Meeting the challenge of Mandal II
A way forward where both merit and social justice
receive their due
BY SATISH DESHPANDE & YOGENDRA YADAV
The proposal for introducing OBC reservations in elite
institutions of higher and professional education –
popularly known as Mandal II – seems to be heading towards a stalemate. In
this article we propose a possible solution that might take us beyond the
debilitating stand-off between merit and social justice.
This is clearly an ambitious and optimistic agenda,
especially since Mandal II proves that some mistakes are destined to be
repeated. Once again the government appears set to do the right thing in
the wrong way, without the prior preparation, careful study and opinion
priming that such an important move obviously demands. It is even more
shocking that students from our very best institutions are willing to
re-enact the horribly inappropriate forms of protest from the original
anti-Mandal agitation of 1990-91. As symbolic acts, street-sweeping or
shoe-shining send the callous and arrogant message that some people –
castes? – are indeed fit only for menial jobs while others are ‘naturally’
suited to respectable professions like engineering and medicine. However,
the media does seem to have learnt something from its dishonourable role
in Mandal I. By and large, both print and electronic media have not been
incendiary in their coverage and some have even presented alternate views.
Nevertheless, far too much remains unchanged across 16 years.
Perhaps the most crucial constant is the absence of a
favourable climate of opinion. Outside the robust contestations of
politics proper, our public life continues to be disproportionately
dominated by the upper castes. It is therefore unsurprising but still a
matter of concern that the dominant view denies the very validity of
affirmative action. Indeed the antipathy towards reservations may have
grown in recent years. The main problem is that the dominant view sees
quotas and the like as benefits being handed out to particular caste
groups. This leads logically to the conclusion that power-hungry
politicians and vote bank politics are the root causes of this problem.
But to think thus is to put the cart before the horse.
A rational and dispassionate analysis of this issue must
begin with the one crucial fact that is undisputed by either side – the
overwhelming dominance of the upper castes in higher and, especially,
professional education. Though undisputed, this fact is not easy to
establish, especially in the case of our elite institutions, which have
always been adamant about refusing to reveal information on the caste
composition of their students and faculty. But the more general
information that is available through the National Sample Survey
Organisation clearly shows the caste-patterning of educational inequality.
Some of this data is shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1 shows the percentage of graduates in the
population aged 20 years or above in different castes and communities in
rural and urban India. Only a little more than one per cent of STs, SCs
and Muslims are graduates in rural India while the figure for Hindu upper
castes is four to five times higher at over five per cent. The real
inequalities are in urban India where the SCs in particular but also
Muslims, OBCs and STs are way behind the forward communities and castes
with a quarter or more of their population being graduates. Another way of
looking at it is that STs, SCs, Muslims and OBCs are always below the
national average while the other communities and especially Hindu upper
castes are well above this average in both rural and urban India.
Table 2 shows the share of different castes and
communities in the national pool of graduates as compared to their share
of the total population aged 20 years or more. In other words, the table
tells us which groups have a higher than proportionate (or lower than
proportionate) share of graduates. Once again, with the exception of rural
Hindu OBCs and urban STs, the same groups are severely under-represented
while the Hindu upper castes, Other Religions (Jains, Parsis, Buddhists,
etc.) and Christians are significantly over-represented among graduates.
Thus, the Hindu upper castes’ share of graduates is twice and
one-and-a-half times their share in the above 20 population of rural and
urban India respectively. Compare this, for example, to the urban SCs and
Muslims, whose share of graduates is only 30 per cent and 39 per cent
(respectively) of their share in the above 20 population. It should be
emphasised that these data refer to all graduates from all kinds of
institutions nationwide – if we were to look at the elite professional
institutions the relative dominance of the upper castes and forward
communities is likely to be much stronger, though such institutions refuse
to publish the data that could prove or disprove such claims.
