Following our discussions on reservations , we forward an Dr. S. P. Udayakumar, the former director of Institute of Race and Poverty at University of Minnesota and the Managing Trustee of South Asian Community Centre for Education and Research Trust, Nagercoil, India, who writes that reservation policies require serious revision. His article appeared in the Indian National Daily – The Hindu.

"WE do the work a mother does for her children, but we are not looked upon as mothers but as scum."
— Suresh Richpal of balmiki caste (some 500,000 of whom still carry human excrement), quoted in The New York Times, September 19, 1998.

Despite all the laudatory legislation and statutory safeguards, the `lower' castes are still discriminated against in their daily life. This caste evil has to be fought collectively and comprehensively. To win that war, we need to win all the battles on the way without getting divided. Reservation is one such key battle. The battle-plan should be carefully modified in order to do justice to the truly oppressed and the needy among us.

AFTER THE serious turbulence that the Mandal Commission recommendations caused in the early 1990s, the issues of reservation and caste equations are back on the national agenda. The Rajasthan Chief Minister, Ashok Gehlot's 14 per cent reservation in jobs for the poor among the upper castes, and the outwitted Vajpayee government's hurried decision to set up a national commission for the "economically backward" class are the provocations now.

Many in India believe, and rightly so, that the present opportunity structures in India help only the privileged creamy layers of the marginalised sections of society and that the underprivileged dalits, adivasis and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) do not reap much benefit from the present reservation system. It is also a known fact that there are many in the "forward" communities who are economically worse off and stand victimised for no fault of theirs. More than anything else, the present reservation system divides the Indian society deeply and pitches one section against another in availing of the scarce educational and employment opportunities. And therefore, this potent fault line of caste and caste-based opportunity structure has to be dealt with earnestly in any meaningful attempt at bringing peace and harmony to the divided Indian society.

Four positions
Caste identity is often more meaningful and real for many South Asians than regional, national, religious, linguistic and other such identities. There is no dearth of theories and discussions about the caste system, its socioeconomic significance, its brutality, and all the politics. By looking closely at the debates on its meaning and application in the Indian society, one can identify four distinct positions.

The most far-reaching one is, of course, envisioning a `casteless society.' Consider, for example, some of the letters to the Editor of The Hindu following the news in July 1998 that people's caste would be asked in the next census. One reader argued: "We should not keep the concept alive by taking a census on such an obnoxious aspect of our society." Another reader wondered: "Is it (caste) not the main reason for all the evils in the present day society?" The remedies given out by these unsuspecting readers were equally naive. The first reader opined: "Economic progress will by itself bring about the end of `castes'." The latter suggested: "We must develop a sense of pride as human beings first and foremost and for being part of the rich cultural heritage of India" (The Hindu, July 4, 1998).

Progressive as these claims sound, they also betray an unconscious or carefully hidden conservative assertion. The `casteless society' position, that seeks to eradicate the caste system in a magical manner, often emanates from the socially and economically privileged groups. Some of them who have benefited from this age-old oppression suddenly wake up to realise its evil nature and want to terminate it; but they do not bother to think about the victims of the system. Others who have climbed up this ladder to advantageous positions feel uncomfortable when they see a lot of "lower" caste types heading up the same ladder. Then there are the neo-Hindu types who would sweep everything inhuman and uncomfortable in their Hindu belief-system under the cunning `Hindu pride' rug. There are others who argue that the preferential treatment threatens the national ideals of equality, equal treatment and the abolition of castes as set out in the Indian Constitution. In the final analysis, however, no genuinely reform-minded person who is conscious of the enormous human cost of this evil system would wish for its summary disappearance.

The other extreme of the `casteless society' thinking would be the `casteist' position that is widely prevalent in today's India. This rampant caste consciousness determines our family constitution, kinship formation, community organisation, and even political aspirations. Quite often, the question `what is your caste' decides who we marry, where we live, what education and jobs we get, who represents us in Parliament, and above all, how much is our social respectability. Some rabid casteists cleverly manipulate the caste system and become `leaders' with a huge following and a heavy purse.

