The arguments against quotas, from the ‘creamy layer’ to ‘inefficiency’, ignore the enduring social stigma faced by SC/ST communities despite constitutional safeguards
Bhat Mujtaba Gurezi
John Rawls’s “difference principle”, which permits inequalities only when they benefit the least fortunate, offers a theoretical foundation for affirmative action policies like reservations. Such policies aim to rectify deep-seated societal disadvantages and ensure a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities. In the Indian context, reservation springs from the sacred national document – the Constitution – and from the visionary ideology that emerged from the genius of the national movement, which laid the foundations of a modern, inclusive India.
Before diving straight into the debate, let us pose some critical questions: Why was the reservation introduced, and for whom?
Reservation was established as a mechanism to address generational and historical inequalities and social injustice. Indian society was deeply fragmented along the lines of casteism, untouchability, regionalism, poverty, and racism. This fragmentation widened the existing chasm, threatening national integration and a holistic sense of nationalism.
With the goal of achieving social, political, and economic justice, the following groups were granted reservation under a constitutional mandate: victims of untouchability (SCs), historically isolated and endemic tribes (STs), socially and educationally backward groups (OBCs), and, more recently, the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
Recent rulings by the apex court regarding the adoption of a “creamy layer” concept for SCs/STs have reignited this battle in the public sphere. On one side is the so-called general category—who often claim to be the able and meritorious class—and on the other are the reserved, underprivileged, and marginalised sections.
Proponents of the mainstream often equate their situation with those who have been historically marginalised—groups who either served the upper classes or were confined to forests and inhospitable living spaces. For instance, tribes in Jammu and Kashmir have been relegated to living in rugged, hilly regions devoid of basic amenities like water. How can this comparison be weighed on a similar balance when the scales are already heavily tipped toward the mainstream? A student enrolled in an opulent institute a walking distance from home cannot be placed in the same bracket as one with bare minimum access to education, or who must travel miles to attend college, pay exorbitant rents, and manage daily affairs from cooking to washing.
Regarding the creamy layer, it is argued that what applies to OBCs should be extended to SCs/STs. But is this justified? Can a person who secures a job under any category suddenly overcome all the inequalities and prejudices inflicted upon them, not just over years, but over generations? Would they have achieved such socio-economic parity that their successive generations should be stripped of future benefits? This is a grave miscalculation often made by the mainstream. Reservation was never merely an economic idea; it was primarily oriented toward socio-economic and political upliftment. The precedents set by the mainstream often expose and endanger a bureaucratic class among SCs or STs. For example, a non-Kashmiri speaker in the Valley is frequently identified as a Gujjar. While Gujjars have a rich history and unique culture, is this aspect viewed seriously? The answer is no. Has the reservation eliminated this perception from the public mind? The answer is still no.
Therefore, a reformation is urgently needed—one where the marginalised are not judged by the language they speak or the food they eat, but by their abilities and the culture they have preserved for centuries. A system must be established where they are not viewed as scavengers, predators snatching jobs, or parasites sucking the blood of the general category, whose children supposedly work day and night only to get nothing, while reserved candidates relax, enjoy, study less, and have ready-made jobs served on golden platters.
On the question of efficiency, a narrative is being propagated on online platforms by a handful of accounts that question the competence of doctors, engineers, public servants, lawyers, and clerks selected through category certificates. Is it really that simple? Have we not witnessed surgical failures or engineering flaws mooted by doctors and engineers from the general category? Is there not enough evidence of maladministration and allegations of inefficiency against bureaucrats from the so-called competent general category? Why then are instances of failure by a professional from a reserved category highlighted not merely as public grievances, but as proof that their inefficiency stems from the selection procedure itself?
Recently, large-scale recruitments in Jammu and Kashmir, mostly for clerical and other Group C posts, have captured the attention of general class activists. They daily highlight the issue, claiming an “invasive takeover” of jobs is underway, and even urge the complete elimination of reservations. But has reservation successfully placed marginalised groups in decision-making positions in an even manner? Latest records show that out of 80 top Secretary-level officers, only four belong to SC or ST communities. Has a member of a Scheduled Tribe ever been elevated to the position of Chief Justice of India? Yet, when the efficiency of bureaucrats from reserved categories was compared with those from the general category, the former were found to be 94 per cent more efficient in delivering public services.
Let us address those who champion the elimination of reservations. Reservation was not granted as a political favour, nor is it a right snatched from the mainstream. In a very real sense, it is a debt that the mainstream owes to the reserved. For it was the mainstream that rendered these tribes landless and pushed them to the peripheries and forests throughout history, despite their being among the true dwellers of the Indian subcontinent. It is the atrocities of the upper castes that made SCs outcastes, whose very presence was once considered evil, and even today, we regularly hear of Dalits and lower-caste individuals being thrashed and lynched.
Reservation was instituted with a broad vision to dismantle those very perspectives and judgments that view a marginalised individual as having achieved their position only through an “advantage,” and not through hard work and determination. The day these prejudiced opinions are finally shredded will be the day India, in its truest sense, will no longer need to carry forward the reservation policy.
The writer is an Accounts Assistant, RDD
bh*******@***il.com