We should first review if the reservation policy has really benefitted the vulnerable or not. If the answer is yes, then the review is necessary to bring those who are yet not benefited within the ambit of benefit. If the answer is no, then the review is necessary to make changes in the policy and explore other options to benefit the dalits
The recent debate surrounding the interview of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to RSS mouthpieces, Panchjanya and Organiser, to
eulogise Deen Dayal Upadhaya’s “integral humanism” as part of their foremost ideologue’s birth
centenary celebrations substantiates how “contextomy” or “quoting out of context” provokes controversy.
The term “contextomy” was coined by journalist Milton Mayer to explain how Julius Streicher — the editor of the infamous Nazi tabloid Der Stürmer in Weimar-era Germany — to awaken anti-Semitic sentiments among the journal’s “working-class Christian
readership”, often published abridged quotations from Talmudic texts. The quotations in their edited form seem to encourage greed, slavery, and ritualistic murder. Contextomy, a common practice of misrepresentation in contemporary mass media, can have huge influence on the public. What is more harmful is that the effects of such distortion can stay on even after the public is exposed to the original “in context” quote.
What we say is not exactly what others understand. Often we see, hear and understand things as we want to and not as they are. Studies say the most common errors people make in formulating their perceptive are misrepresenting views we want to refute and misrepresenting the nature of the problem we are addressing. The former is generally called “the Straw Man Fallacy” while the latter is called “False Alternatives” or “False Dilemma”.
“Attempting to discredit a view by criticising a weak version of it or the reason given in support of it” is “Straw Man”. Whereas “misformulating a problem as a choice between two (or more) alternatives, when there exist other alternatives that have not been considered” is a “False
alternative”. False Alternatives is basically a problem of oversimplification.
For instance, Voltaire is often mistaken saying, as claimed in the book Friends of Voltaire (1907) by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (“Je désapprouvece que vousdites, mais je défendrai à la mort votre droit à le dire”) But what he actually said was “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too” (from Voltaire’s Essay on Tolerance).
Often statements of influential people are misrepresented by the media, perhaps to meet political agenda or to create controversy and turn an unexciting event or a comment into breaking news and sell it.
It has been claimed that Obama believes in wealth distribution. The quote which went viral, “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure Government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution.” (Senator Barack Obama remarks at loyola University, Chicago, Oct 19, 1998)
What he exactly said “in context”, “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralise delivery systems in ways that foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communitiesIJ”
How Mohan Bhagwat was quotedIJ
Following the statements of Mohan Bhagwat given in the interview, the national dailies seem to have misconstrued the entire episode and thus presented the discussion before the public with controversial headlines, “the RSS Sarsanghchalak demanding review of reservation policy”, “End reservation policy”, “Social review of reservation policy”, “Bhagwat’s take on reservation”, “Aarthik aadhar par hi mile
(reservation shall be based only on economic basis)”.
What did Mohan Bhagwat exactly sayIJ
The first question, related to reservation, asked to Mohan Bhagwat by the interviewer was: In political science it is taught that pressure groups make democracy vibrant. Panditji believed that we need to take care of each other’s interests and move forward. How you see agitations such as demand for “One Rank, One Pension” or reservations from the integral humanist perspectiveIJ
In response, Mohan Bhagwat said, “I do not think that integral humanism has negated the role of interest groups. Interest groups are formed because we have certain aspirations in democracy. At the same time, we should remember that through interest groups we should not strive to address those aspirations at the cost of others. We should have integral approach of welfare for all. It is sensible to realise that my interest lies in larger national interest. The Government also has to be sensitive to these issues that there should not be any agitations for them. From the integral humanist perspective, the thinking that the Government is different from us should be altered. For instance, you need a fan on fast speed while I don’t want it at all, still we can both agree to have a fan on lesser speed. Harmonisation of interests is possible with this perspective. We can move forward with synchronisation and not struggle. My interest is in collective interest, should be realised by both, the Government and society. This balance is required from both sides. In fact, they are not two sides but just parts of the integral whole. Everyone should realise that suppression and oppression of one section by the other is against the interests of all. That should be the approach we need to inculcate.”
Neither the question and nor the answer has anything to do with revocation of reservation. In fact what Bhagwat talks about is “integral humanism” which can be achieved through “synchronisation and not struggle”. Bhagwat is against suppression and oppression of one section by the other.
The second question, concerning reservation, that Bhagwat was asked, “You said integrity and honesty are the main parameters. Do you see any such policy initiative, undertaken or suggestive, which is in tune with integral humanismIJ”
Bhagwat replied, “The reservation for socially backward classes is the right example in this regard. If we would have implemented this policy as envisaged by the Constitution makers instead of doing politics over it, then present situation would not have arrived. Since inception it has been politicised. We believe, form a committee of people genuinely concerned for the interest of the whole nation and committed for social equality, including some representatives from society, they should decide which categories require reservation and for how long. The non-political committee like autonomous commissions should be the implementation authority; political authorities should supervise them for honesty and integrity.”
Evidently Bhagwat believes that the reservation for socially backward classes is in tune with “integral humanism”, provided it is implemented without any political motives. He is not against reservation; he is against the politics done over it. Hence he has suggested to form an apolitical committee to examine who needs the facility and for how long.
Amid the on-going Patel quota tumult in Gujarat and the upcoming Bihar election, the politicised “out of context” representation of what exactly RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has said during the interview has aroused many questions.