There is another side to this caste consciousness. Thankfully, the enslaving concept of kuladharma (the social obligation of each caste) that condemned the young to their fathers' occupations, preserved the caste oppression, and perpetuated `upper-caste' domination is dying slowly. Although some Indians manage to escape from the confining clutches of this infamous scheme, most of the oppressed are still toiling with this demon. If they demand some kind of affirmative action in order to create opportunities for themselves and their children, they cannot be condemned as casteists. After all, they have been denied their human dignity and freedom for too long, and it is only right that they remember their oppression and demand social justice. Equating this just `caste sensitive' position with hateful `casteist' position is not only ludicrous but also unfair.

With difficulty one can find some intermediate positions none of which can actually work. For instance, unlike the multiracial position in the United States that attempts to increase the multiracial categories so as to weaken the racial hierarchy, we in India cannot create a `multi-caste' society because of obvious reasons. As D. A. Washbrook points out (in Frankel and Rao, Dominance and State Power in Modern India, 1989), the hierarchical integration of the major castes is inconceivable in any conventional terms. Moreover, the major caste types often break down further into a series of much smaller groupings based on discrete identities, names and traditions. In fact, even the courageous and progressive inter-caste couples are forced to choose one of the parents' castes for official purposes, and made to fall right back into the evil system.

Another possible `choose your own caste' position, in which people can define their own caste identity is neither workable nor desirable. People who believe in the `twice-born' nonsense that has helped them to be the masters and to enjoy the privileges for ages will never open their exclusive agraharas for others. The present social justice mechanism that is delivering some justice to the oppressed and subjugated will be overwhelmed by others who will stake a claim and try to reap quick and easy dividends. So we are all caught in a dilemma; we cannot live with castes or without castes.

Flaws in reservation
If we want to do away with the caste system, we have to begin with the reservation system that we have in place. An affirmative action is, to borrow the words of Nicholas Smith, "preferential access to social resources for persons who are members of groups which have been previously disadvantaged by adverse discrimination." Those who have been oppressed for too long deserve preferential treatment. However, there are some valid concerns about the reservation system in India. As mentioned before, it is the creamy layer of the `backward' castes which reaps the maximum benefits of the reservation system and the actual downtrodden often do not have much access to the resources. And there are some very poor people among the `forward' castes who deserve to be supported also.

Quite often, the reservation scheme also fails to help the target group. A few years back, the Government of Tamil Nadu decided to reserve 15 per cent of the seats in professional courses for rural students. This progressive move, of course, led more students from villages to medical colleges in 1998. However, the actual beneficiaries were not the less-privileged rural students whom the government wanted to favour. Those who walked away with the golden opportunities were the more-privileged students from upmarket schools that just happened to be in rural areas. After all, the only condition to qualify for this particular quota of almost 100 medical seats was that the schools should be located in village panchayats and students from corporations, towns and urban areas had been excluded from competing in this category.

Critics demanded that the students should also hail from rural areas, and they suggested considering the fee-structure of schools that could filter the ineligible candidates. While some people wanted to include the rural students studying in cities in this scheme, others wanted the scheme to include town panchayats also under its purview. When all is said and done, the most deserving did not reap the benefits. Out of the nine medical college seats in one school, for example, six went to `backward' community students, three to MBCs, and none to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes (See G. Pramod Kumar, "Many beneficiaries of rural quota from upmarket schools," The Hindu, August 20, 1998).

New approach
Obviously, what is actually needed in India today is not ill-conceived and half-baked patchwork solutions that favour the relatively privileged, but a thoroughgoing comprehensive plan that helps the truly oppressed and the needy. Before devising any such plan, we must delineate our basic premises clearly.

First of all, we need to acknowledge that the caste system is exclusivistic and oppressive. It denies the oppressed dignity and thwarts their legitimate socioeconomic-political aspirations. Second, we must remember that caste categorisation is basically a question of power which involves cultural, economic and identity politics. Third, we need to accept the fact that caste is socially constructed evil and it operates differently in different places.

