Complete argument and counter argument on new reservation system.  Please share.

 

What is the new system / law changes on the reservation?

The portion of the government jobs are reserved for SC&ST and OBC cast.  It will continue.  There is a additional 10% of seats are reserved for poor in OC’s.  This is the recent change by Modi government.

Argument 1:  The Modi government have hidden agenda to remove reservation for SC&ST and OBC.  This is the reason new quota is introduced.

Counter:   100% False.  It is additional quota only.  There is no point to think it will affect the existing reservation for SC&ST/OBC’s.  It is clearly stated by Modi and other government people.  Even political leaders who represent SC&ST/OBC are not talking about it.  Unfortunately, few people create this false propaganda.

If you believe in near future the SC&ST/OBC quota will be removed, you are living in Stone Age only.   You can believe earth is flat. You do not have any clue on how the Indian political system works.

(Note : Courtesy www.Brahminsforsociety.com )

Argument 2:  What is the sudden need for OC’s reservation?

Counter: Let’s take recent history.  The Patel’s of Gujarat who represents 20% of Gujarat population and Gujjer community who represents sizable percentage of Rajasthan are fighting for reservation.  They want to be included in OBC category (or separate reservation for them).

Both the agitation rocked the civil society for more than 3-4 years.  It is valiant agitation tactically supported by Congress party.  The same way Maratha’s of Maharashra also fighting for reservation benefits. But the ruling party of both the states are in fix.  The exiting OBC’s are against including new communities in the OBC quota fearing they lose their priority.  It is also natural fear and government needs to listen to them too.  At the same time, the quota could not be increased beyond 49% because constitution fix the upper limit.  The BJP government could not solve the issue, because there is no way to solve this issue.

All of us know how Congress gained from this political deadlock.   It is natural the Modi  government wants to solve this issue.  The new additional quota will give relief for OC community who are agitating for reservation.  This is the way the Modi government find a solution to the vexed problem.

 

Argument 3: It is totally a political move my Modi government.

Please read the above answer and you can understand how other parties use the deadlock situation and created trouble for BJP.   Do you think Modi government will go to poll with tided hands or they want to solve the deadlock and go to poll.

It is interesting to note, none opposed Congress move to Support reservation for Patels who are in OC category in Gujarat or use the similar situation in Rajestan and gained the power.  But the same people complain about Modi’s move is election move.

It is a election move, let it be an election move.  Because this argument do not have honesty and no point in answering to it.

Argument 4: It is against the principles of the Constitution.  The constitution is not favouring economically based reservation.

Answer:  Definitely a nice question.   It needs a little more details about our constitution.

The constitution fixed 25 years period for reservation.  But it continuing more than 70 years and all of us know it will continue for next 70 years.  Is it against the principles of the constitution?  It is not, because we need more time to solve the vexed problem.

The biggest problem of the Indian civil society is “untouchability”.  The constitution committee try to solve the issue via reservation for SC&ST.  (the name is Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes).  It is not a one community.  It listed all the community names which are affected by “untouchability” from different parts of India in one major list and provided the reservation for them.  But there is no OBC in the constitution.   But we provide OBC quota all over india.  Is it against the principles of the constitution?  It is not, because changes are inevitable and every one need representation.

Do we think the constitution body try to protect one set of communities for ever or try to help ‘Oppressed” people?  Do you think the constitution body wants to keep the cast system intact by giving special consideration for community based people or  it thought to give special consideration for SC&ST people to live equal with others and merge in the society.

There are two ways of looking into it:  One is, caste based reservation for keep up the caste; second way is reservation is provided for oppressed people and uplift them.

If you think it is for oppressed people, OC’s reservation for poor is the natural change after 70 years of implementation of reservation system.  The poor in OC’s need helping hand.

Please remember, the exiting quota for OBC and SC and ST are not going to change; they are not going to get impacted.  Their seats are not going to reduced.

Let’s take honest question:  Do you less educated daily labour son from OC community need help from government or not.  If yes, how to provide it.  If NO is your answer, you are living in hatred mind set.

