MEDIA BIAS
AGAINST RESERVATION
—A RECENT
TELLING EXAMPLE — NDTV 24 X 7’s PROGRAMME ANCHORED BY Ms BARKHA DUTT AT NEW
JERSEY ON 23. 9. 2015
P. S. KRISHNAN, IAS (Retd)*
A
typical example of media bias in dealing with Reservation issues is the senior NDTV
24 x 7 Anchor Ms Barkha Dutt’s programme telecast from New York on 23. 9. 2015
at 9 PM (IST). This was in the context
of the agitation of some members of Patel community led by Hardik Patel in
Gujarat. The programme consisted of two parts.
1.
A discussion with a number of Patels at an
apparently Patel-owned restaurant in New Jersey.
2.
An
interview of and discussion with the renowned economist Prof. Jagdish
Bhagwati of the Columbia University recorded at the University campus and
telecast in between the discussion at 1 above
About 1
above — One Sided Opinion-Taking
At
the end of questions to a number of individuals and their answers, the Anchor
asked those who wanted a review of the Reservation policy, changing it from
caste-based Reservation to income-based Reservation to lift their hands and
keep them lifted until she completed counting. All hands went up and she
announced this fact. Perhaps to make matters doubly sure, she asked those who
did not want such review of the Reservation policy to lift their hands and
again she announced that not a single hand went up.
Without
incurring the expenditure of going to New Jersey and calling a number of Patels
together, I could have told her, or anybody else wanting to know, straightaway
that if these two related questions were put to a group of Patels (or to a
group belonging to any Socially Advanced Caste), the result would have been
that all of them would want caste-based Reservation to be abolished,
Reservation to be instituted only on economic criterion on the basis of an
income cut-off (if at all Reservation is to be continued) and the Reservation
policy should be reviewed from this point of view.
Media objectivity, I should suppose, should have
required Ms Dutt to gather an assemblage of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes
(STs) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (BCs) and put the same
questions to them. If she had done so she would have got exactly the opposite
result.
Media
objectivity, I suppose, should have also required her to mention the proportions
of the population in India of the two sets of communities holding the two views.
Participants’
Ignorance of Recent Reservation-related History — Anchor’s Failure to Inform
Them
One of the participants explained that earlier the
condition of the Backward Castes was bad and, therefore, caste-based Reservation
was then necessary and Patels had accepted it. According to him, conditions
have now changed and there is no need for Reservation for those castes. That
well-meaning gentleman seems to have been cut off from the realities in
Gujarat. He does not seem to be aware
that before Shri Madhav Singh Solanki, the first Chief Minister of Gujarat from
the Backward Classes came to power in 1980, none of the previous Chief
Ministers, who were Brahmins, Banias, and Patels, introduced Reservation for
BCs. It was only Shri Solanki who first introduced Reservation of a mere
10% for BCs in 1980. Immediately, some people of the upper castes, including
prominently Patels, pounced upon the SCs who had nothing to do with the
Reservation for BCs. Apparently, it was not only dislike of Reservation for BCs
that provoked them, but a deep-seated inherited hostility to the SCs who had
traditionally been only farm-servants and other labourers at beck-and-call of
the upper castes. The fact that through Reservation for SCs, introduced in 1943
by the initiative of Dr Ambedkar, some SC persons had begun to get educated, progress
and occupy positions of dignity was too much for the upper castes to stomach. Again, when in 1985, the State Government under Shri Madhav
Singh Solanki announced increase in the BC Reservation quota to 28% as
recommended by the Rane Commission, closer to the population of BCs, there was
a widespread agitation against Reservation by Patels and other upper caste
students, resulting in the withdrawal of the proposed increase (to be later
again increased to 27% in 1994 in line with the Mandal Commission’s
recommendations and the Government of India’s order of 1990 thereon).
The well-meaning
gentleman who said things have changed does not seem to be aware of the
continuing practices of “Untouchability” and caste-based discriminations
against SCs, including social and economic boycott, in Gujarat as in most
States and regions of India. He also does not seem to be aware that in all
parameters of development, welfare and life the SCs and STs are at the bottom,
the Socially Advanced Castes (SACs) such as Patels, Brahmins, Banias are at the
top, and the BCs come in between, usually closer to the SCs and STs than to the
SACs.
