindset. While writing confidential reports, while allotting grades in service records, while sitting in selection committees—the mindset swings in favour of ‘certain candidates’. In order to see that biased promotions are not allowed, reservations, even in promotions, is a must. At least, thanks to the rule, people will not be able to stop other people within that quota from getting promoted. Until we abolish the caste system altogether, habits which emanate from it, cannot be changed. As for the question of whether this move is dictated by the vote bank—people’s life and dignity cannot be judged from the point of view of votes alone. There are some issues that are not judged by the point of view of votes alone. Everyone seeks the right to education. Dominant upper castes are not afraid of people’s votes. They are afraid of a civil war breaking out on caste lines—if some perks are not granted to all sections. Honestly, a job in a government office, especially in India, is not meant for public good. It meant for private enrichment—a benefit. Why should this benefit not go to the SCs, STs and the OBCs? As for the disadvantages, what are we talking about? Reservation has all the advantages for the SCs, STs and the OBCs, and all the disadvantages for the upper castes. In future, there is the possibility that upper castes may be displaced from decision-making positions which would, largely, be an advantage for the nation. Because the nation does not need the upper-caste gluttony. A nation needs productivity and creativity. Both will be available with the SCs, STs and the OBCs. As for the question of whether there would be dilution of merit, let me ask you—is there meritocracy within the upper castes? Where do you find the rule of meritocracy in this country? What kind of bureaucracy do we have? Where is merit in this system? Where does our system stand in comparison with other nations? A ruling class or caste which practices untouchbility has no right to talk about merit. If the SCs, STs and the OBCs come into the places or positions that the so-called upper-caste intellectuals occupy, they cannot spoil the meritlessness of our country, which has hit the rock bottom anyway. How can anybody take the system lower than what it is today? The Indian media should stop talking about merit at all. Only a truly-intellectual class that strives to improve lives of the poorest of the poor should be allowed to talk of merit. How can a so-called intellectual class which created untouchability issues in the first place, talk about merit? In the future, the SCs, STs and the OBCs will give a different meaning to merit which will hold true for all people, irrespective of caste.

ANAND KUMAR// This topic needs to be explored publicly by those who support or oppose it. More than the reservation issue, this decision to amend the Constitution, questions the workings of three institutions of the democracy—the legislative, judiciary and political. There was an old practice of granting promotion based on reservation criterion in bureaucracy in certain states of the country. A few people went on and complained regarding the legality of the situation to the Supreme Court. It asked governments to stop the practice till factual ground realities were presented before the court for consideration. Instead of presenting the ground realities of actual disproportion or discrimination based on facts, the central government decided to go for Constitutional Amendment bypassing the judiciary. This decision has been taken on a flimsy ground and it is not going to do good to the country— or to the people who support reservation on grounds of egalitarian ideas and justice. If you bypass judiciary in favour of legislature, then in these days of coalition governments, any group can take advantage of it, and move towards amendments which may dismantle the judicial regime. People should not be happy about the fact that the judiciary was bypassed for ensuring reservation in promotion for a handful of senior officials, who were not necessarily that kind of victims for who the idea was initiated 65 years from today. As for the question of meritocracy, that’s another area where we need factual understanding from both sides. Bureaucracy and meritocracy are not necessarily converging all the time. We need some technocrats to guide the meritocrat in any case. The way the state of India is; a person (bureaucrat) could be a general manager of Steel Authority of India, tomorrow might be looking after a “Model Bakery”, and day after he may be running the railways. There is little connection between authority, responsibility and meritocracy in India. The training, on basis of which the bureaucrats are performing their duties, falls within the frame of law. They are not running a lab through which new technologies will be implementised. They are not scientists of our missile centres—the meritocracy argument is not that strong. What is strong is the question of inner harmony within the bureaucracy itself. Because between two people, the process of promotion will be available on basis of their birth— that situation would lead to a reaction. Colleagues will anyway see an SC, ST or an OBC candidate to have entered with an advantage—either relaxed merit or age. If you are on a job for the 30 years, by then one should not need protection of the state to do better. Perhaps, there are people who are bright and just because they belong to a certain caste, face barriers built by the so-called upper-caste dominated bureaucratic system. But the SCs, STs and the OBCs, are just 22.5 per cent of the people. The rest of the population, it needs to be said, also need to be recognised, and incidentally they may belong to the dominant castes which may not always be the upper caste. So granting only 22.5 per cent the chance to do better will not help the nation. Granted that there may be instances when certain castes ‘gang up’ against others, but to prevent that, governments need to step in and ensure that merits and only that leads to promotion. Why is the government shying away from its job? It was the job of the UP government, and its honourable chief minister, to ensure that all her people got jobs. Why was she sitting on this judgment when she could have produced facts. It is somewhat of an open secret that there implementis a mismatch between the government’s claims and the reality. It is irresponsible politics to intervene with the Constitution for the whim of a handful who have created a nexus of politicians and bureaucrats. This is going to hurt the purity of thought that goes into the idea of reservation for those who need it today, tomorrow and after.