 

Argument 5:  The people who oppose reservation because it affects the quality are now supporting the new reservation for OC category.  It is purely double standard.

Answer:  One hundred percent true argument.

In 1989 VP Singh government implemented Mandal commission report i.e reservation for OBC quota, there is a violent agitation across India.  Many communities who are not in the OBC list, agitated against OBC quota move.   But after 30 years, the same communities agitated for their own reservation in recent days. It is a history and no one can deny it.

Hardik patel, aged 24, who lead the patel agitation for reservation in Gujarat once told “If you we cannot remove the reservation system, let us also get it”.   Please remember, Hardik Patel who not even born when Patel’s agitated against Mandal commission implementation.  It is a changed mind-set.  But not even a single question was asked against him that why your community agitated against reservation system in 1989 and why you want reservation now.   Because his logic is correct.  He felt due to reservation, his community is getting oppressed so he needs separate reservation for his community.

Honestly, till yesterday, many who talk about reservation system are not supporting the new quota.  It is a truth.

On the other hand, who supported Reservation system till yesterday, now opposing the new quota.  It is also a double standard.

Once the famous lawyer Nariman said, in the current civil society, it is not possible to review or change the Constitution.  Because all of us taking a view based on their cast, religion or language.  We do not think about overall civil society of India.  Unfortunately, double standard become a norm of our civil society.

One day will come soon, we will think above our own segment of the society and we will start thinking about what is good for the entire country.  We have to wait for the golden days to come.

 

Argument -6 :  Who is economically poor.  Is the person who is getting 70000 per month (Rs 8,00,000 income per annum) is economically poor.  Is it a fraud standard?

Counter:  Correct question.  The real poor / oppressed people in OC category needs to get real benefit.  We need to come up with correct elimination list.

Some time back, Supreme Court ordered to remove economically strong people from OBC and SC&ST quota beneficiaries.   The congress government declared that people who get 5 lakh per annum (50000 per month) as economically weaker section.  In 2017, it is raised to 8,00,000 per annum.  The same number (i.e 8,00,000 income per annum is considered as poor) is applied to OC category poor.  You cannot have Definition “Poor’ or OBC/SC&ST for one number and “poor” OC for other number.  The government cannot have two numbers for defining “poor”;  It is simple logic.

Interestingly, no one raised the “fraud standard” arguments against the OBC/SC&ST ‘Poor” definition.  It is nice to see how the so called warriors of our civil society thinks.

Who get the reservation should be defined clearly.   The reservation should reach the needy.  There is no doubt about it.  As a civil society, we need to think how the benefit will reach the bottom most man and not misused by top people in every reservation quota.

 

There could possible elimination category along with “poor” definition.   Few samples:

1. A graduate parent’s son should not get reservation benefits.
2. The reservation benefits is only for One generation (father is a Government officer, the son automatically denied reservation benefits)

Hope our civil society get matured soon to give the reservation for right people.

So, there is no fraud standard in the definition of “poor”.  But it needs to be reviewed.

 

Argument 7:  It benefits Upper cast people.  Modi government work for upper caste people.

Counter:  Who is upper cast in our society?  It is relative term and even it is loosely defined term.

Let’s consider, one village there are two community people living together.  One belongs to SC and other belong to OBC.  Who is upper cast in this village?

Let’s consider, on coach of the train, there is a Muslim, Christen, Brahmin, Bania, Takur, Patel and gujjer (etc etc) are travelling.  Who is upper cast? i.e. superior status by birth?  If you show one person as upper cast, do you think others agree one amoung them is a upper caste.

The above said argument is a political statement.  Even it is true, the government has to work for welfair of all the people.  The OC reservation is not at the cost of others.  It also includes segment of people who feel left out  for the last 70 years.

 

Argument 8: The OC category is only 3%-5% of population only.  How come government come up with 10% of reservation which is unfair.

