Quota System: Sanction of the Unreserved??

This is in continuation of the post I made on 'Saction of the Victim'. Regular readers might be aware of the fact that I quoted a section of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugs".

The quota system as implemented in India today is one such example when the good and the knowledgeable acquiesce whatever is shoved down their throat.

The purpose of India's reservation system was alleviation of the people of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes. There was a consensus that there were tribes of people that were oppressed under the infamous 'caste system' of India at the time of India's independence that was present in the Hindu society. As a result, the constitution of India granted 15% and 7.5% vacancies in educational institutions and jobs in the public sector. This was meant only for 5 years and the end of that period, the situation was to be reviewed. Not only have the succeeding governments extended this period, they have also failed to review the situation and have also extended the vacancies for other sections of the society.

So does this mean that the vacancies were not applied adequately? Or did the number of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes increased all of a sudden after independence when instead they should have fallen. Thankfully, the SC had imposed a limit on the quota sytem to 50% and so, it has generally not risen beyond that limit. But why was the limit imposed at 50% and why was it not kept at the initial 15% and 7.5% as mentioned above? Moreover the system has also passed into the private sector. Why is this so?

Without going into the details of the quota debate, some quick points that have to be made regarding the systems are as follows:

1. Implementation of the quota system would perpetuate the caste system instead of abolishing it.
2. Political vote bank imperatives will lead to the extention of the quota system to other sections of the society.
3. Scams will float to register an upper caste as a lower caste. This is already happening in my caste.
   
4. Would other religions also not ask for a reservation for its own poor and backward castes?

The last point of the above has already bore fruit as Syed Shahbuddin has made a demand of muslim reservations. Where will the buck stop?

Instead we the people of India should propose:

1. That people be evaluated on the basis of their talent and potential for the post they aspire to and not on the basis of their birth.
2. If at all the government wants to support the poor, they should support them with economic incentives, scholarships, etc. instead of affirmative action.
3. If there are any reasons that this cannot be implemented (such as corruption, red tape, etc), we should attack those problems and not shy away from them and implement coward measures as these, since some of these have become general Indian problems.

The justice that is deserved by the people who toil hard irrespective of the status that has been conferred upon him by birth will not be imparted if the quota system sidesteps poverty and considers birth issues as important in decision making. Today's India lags behind many other countries in terms of science and technology. Besides, there would surely be many other fields which we will lag behind because of slacking in standards of quality. Who knows how many Charakas, Sushrutas, Aryabhattas, Bhaskaracharyas, Kalidases, Ramanujans, C.V. Ramans, Har Gobind Khoranas, Dhyan Chands, Pullela Gopichands, Vishwanathan Anands etc. we missed because of this system?

Once again we find that words written by Ayn Rand forty two years ago ring true. Time to uproot this system that is allowing the caste system to thrive and unite as one people, avoiding greedy government officials to pander to vote bank interests and minorityism. It is time we as concerned citizens of India raise this issue again in this year's election campaign and refuse to give sanction to our politicians as hapless victims.

Ayn Rand: Sanction of the victim.

SANCTION OF THE VICTIM

"..Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti- that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”.."

Expect a post from me on this sooner or later. Or perhaps some learned person from among you can try.