Introduction:
Imagine a situation, where a person is asked to distribute a handful of grains to a dozen of hungry men with the following conditions that the distribution among them has to be equal and it must be sufficient to satisfy their hunger. Indeed, this is a difficult position because we can never achieve both of these goals in one go. The Framers of our Constitution faced a similar predicament while the Constitution was taking its shape.
The matter, we are discussing here pertains to the ‘Reservation’. A topic, so important and so controversial! Where the Government has to ensure both the equality of opportunity in education & jobs and also the upliftment of the marginalized groups simultaneously.
During the Colonial rule, it was realized by the mainstream political figures of India that to attain liberty and to uproot the foreign rule & to make this Country prosperous, India should stand united. That the differences in terms of language, religion & culture should not bar the Indians to come under a single umbrella. And for this to happen, there must persist a sense of Unity.
In addition to being Multilingual & Multicultural, the subcontinent was divided in terms of social, political, and economic status. Hence, the framers of this Great Constitution felt that for making a Stronger & United India, the people should stand over the same platform irrespective of their social, political, or economic strata. And to enable this, the remedy sought was of Reservation.
It was felt that Unity won’t survive unless there is Equality and Equality won’t be a reality unless adequate measures are being taken to uplift the unequal. This was the general idea behind the genesis of ‘Reservation’ in the Indian Subcontinent.
In the present scenario and after the 103rd Constitutional Amendment which entitles the Economically Weaker Sections (excluding the SCs, STs, and OBCs) for reservation in the employment & education and in the light of the ongoing movement for the Maratha Reservation, It seems important for us to ascertain the intent of the framers of our Constitution behind the introduction of reservation.
The present article is an attempt to understand the importance and reason behind the introduction of Reservation in our country.
Let’s have a look from a historical point of view.
Historical Background
On 13th December 1946, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru moved the Objectives Resolution before the Constituent Assembly. Para 6 of such resolution said that :
“(6) WHEREIN adequate safeguards shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes;”[1]
Para 6, constitutes one of the fundamentals of the Resolution. It highlights the intent of the Assembly to protect the vulnerable.
On 29th April 1947, the Interim Report on the subject of Fundamental Rights prepared by the Advisory Committee was presented in the Constituent Assembly by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
The Clause 5 (Rights of Equality) of the Interim Report after several deliberations by the Hon’ble members and finally adopted by the Assembly stood as:
“(a) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matter of public employment.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
(c) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the State from making provision for reservations in favour of classes who, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the public services…”[2]
A closer look to the sub clauses (a) and (c) will give us the idea that the Framers’ first priority was to enable equality of opportunity for all citizens. But, on the other hand, the Assembly was also conscious of the fact that everyone is not equal. Treating the equal and unequal equally, will itself not serve the purpose of Equality. And the resultant will be a Paper Equality. And to avoid this, the Assembly was of the opinion that in order to make the unequal and equal, stand over a same footing, provisions should be made to assist those who are unequal. And once, the unequal & equals stand shoulder to shoulder, only then the Equality can be enhanced.
But among the members of the Constituent Assembly, there was still so much of confusion as to the scope and extent of the Reservation.
Prior to the signing of the Poona Pact of 1932, several communities demanded separate electorates for themselves. Although after such Pact, this demand was given up.
But the same demand for a separate electorate again flourished in the Assembly when the Report of the Advisory Committee on Minorities was taken up for consideration.
On 27th August 1947, When Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel presented the items in the Appendix to the Report, which said that: “All elections to the Central and Provincial Legislatures will be held on the basis of joint electorates.”[3] ,Some of the members objected.
Their point of contention was diverse.
Shri. B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur wanted to insert an amendment to the very item of the appendix. His proposal was to modify the item presented in the following terms:
“That on a consideration of the report of the Advisory Committee on minorities, fundamental right etc., on minority rights this meeting of the Constituent Assembly resolves that all elections to the Central and Provincial Legislatures should, as far as Muslims are concerned, be held on the basis of separate electorates.” [4]
But, this view was rejected by the Assembly.
Similar but slightly different contention was made my Shri S. Nagappa, when the Clause
6 of the Report was presented on 28th Aug 1947.
The Clause 6 reads as-
“No condition for a minimum number of votes of one’s own community. ‘There shall be no stipulation that a minority candidate standing for election for a reserved seat shall poll a minimum number of votes of his own community before he is declared elected’.” [5]
Shri. S. Nagappa wanted to add the following in the end of para 6 i.e.
“Provided that in the case of the Scheduled Castes the candidate before he is declared elected to the seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes, shall have secured not less than 35 per cent of the votes polled by the Scheduled Castes in the election to the reserved seat’.” [6]
A careful observation of both the contentions will enable us to understand that if such amendments as proposed by the aforementioned members would have been accepted, then the separate electorate would have entered through a back door.
The framers wanted that there should a fair representation of the people from all the spheres irrespective of their social, political or economic barriers. They wanted the Joint Electorates to be the basis along with the reservation of a number of seats for the backward communities.
And the framers were of such a view because they were alert of the fact that reservation may create a sense of enmity among the communities, allowing every community to ask for such a thing and subsequently defeating the larger national interest associated with the reservation.
Hence, supporting the demand of separate electorate will enhance the compartmentalization of the communities and will act as a fuel for disintegration of the societal harmony.
One thing should be remembered that reservation was done to integrate the people and not to disintegrate.
The Reservation was initially presumed to be on the basis of the population. It was the population of the communities which served as one of the determining factors for reservation.