Ms Barkha Dutt who comes off in TV programmes as well-informed in
many matters must be aware of these facts, but did not seem to find it necessary
to take the trouble of informing them of these facts. If, however, she is not
aware of these facts, I can give her plenty of material from official records
in the public domain, in case she wants to know so that the presentations and
programmes relating to Social Justice including Reservation she anchors are
free from instinctive birth-based biases.
About 2 above
— Non-existent 90% Reservation Chimera Raised by Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati and
Anchor’s Failure to Inform Him
Trailers
of the interview were telecast from the previous day to whet the appetite of
viewers including an assertion of Prof. Bhagwati that Reservation policy of
India is a “disaster”. Prof. Bhagwati seemed to justify the agitation of young
Hardik Patel (whom he referred to as “Heart-ache Patel” — Heart-ache to Mr.
Narendra Modi) on the basis of a rhetorical question. That rhetorical question was: ‘If 90% of
seats are reserved and a middle class family has to do with only 10% unreserved
seats for its youth, what can such a family do?’ The learned Professor, himself
also a Gujarati, does not seem to be aware that in Gujarat the total percent of
Reservation is only 49% in posts in the services of the State as well as in seats
in educational institutions. He does not seem to be aware that the Constitution
of India as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not permit Reservation for
social classes (SCs, STs and BCs) to exceed 50%. He also does not seem to be aware that, except
one State all other States abide by this limit. Another fact he is not aware of
is that the single State’s case where total Reservation has gone up to 69% (not
90% even in that State) is still before the Supreme Court and the court is
passing remedial interim orders in educational admission-related cases from
year to year to offset the excess of 19% over 50% and that whenever any other
State tried to exceed the 50% limit and such effort was judicially challenged, the
High Courts and Supreme Court have invalidated such orders of those States.
All
these facts must have been known to the generally well-informed Ms Barkha Dutt.
But she did not find it necessary to place the record straight so that Justice
Bhagwati’s comments could be based on realities and not some non-existent 90% Reservation
chimera.
Important Fact Ignored by Professor and Anchor — More than 90% of Medical and Other
Professional Seats Unreserved — Reserved Seats only 7.5%
Another
important factor which a learned Professor and an experienced media anchor
should have laid their hands on, before entering into a free-wheeling attack on
the Reservation policy of India, which was initiated by wise Maharajas well before
Independence in order to rectify the imbalance, in governance and
administration, of the monopoly or near-monopoly of a few castes and exclusion of most of the castes accounting for the bulk of
the population, was to find out correct facts about the extent of Reservation
in education, especially professional education, which is the main bone of
contention.
Taking
medical, dental, physiotherapy and engineering colleges, the number of seats to
which Reservation applies, namely, Government colleges, Government-Aided colleges
(only 75% seats in Government-Aided colleges, the rest being management quota),
and Autonomous colleges, is 11531,
while the number of seats to which Reservation does not apply, namely, Private
and “self-financing” colleges, Public-Private Partnership colleges and management
quota part of Government-Aided colleges is 63438.
Out of the seats to which Reservation applies, only 49% is reserved for SCs, ST
and BCs; this comes to 5650 seats, the
remaining 5881 being unreserved
seats. Adding this also, the total
number of unreserved seats rises to 69319. The ratio is 7.5 % seats Reserved and 92.5% Unreserved
seats.
The
90% mentioned by Prof. Bhagwati is correct; actually it is an underestimate,
but it is the proportion of Unreserved seats. Is there any room, for complaint
by Patels or other SACs?
Was
it not the duty of one of the most renowned Professors of Economics in the
world and one of the senior-most Indian Anchors to have taken these figures
into account before indulging in imaginary chimeras of 90% Reservation and
nostrums based on such utterly wrong diagnosis?
Reservation
Policy Not a Disaster as the Professor Described, but Helped Prevent Disaster
Prof.
Bhagwati vehemently characterized the Reservation policy of India as a “disaster”.
When Ms Barkha Dutt drew him out further by specifically asking him whether
this comment applied only to reservation for BCs and not Reservation for SCs
and STs, Prof. Bhagwati made it clear beyond doubt that his opposition was to
Reservation for SCs and STs also. Both
of them seemed to be unaware that Reservation policy which has prevented a
disaster in India by giving part relief and hope for the deprived people of
India who form the vast majority of the Indian population.
