It has generally fallen upon Janardhan Dwivedi to issue clarifications on statements that Congress motormouths make, and he has done a pretty good job of it. But over the last few days, party leaders have been busy for a change in ‘clarifying' their senior party leader's remarks.
The fire-fighter is now under fire for having floated the idea that the long-existing system of reservations on the basis of castes should be scrapped and replaced by quotas that take the economic status of the beneficiary into consideration. On the face of it, the suggestion has not cropped up for the first time; it has been discussed and debated on many occasions by various political leaders. So, why has there been such a commotion over the remarkIJ
Before we get to that, Dwivedi must be complimented for not reneging on the statement, at least until now. He has neither taken back the controversial remark, nor sought to ‘clarify' it, and nor has he claimed that the media took his comments ‘out of context'. That's a rare show of spine, especially in a party where leaders shamelessly eat their words, even when they have spoken the truth, once they are rapped by the high command. He has so far stood his ground despite Congress president Sonia Gandhi issuing a statement that reiterated her party's support to the caste and class-based system of reservation which presently exists.
Since Dwivedi is not just a senior leader and party functionary but is also considered close to 10, Janpath, some political analysts believe that his comments were not off-the-cuff but part of a carefully orchestrated attempt by the Nehru-Gandhi family to test the idea ahead of the lok Sabha election and in the process project its ‘open mind’ on the issue. There are many problems in this reading. The Congress did not have to engage in such elaborate exercise to know the mood of its leaders, allies and friends on the issue; that they are all for the existing form of reservations is well-established and not a secret.
Moreover, to accept the theory that Dwivedi's remarks were part of a pre-determined strategy is to also accept the following: That Dwivedi was asked to make the statement; he was told that it would invite severe criticism from within and outside the Congress; he was warned that he would be verbally assaulted and insinuated against, even on the basis of his caste; and finally, it was made clear to him that Sonia Gandhi would unambiguously rubbish his idea. It is difficult to believe that the senior leader would have acquiesced in this plot which would end in his public humiliation by the high command.
But there is another possible explanation to his statement. It may be that Dwivedi had got carried away by Rahul Gandhi's incessant call for a ‘new kind of politics' — politics that places people over and above petty class and caste interests. He may have discussed his idea with certain members of the Congress’s youth brigade, which are ever so eager to demonstrate that it does not identify with parochialism, and got encouraging words in return. Buoyed by the response and driven by the hope that will get the support of some of these leaders, Dwivedi went public with his ‘personal' opinion.
He had gravely miscalculated. Having done —- and continuing to do — caste politics, Congress leaders were in no mood to digest the senior leader's opinion, more so when they were in the midst of firming up their caste and class loyalties ahead of the general election. Staring at defeat, the party simply could not afford idealistic politics at this stage.
But Dwivedi is not naïve. He knows that outfits such as the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party, on whose support the UPA Government survives, are casteist at their core. Their politics depends entirely on successfully convincing the backward classes and the Dalits respectively that the present reservation policy is the only means for them to have a say in democratic India and prosper. Of course, this is humbug, since despite the quota politics of more than six decades, the Dalits and other weaker sections of society remain on the fringes. To be fair, this reservation system has failed in its task. The only thing it has achieved is to further divide society and exacerbate social acrimony.
Parties that have thrived on such politics and tasted blood are not content with playing with caste and class; some of them are now demanding reservation on religious affiliations. Members of the Congress and the Samajwadi Party, eager to win over the Muslim vote-bank, have at various times given a call for ‘quota for Muslims within the existing quota for Other Backward Classes'. They would have by now had their way but for the intervention of the judiciary, which blocked their patently unconstitutional proposals. Also, but for the court-imposed upper ceiling of 50 per cent, caste and class politicians would have reserved even up to 70 per cent in Government jobs and educational institutions.
And, such is their zeal to destroy equality of opportunity based on merit that they have been lobbying Governments to legislate reservations in the judiciary and the private sector too. The next would be the Armed Forces.
In this situation, how could have Dwivedi ever imagined that his brave words would have been taken with the seriousness they deservedIJ Reservationists fought tooth and nail when the issue of excluding the ‘creamy layer' within the OBCs from quota benefits first came up. If it has become so difficult to undo what VP Singh did three decades ago when he implemented the divisive Mandal Commission's recommendations, what chance is there for a six-decade old entrenched quota system for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be scrappedIJ ‘Zero' is the answer, at least for now and in the immediate future.
The senior Congress leader thus finds himself in splendid isolation. If there is a silver lining in the cloud, it is that there are others from different political parties, who will privately agree with the stand he has expressed. They are publicly silent and not in a majority, but some day their combined efforts will pay off. For that to happen, they will have to speak out like Dwivedi did, and shape public opinion.
They must also take the lead to expose the claim of casteist politicians that reservations continue to be good for the socially marginalised. The argument may have had relevance when the country became independent — though even then, if we recall, BR Ambedkar, an icon of today's reservationists like Mayawati, had vehemently opposed caste-based quotas and acquiesced only when others assured him that there was a provision to review the decision in 10 years. Facts and figures abound to push for an alternative form of reservation.
Ironically, when reservationists say that the OBC and the Dalits are still marginalised despite the quota benefits, they only strengthen the argument that reservations have failed in their present form.