The
monkey has been busy running around to get an income certificate that says she
is currently unemployed – or in abstract sense, is economically very weak, and
thus the late post. However, in this post monkey is planning to take a closer
look at the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 a.k.a. the EWS
(Economically Weaker Sections) Bill which has enacted the provision for
reservation of 10% vacancies practically in all walks of life in India –
admissions to educational institutions, opportunities in government employment,
promotions, and so on and on.
The
monkey has decided to go a bit pragmatic here – it is the general election year
and a populist measure by the ruling side was always expected before the announcement
of election and thereby the enforcement of Moral Code of Conduct. But the ruling
alliance has set the beginning for a yet fight for claim of “backwardness” and
when translated to the ape-political language,
the same reads “vote-bank”. Thus, the monkey presumes that the same led to the
passage of the bill, without much hue and cry in both the House of Commons ad
House of States – no one wants to “hurt the feelings” of the “backward” right?
I
assure you that this post is not going to throw tantrums that the monkey has
been bearing in her heart – instead, the validity, plausibility and possible
aftermaths of this historic passage. We will try to scrutinise the same in the
context of Constitutional provisions,
laws of land and natural rights, as we have been doing, in the “middle-path”.
- The Validity of the Act:
The Act is targeted to benefit the “economically
weaker sections” among the “upper-castes” in India, who has been continuously demanding
support in their cause, who were apparently in the vicious cycle of poverty
in-spite of being born in an upper caste – a fault of not their own. However,
the question arrives on the basis of Constitutional Provisions for reservations
– or let us put a better term for it – affirmative actions. In the monkey’s
limited knowledge, the Constitution of India provides for affirmative action
based on Socially or Educationally backward classes and never, in purely
economical terms. The Supreme Court of India, when it commence the hearings
against the Act, filed as Public Interest Litigation – is going to have a nice
time interpreting the inner meaning of the words written and re-written in the
Constitution of India.
Also, we have to consider the fact the Hon. Supreme
Court of India has capped the maximum reservation prevailing at a time at 50% of
total available vacancies. However, as we know, the tug of war between “Sovereignty
of Parliament” and “Judicial Supremacy” is yet to be finished. Our Constitution
has given both of them enough loopholes to claim victory and place one’s hand
over the other’s. We have seen the same being done in cases such are Maratha reservation
in Maharashtra where reservations limits have already crossing 50% limits,
circumventing the SC ruling by setting up a new class recognition.
2. Plausibility of Enactment:
The Monkey, by no means intend to discredit the efficiency
of the constitutional machinery in India- we have seen it time and again. However,
the Act seems to be grossly ambiguous in its definition of “economically weaker
section” – is it the BPL (Below Poverty Line)? Or is it the people who are not
taxed (being “unable” to do so and thus exempted)? Will it be same for both
Rural and Urban population? We still have no clue!
If the basis for defining the “economically weaker
section” is the BPL identity, we might be facing another set of hue and cry
regarding the already criticised BPL categorisation – an allegation that a lot
of truly deserving remain out of the
limits and some taking undue advantages.
If the basis is going to be on those who are unable to
pay taxes, we are looking at national financial crisis. A surprise for you if
you are not aware, in India only around 3% of the total population is paying
taxes – the 97% is either exempted or evading taxing – so, by definition of the
Act, we are bringing in 10% reservation for 97% of population – a logic that is
hard to be understood -either in terms of affirmative action or reservation.
It would be acknowledged by you that in India the Urban-Rural
divide is a big fact to take note of – the standards of living vary greatly and
thereby the definitions of economically weak is also set to differ greatly.
Thus, it would necessitate that the Act be implemented in separate methods for
either of them. Another chain reaction is going to be set then – a migration of
large scale – people of our great nation fight to be called “backward” right?
The migration could be either way – urbanisation or de-urbanisation. Also, within
the urban areas, the disparities exist – the living standards of Guwahati vary
from Thiruvananthapuram, Delhi an Chennai are miles apart, Bangalore and Bhubaneshwar
are again incomparable. Administrative and Executive heads are apparently going
to break their backs and scratching their heads. The larger question that would
still remain unanswered is, are we looking at more regional biases, creating
much deeper rifts and fissures between our “unified” nation?
3.The Aftermaths:
The monkey foresees a great time of debate ahead – one
which might define the fault lines of the society in India, a new spicy topic for
Indian and international sociologists. Historically we were trying to discard
the notion that “You are inferior to me” – notion that has triggered a lot of
class, caste and gender struggles, but hey, the new fancy is “I am backward!” –
just for pure greed of opportunities. We might be looking forward to a society
that is not having a morale to be economically secure, but that is trying to
remain economically backward. This in its very thought is terrifying – a supposition
that undermines the ideals of development.
Apart from the bigger aftermath that we discussed
above, this Act might bring in a feeling of discontent among the middle class belonging
to the General category. A discontent among the productive class is never a
good trend speaking in strict terms of economy. The threat of lesser chances to
achieve their aspirations looming around is going to be reflected in their
response, sooner than expected.
It
would rightly occur to you that the Monkey is against reservations in all modes,
sorry, you are wrong. She supports upliftment, affirmative actions and positive
discrimination – but not in the price of someone else’s cause. She would
appreciate if the reservation policies are reviewed at the earliest, making
strategic turn-points so as to ensure that the benefits reach the most deserving.
We have already learnt from our past experiences that the trickle down doesn’t
work as expected, a well-researched and guided political as well as judicial intervention
needs to be made urgently. Populist measures need to be done away with and pragmatic
methods to be brought in urgently.
Last
time I heard, apes can’t be held captive, even if for contempt of court or under
the National Security Act – so hopefully see you around in the next post.
Adios.
No comments:
Post a Comment