What is Mohan Bhagwat’s view on reservationIJ
Mohan Bhagwat, on September 8, 2014, during a book launch event, said, “We support reservation. Till the time there is inequality in society, reservation is needed. To bring up those suffering from this inequality as equals, we need reservation. But there should not be any politics on that”. He added, “For 1,000 years, those people for the benefit of the country tolerated the injustice. The reasons for which they tolerated, those reasons are no longer here now as we have gained our Independence. Now our duty is to bring them up as equals. To bring them as equals, if for 100 years one has to tolerate injustice, let be it.”
In the same event while recalling the ideology of Deen Dayal Uphadhyay, he said, “The mentor of Jan Sangh, Deen Dayal Upadhyay, used to say that if one has to bring everybody as equals, then those who are above the ordinary masses should bow and extend their hands to the underprivileged. Through each other’s cooperation, everybody can become equals. If those who are privileged do not bow or bend, those below the line cannot come up.”
But unfortunately nowhere the statement finds mention, no headline was made. Image of a person or an organisation if often constructed through either emphasising or ignoring some facts. Can we really ignore the media bias against the RSSIJ living in a democratic country we all have a right to have our own ideology and form our own opinions. We may or may not believe in the ideology others believe in but our education and intellect do not encourage us to be judgmental. Without evaluating a statement within a context how can we comment on itIJ
Perhaps the image of RSS as an anti-Dalit and anti-backward organisation is being promoted through the media with an ulterior motive. Given the upcoming Bihar election, any news suggesting RSS as an upper caste Hindu organisation which is against the reservation policy would definitely benefit the Opposition parties.
Why are we scared of reviewing reservationIJ
The term :reviewing of reservation: used by Bhagwat has been misused to generate controversies especially by the Congress and its allies. However, review of reservation is not synonymous to revocation of reservation. The people belonging to the backward section, given their traumatic past history of exploitation, oppression and social ostracism, are not able to compete with the upper class people until they are provided equal opportunity. Education is interrelated with occupation which in turn determines the economic condition of the people. An economically stable person can access all the facilities available be it education or healthcare. Since it is only through education and occupation one can achieve social, political and economic equality the policy of reservation was formulated to safeguard the rights of the backward people.
However while implementing the policy, many loopholes remained there. When the policy of reservation was implemented, it was assumed that all castes falling under a particular category, be it SC or ST, were homogeneous and the people within that particular category were educationally, socially and financially equal. But the fact that even within a particular category there are differences — social and economic —has been overlooked.
For instance, SC category includes Bhangi (Valmiki caste) along with Meghwal, Dhobi, Nut, Turi and Khatik. Curiously the Valmikis, considered lowest in social hierarchy, were meted out similar behaviour as the other well-offs within the SC receive from the upper caste people. One who is oppressed tries to oppress others in some form or the other. Similarly Meena tribe is included within the ST category along with Bhil, Garasia, Kuki,and Mikir tribes. Jat, Yadav and Kurmiare considered OBC which also includes luhar, Mallah and Manihar.
Though SC, ST and OBC are given reservation and thus safely segregated from the higher castes, but the faulty implementation has left Valmikis to compete with Chamars, Bhils to compete with Meenas, and luhars to compete with Jats. This recalls a situation when a lamb is saved from a tiger but left in front of a wolf. The lamb has to die in any case. The very assumption of hundreds of castes within a particular category being homogeneous is faulty. This is one of the fundamental reasons why some castes have remained as they were 100 years back while some have flourished. Even after 68 years of implementation of the reservation policy the social and economic gap between different castes could not be wiped out. Even within ST hardly a Meena dines with a Bhil and within SC a Chamar hardly keeps any social relation with a Valmiki.
The review of reservation on the basis of socio-economic profile of different castes and individuals, as suggested by Bhagwat, would definitely help uplift the poorest among the comparatively socially backward castes.
Why shouldn’t we identify deserving categoriesIJ
The other strand of the statement “decide which categories require reservation” drew flak from most of the media houses. While the creamy layer has criticised the review of reservation, the vulnerable groups have openly supported the suggestion. An article in The Hindu published on September 24, 2015, two days after the comment of Bhagwat on quota, reads that “Dalit sub-castes seek reservation review”. An association of most vulnerable caste in SC category, the Valmikis (sanitation workers) in north India, while citing data from Government committees, argue that they have been swamped out from the benefits of quotas by the better-off leather workers’ caste. Even the retired bureaucrat and president of Rashtriya Dalit Bachao Andolan OP Shukla, who belongs to the Valmiki community, said, “What is wrong in saying that reservation be reviewedIJ Everyone has a right to know what each caste got in these 68 years. We welcome this effort by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.”
If the re-categorisation is done on the basis of socio-economic status of a particular caste, the really deserving people would be benefited while the socially and economically well-offs would have to give up the benefits they were enjoying so far. Perhaps that is what irks them and hence they are against any such move.
Why shouldn’t we estimate a periodIJ
The third aspect “how long” was misrepresented by critics to construct an impression that Bhagwat wants to revoke reservation. Every policy of the Government is based on the cost, the long-term benefits and the
estimated period of completion of a project. The Government’s inability to estimate the period within which the problem of inequality will be solved indicates that the policy is not
effective. How can a policy without a definite aim and time period bring the desired resultIJ How can such policy help in the development of a societyIJ
We should first review if the reservation policy has really benefitted the vulnerable or not. If the answer is yes, then the review is necessary to bring those who are yet not benefited within the ambit of benefit. If the answer is no, then the review is necessary to make changes in the policy and explore other options to benefit the dalits.
Thus Mohan Bhagwat’s suggestion of commencing a review of the reservation policy, and setting up of an apolitical committee to examine who needs the facility and for how long if analysed within the context does make sense.
(Anish Gupta and Aaleya Giri teach Economics and English respectively at Delhi University. One of the writers belongs to OBC. They can be reached at pioneer.article@gmail.com. Views expressed here are personal.)