Counter:  Let’s see the truth in this argument.  As per the Central government list, Muslim / Chiristeens, Bramins, Bania, Takur, Patels and many large communities are under OC list.  So, it is 100% false statement.  Please remember central and states have own reservation listing.  Now we are talking about central reservation system only.

The logic behind arriving 10% as number for reservation is not clear or unknown.  The 10% is discussed multiple times by many leaders.  Even Mayavathi talk about 10% reservation for OC’s long back.  It seems it is generally accepted number.   There is no scientific proof for it.

But it does not justify the argument on the population percentage which is utter lie.

 

Argument 9:  This reservation will help few communities in the OC’s.  Others will suffer.

 

Counter :  When crèamy layer i.e removing rich people from the reservation benefits, was removed from BC/SC&ST reservation, it was seen as ‘Divide and rule’ strategy by many “thinkers’.   Many said, it is our quota, we will decide who will get the benefits in our community.  There is no need for Creamy layer;  It is natural reaction because the collective strength will be lost.  Many think the “collective strength’ is important than the benefits reach the right people in their community.

The same thinkers now give the above said arguments.  Needless to say about their intentions.

Another interesting thing to note that christens are given 3.5% separate reservation based on their population percentage in Tamil Nadu.  But the community got angry with that percentage because it reduced the seat they already enjoyed.  i.e they got more percentage of seats when they are part of 50% OBC category.   The TN government cancelled the separate reservation for Christen community. We haven’t heard any argument on particular group got more benefits in OBC quota.

However, now the states can introduce sub quota of the OC category people.  It means, the affluent people can give given less percentage (probably 2% for one group and 8% for others) based on the situation in their state.

 

As said earlier, the right people needs to get the reservation benefits and every 5 years it needs to be reviewed based on data and apply appropriate elimination rules to reach new set of people who are in the bottom of the society.

 

Argument 10:  It is illegal.  It will be challenged in court.

Counter :  We yet to see the Court’s view on it.  We are talking about the new system is right or not, we are not talking about legality.    If the court feels it is not as per law, the law needs to be amended the protection should be given.

For example, the constitution bench banned religion based reservation.  But it exists in many states. For example, 3.5 percentage reservation is given for Muslims in Tamil Nadu.  It is not challenged.  If it is challenged, the TN may seek the legal protection for it.

Let’s wait and watch how the court view this new reservation system.

 

Argument 11:  It will increase corruption.  Many pay bribe to get “poor” certificate.

Counter:  Yes it is possible.

 

Once Former Prime Minister Rajeev said if the government spend 100 for poor only Rs. 6 reaches them.  It is a poor condition of our system.

Many Dalit activist say their seats are occupied by  non Dalits by providing  false certificates.  The system needs to be cleaned by giving more transparency.  The beneficiaries of each reservation can be published in public domain to reduce the mal practices.

 

Argument 12:  It will weaken the reservation system.

Counter:  It will actually strengthen the reservation system.  Now one way or other, the entire population (excluding few lakh people in general category) come under benefits of the reservation system.  Normally there will be argument against reservation system by the communities who are left out.  Now, it is not possible.

 

Argument 13: Few affluent communities are already occupying reserved seats. The existing reservation system is not properly implemented.

Counter: There is no perfect data to prove it.  But we assume it is correct data.  It is a administrative failure by the government.  Each seat when it is filled in the reservation, it has to be published in public domain.   The system has to be cleaned and make sure each category of reservation is fully implemented.

For example, out of 100 seats, only 16 seats are allocated for SC&ST category (against 18 seats) it is fraud.  We cannot support the fraudulent practices.

The matured civil society can have internal argument whether the percentage of reservation is correct or not, but when there is a law it has to be implemented properly.  We cannot afford to have lawlessness and encourage it.

 

End note:

Let’s argue for or against the new reservation system.  But we see “hate” is the prime thing coming out in the arguments.  We cannot afford to push our next generations with hating others.

Request:  It is written as a part of www.brahminsforsociety.com analysis article.  Please share along with this end note and request.

-Admin

www.braminsforsociety.com