Maximum or Minimum?
Few weeks ago I had blogged about how the present definition of creamy layer applied for the other backward classes (OBC) was farcical.
Mr. Anand Nair in his blog and discussions has argued that it is not necessary to have a separate ‘creamy layer’ concept among the OBC, because, according to him, the raison de etre for affirmative action is addressing under-representation of endogamous groups (castes) in “creamy layer of society”. So, the suitability of the individual concerned for affirmative action because of his own socio-economic background is immaterial, for through him, it is his community that is being represented and is contributing towards correcting the ‘under-representation’, which is very important.
Mr Anand Nair goes on to say that this is what being done in the USA, where though affirmative action (AA) is not mandatory as in India, the industry and the academic institutions in the USA are expected to volunteer to earmark certain percentages of the facilities for identified ‘under-represented’ groups like the Blacks or the Hispanics and also women, and he says that entry bars are also lowered to make this possible. [From a research paper that I had read however, my understanding is that entry bars are not lowered in USA, other qualifications being equal, ‘priority’ is to be given to those from the identified target groups, but I will not press the point. Those interested could read the research paper, and draw their own conclusions. Also the US-resident Sulekhaiites might want to throw some light].
So since ‘Asians’ are doing well for themselves in their own steam, they are not eligible for AA in the USA, but ‘Blacks’ and ‘Hispanics’ are, as are women from any community, for women, in general, are ‘under represented’. Mr Anand Nair finds the US model emulation-worthy, and therefore he feels that the creamy layer concept for the OBC is not relevant. During discussions on his blog, I was requested to give my opinion if I support adoption of the US principle of AA for India or not.
This brings up the question about what is the underlying philosophy behind AA in USA? USA professes that it is a multi-cultural equal-opportunities entity. The underlying principle of AA in the USA is encouraging ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusiveness’. So, an Ivy League college educated Black will be treated as deserving AA for employment in a college in preference to a similarly educated Asian or White American, because generally speaking, blacks are under-represented in institutes of higher learning.
But even then, the point to note is that USA is very careful to protect the national interest of maintaining efficiency, the State only warrants that a ‘minimum’ threshold representation of multi-cultural USA should be ensured, that too voluntarily, the State does not push for the ‘maximum’ that can be accommodated. It gives ample space for the institutions volunteering AA according to their own absorption capability, and nature of the (employing) industry and the academic institution. Unlike in India, the State does not insist that 49.5% of manpower should be drawn only from the Blacks and Hispanics. AA in USA appears to value ‘quality’ in human resource, and carefully introduces only that much of ‘distortion’, if at all ( after all a black Ivy League graduate is an Ivy League graduate, at the most he got the job, instead of his white counterpart), through AA, as can be sustainable.
According to Mr Anand Nair, “Since 1965, AA has created a large "creamy layer" of blacks -- though bulk of the blacks still remain ghettoized. It would seem that they now would need to introduce an "economic criterion" too in their AA. But wouldn't that be socialism?”
Precisely. USA does not profess to use AA in higher education and employment to “uplift the disadvantaged”. They have colour/class/race neutral policies and programmes in place for imparting basic education and social security. Beyond that, it is for the individual to make what (s)he wants to do to better his/her life. I find that AA in USA is not perceived as a tool for social mobility of the community through economic empowerment of a few, as is implicit in India. Naturally therefore, USA does not use any economic criteria to decide who should receive AA.
In India, AA is a tool for social mobility through economic empowerment, and the easiest, (though the worst, IMO) form of AA is through reservation. Superimposing any model will be just a superimposition; India’s concerns are not the same as that of USA.
An Indian has many identities, by State of domicile, by gender, by mother tongue, by caste, by religion. In certain identities, (s)he is under-represented, in certain others (s)he is over represented at a national level. It is farcical to insist that the Indian State, through AA, should bring about proportionate representation of ‘communities’ in the “creamy layer of society”, both concepts themselves being subject to definitional bias.
In my understanding and view, (not that anyone is listening, blogging being akin to crying in wilderness)
- The USA model of AA encourages ‘minimum’ distortion, while the Indian model of AA tries to introduce the ‘maximum’ distortion, subject to the leverage given by our Constitution.
- The difference in approach is due to the difference in the philosophy behind AA in the two countries. While USA wishes to ensure, through AA, at least a ‘minimum’ representation of all constituents of its multicultural society, India wants to use AA as a tool for social mobility and assimilation of the disadvantaged through economic empowerment.
- Reservation in India is a tool for social mobility and assimilation through economic empowerment, and therefore only the erstwhile avarna, the Scheduled Caste, and the Scheduled Tribes deserve ‘reservation’.
