Responses to Quoto of woes

You are here: Home » news section » opinions » Whistleblower

E-Pao! Opinions - Ranjan Yumnam Response to Quota of Woes

Response & Readers' Mail
on "Quota of Woes"

Rejoinder to Ranjan Yumnam's 'Quota of woes'

Sir,
I was bewildered and pained to go through the article 'Quota of Woes' appeared in your esteemed daily, The Sangai Express on Sunday Special issue dated, 10th June 2007 written by Ranjan Yumnam - in the column 'Whistle Blower'.

In the first paragraph of his write-up, he dragged the law of 'diminishing returns' while referring to the credibility of present 'quota system' with an intent to discourage reservation particularly to the Schedule Tribes. His contention towards the ST Quota in this regard, lacks basic wisdom.

The fact is that the present 33% reservation to all the STs is in the increasing returns, since the real essence of development is still in the initial stage with this reservation. As the law suggests, we need to increase the quota to reach the crucial stage of constant returns.

So that the persistent of great disparities between the hill and the valley will reduce the existing contrast to some extent. In the last second sentence, he again wrote, 'we need more balanced development but less reservation' which itself is contradictory.

The valley-centric approaches to economic development and years of neglect to the hills by the Manipur Government has made the hills deplorable in every fields.

It therefore, needs a holistic approach to break the existing bias structure wherein all communities will have equal access to available opportunities. Despite the repeated promises by the Government to fulfil the reservation demand, none of the Departments functioning under the State have materialised so far.

It is a matter of great concern that many departments have less than 10% tribal employees. Hence, the need of the hour is to fill up the backlog and increase the reservation to reach the stage of balanced development between the hills and the valley at a more faster pace.

I adhere steadfastly to this stand point as the Active Participation of all the communities in the development process of the Government is inevitable for reducing socio-economic inequalities that pervade the Manipur State.

Manipur is one of the State under a Democratic set-up of India. The paramount duty the state is to uphold the principle of welfare state. It is through this principle, the weaker sections like SCs and STs should pay utmost attention to bridge the wide gap already existed in Manipur.

In fact, with the income and wealth subject to diminishing marginal utilities, even though the income of the state remain constant, we can still be better off, if the rich communities in the valley transfer part of their incomes to satisfy more intense wants of the poor tribals in the hills through the redistribution of welfare.

Even if this proposition is untenable, the Tribals should be compensated for their loss (less access to State welfare) so that everybody will be better off without causing others-to drop to a lower one. This over-dues for the tribals can never be compromised at any cost.

Last, but not the least, the lack of understanding about the delicate sensibilities of the Tribals will invite more spark if one is not tactful enough in handling the reservation issue. I fervently appeal to all the right thinking persons to help us get our due shares/quotas in the Government posts and services which is enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Yours faithfully,
Z. Ashang Shimray
Kharasom, Ukhrul Dist.

Ranjan Yumnam replies:

Sir,
I am amused by Mr Z. Ashang Shimray's letter to the editor purportedly written to express his disagreement with and refute some of the points raised in my article 'Quota of Woes'.

Ironically, I get the impression that he agrees with me on all substantive issues of reservation except for some phrases and words that I used, for instance 'diminishing returns' of reservation. It left me wondering whether he is really opposed to what the article in essence said or merely against some selective contentions of the write-up.

Among others, I had opined that we need reservation for STs for the time being partly because there is over centralisation of economic, political and administrative advantages in the valley, which need to be reoriented—points on which Mr Shimray and I have perfect congruence.

Now, the supposed differences. Let's begin with 'diminishing returns', a phrase that Mr Shimray laboured so hard to tear apart. I did not deny that reservation policy will smoothen some of the sharp edges of inequality in the society, but without the provision of creamy layer, it is becoming counterproductive.

It may give some sops to the weaker sections but at what cost and to whom? It is hard not to see how it perpetuates and accentuates the inequality within the recipient community of quotas as the benefits meant for the entire community is usurped by the elite few of that community.

Without the creamy layer caveat, reservation policy has become a joke and a mockery of the objective of uplift of the underprivileged sections of the society on a level playing field. Is this a diminishing return or an increasing return?

Secondly, with globalisation and liberalisation sweeping across every nook and cranny of the world, how long will we look up to the government for jobs and largesse? The government is downsizing and in the future this trend will continue.

So, won't it be suicidal to bank solely on government and its reservation policy for getting ourselves out of the morass of underdevelopment. Here's a simple linear explanation: More privatisation means leaner government means less state jobs means smaller basket for reservation.