Even the seemingly progressive-minded people weigh the caste question carefully when it comes to marriage, kinship relations, and community organisation. Despite all the laudatory legislation and statutory safeguards, the `lower' castes are still discriminated against in their daily life. Social respectability is still a big issue that cannot be answered by empty legislation and insincere statements. This caste evil has to be fought collectively and comprehensively. To win that war, we need to win all the battles on the way without getting divided.

Reservation is one such key battle. The battle-plan should be carefully modified in order to do justice to the truly oppressed and the needy among us. Adopting the `caste sensitive' position that considers caste as an important factor among many others in the struggle for social justice, we should give due consideration to the applicants' gender, domicile, family education, family employment, family property, family income, and caste victimisation. Besides the usual grades/marks, entrance exam scores, and extra-curricular activities, reservation eligibility points could be calculated for each and every candidate on the basis of their socioeconomic background.

As India is a major power in information technology, we could utilise our computer talents to grade the eligibility of the applicants who seek educational and employment opportunities. The idea here is not to come up with a technocratic solution for an age-old social problem, but to develop a larger national framework and also to incorporate local circumstances that address specific situations more meaningfully. We try to refine what we are already doing rather lackadaisically such as obtaining government authorities' certificates on community, nativity, and income with little understanding about their purpose or actual use.

Eligibility points
One method of calculating the reservation eligibility points could be assigning 51 points depending on the caste status of the applicants, and deciding the remaining 49 points on the basis of the other seven factors:

(1) Caste (51 points): Depending upon the socioeconomic conditions of the locality concerned in a particular State or region of India, specific amount of points could be granted to candidates. The `forward' community candidates would get lower points, Dalit candidates would get maximum points, and the `backward' candidates would be in between depending on the local factors.

(2) Gender (7 points): Since women are more disadvantaged than men in our society, they would be qualified for these points. Dalit women would get maximum, and `forward' and `backward' women would be awarded suitable points depending on local conditions.

(3) Domicile (7 points): Depending on the domicile of the candidates' immediate family, they could be granted these points. As a rural candidate gets all 7 points, a metropolitan candidate would get none.

(4) Family education (7 points): The education levels of the candidate's mother, father, paternal and maternal grandparents could be considered to decide these points. If none of these six people had any schooling whatsoever, the candidate gets all 7 points. If all of them had a college degree, that candidate gets no points.

(5) Family employment (7 points): The employment status of the candidate's father, mother, paternal and maternal grandparents could be considered to decide these points. If none of them had a government job, the candidate gets all 7 points, and if all of them had stable and well-paying jobs, that candidate gets no points.

(6) Family property (7 points): Considering the immovable and movable properties and the total assets of the immediate family of the candidates, these points could be assigned. A candidate whose family has no such properties would get all 7 points. Candidates who are above a particular limit would get no points. The intermediate levels could be decided on the basis of local factors.

(7) Family income (7 points): The immediate family's annual income from jobs, properties and other such sources should be tabulated and it could be the basis for deciding these points.

(8) Traumas and disabilities (7 points): Applicants who have been direct victims of caste-inspired violence and crimes such as murder, rape, arson and other such grievous hurt could be given these points.

This kind of selection for reservation privileges could filter the truly oppressed Scheduled Caste/Tribe and `backward' candidates and also the truly disadvantaged `forward' caste candidates, and do them all justice.

So reserving educational and employment opportunities for groups and individuals who are mired in oppression and underdevelopment should be part of a clear, definite and long-term strategy of creating a level playing field for all. Such a broad-based approach alone can eradicate socioeconomic discrimination, and establish an egalitarian society marked by human dignity and freedom.

S.P. UDAYAKUMAR

Related Articles:
Is Caste Still an Issue?
Enunciating Democracy: Public Hearings on Food
Where is Rehabilitation?
Tribal Campaign for Survival and Dignity
The Branding of India