- Increasing extent of ‘reservation’ in college education and jobs beyond 20% (in prescribing this ceiling, I am inspired by statistical theory parallels for zone of confidence) is unsustainable in the long run. Increasing participation by the disadvantaged beyond 20% should be through positive AA like scholarships, education loans, liberal coaching (and perhaps even rewarding the parents for sparing ambitious meritorious children to go for higher learning instead of helping in the fields/shops), but short of reservation.
- ‘Reservation’ needs to be applicable only for the first generation beneficiaries.
- Progeny of income tax assessees , and people with irrigated agricultural holdings should be excluded from any ‘reservation’ benefits, prima facie. Though they would be eligible for all other AA, so that their participation might increase on its own steam.
- The identified individuals from ‘educationally backward’ communities should be given liberal coaching and even scholarships or education loans if needed as AA, so that they can compete with the open category, but they should not have any reservation. My rational is that their parents, though not formally educated, did not prima facie lack in economic empowerment, and they suffered from no social stigma at any stage.
To me, 'broadening the social base' would mean providing better access to education at the basic level to all classes of the society, providing a sustainable means of income to the economically backward, so that they can afford to send their wards to school, and make that schooling available near their home. The next step is to make higher education affordable for those who have the merit to go further, so that the talent can shine through. If we achieve that, then there is no need to 'reserve' space for them for higher education or jobs. We only have to make it financially viable for them to be there. They will be there on their own merit.
However, this line of thought does not seem to attract our politicians, because educating the masses is the last thing they want, it could be a serious threat to their vote banks. Hence we have the Anandjis with their skewed up logic fighting for reservation for their incompetent wards in premier Institutions meant for the extremely meritorious.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Hi sceptic,
. But if a pointed response is asked for, or a loaded statement made, it is polite to respond, which I have. That is about all.
This kind of debate can have no outcome, when the positions of the debators are so diverse.
Aditi
Reply | | Report Abuse
Hullo Aditi
Neither your debating skills nor your persuasive charm seems to able to move Anand from his entrenched position. How is the outcome of this debate to be decided? Is the motion being put to the house for a vote?
Sceptic
Reply | | Report Abuse
Anandji,
I think we fundamentally differ in appreciating what the principle of equity (being fair and impartial) entails in framing public policy. What do you mean by 'widening the social base'?
If a person is inherently bright and talented, he needs no crutch, I hope you agree. To me equity in public policy should entail allowing a person’s latent merit to reach a ‘logical’ personal potential, according to his own capability, overcoming the handicap of accident of birth ( social base).
I do not think equity means giving selective opportunity to certain individuals only because at an aggregate level, presences of certain sections of society (to which they belong by accident of birth) are under-represented in some vocations. I dispute that such a convoluted interpretation of equity will increase the likelihood of bringing about Nobel Laureates in sciences and Olympic medallists forIndia
Please recall my example of super speciality research and consequence of the application of the principle of ‘equity’, Indian style, in such a case……would you not have compromised on a potential Nobel Prize winning scientist, if you advocate the principle of ‘widening the social base’ as the principle of equity? My point is that if a Scheduled Caste scientist was within the first 5, he should not be allowed to be ignored by (elitist?) selectors because of his caste, that would be true example of equity. But if he is not among the first 5, he should not still be selected in the name of equity…. such misplaced ‘widening of social base’ will not lead to any Nobel Prizes in sciences, sorry.
To me, the bottom line is that broad basing of opportunity on equity considerations means giving a fair chance to everybody to reach their respective potential, and we should acknowledge that potentials do differ. It does not necessarily make the case that it is the application of the principle of equity involved in ‘widening the social base’ that will enable individuals to share the high table of intellectual or similar prowess inherent for winning the Nobel Prize for sciences, or winning an Olympic medal.
Aditi
Reply | | Report Abuse
Aditi,
You made a correct and interesting observation:-
"...distribution of merit can be expected to be mathematically ‘normal' "
This is precisely the reason why I say that if we ENLARGE the social base, "merit" can be expected to flower in greater numbers. And the first effect of greater equity within a society is the widening of the social base that can avail of opportunities for good upbringing and education.
I hope you now understand the reason behind the OBSERVABLE correlation between equity and emergence of merit.
More equitable the society, the more meritorious this is likely to be.
Anand
Reply | | Report Abuse
Aditi,
Ghettoisation is bad -- whether in India or in the US.
The way we in India expropriated land from "tribals" over the past few thousand years is no holier than the way the the Europeans did this in the Americas (and elsewhere) over the past few hundred years. But then "lebensraum" is not part of this debate.
I reproduce below my response to your response in my blog:-
There is hardly any requirement for me to come out with a personalised definition of "equity"! Equity (as commonly understood) does have social, political and economic components. The actual composition of these components (that define equity) is differrent among various societies.
You went on, "...you need not worry at all about presence or absence of democracy or freedom. "
Why not?
The presence democracy or freedom (equally to each individual, irrespective of "merit") indicates greater political equity, which according to me is a good thing, and would result in the flowering of merit within societies that adopt this.