We find such views in the Below mentioned excerpts of speeches of the then members of the Constituent Assembly.
“Then again on the question of weightage we have agreed that there Should be no weightage and with joint electorates the communities should be represented according to the proportion of their population. Then we have thought fit to agree to reservation in proportion to the population of the minorities.” [7]
Shri Somnath Lahiri suggested that :
“Well, I would suggest proportional representation with adult suffrage and joint electorates in any election that might take place in the future and thereby each party, whether it be a communal party or a political party, on the basis of the total votes gained by it, will get its representation assured and then the parties, the communal parties like Muslim League and the Scheduled Castes Federation, who would have been assured of their proper representation, could not have any complaint. At the same time, it would give a fillip to the political parties also to get their proper representation, so that we can gradually cut across the religious separatism that has grown in our country, and healthy politics on the basis of political division and political struggle would develop.” [8]
Apart from this, there was a brigade of members who asserted that the minorities and the backwards should be provided representation in the cabinets too.
As per Shri S. Nagappa, “Under the instrument of Instruction of the 1935 Act there is a provision for inclusion in the Cabinets. But it would have been better if there is an assurance for a minority community Member to be included in the Cabinet, and it would have been more satisfactory if there had been a statutory provision.” [9]
Although, this move didn’t stand in the Assembly. But the framers of the Constitution ensured that there should be reservation in the services, keeping in mind that the reservation in no way obstructs the smooth functioning of the administration.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, in this regard said that “…Then comes representation in the services. The general standard that we have accepted is that ordinarily competitive posts must go by merit and if we are to depart from this, the general administration would suffer immensely. It is well-known that since this departure has been introduced in the matter of services our administration has suffered considerably. Now that we begin a fresh, we must see that where we have to fill some administrative posts of a higher level, these posts have to be filled by competition, i.e., by competitive examination and competitive tests. We have made some concessions in the matter of certain communities which require a little help.” [10]
He further went on to say that “One thing I wish to point out. Apart from representation in the Legislature and the reservation of seats according to population, a provision has been made allowing the minorities to contest any general seat also.” [11]
But there were also a significant number of members who objected to the introduction of reservation.
One such member was Shri. H. C Mookherjee.
According to him “Mr. President, I must say at the beginning, that I am not one of those who believe that the greatness of a country is increased by increasing the greatness or the economic or political importance of a particular group which is inside it.” [12] ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“On the other hand, I have always advocated the placing of national interests above group interests.” [13]
He wanted that the Larger National Interest should not suffer for any Particular Group Interest.
Rev. Jerome D’Souza strongly opposed the reservation in the following terms:
” I know that this question of reservation is something which has troubled the minds of a good many among us here, now that separate, electorates have to be given up; and if there were doubts about giving them up, the extremely cogent and powerful exposition which we heard this morning should set all doubts at rest and should bring even the hesitators that there might be in general agreement with the thesis that separate electorates must go. But, on the other hand, it is not absolutely clear and many here are not convinced that reservation is the happiest substitute for them. This is a compromise and like all compromises there is bound to be an element of illogicality in it. I say this not because reservation itself is something wrong. There is an impression that reservation is anti-democratic and that it should: somehow be got rid of in the course of the next ten or fewer years. I beg to say that I do not agree with this. Reservation in itself is one way of securing a satisfactory working of the electoral principle.” [14]
Conclusion
So, after months of deliberations, the Assembly was in favour of introducing reservations on the basis of social disadvantage of the caste.
With the adoption of the Constitution on 26th January 1950, the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Socially Backward classes became entitled to reservation in the governmental services, educational institutions and also the provincial as well as the Union legislature. The reservation was sought for the proper representation of the diverse communities of India. It wasn’t intended to continue till perpetuity.[15]
Our forefathers even sought to establish a statutory body in order to properly scrutinize all the factors which have a tendency to impede the development of the minorities.[16]
Reservation was indeed a temporary medicine for the Upliftment of the downtrodden and the marginalized communities, who for decades were neglected and suffered severe miseries.
But even after seven decades of the Constitution, the reservation turned out to be a complete failure because of the governmental mismanagement and the lack of commitment on the part of all the ruling dispensation to actually assist such groups, post-independence.
References:
[1] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO.1, December 13, 1946 speech by PANDIT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU 3
[2] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 3, April 29, 1947 speech by SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL 7
[3] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 27, 1947, Speech by SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL 15
[4] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 27 ,1947, speech by B. POCKER SAHIB BAHADUR 15
[5] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 28, 1947, speech by SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL 7
[6] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 28, 1947, speech by S.NAGAPPA 7
[7] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUMES NO.5, August 27, 1947, speech by SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL 3
[8] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUMES NO. 1, December 19, 1946, speech by SOMNATH LAHIRI 7
[9] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUMES NO. 5, August 27, 1947 speech by S. NAGAPPA 10
[10] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 27, 1947 speech by SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL 4
[11] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 27, 1947 speech by SARDAR VALLABHBHAI PATEL 5
[12] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 27, 1947 speech by H.C. MOOKHERJEE 12
[13] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO, 5, August 27, 1947 speech by H.C MOOKHERJEE 12
[14] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 27, 1947, speech by REV.JEROME D’SOUZA 35
[15] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 27, 1947, speech by V.I. MUNISWAMI PILLAI
[16] CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, VOLUME NO. 5, August 27, 1947, speech by V.I. MUNISWAMI PILLAI
0 Comments