| November 4, 2006 | ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL | WEEKLY |
|---|---|---|
| Myopic OversightIt is no secret that the Oversight Committee on the Implementation of the New Reservation Policy in Higher Educational Institutions chaired by M Veerappa Moily had the limited mandate of detailing the modalities of a done deal. The major battles had already been won and lost by the time the committee began its work. Despite varying degrees of enthusiasm, the political class had unanimously supported the proposal to introduce 27 per cent reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in institutions of higher education under the purview of the central government. And despite their electoral vulnerability, the entrenched upper castes had leveraged their clout and media support to extract the promise of not reducing the numbers in a field they have always dominated – heavily subsidised, globally encashable higher and specially professional education. Even the three-year time frame for implementation was, in effect, already decided given that such a large expansion would have been impossible at one go. However, judging by the final report it has submitted (available on the Planning Commission website), the Moily Committee has failed to live up to even the modest expectations it had raised. Barring some peripheral suggestions, the report is essentially a padded compendium of the proposals submitted by the five specialist groups on the expansion of some 79 institutions of higher education in medicine, engineering and technology, management, agriculture and the central universities. The most disappointing aspect of the report – as it all but admits – is the failure to address the creamy layer issue. The real regret here is not the fact that the committee has refused to take a stand, but that it has squandered a valuable opportunity to raise the level of public debate on this question. Despite its subdued tone, the text of the report makes it amply clear that the creamy layer issue was debated at length and with some vigour. Why then were those advocating total silence on this issue allowed to have their way without even arguing their case? The reasons for the silence mentioned in the report – no mention of the creamy layer in the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Bill, 2006; and the opinion of some members that the issue was inappropriate to the mandate of the committee – are pre-emptory rather than substantive. That there was strong support within the committee for tackling the creamy layer issue is evident from the fact that the two appendices to the report are on this subject. While the treatment is not quite definitive, the appendices do a fair job of collating the available data on the socio-economic profile of the OBCs. Much of the evidence cited here strongly justifies OBC reservations, but it also asks some compelling questions. How, for example, would a national reservation scheme deal with the fact that just five states (the four southern states plus Maharashtra) account for 80 per cent of the most affluent urban OBCs? (Appendix I, p 113). The committee would surely have been well within its mandate to apply its collective mind to such questions. Viewed from the opposite perspective, the Moily Committee could have performed an invaluable public service by encouraging the “anti-anti-creamy layer” group to state its case. For, contrary to dominant perceptions, there is much to be said against turning the creamy layer issue into a stick with which to beat the very idea of OBC reservations. Exclusion of the creamy layer eliminates precisely those segments of the OBCs which are most likely to succeed in higher education. It also ignores the fact that multi-generational prosperity and access to education are required to lift a longdisadvantaged backward community into the mainstream. Moreover, the presumptions of the anti-creamy layer position are flatly contradicted by the severe underrepresentation of the OBCs in positions of privilege. If the creamy layer is so prosperous and so powerful, then why does it have such a thin presence outside the political sphere – in the bureaucracy, the professions, or the corporate sector? These and related issues need airing, and the Moily Committee could have chosen to |
initiate debate even if it also declined to make any recommendations of its own. Instead, all we have is a limp confession that some members insisted on censoring this issue.
Perhaps the committee’s slogan – “Expansion, Inclusion, Excellence” – is also an inadvertent admission of probable priorities. Given the existing alignment of vested interests, it is very likely that expansion will receive the most attention, with inclusion and excellence having to compete for the leftovers. What concrete steps can be taken to minimise the inevitable social friction when heterogeneous excluded groups enter institutions long accustomed to a cosy upper caste homogeneity? Will the “reserved categories” be allowed their due share in the recruitment drives triggered by expansion, or will the already-haves receive even more? What can be done to counter the higher than average levels of gender discrimination among the OBCs? Can we tackle the English language barrier in a realistic yet imaginative way? Nobody can be expected to answer so many questions, but it is a pity that the Moily Committee chose to ask so few. EPW
Economic and Political Weekly November 4, 2006
