Positive Discrimination: A Mixed Bag...
I have reviewed most of the comments here, some in favor, others downright against, and yet some, like myself, somewhere in the middle. Because I have not been able to take a stand either way, I am simply posting some thoughts.
In the last few decades countries as diverse as Australia, South Africa, and United States, have introduced policies of positive discrimination. The aim of such policies is to reduce inequaltites of so-called historically disadvantaged groups, and fulfill the constitutional committment to democracy and equality, so that the oppressed can acquire access to education, employment and sacrce resources.
Agreed, positive discrimination does works towards building a democratic, egalitarian and humane social order, but conversely, by institutionalizing affermative action in favor of any one group, the government effectively discriminates against others, alienates them, feeds their sense of grievance and can contribute to a growing militancy without necessarily helping the most needy. Affirmative action in general is often counterproductive. Preferential policies foster the values of solidarity based on the cult of victim hood-instead of thrift, hard work, and self- improvement.
Then again, within the "disadvanteged" groups receiving preferential treatment, benefits are captured by the better educated, more articulate and more politically skilled elite. Although the programs are meant to reduce the eliminate intergroup disparities, the group leaders become dependent on the perpetuation of perceived disparities.
Furthermore, the disadvantaged groups in India are vastly hetrogeneous. First of all the Constitution places the two most disadvantged sections, (ST), and (ST) in the higher footing than the others as far as the affirmative action in concerned. Both are entitled to representation in all legislatures in proportion to their numbers/jobs in the government, and admission to educational institutions, both at the central government and the states. Priority is accorded them over the, Other Backward Class" (OBCs), in accessing benefits.
The OBCs themselves are not homogeneous category. At one end are the dominant, landowning castes who own a sizable amount of land available locally, are politically influential, and are increasingly represented in the govt., while, at the other end are numerically small artisanal, laboring, and servicing castes, more entitled to the benefits and concessions which the dominant castes are receiving. Once again, this perception is bound to play in favor of the latter, than the former.
Reservation is a paradoxical situation where, on the one hand , govt. tries to diminish the importance of such caste attributes as untouchability, and low social status by way of reservations, while on the other hand, it lends official recognition to caste as the criteria for eligibility. In this way, reservations have created a vested interest in the survival of caste. Over fourty years, after the formal abolition of caste, caste is more alive than ever in India!
While positive discrimination in India has had considerable success, both, symbolically, and substantially, it has it's negative side. First of all, there has been too much reliance on "reservation" per se, and it has not been supplemented by attempts to train the targeted beneficiaries to actually benefit from access. Even more importantly, the failure to universalize the primary education, in spite of the existence of a constitutional directive to achieve it.
Because I don't know the exact provisons for Jats as OBCs, I am unable to decipher the relevance. If it renders no tangible gains to Jats, and allows discrmination within the OBC sub-groups, my biggest fear is that the truly needy may not benefit from this controversial policy. On the contrary, it may be the only national level policy that will prove as a viable option for the Jats to change their status quo.
Sujata
