The Sachar Committee report is noteworthy for not recommending quotas as a remedial course of action. Given the pro-quota atmosphere generated by Ms. Sonia Gandhi led UPA, it is surprising that a community, emphatically backward and fulfilling all the constitutional requirements for a quota, should choose this course of action. Large elements of the prejudiced Hindu political leaders, belonging to both the Congress and BJP, claim refuge in the constitution and assert that quotas for Muslims are ruled out because religion cannot be a basis for quotas.
The recent Sachar committee report on the plight of the Muslims (highlighted earlier in these columns) has brought a seemingly legitimate demand from the Muslim community – let us also have reservations, just like the reservations that exist for the SCs/STs and the OBCs. The report has thrown politicians, and knee-jerk politically correct Indians into a quandary. Neither group is famed for its adherence to either logic or justice. Given the overwhelming evidence of backwardness of the Muslims, what is a “liberal” casteist to do?
The original civil society thesis was that one needed affirmative action for the truly disadvantaged and the truly discriminated against – the schedule castes (SCs) and the schedule tribes (STs). As a social scientist I must admit that I was a bit surprised by the “fact” that for 2000 years, if not more, the Hindu society had ostracized, or considered untouchable, or systematically discriminated against, more than a quarter of its population. If one adds the conventional wisdom notion that a disproportionate number of the Muslim and Christian converts were from the lower castes, and if one adds the numbers of OBCs (otherwise backward castes, the new claimants to the mantle of affirmative action and reservations) then it is the case that civil society today believes that historically, more than 70 percent of the Indian population was severely discriminated against.
The newspapers are abuzz with speculation. Will Indian growth at 8 % levels be able to sustain itself? The answer is a cautious maybe. Similar skepticism is displayed by the Ratan Tata headed committee as it gingerly outlines a gradual increase in investments. We should move towards a 35 percent investment rate over the next five years, it advises. But the stark evidence of three years and counting 8 % plus growth has even the gradualist stumped or emboldened - the Planning Commission has now set a target of 9 % growth for the next Plan.
It seems that the hysteria over the land grab aspects of the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) can only be matched by a lack of knowledge among the major participants. The debate has gained urgency, and poignancy, ever since the Congress leader, Ms. Sonia Gandhi, opined on the issue. It is the latest hot topic in the glitterati circuit, even more than the Sensex making new highs. Since the land grab charge is being led not by the usual suspects (the left) but their close allies and my close friends (the left leaning liberals), I will try and document my accusation in some detail.
The recent controversy around the banning of P-Notes is best understood by looking at the origins. It all began in the early nineties when the policymakers received a wake-up call regarding the state of their economy, and their socialist policies. Financial sector reforms were not considered that important (at that time) so a hesitant move was made to open up the Indian financial market – not the currency, not government securities, just the stock market.
The dictionary defines “oversight” as “an unintentional omission or mistake”, also “watchful care or management; supervision”. Regardless of which definition one adopts, the oversight committee on the implementation of the new reservation policy in higher educational institutions (hereafter the Moilly report) did not undo any previous “oversights”.
What makes India an unusually exciting place to live in is the “apne pair pe apne kulhadi (axing your own feet)i” ingenuity of its politicians and bureaucrats. It would seem that policy makers around the world would welcome a gift which came with the following warning: if you follow this policy, there will be large employment creation, large tax revenues, and unlike the rest of the population, this particular source of tax revenue will have 100 percent compliance, and that the revenue would be obtained exclusively from the rich.
The present UPA government has not set the Ganga on fire with its policies of economic reform. Actually, for that matter, and excluding the gains in foreign policy, this government, at best, has been regressive. A legitimate question arises: what can the government do to extricate itself from its self-imposed immobility, and yet be true to its dharma of the public sector? As it happens, the new pay Commission comes at an opportune time.
The Congress party of India could do a lot worse than the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) of Mexico. The history of the PRI is almost identical to that of the Congress. Both were founding parties (the PRI was founded in 1929), and both held near dictatorial powers during their early years in power. And both started declining at about the same time – the Indira Gandhi led Congress in the mid-seventies, and the Lopez Portillo led PRI (1976-82) in the late seventies. Interestingly, the beginning of the end of the PRI was due to corruption charges against Portillo.