1: Group inequalities in higher education:
STs, SCs, Muslims and OBCs lag behind Sikhs, Christians,
Upper Caste Hindus & Others far ahead
Castes/Communities
Rural India
Urban India
ST
1.1
10.9
SC
1.2
4.7
Muslim
1.3
6.1
Hindu–OBC
2.1
8.6
Sikh
2.8
25.0
Christian
4.7
23.7
Hindu–Upper Caste
5.3
25.3
Other Religions
5.4
31.5
ALL INDIA AVERAGE 2.6 15.5
Cells show percentage of graduates in population aged 20
years and above. Source: Computed from NSSO 55 th
Round Survey, 1999-2000
2: Over- and Under-Represented Groups:
STs, SCs, Muslims & urban OBCs severely under-represented
Sikhs, Christians, Hindu Upper Castes & Others over-represented
Caste and Community
Rural India
Urban India
Groups
ST
43
71
SC
47
30
Muslim
52
39
Hindu–OBC
82
56
Sikh
107
164
Christian
200
154
Hindu–UC
205
164
Other Religions
200
200
Cells show group share of all graduates as a percentage of
group share of 20+ population. Numbers below 100 indicate
under-representation, above 100 indicate over-representation. Source:
Computed from NSSO 55th Round Survey, 1999-2000
Although it is implicitly conceded by both sides, upper
caste dominance is explained in opposite ways. The upper castes claim that
their preponderance is due solely to their superior merit and that there
is nothing to be done about this situation since merit should indeed be
the sole criterion in determining access to higher education. In fact,
they may go further to assert that any attempt to change the status quo
can only result in "the murder of merit". Those who are for affirmative
action argue that the traditional route to caste dominance – namely, an
upper caste monopoly over higher education – still remains effective
despite the apparent abolition of caste. From this perspective, the status
quo is an unjust one requiring state intervention on behalf of
disadvantaged sections that are unable to force entry under the current
rules of the game. More extreme views of this kind may go on to assert
that merit is merely an upper caste conjuring trick designed to keep out
the lower castes.
What is wrong with this picture? Nothing, except that it
is only part of a much larger frame. For if we understand merit as sheer
innate ability then it is difficult to explain why it should seem to be an
upper caste monopoly. Whatever people may believe privately, it is now
beyond doubt that arguments for the genetic or natural inferiority of
social groups are unacceptable. If so, how is it that, roughly speaking,
one quarter of our population supplies three quarters of our elite
professionals? The explanation has to lie in the social mechanisms through
which innate ability is translated into certifiable skill and encashable
competence. This points to intended or unintended systemic exclusions in
the educational system and to inequalities in the background resources
that education presupposes.
It is their confidence in having monopolised the
educational system and its prerequisites that sustains the upper caste
demand to consider only merit and not caste. If educational opportunities
were truly equalised then the upper caste share in professional education
would be roughly in proportion to their population share or between one
fourth and one third. This would not only be roughly one third of their
present strength in higher education but also much less than the 50 per
cent share they are assured of even after implementation of OBC
reservations!
If the upper caste view needs an unexamined notion of
merit that ignores the social mechanisms which bring it into existence,
the lower caste or pro-reservation view appears to require that merit be
emptied of all its content. While this is indeed true of some militant
positions, the peculiar circumstances of Indian higher education also
allow alternative interpretations. In a situation marked by absurd levels
of "hyper-selectivity" – three lakh aspirants competing for 4,000 IIT
seats, for example – merit gets reduced to rank in an examination. As
educationists know only too well, the examination is a blunt instrument.
It is good only for making broad distinctions in levels of ability; it
cannot tell us whether a person scoring 85 per cent would definitely make
a better engineer or doctor than somebody scoring 80 per cent or 75 per
cent or even 70 per cent. In short, it is only a combination of social
compulsion and pure myth that sustains the crazy world of cut-off points
and second decimal place differences that dominate the admission season.
Such fetishised notions of merit have nothing to do with any genuine
differences in ability. The caste composition of higher education could
well be changed without any sacrifice of merit simply by instituting a
lottery among all candidates of broadly similar levels of ability – say,
the top 15 or 25 per cent of a large applicant pool.
An explicit lottery would definitely improve things but
the inequities of our educational system are so deeply entrenched that
caste inequalities might persist despite some change. We would then be
back where we started, namely with the apparent dichotomy between merit
and social justice in higher education. How do we transcend this dilemma?
