Affirmative Action

The Indian Supreme Court recently upheald the government's decision to reserve 27% of the seats in educational institutions for sections of society that are termed backward. Needless to say, a few heckles have been raised by this decision. However, if analyzed dispassionately, it appears to be an interesting verdict. I would like to present my view of backwardness and affirmative action and compare it with the current attitude.

Backwardness in our times can essentially be divided into two:

1. Economic backwardness – where the individual (or group of individuals) is not part of the natural progression of society due to a lack of disposable funds. This may, or may not, result due to social backwardness

2. Social backwardness – where an individual or a group is not part of the natural progression of society due to the prevalent attitudes, traditions and mores. This may, or may not, result due to economic backwardness.

In most cases, both these types are related, one occassionally feeding the other, resulting in a vicious cycle of sorts. For the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that there is at least a section of society, say 50%, which is not backward. The lower this number is, the more acute the problem.

Affirmative action refers to the series of steps that might be taken by the progressive group of society to reduce the backwardness of other sections of society and make social progress an inclusive concept. These actions might involve uplifting the economic and social status of certain backward sections. The term was first used in America, as part of the Civil Rights movement by African Americans. Similar questions face India now, not in terms of race, but in terms of caste.

Historically, affirmative action has involved tackling economic backwardness. It is assumed that once economic backwardness has been tackled, social backwardness solves itself. The makers of the Indian constitution had guaged that due to the inherent discriminatory nature of the traditional Hindu caste system, not all sections of the population were being given equal opportunity. Steps were then built into the constitution to remedy this situation.

It is assumed that economic backwardness arises not due to a lack of talent on part of the group as a whole, but due to a lack of opportunities to exploit the talent. It is also reasonable to assume that other factors such as location, resources etc have no bearing on the backwardness since other sections of society at the same location would not have this problem. The solution to the question of economic backwardness, therefore, is to allow the backward sections of society to take advantage of opportunities. The first step towards this goal is to insert equality into the constitution. Once this has been achieved, however, there still remains the question of eradicating centuries of conditioning and encouraging people to take advantage of opportunities.

One way to do this was been to reserve a certain percentage of seats for backward sections of society in institutes of learning. It was hoped that a quality education would enable the students under the reservation to take advantage of the opportunities that were available. Naturally, this reservation would be at the cost of other sections of society and is likely to be opposed. The actual number decided upon is actually a balancing act driven by politics. It is the efficacy of this reservation that I question.

Experience of the American policy as well as results of the Indian policy over the past 50 years or so have shown that this does not solve the problem. Even though the education is imparted, the students in question have been unable to take advantage of the opportunities. Primary reason for this is the lack of a sound primary education which results in the students often failing or not completing higher courses. Chances for a lucrative job naturally take a hit since employers are not willing to take students with questionable academic records since other candidates with sound records are available at the same salary level.

The statement above should also suggest the solution itself: make it economically attractive for private sector organizations to employ the students and provide additional training or mentoring. Radical sections of the government have proposed a reservation in private companies as well. This would be going too far, in my opinion, and against the spirit of private enterprise.

Instead, it would be worthwhile for all three parties involved, the students, the employers and the government to consider tax rebates to compensate the private sector for additional risks and costs associated with emplying and training students of the backward sections that have not performed well academically. Ideally, the tax break should be broken down into 2 parts:

1. One slab for actually considering and implementing such a program – a fixed rate

2. A variable rate depending on the industry and the student intake in such a program

It might also be advisable for the companies to set up additional training for students which are deemed to have insufficient academic credentials. During this training period, the student might be paid a stipend instead of a regular salary. This would reduce costs during this period and also provide a more relevant education and training, making the students better prepared for the job ahead.

Since this approach does not require a fixed quota, a company may choose whichever and as many students it desires, thereby preserving the spirit of private enterprise. Of course, a lower intake from the backward sections would directly affect tax liability, thereby allowing the government to collect increased revenue to supplement its own schemes. It is, therefore, in the interest of the company to calculate an optimum number of students required and plan the intake accordingly. In addition, it would not be governed by restrictive government quotas.

Further, it should be made mandatory that any progeny of the persons in this program automatically become ineligible for further benefits. This is to avoid abusing the system even after economic upliftment to compensate for poor academic performance. Since private companies are involved, corruption from government agencies is likely to be minimized.

Over a period of time, the academic performance in higher institutions will cease to be a stumbling block for these students, since they would have a safety net. However, at the same time, they could not afford to be lax, since they are subject to the same competition as others. Other students would also not feel cheated since they would have a chance to impress prospective employers with their talent.

As time progresses, the economic status should rise gradually. However, a concerted media campaign should accompany any attempts at economic upliftment to combat existing social attitudes. The government should also set a time frame for this policy, ranging between 30-50 years, with periodic alterations to the tax rates to account for unforeseen economic forces. Failure to set a time frame would result in situations where economically poor “upper castes” feel discriminated again, a sort of reverse-discrimation.

While this may not heal centuries of mistrust, it will go a long way in making sections of the population more productive and increasing the comfort level among various part of society.