Backwards Vs Forwards: Too Many Quotas Are Bad For Bharat

Dissenting judges in EWS case warn against chopping the public sphere into narrow sectarian slices

- Arghya Sengupta and Raag Yadava

The 103rd Constitution Amendment, which authorises reservation in educational institutions and jobs for persons belonging to economically weaker sections of society, was upheld earlier this week by the Supreme Court. As a result of this decision, there will now be two reservation tracks – one based on caste and backwardness, the other on poverty and economic criteria. This is a watershed moment in India’s reservation story.

In social policy, reservation of seats in legislatures, universities and jobs is viewed as a tool available to governments to empower backward communities and groups. In this sense, it is like a targeted subsidy or a welfare scheme. In India however, reservation is not just another ordinary tool – it has a particular historical salience.

The Gandhi and Ambedkar pact: In September 1932, after the Communal Award had guaranteed separate electorates for “Depressed Classes”, Mahatma Gandhi announced a “fast unto death”. The only way to save his life was for the Depressed Classes to voluntarily give up on separate electorates. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the leader of the Depressed Classes, reacted combatively at first. Later, he mellowed and signed the historic Poona Pact, which eschewed separate electorates in return for a reserved quota of seats for representatives of Depressed Classes.