Is there a way forward where both merit and social justice can be given
their due?
Part II
The alternative proposed here is rooted in the recognition
that we need to go beyond a simple-minded reduction of ‘merit’ and ‘social
justice’ to singular and mutually exclusive categories. In
reality, both merit and social justice are multi-dimensional and the
pursuit of one does not require us to abandon the other. The proposal
seeks to identify the viable common ground that permits simultaneous
commitment to both social justice and excellence. It seeks to
operationalise a policy that is morally justified, intellectually sound,
politically defensible and administratively viable.
Let us first mention the basic principles that underlie
this proposal before getting into operational details. First of all, this
proposal is based on a firm commitment to policies of affirmative action
flowing both from the constitutional obligation to realise social justice
and also from the overall success of the experience of reservations in the
last 50 years. Secondly, we recognise the moral imperative to extend
affirmative action to educational opportunities, for a lack of these
opportunities result in the inter-generational reproduction of
inequalities and severely restrict the positive effects of job
reservations. Thirdly, it needs to be remembered that the end of
affirmative action can be served by various means including reservation.
The state’s basic commitment is to the end, not any particular means.
Finally, flowing from the experience of reservations for SEBCs, we need to
recognise that there are multiple, cross-cutting and overlapping sources
of inequality of educational opportunities, all of which need redressal.
This is what our proposal seeks to do.
The proposal involves computing scores for ‘academic
merit’ and for ‘social disadvantage’ and then combining the two for
admission to higher educational institutions. Since the academic
evaluation is less controversial, we concentrate here on the evaluation of
comparative social disadvantage. We suggest that the social disadvantage
score should be divided into group and individual components. For the
group component, we consider disadvantages based on caste and community,
gender and region. These scores need not be decided arbitrarily or merely
on the basis of impressions. We suggest that these disadvantages should be
calibrated on the basis of available statistics on representation in
higher education of different castes/communities and regions, each of
these being considered separately for males and females. The required data
could come from the National Sample Survey or other available sources. It
would be best, of course, if a special national survey were commissioned
for this purpose.
Besides group disadvantages, this scheme also takes
individual disadvantages into consideration. While a large number of
factors determine individual disadvantages (family history, generational
depth of literacy, sibling education, economic resources, etc.), we
believe that there are two robust indicators of individual disadvantages
that can be operationally used in the system of admission to public
institutions: parental occupation and the type of school where a person
passed the high school examination. These two variables allow us to
capture the effect of most of the individual disadvantages, including the
family’s educational history and economic circumstances.
In the following tables we illustrate how this scheme
could be operationalised. It needs to be underlined that the weightages
proposed here are tentative, based on our limited information, and meant
only to illustrate the scheme. The exact weights could be decided after
examining more evidence. We suggest that weightage for academic merit and
social disadvantages be distributed in the ratio of 80:20. The academic
score could be converted to a standardised score on a scale of 0=80 while
the social disadvantage score would range from 0 to a maximum of 20.
Awarding social disadvantage points
Table A shows how the group disadvantage points can be
awarded. There are three axes of group disadvantage considered here: the
relative backwardness of the region one comes from; one’s caste and
community (only non-SC-ST groups are considered here); and one’s gender.
The Zones in the top row refer to a classification of regions – this can
be at state or even sub-state region level – based on indicators of
backwardness that are commonly used and which can be agreed upon. Thus
Zone I is the most backward region while Zone IV is the most developed
region. The disadvantage points would thus decrease from left to right for
each caste group and gender. The castes and communities identified here
are clubbed according to broadly similar levels of poverty and education
indicators (once again, the details of this can be agreed upon). The Lower
OBCs and Most Backward Castes along with OBC Muslims are considered most
disadvantaged or least-represented among the educated, affluent, etc.
while upper caste Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Parsis, etc. are
considered to be the most ‘forward’ communities. Disadvantage points thus
decrease from top to bottom. Gender is built into this matrix, with women
being given disadvantage points depending on their other attributes i.e.
caste and region. Thus the hypothetical numbers in this table indicate
different degrees of relative disadvantage based on all three criteria and
most importantly, also on the interaction effects among the three. Thus, a
woman from the most backward region who belongs to the lower OBC, MBC or
Muslim OBC groups gets the maximum score of 12 while a male from the
forward communities from the most developed region gets no disadvantage
points at all.
