Discriminate And Rule

The US Supreme Court has just handed down a favourable verdict on Positive Discrimination. It is important to us for two reasons. One, however much they may deny it, the centre of gravity of Indian intellectuals lies in the US; they are more influenced by American thought than they care to admit. Therefore, what the US thinks today, India thinks 10-20 years hence. Two, the Rajasthan government recently opened a Pandora's box by proposing reservation quotas for the poor among upper castes. That will definitely rekindle the debate on reservation policy, and American views on positive discrimination will colour that debate.

However, there are fundamental differences between the American and the Indian cultures that make comparisons difficult. The American constitution is based on the principle that all men are created equal; the Indian holds the view that all are not born equal. In India, social justice is the bone of contention. In the US, social harmony is the overriding concern. As Justice Sandra O'Connor wrote for the slim 5-4 majority: "Diversity in education promotes interracial understanding and helps break down stereotypes, and it brings more perspectives to classrooms, thereby making them more enlightening.... In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

Therefore, the American support for positive discrimination is not based on the principle of righting historical wrongs but on the need for diversity. It's not retributive justice but social harmony that is the driving force in the US. Retribution can be endless; social harmony may be achievable within a time-frame. Therefore, the US Supreme Court has introduced a concept that has not been addressed at all by our justices—time limit for positive discrimination. In its judgement, it has pronounced that the permission for positive discrimination is time-bound, and may not last beyond 25 years.

As a matter of interest, the Indian constitution too set a time limit for reservation (10 years), but made that extendable. On the other hand, Dr B.R. Ambedkar held views similar to that of the present US Supreme Court—he wanted the reservation policy to be enforced for a fixed period of 30 years, with no extension. Because of the cultural differences between the two countries, the US Supreme Court has categorically turned down a practice that is enshrined in the Indian Constitution, quotas for the disadvantaged.

In the light of this American debate, we should start debating two questions: One, should positive discrimination be permitted to hurt social harmony? Two, should positive discrimination be extendable without time limit, or does the initial (admittedly experimental) constitutional stipulation of 10 years imply that it should be limited in time?

Without exception, all political parties in India deliberately promote social cleavages, and oppose social integration. They deny that there is any need for social harmony. Politics is normally considered to be the art of making friends. In India, it is considered to be the art of making enemies, not powerful enemies, but enemies nevertheless.

Liberal intellectuals too consider it important to punish groups that enjoyed unfair advantages in the past. Supporters of reservation are fond of pointing out that the upper castes enjoyed favours for 5,000 years. Hence, there is no climate in India—political or intellectual—that favours social harmony in its true sense, nor is there any concern to bring to an end positive discrimination within a finite time-frame.

The policy of reservation has mitigated the sufferings of the scheduled castes somewhat but the situation remains unsatisfactory.At the same time, those schedule caste members who have reached middle-class status are becoming a permanent barrier to the further progress of those still submerged in poverty and ignorance. Thus, this modest improvement in inter-caste differences has been accompanied by a substantial increase in intra-caste disparity within the SCs. This problem has been created by the fact that reservation applies to government jobs only and they constitute barely 5 per cent of the workforce. As there is no prospect of government employment increasing any further, reservation has reached saturation levels. The 95 per cent that cannot get government employment have nowhere to go for compensatory benefits.

There is a move to extend job reservation to the private sector too, but that is not finding favour with our employers. In contrast, in the US, positive discrimination for minorities has been strongly supported by Fortune 500 companies. It will do much good to the SCs if they did a little soul-searching: they should enquire how the Blacks in the US garnered goodwill not merely from private employers but even from the rank-conscious armed forces, and why they themselves are facing much opposition.

Times change, and wise people change with the times. Would it be better for SCs to earn more goodwill than to vie for non-existent jobs? Has the utility of the reservation policy saturated to such an extent that there is a need for something more comprehensive? Has the time come for the Indian Supreme Court to emulate the example set by its US counterpart and set a time limit for positive discrimination? If it does so, will that induce the SCs and the politicians to look for permanent cures rather than be content with the temporary cosmetics that reservation has become?