Reservations — and the "action-oriented approach"

In this post, I shall talk of the “high ideals” espoused by many a college student and some concrete realities. I shall talk of some facets of the anti-reservation protest that made such news in May 2006, and then I’ll proceed to talk of the appearances versus genuine change paradox that goes deep through the Indian mentality.

I’ll begin with a little discussion of the reactions of “upper class” city college students to the Manmohan Singh government’s decision to introduce 27% reservation for the Other Backward Classes in college admissions. Note that my summary is very crude and almost completely second-hand or even third-hand.

I first started getting requests to sign petitions around the first week of April 2006, and by May, anti-reservation protests were making the national news with AIIMS students organizing a massive dharna at the front gate. The catch-phrases used by the more sophisticated of the protestors was dilution of centers of excellence and there was general criticism of the government for covering up its miserable failures to educate students at the primary and secondary levels.

On the other hand, there were a whole lot of other voices, initially ignored by the media, but gradually coming into the picture, which criticized the anti-reservation protests as a means for upper-caste students to suppress the lower castes and show them their place. For instance, the dharna organized by AIIMS students understandably inconvenienced a number of patients who rely on the services of AIIMS, particularly poor out-station people. Thus, the students protesting were deemed as selfish, insensitive and casteist. Further, it was argued that those on the favourable side of the caste divide can afford to ignore it.

With time, the battle took on a somewhat different flavour with the anti-reservationists clarifying that they were not against reservation per se, but that they were against a political scheme of reservations. Let economically weaker sections get the benefit of reservations, rather than simply giving reservation to a person based on surname. A balancing notion of economically rich and upward people from socially backward castes was dubbed with the name Creamy layer. The progressive view held was that reservations should reach out to the genuinely needy and should not go into the hands of the creamy layer. The Supreme Court thus passed a ruling asking the government to exclude the Creamy layer from the benefits of reservation.

I will now, very cautiously, present my views on the issue and the interesting light it throws on the “high ideals” of college life.

First, note that bandhs, demonstrations and rallies have had a long history in our country. Our freedom struggle, comprising the Non-cooperation movement, the Civil Disobedience Movement, and the Quit India Movement, had demonstrations, hartals, and disruptions of public life at different scales and in different ways. Ambedkar led huge rallies for mass conversions to Buddhism among the Dalits. People have both accomplished and stalled political, social and economic objectives via the techniques of mass arousal.

So what is it that lends power to large numbers of people coming together for a cause on the streets?

There are two factors at play. One, of course, is the extent of the disruption. Going by the thesis that an average person is considered only about his/her personal, individual, immediate problems, mass protests make people who were not adversely affected by the original problem, take notice of it. For instance, the issue of wage determination is a matter between the employer and the employee, and a person outside is not concerned directly with it. If, however, the employee union decides to go on a strike against the wage rate and takes out a demonstration on the roads, the daily commuter suddenly finds the original problem affecting his/her personal life. Thus, the commuter starts feeling the need to resolve the problem.

The second factor is an indication of commitment to the cause. When a person goes on hunger-strike for a cause (say, better food to be served in animal farms) he/she is indicating that this cause means a lot, and demonstrating his/her commitment to it. Even though going on hunger-strike may directly do nothing, it infuses a sense of urgency into other people that compels them to take another look at the matter.

Now, for either of these factors to be operational, the person who decides to participate in the strike, rally, protest or demonstration should be clear as to the following:

• What is the cause for which he/she is fighting? Is the person willing to explain this cause to anybody who comes and questions him/her on it?
• Why is he/she choosing this disruptive means of fighting? Have the other routes been closed for other reasons? Is the person willing to explain his/her choice of mode of protest to anybody?
• What response does the person expect which will lead to the protest being called off?
• Most importantly, is the person indulging in the protest willing to take full responsibility and blame for any injury/damage resulting to him/her during the protest? (Injury could be physical assault, severing of relationships, removal of job) Or will the person blame those he/she is protesting against for such damages?

At one extreme of the spectrum are the people who go ahead with participating in a protest only if they are clear on all these counts. At the other extreme are people who are led by mob hysteria and sob sentimentality and plunge into the protest because it feels the right thing to do.

Where along the spectrum did the anti-reservation protests lie?

This is a question to which I do not have an easy answer, since I did not talk first-hand to any of those leading the protests, nor to any of those very actively involved with it. However, I did get a kind of overall feel from the mails that were sent to me urging me to sign on the Youth For Equality petition, and from the many email exchanges by people supporting the protest cause. The overall feel I got was that although most anti-reservationists had a number of reasons for being anti-reservation, few of them actually bothered to explain those reasons in a rational manner, and instead sought to use emotional planks to justify themselves. They cited that it was obvious that reservations were nonsense, that those opposing reservations were brave like the freedom fighters, and that those supporting reservations were hypocrites who were just covering up their own inefficiency at helping the poor by offering stop-gap measures.

At least two people I know of opposed reservation on the ground of their personal experience: these were people who had come from smaller towns, where awareness was not high, but where caste discrimination was also not high. These people, despite much better academic performance, found it more difficult to get admission compared to others from similar academic backgrounds, but with the backward tag. Such personal experience is a very valid ground on which to feel opposed to reservation. Other persons had seen the effect of reservations in colleges with which they or their friends/relatives had been associated, and what they saw had convinced them that reservation rarely served the purpose of uplifting the poor. In short, there were a lot of diverse personal experiences that explained why some people were anti-reservation.