And the absence of democracy or freedom (equally to each individual) indicates lesser political equity, which according to me is a bad thing, and would result in the stunting of merit within societies that adopt this.
Strangely, you said, "Except in an ‘oppressive’ regime, say as in Uganda in the regime of Idi Amin"
Politically oppressive regimes are ubiquitous -- we have Burma in our neighbourhood, and Saudi Arabia; and in Nepal till recent days. These are societies where equity -- political and economic -- is in short supply. The prediction is that such societies are unlikely to see the flowering of the merit in a manner comparable to more equitable societies.
Countries like China and Cuba are politically oppressive, but have achieved significant economic equity -- and it is this latter circumstance that enables merit to flower.
Countries of Western Europe and the US have achieved political equity and high standards of human development index (HDI). This circumstance too enables merit to flower -- despite lower levels of economic equity.
Among third world countries, India (with sigificant political equity) is better off than others. Within India, States that have achieved greater political and economic equity are expected to fare better (than counterparts who lag in the area of achieving equity), by way of flowering of merit from within society. This is a prediction...
These examples show that equity -- whether political or economic -- is a postive factor that PRACTICALLY enables merit within a society to bloom.
I am happy that you too favour "equity" in principle. You said that you "realise that rigid insistent application of the principle can stifle real excellence".
Who wants to be rigid or extreme? All that affirmative action policies seek to do is to obliterate GROSS inequalities.
No, the principle of equity is NOT recommended to be used to select say, 5 candidates for "super speciality research"! Affirmative Action as actually implemented in India, US etc (and which is vigorusly opposed by some people) is only for entry into large campuses and workplaces that employ hundreds of people -- by allowing candidates from under-represented social backgrounds to fairly compete with only those from similar backgrounds, and all of them fulfilling the minimum laid down eligibility (merit) for admission.
The practical observation (in India and in the US) is that the institutions and societies have actually GAINED by implementing affirmative action in the past several decades.
Anand
Reply | | Report Abuse
Hi Basab,
See the cry gets a few to react too... hahahah
Aditi
Reply | | Report Abuse
A cry in the wild indeed!
Reply | | Report Abuse
Anandji,
After I read your response on 'reservation' and native Americans, I googled. This 'reservation' in America is directly related to land titles, is it not? If so, we do have our local models of Sixth Schedule areas in the North East , why even the income tax laws do not apply there, and there are Fifth Schedule areas where transfer of tribal land to non tribals are not allowed. Are these similarly illiberal too? Why is 'ghetto-isation' of American native Indians a worse model than 'ghetto-isation' of Indian tribals?
On your other point, I have already responded in your blog.
If you treat ‘equity’ in the way you have, sometimes prefixing with ‘economic’ or sometimes with ‘political’, as it suits you, you need not worry at all about presence or absence of democracy or freedom. I appreciate that by doing this, you have found an easy escape route from your earlier stand of “equity, democracy and freedom” fostering ‘merit’. Except in an ‘oppressive’ regime, say as in Uganda in the regime of Idi Amin, according to your exposition of equity, every other country in the world will qualify to be fostering ‘equity’ in its policies, and therefore fostering emergence of ‘merit’. Q.E.D. As distribution of merit can be expected to be mathematically ‘normal’ too, the conclusion will of course be a foregone one…. of a very strong correlation.
Regards,
Aditi
Reply | | Report Abuse
Aditi,
You asked, "Why is 'reservation' for the native Americans being opposed by the liberals as being 'ghetto-isation"? Not clear to me, as I do not know much about it. Could you fill me up on this?"
Suffice if I say that this ('reservation' for the native Americans) is equivalent to confining the dalits of India to a confined locality (or reservation) -- something like the way lions are preserved in the Gir forest. This is contrary to the principle of affirmative action (in the US and "reservations" in India) where the idea is to "normalise" opportunities with the deliberate aim of broadening the social diversity in the campuses and work places.
But the more important point that I seek to make is that "equity" does have a strong correlation with the emergence of "merit" from within a society.
In case of modern western democracies, it is political equity (democracy, consititional equality guarnteed to all citizens and adult franchise plus welfare by way of social security and universal education) that resulted in the flowering of merit in these societies -- despite economic inequity that persists.
On the other hand, in case of the Soviet Union and China, merit flowered despite the absence of political equity (that comes out of individual freedoms). This is no doubt a consequence of the significant degree of economic equity practically achieved by these societies.
Which is why I had asked you to show instances in history where merit has bloomed in a comparatively big way -- outside of democracy (where individual freedoms and the right to vote are EQUAL for all citizens, and not based on "merit" of individuals), OR outside of a socialist order that has practically achieved significant equity in economic terms (despite being politically oppressive).
Anand
Reply | | Report Abuse
- 1
- 2
- 3
Displaying 1 - 10 of 28 Blog Comments