Tables B and C work in a similar manner for determining
individual disadvantage. For these tables, all group variables are
excluded. Table B looks at the type of school the person passed his/her
secondary examination from and the size of the village, town or city where
this school was located. Anyone going to an ordinary government school in
a village or small town gets the maximum of five points in this matrix.
The gradation of schools is done according to observed quality of
education and implied family resources, and this could also be refined. A
student from an exclusive English medium public school in a large metro
gets no disadvantage points.
Table C looks at parental occupation as a proxy for family
resources (i.e. income, wealth, etc., which are notoriously difficult to
ascertain directly). Since this variable is vulnerable to falsification
and would need some efforts at verification, we have limited the maximum
points awarded here to three. Children of parents who are outside the
organised sector and do not pay income tax get the maximum points; the
occupation of both parents is considered. Those with either parent in
Class I or II jobs of the government or in managerial or professional jobs
get no points at all. Intermediate jobs in the organised sector, including
Class III and IV jobs in the government, are reckoned to be better placed
than those in the unorganised, low-pay sector.
Combining the scores in the three matrices will give the
total disadvantage score which can then be added to the standardised
academic merit score to give each candidate’s final score. Admissions for
all non-SC-ST candidates i.e. for 77.5 per cent of all seats can then be
based on this total score.
Differences and advantages
While our proposal shares with the proposal mooted by the
ministry of HRD the commitment to affirmative action and the desire to
extend it to educational opportunities, the scheme we propose differs from
the ministry’s proposal in many ways. The ministry’s proposal seeks to
create a bloc of ‘reserved’ seats. Our proposal applies to all the seats
not covered by the existing reservation for the SC/ST and other
categories. The MHRD proposal recognises only group disadvantages and uses
caste as the sole criterion of group disadvantage in educational
inequalities. We too acknowledge the significance of group disadvantages
and that of caste as the single most important predictor of educational
inequalities. But our scheme seeks to fine-tune the identification by
recognising other group disadvantages like region and gender. Moreover,
our scheme is also able to address the interaction effects between
different axes of disadvantage (such as region, caste and gender or type
of school and type of location, etc.). While recognising group
disadvantages, our scheme provides some weightage to individual
disadvantages relating to family background and type of schooling. Our
scheme also recognises that people of all castes may suffer from
individual disadvantages and offers redressal for such disadvantages to
the upper castes as well. While the MHRD proposal is based on an
all-or-nothing approach to recognising disadvantages (either you are an
OBC or you are not), our proposal allows for flexibility in dealing with
variations in degrees of disadvantage.
The scheme we propose here is a modified version of one
that was designed for the selection process of a well known international
fellowship programme for higher education where it was successful for some
years. Thousands of applications have already been screened using this
scheme. The working of this scheme does not seem to offer any
insurmountable operational difficulties despite the vast expansion in
scale that some contexts might involve.
In the final analysis, the most critical advantage of a
scheme such as the one we are proposing is that it helps to push thinking
on academic merit and especially social justice along constructive and
rational lines. One of the inescapable dilemmas of caste-based affirmative
action policies is that they cannot help intensifying caste identities.
The debate then gets vitiated because it concentrates on the identities
rather than on the valid social reasons why those identities are used as
indicators of disadvantage. Our scheme clearly links caste identities to
measurable empirical indicators of disadvantage. It thus helps to de-essentialise
caste and to focus attention on the relative progress made by these
communities. It also offers the chance of calibrating policies according
to changing relative positions of different groups. It reminds us, in
short, that caste matters not because it is caste but because it is an
important indicator of material disadvantage in our unequal and unjust
society.
(Satish Deshpande is professor of Sociology at Delhi
University; Yogendra Yadav is senior fellow at the Centre for the Study of
Developing Societies, Delhi.)
|