These are the kind of inputs and experiences that, if shared with others, if well-presented, could have led to a growing and healthy debate on the issue of reservations. However, the leading voices we heard in the mass media were cliches like dilution of centers of excellence and politicization of caste. Many an anti-reservationist often treated discussion as an anathema, as a kind of compromise on high ideals, as an attack on the highest ideals.

Of course, there were a lot of anti-reservationist voices that tried to collect, forward and publicize information regarding how the reservation system has been ineffective and why introduction of further reservations for OBCs may not serve much purpose. What I doubt, though, is whether those most vociferous in protesting tried to understand the angles and perspectives involved in the issue. I also think that they may have wrought more damage to the anti-reservations cause by taking a factual issue to an emotional plane — something where vote-bank-oriented politicians rule the roost! Also, there were a lot of people around me who simply got disgusted with the overt publicity the protestors were being given and the “suppression of the other side”.

Note that in none of these points am I trying to argue that those who were against reservations were doing so out of petty selfish interest. Quite the contrary — sitting for hours at the gate in a hot searing summer, shouting slogans and getting emotionally worked up can hardly be argued to be in one’s petty selfish interest. Of course, those protesting wanted to preserve what they considered the integrity of their institutions, of the systems that had given them so much in terms of value. The selfishness that prompts one to seek the highest and best for oneself and the institutions one is associated with is the most noble kind of selfishness, it is not petty. What I am pointing out, though, is that the protesters did not satisfy the basic criteria for a successful well-reasoned protest. Again, my views in this regard are subject to correction from people who have more direct experience of the anti-reservation protests.

Where does the root of the problem and the conflict lie? Why are people unwilling to discuss and share facts and why are fights often taken to the emotional plane?

I think the root of this lies in a much deeper way the Indian psyche is tuned. The Indian psyche has been tuned to recognize the importance of hardwork and rote. When a young Indian needs to do well in academics, he/she is asked to practise and solve problems again and again. No serious mathematician attributes his/her success to solving multiplication and addition exercises from textbooks. Yet, this is the “educational” approach followed throughout India. The rule of the stick and rote is famous.

Action on the ground has always meant going out and doing things. The homemaker who stays at home and takes care of the kids is looked down upon while the breadwinner who goes out and works is looked up to. The person who toils and sweats is treated with great respect while the person who sits in an air-conditioned office is termed a parasite. Hardwork, struggle and sacrifice are lauded while the ability to plan and manage things is looked down upon.

It is in this context that theorists are frowned upon and people feel compelled to prove their social credentials through ground action. Even the most ineffective ground action (like teaching four poor kids for one hour) makes a person feel more of a genuine social worker than what years of study could have done. Reason, argument and discussion are becoming old-fashioned tools and “direct action” is more sought.

This same action-oriented philosophy has also percolated into social action.
For instance, in the article NSS a must in CBSE schools:

CBSE schools in Bangalore have welcomed the move. “It will kindle a selfless spirit in them,” Shanta Chandra, associate principal of National Public School, Indiranagar, said. “It can be made compulsory even in classes below IX,” Venkat International Public School, Rajajinagar, principal T Balakrishna said.

Over the last 5-7 years, social service and social work has almost developed into its own fad. Just like it is fashionable to be selfless by drinking Pepsi and Coke and smoking cigarettes, it has of late become fashionable to kindle a selfless spirit by standing for long hours in the sun and teaching poor kids. College kids are of late being lauded for socially responsible initiatives. We want the benefits of development to reach the poor and we believe in development with a human face to it, cry out the high ideals within us.

The argument that going out and doing social service is helpful in understanding social issues is probably just as naive as the belief that repeatedly doing addition and multiplication will make one a great mathematician, or that repeatedly laying bricks will make one a great architect. The desire for action without contemplation has made people value the appearances of doing things far more than actual changes.

No wonder, then, that in a similar vein, the anti-reservationists were lauded as people who were brave enough to go out and fight rather than carrying on mere academic debates.

Can this harmful mentality be reversed or changed? Who can change it?

If anybody can change this harmful mentality, it is the people who understand the value of homework, who know what it means to think and contemplate and collect data and not be rash. It is the people who know the perils and mental agonies needed in decision-making who can caution others against acting rashly. It is people who have struggled through effort and initiative who can point the demerits of thoughtless toil.

But people like us who know this feel a little sheepish about doing this because their opponents have already seized the moral high ground. Our opponents have already taken to the streets, to sticks, to loud voices and to great actions. And by giving in to them, by not raising our voices against the shouters, we have let debates sink into mere emotional planks and weapons. We have made debates into showcases, because we, the people who know and could have made a difference, allowed the others to revel in their moral superiority.

It is we people who understand the futility of anger. Yet we fail to stand against people who spearhead a good cause with the use of anger, for fear of being deemed hypocrites and insensitive individuals.

And this needs to be addressed.

I will pick up further from here in an upcoming post on anger as a tool for reform and change.

Looking forward to comments.