கால பைரவன்;92854 said:
In this case, Counsel for voice questioned the move behind reserving a very high percentage of seats (69%, 50% for OBC), higher than the 50% ceiling recommended by the supreme court, given the fact that students from OBC communities (data presented for years 1994 to 1996) were already cornering a significant percentage of seats in open quota. This particular case did not go into dis-aggregation of quota utilization.
Thankyou for the info.
As regards the "cornering" (shouldn't the word be "qualifying"?) would like to know, if those who qualified under open quota are indeed classified in the government lists as OBC or not (since "OBC" is a indirect word used for 'Shudras').
As you must be aware not all such 'shudras' come under BC / OBC / MBC, etc categories. There are 'Shudras' who unfortunately come under 'forward caste' category also. So when you say OBCs "cornering" seats, who are these "OBCs"?
Instead of setting a 50% blanket ceiling, shouldn't the Supreme Court take into consideration that the number of Forward Castes vary in different states ? In Tamil Nadu, the number of Forward Castes seem very less indeed. If that be the case, is it not reasonable to allocate a greater proportion of seats to low castes?
It is your observation that is far from the truth. Just because a commission was constituted, it does not mean that its recommendations were always followed. Consider the fate of Sattanathan commission and Ambashankar commission, which gathered dis-aggregation of quota utilization in the 70's and mid 80's. Both of them found out that a handful of OBC communities (out of more than 200) cornered 75 to 80% quota seats and recommended removal of creamy layer. Successive TN govts simply ignored these recommendations. Because these data cause much irritation to the govt, it simply stopped appointing these commissions. 25 years have lapsed since the appointment of last commission. The same is true for other states.
When you say "adhoc" and "whims and fancies" of politicians, i suppose perhaps you had just the creamy layer in mind (??). I agree there is unequal development of backward classes, the creamy layer benefits more while the benefits percolate to the needy very slowly. I also remember Sattanathan commission. It used to be talked about by the supporters of Youth for Equality (YFE). I used to be a vociferous supporter of YFE (a couple of known people were involved in self-immolation bids also - against the mandal commission though back then it was not a formal organization of YFE).
Sir, i suppose we must remember how the whole scene of reservations developed. In this we cannot overlook 'caste-fights' of the colonial period. There are some colonial writers who express surprise that a "ritually low caste" like reddies could be land owners.
Unfortunately, it was brahmins who got to decide who is low caste or not. Everyone wanted to be "forward-caste" then, but brahmins kept going to courts to prove them as "low castes". So as "low castes", what other way could they have, to get a foothold in government jobs, except by seeking reservations ?
Also sir, after states were reorganized in 1956, a government order was issued that all castes are categorized as backward except brahmins. But this got squashed by some high courts in some places (like in karnataka).
Then came the GO order in 1959 that all castes except brahmins, baniyas, kshatriyas, kayasthas were to be considered "backward". This too got squashed in some states like karnataka. Then various states instituted their own commissions to identify socially and educationally backward people.
I suppose it would be right for each state to implement quotas as per the population and situations of the state.
The classification of OBC was solely left to the discretion of the state govts. These govts neither follow requirements identified by Mandal commission nor do they follow supreme court directives.
Nothing wrong with that...
The reality is that the politicians control data available to the public and hence they control public perception and consequently public opinion. It works for them because people will do anything that gets them exclusive benefits. That is why I said this is akin to "tyranny of majority".
Atleast now there is Right to Information (RTI) Act...but then census data is free....
Regards
