'Tokenism More Than Social Justice'

***

After the shocks and jolts from the stock market today, the UPA governmentcouldn't have received a more scathing critique on the day it completes twoyears in power. Two of the most respected academicians of the country -

***

To
Dr. Manmohan Singh,
Prime Minister of India
7, Race Course Road
NewDelhi.

Honorable Prime Minister,

The Knowledge Commission was given an ambitious mandate to strengthen India’sknowledge potential at all levels. We had agreed that if all sections of Indiansociety were to participate in, and make use of the knowledge economy, we wouldneed a radical paradigm shift in the way we thought of the production,dissemination and use of knowledge. In some ways this paradigm shift would haveto be at least as radical as the economic reforms you helped usher in more thana decade ago. The sense of intellectual excitement that the Commission generatedstemmed from the fact that it represented an opportunity to think boldly,honestly and with an eye to posterity. But the government’s recent decision(announced by Honorable Minister of Human Resource Development on the floor ofParliament) to extend quotas for OBCs in Central institutions, the palliativemeasures the government is contemplating to defuse the resulting agitation, andthe process employed to arrive at these measures are steps in the wrongdirection. They violate four cardinal principles that institutions in aknowledge based society will have to follow: they are not based on assessment ofeffectiveness, they are incompatible with the freedom and diversity ofinstitutions, they more thoroughly politicize the education process, and theyinject an insidious poison that will harm the nation’s long term interest.

***
Not based on assessment of effectiveness.
Incompatible with the freedom and diversity of institutions.
More thoroughly politicizes the education process.
Injects an insidious poison that will harm the nation’s long term interest.
***

These measures will not achieve social justice. I am as committed as anyoneto two propositions. Every student must be enabled to realize their fullpotential regardless of financial or social circumstances. Achieving this aimrequires radical forms of affirmative action. But the numerically mandatedquotas your government is proposing are deeply disappointing, for the followingreasons:

***
" Every student must be enabled to realize their full
potential regardless of financial or social
circumstances. Achieving this aimrequires radical forms
of affirmative action. But the numerically mandated
quotas foreclose any possibility of more
intelligent targeting."
***

Some have proposed the inclusion of economic criteria: this is something ofan improvement, but does not go far enough. What we needed, Honorable PrimeMinister, was space to design more effective mechanisms of targeting groups thatneed to be targeted for affirmative action. For instance, there are a couple ofwell designed deprivation indexes that do a much better job of targeting therelevant social deprivations and picking out merit. The government’s action isdisappointing because you have prematurely foreclosed these possibilities. Inforeclosing these possibilities the government has revealed that it cares abouttokenism more than social justice. It has sent the signal that there no room forthinking about social justice in a new paradigm.

As a society we focus on reservations largely because it is a way of avoidingdoing the things that really create access. Increasing the supply of goodquality institutions at all levels (not to be confused with numericalincreases), more robust scholarship and support programs, will go much furtherthan numerically mandated quotas. When you assumed office, you had sketched outa vision of combining economic reform with social justice. Increased publicinvestment is going to be central to creating access opportunities. It would bepresumptuous for me to suggest where this increased public investment is goingto come from, but there are ample possibilities: for instance, earmarkingproceeds from genuine disinvestment for education will do far more for accessthan quotas. We are not doing enough to genuinely empower marginalized groups,but are offering condescending palliatives like quotas as substitute. All themeasures currently under discussion are to defuse the agitation, not to lay thefoundations for a vibrant education system. If I may borrow a phrase of TomPaine’s, we pity the plumage, but forget the dying bird.

In this process, the arguments that have been coming from your government areplainly disingenuous. It is true that a constitutional amendment was hastilypassed to overturn the effects of the Inamdar decision. At the time I hadwritten that the decision was property rights decision that was trying tounshackle private institutions from an overbearing state. But since the statehad already displaced its responsibilities to the private sector it decided thatthe ramifications of Inamdar would be too onerous and passed a constitutionalamendment. One can quibble over whether this amendment was justified or not. Buteven in its present form it is only an enabling legislation. It does not requirethat every public institution have numerically mandated quotas for OBC’s. Tohear your government consistently hiding behind the pretext of theconstitutional amendment is yet another example of how we are foreclosing thefine distinctions that any rigorous approach to access and excellence requires.

***

The Knowledge Economy of the twenty first century will require thatparticipation of all sections of society. When we deprive any single child, ofany caste, of relevant opportunities, we mutilate ourselves as a society anddiminish our own possibilities. But, as you understand more than most,globalization requires us to think of old objectives in new paradigms: themarket and competition for talent is global, institutions need to be more agileand nimble, and there has to be creativity and diversity of institutional formsif a society is to position itself to take advantage the Knowledge Economy. Ibelieve that the measures your government is proposing will inhibit achievingboth social justice and economic well being.

I write this letter with a great deal of regret. In my colleagues on theKnowledge Commission you will find a group that is unrivalled in its dedication,commitment and creativity, and I hope you will back them in full measure so thatthey can accomplish their mission in other areas. I assure you that theCommission’s functioning will suffer no logistical harm on account of mydeparture.

I recognize that in a democracy one has to respectfully accede to thedecisions of elected representatives. But I also believe that democracies areill served if individuals do not frankly and publicly point out the perils thatcertain decisions may pose for posterity. I owe it to public reason to make myreasons for resigning public. I may be wrong in my judgment about theconsequences of your government’s decisions, but at this juncture I cannothelp but concluding that what your government is proposing poses grave dangersfor India as a nation. On this occasion I cannot help thinking about theanxieties of a man who knew a thing or two about constitutional values, who wasmore rooted in politics than any of us can hope to be, and who understood thedistinction between statesmanship and mere politics: Jawaharlal Nehru. He wrote,"So these external props, as I may call them, the reservations of seats andthe rest – may possibly be helpful occasionally, but they produce a falsesense of political relation, a false sense of strength, and, ultimatelytherefore, they are not so nearly important as real educational, cultural andeconomic advance which gives them inner strength to face any difficulty oropponent." Since your government continues to abet a politics of illusion, Icannot serve any useful purpose by continuing on the Knowledge Commission undersuch circumstances.

With warmest personal regards,

Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Member - Convenor
National Knowledge Commission

Cc: Sam Pitroda,
Chairman,
National Knowledge Commission.