Reservation Policy Long Preceded Mandal and Preceded Independence
Prof.
Bhagwati referred to the Reservation policy as Mandal-based policy. Perhaps, he
is not aware that Reservation in India started long before Mandal, that its
beginnings were in 1902 and that it had covered the whole of peninsular India well
before Independence and its main protagonists were enlightened and socially
responsive Maharajas, and that even at the Central level , Reservation for SCs
began before Independence in 1943 by the
efforts of Dr Ambedkar, who was also an illustrious alumnus of the same
Columbia University where Prof Bhagwati’s interview took place (though there
was no reference either from the Professor or from the Anchor to this fact
material to the subject of the interview).
Prof. Bhagwati’s Characterization of Muslims as Erstwhile Ruling
Class
Another
nugget from the interview was Prof. Bhagwati’s characterization of the Muslims,
while referring to their plight, as the erstwhile ruling class, who therefore
felt that they had been deprived of something which they earlier had. The
anomaly of characterizing all people following a religion as a ruling class
because the King belonged to the same religion did not strike him. Most of the
Muslims of India, including Gujarat, are converts from the same castes whom we
now call SCs and BCs. They had nothing to do with the King or administration.
Though rulers of many parts of India were Hindus and even during the British
colonial period, one-third of India was under Indian rulers, most of whom were
Hindus, it did not make the Dalits and BCs of Hindus a ruling class.
“Untouchability” and various forms of indignities and deprivations were
inflicted upon them in territories and times of Hindu rule. The same is true with regard to the Muslims
of Dalit and BC origin. It is this origin that underlies the present social and
educational backwardness of the bulk of the Muslim population of India.
Wrong Diagnosis — Wrong and Unconstitutional Remedial Advice
Based
on his diagnosis, which is totally off the mark, Prof. Bhagwati made the
following suggestions:-
(i)
Vastly increase the number
of Unreserved seats
It
will be anti-Constitutional to create and increase seats and not provide
Reservation in them. In fact, even in
the existing Unreserved private educational sector of seats, SCs, STs and BCs
are kept out by flouting a Constitutional Amendment that was passed with
virtual unanimity (with only one member abstaining and none voting against) in 2005
empowering the State (i.e., the Central and State Governments) to reserve, by
law, seats in educational institutions including private institutions for SCs,
STs and BCs. Since then the successive
Governments at the Centre and most of the State Governments have been flouting
this Constitutional amendment by not moving to get the required legislation
passed.
(2) Move from Reservation to “giving handicaps” in
terms of marks even up to 30%
Prof. Bhagwati did not seem to be aware and Ms
Barkha Dutt did not inform him that the Supreme Court has laid down that in the
case of BCs, the handicap of marks for admission should not exceed 10%, i.e.,
to say no BC should be admitted to Reserved seats unless his / her qualifying
marks (in the qualifying examination) is within 10% of the marks obtained by
the last of the Unreserved candidate admitted. In the final examination, at the
end of the course, there is no handicap for SCs, STs or BCs. The marks they
have to get for passing or for a Class / Division is the same for all
candidates of all social classes.
Genuine Problem of Middle and Lower Middle Class Families —
Appropriate Remedy Possible and Necessary —
But Not Reservation
At
the same time, it is also true that lower middle class and even middle class
families of SACs find it impossible or extremely difficult to afford the fees
in private colleges. The Supreme Court has observed that many of the private
colleges are run with a commercial motive and deplored this tendency. The
Government should not mollycoddle them and should lay down the fee structure on
a proper basis, taking into account genuine expenses and allowing for a
reasonable surplus for expansion (making sure that expansion for which surplus
is allowed actually takes place). This fee structure will certainly be higher
than the fee structure in Government collages. One remedy is for the Government
to provide, on a liberal scale, scholarships and / or educational loans to
students of families below an income and wealth cut-off. This does not require
any tampering with Reservation which has been instituted for valid reasons inevitable
in the Indian conditions which I have explained in my Paper titled “Agitation
of Some Members of Patel/Patidar Community and Some Important Objective Facts
about Reservation which are Ignored” (I have sent a copy of this paper to various
media including NDTV 24x 7 at email feedback@ndtv.com with the request that it
should be placed before Ms Barkha Dutt) and in my various Papers and
articles. It is welcome that the
Anandiben Patel Government of Gujarat has taken a step in this direction. I
hope that State Government and other State Governments and the Central
Government will take steps regarding the fee structure in
private/self-financing colleges and universities.
