Equal opportunity, not reservation HD

With the Indian Supreme Court scrapping the reservation quota for Jats in the Other backward Classes (OBCs) category, the reservation issue is going to become a huge political issue in the coming days. Jats were provided the benefit of reservation in nine states by the previous UPA government on the eve of the 2014 Lok Sabha polls. These states included Haryana and Rajasthan. Incidentally, Punjab, where instead of Jats, you have Jatts, the benefit has not yet been demanded and given, though the demand has started making the rounds. Incidentally, seeing political mileage even the NDA government endorsed the decision of the UPA government on reservation to Jats. While striking down the quota for Jats, the SC said that community did not deserve the reservation since the community was not socially backward and was politically well organized. The Court upheld the findings of the National Commission for Backward Classes on the issue. What we call “reservations” here is known by other names in other countries – affirmative action, positive action, positive discrimination or employment equity. In Canada, four categories get special treatment in admissions and jobs, including women and aboriginal people. In USA, affirmative action varies from state to state. My take on the issue is that the whole reservation concept based on caste, tribes and social backward needs to be scrapped. It was meant to be only for the first 10 years after Independence and has not only continued but its scope expanded considerably. All those who are socially, economically and educationally backward, irrespective of caste or creed, should be provided monetary and other benefits to be able to come up the required standards and educational competence so as to be able to compete with others. This would be the ideal situation. But if the situation is yet not ripe for that, may be reservations could continue for a fixed time frame but the only criteria for it should be economic backwardness, which would broadly cover all other aspects too. And in a lifetime, each covered individual should get the benefit only once. Even the SC has hinted on the need to revisit the whole issue.