The Reservation Policy

(i)   The Reservation Policy
(ii) Mandal Commission Recommendations

Highly disgraceful blots on Indian social structure in the course of history must, of course, be removed. For this purpose the interests of social justice of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes have been sufficiently safe guarded in our constitution. Article 46 of the constitution specifically mentions that the state shall promote educational and economic interests of SC., ST and weaker sections of the people. Before the recommendations of Mandal Commission were announced, there was already provision of 22.5% of reservation for S.Cs. and STs in union & state government, services. Besides reservation in jobs article 334 of the Indian constitution makes a provision for the reserva¬tion of seats for scheduled casts and scheduled tribes and nomination of Anglo- Indians to the Lok Sabha. However in 1990 the then P.M. V.P. Singh through notification made 27% reservation applicable for other backward classes (OBC) as well. The Mandal report identifies 27% of the total population of India as other backward classes (OBCs). They are over and above 22.5% who are SCs and STs. Never before in the history of the world the reservation in state services has been prescribed for more than half of the population.
The Mandal Commission recommendations apply to all jobs in the govt., all public and private sector enterprises and also to admission and appointment in universities and colleges. Mandal commission's recommendations also apply to all level of promotions in the areas covered above. In 1991 Rao government, adopted the notification of V.P. Singh government, in to except with two amendments—
(a) within the 27% reservations preference should be given to the candidates belonging to the poorer sections of the backward classes
(b) An additional 10% reservation should be given to economically backward classes.
On November 1992 Supreme Court pronounced its decisions on the Mandal case supreme court Rejected both the notifications of V.P. Singh and arsimha Rao. The most welcome aspects of the verdict are, (a) the reservation will not apply to promotion in services, (b) that the quota system shall apply irrespective of faith so that the backward sections among the non Hindu com-munities can also avail the benefits of the reservation (c) that the reservation should not exceed 50%, (d) that a family could avail itself of reservation only once, (e) The supreme court laid down minimum qualification for taking advan¬tage of reservation policy of the govt.

No doubt reservation policy on the bases of backwardness is ambiguous. Even the concept of creamy layer does not define clearly that section of back¬ward classes which has been excluded from the benefits of reservation policy. Implementation is just not practicable. V.P. Singh's main motive was to snatch political, social and economic power away from all other political parties. Later I on almost every leader tried to create his own vote bank through the tool of reservation policies. The Yadavs and the Jats were bought under reservation policy just for the sake of politics. No doubt the supreme court replaced the word caste by class which may denote a group, for the qualification of a reservation policy.
If considered from national point of view the politics of reservation has given rise to the devisive forces. It has not served the purpose which it was supposed to have served. As a matter of fact the weaker sections should denote that class of people who are economically poor. But no such protection is available to the poor section of higher classes. Poverty is not endemic to a particular class. It is mockery of reservation to extend benefits of reservation to a class as a whole. Many states have exceeded the limit of 50% fixed by the supreme court. It is rightly said that our politics has been mandalised and the interest of the poor forgotten. A chance of noble service to the poor has been sacrificed and killed at the altar of mean and petty politics.