Another
remedy is for the Government to invest more in education and expand the Government
sector of education, instead of leaving expansion in education almost entirely
to the private sector as many State Governments have already done and other
State Governments are following.
In
one of the few unbiased articles that have appeared in the media, Shiela Bhatt
in the Indian Express (Delhi edition)
dated 25.9.2015 has pointed out that five Private Universities in Central and
North Gujarat including the Vallah Vidyanagar complex near Anand, Nirma
University on the outskirts of Ahmedabad, and Ganpat University near Mehsana
are run by wealthy Patels.
Reservation
Not Cause of Vast Unemployment — Solution for Unemployment and Poverty Lies
Elsewhere
The
story is the same in the employment sector also, though Prof. Bhagwati did not
specifically refer to this. The total number of posts in the public sector in
Gujarat, namely, the State Government, quasi-Government and local bodies is 711000. Assuming an approximately 30-year cycle and,
therefore, assuming approximately 3 percent of posts falling vacant annually,
the total number of posts that may be filled in each year may be 21330, of
which reserved seats (@49%) would be 10452
(if properly and fully filled up).
The total number of educated job seekers registered in employment exchanges
in Gujarat is 905500. The reserved seats constitute only 1.15% of the total
educated unemployed.
Reservation
cannot be blamed for the problems of poor members of the SACs who certainly
deserve sympathy and appropriate help but not Reservation (the Arjun Sengupta
Committee’s Report has shown that poverty is much more among SCs, STs, BCs and
Muslims than among non-SC, non-ST, non-BC Hindus or SAC Hindus). The vast
unemployment problem cannot be solved by the Reservation policy (Reservation
policy was never intended to solve the unemployment problem but to counter Inequality
and imbalance in the composition of governance and administration and
educational opportunities) or by tampering with the Reservation policy.
Duty of
Governments, Anchors, Scholarly Commentators and SACs in National Interest
Anchors
like Barkha Dutt and eminent scholars who comment on Reservation in a
free-wheeling manner, taking a predictable position which is based on their
birth, must familiarize themselves with the facts which I have provided them
and can provide them and realize that the purpose fo r which Reservation was
started is yet unfulfilled and that purpose and the Constitutional mandate
requires the adoption by all Governments of the full gamut of Social Justice measures (of which Reservation is only a part and not the
whole) and implement them sincerely and enable the SC, ST and BC and every
caste and tribe of them, to reach a level of Equality with SACs in all
parameters and become capable of securing their due share of employment in and
outside Government, seats in education at all levels in open competition, and really
put an end to “Untouchability”. It is the duty of the SACs to fully cooperate
with this and voluntarily abjure from imposing “Untouchability” on SCs, while
seeking legitimate help for the really poor among them within the range of the
Constitution. Periodic sniping at the
Reservation and Social Justice policies and hampering or sabotaging their full
implementation will hinder the growth and development of the nation and its
economy which is our common goal and which is essential for effectively
tackling widespread poverty, unemployment and underemployment.
·
The Author is
Former
Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry
of Welfare;
Advisor
(with Cabinet Minister status), Government of Telangana
(BC Welfare)
Member,
National Monitoring Committee for
Education
of SCs, STs and Persons with Disabilities,
Government
of India.
Formerly,
Member,
National Commission for SCs and STs
Special
Commissioner for SCs and STs
Member-Secretary,
National Commission for Backward Classes
Member,
Expert Committee on Backward Classes
Chairman,
Dr. Ambedkar Foundation Research Cell
Member,
Working Group for Sanitation and Leather Workers
Advisor,
Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India
Chairman,
Sub-Group on “Perspective Planning for Development of SCs” of the
Planning Commission’s Working Group on
SCs in the XII Plan;
Member,
Planning Comm’s Working Group on Empowerment of Scheduled Castes in XII Plan;
Member,
Planning Comm’s Steering Committee on Empowerment of SCs, BCs,
Nomadic & Semi-Nomadic Tribes and VJs in
XII Plan.
No comments:
Post a Comment