The third constraining factor is the crowding of ST claimants, which means as more communities become categorised as STs, the fruits of reservation may become much harder to come by due to intense competition among the STs of India. This I mentioned in my article.

As far as the underrepresentation of the STs (in the lower positions, I believe) in the government departments is concerned, I am quite sympathetic and by all means this anomaly should be rectified. Here also, considerations of efficiency and governance should be factored in while filling up the backlog subject to availability of suitable candidates.

It may be reminded that the Supreme Court's bench comprising the then Chief Justice YK Sabharwal and Justice KG Balakrishnan gave a ruling on October 19, 2006 that reserved jobs which remain unfilled for years for want of suitable candidates cannot be carried forward forever.

Mr Shimray also dredged up the Constitutional provisions of the reservation policy which I believe is now under threat of being reviewed by the Supreme Court. If one cares to read the original Constitution, it was envisaged that the reservation policy was to be valid only for ten years.

Dr BR Ambedkar would have turned in his grave seeing the intent of the founding fathers of the Constitution turned into a political mobilisation tool in the hands of unscrupulous politicians. The fact is despite the millions of articles that we might write against the flawed reservation policy (i.e. without creamy layer caveat), rest assured Mr Shimray, no politician would dare to reverse this fraud on the Constitution.

Lastly, reservation cannot be equated with development. This is the worst notion that Independent India has to suffer and I am saddened that this has infected our ST brethrens.

In “Quota of Woes”, I wrote, “We need more balanced development, but less reservation.” This is a simple enough truism, but will appear contradictory to those who think reservation is the one and the only way to development. It's high time we got rid of the quota mentality and saw the fact that there are hundreds of other ways to achieve equitable development.

Reservation and political ambiguity

I am a regular reader of your esteemed paper and in sincerely thank you for your bold and constructive journalism. I have read the letter of Mr Ranjan Yumnam (Reservation for Whom? dated 20.06.07). I have gone through the earlier rejoinder of Mr Ashang Shimray's letter refuting some phrases used by Mr Ranjan. I am thankful to both Mr Ranjan and Mr Shimray for their opinions on reservation.

Let me add a few words to clear their misunderstanding. The argument that the reservation was to be valid for 10 years, even if correct, the framers of the Constitution provided that the special provision would cease twenty years after the promulgation of the Constitution, anticipating that the progress of the disadvantaged groups during that time would have removed significant disparities between them and other groups in the society.

However, in 1969 the 23rd amendment extended the affirmative action measures until 1980. The 45th amendment of 1980 extended them again until 1990, and in 1989, the 62nd amendment extended the provisions until 2000. The seventy-seventh amendment of 1995 further strengthened the states' authority to reserve government service positions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

On the other hand, the fundamental rights embodied in the Indian Constitution are still guaranteed to all Indian citizens. The civil liberties take precedence over any other law of the land. They include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association and peaceful assembly and freedom of religion.

In addition, the fundamental rights are aimed at overturning the inequities of past social practices. For obvious reason, in states like Manipur, Assam, and Tripura the arguments for and against reservation will be very much valid as compared with States like Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram.

The challenge before the states is not how to fight developmental economy but how to manage it with good governance. This is true so far we consider the excessively freewheeling style of Indian democracy.

Thus reservation is to be taken care of by Parliament and State legislature. Again, in a democracy governed by the rule of law under a written Constitution, the judiciary has been assigned the role of a sentinel to protect the fundamental rights, between the citizens and the states.

Thus, in a place like Manipur which is home of a number of communities and different interest groups, each with their own agenda, the fate of tribal people is not solely depended on the head of the State. This is not the cruel joke done to him by a few perverted individuals.

A democracy can work successfully if it remains secular. Political opportunism of secular parties or individuals has already considerably weakened our democratic fabric. Let us not tear it apart any further. So as our president APJ Abdul Kalam rightly said, there are two politics in India viz developmental politics and political politics.

To be free and frank what we find in Manipur is mostly political politics ad not developmental politics.

Yours faithfully,
Usham Ibotombi,
Thangmeiband Yumnam Leikai

* Comments posted by users in this discussion thread and other parts of this site are opinions of the individuals posting them (whose user ID is displayed alongside) and not the views of e-pao.net. We strongly recommend that users exercise responsibility, sensitivity and caution over language while writing your opinions which will be seen and read by other users. Please read a complete Guideline on using comments on this website.