Reservation Framework: Intent, Infirmities and Implications

1. Issues:

Reservations, historically, the world over, have been framed as effective affirmative action measures to uplift the marginalised communities and to establish egalitarian society. However, in J&K the current reservation policy is meant to do more; it is being used for purposes other than social justice and upliftment. Extraneous purposes, besides electoral politics have been the real intent for granting reservations. For instance, in April 1991, Gujjars and Bakarwals were declared as Scheduled Tribes by the Union government. The purpose was an outreach to this community to build a civilian deterrent and resistance against militancy, especially in the border areas. Similarly, the inclusion of Paharis in Scheduled Tribes in 2020 is another case in point. It was done to secure their votes. Clearly, social justice was not the primary cause of reservation even though social mobility upwards can be a consequence.

This disconnect between the stated objectives, and the unstated intent is an important distinction that underlies the flaws in the design of the new affirmative action framework. The infirmities and inadequacies range from conceptual to methodological to political. These are bound to result in discrimination and erosion of social capital.

During the last five years, in the process of aligning the regional reservation policies with the national affirmative action framework, a major error has crept in. The new reservation framework is an amalgam of two different yet not mutually exclusive reservation types: the functional reservations adopted by the Centre (e.g. caste, tribe) and structural reservation embedded in the institutional framework of J&K since 1966 (area, economic). The latter addresses social and market rigidities. Functional reservations, on the other hand, are supply side interventions that are designed to address market failure The hybrid framework that has emerged because the national policy of reservation was applied over and above the existing state reservations. With a linguistic reservation thrown in, in a hurry to shape political power dynamics.

1. Infirmities:

By combining the two reservation strains, the quantum of reservation has gone to an unprecedented, unacceptable, unconstitutional, and perhaps even unintentional, level of 70 per cent. Arithmetically, it has squeezed the open merit category to just 30 per cent. This is at the design stage. At the implementation stage it turns out to be fundamentally discriminatory to the majority of the population.

A good example of this is the case of Paharis, who were given reservation of 10 per cent. Paharis live predominantly along the areas near the Line of Control (LoC). In Jammu and Kashmir, the Pahari-speaking people are primarily residing in the hilly regions of Pir Panchal i.e., Rajouri, Poonch, and North Kashmir districts of Baramulla, and Kupwara. In the existing system, they were covered by the RBAC and RLOC.

This has resulted in a coverage overlap. To the extent that reservation has been provided to the Residents of Backward Areas (10 per cent) and those along the Line of Actual Control/International Border (4 per cent), it does cover almost entirely this linguistic category which is concentrated in these sub-geographies. The Pahari reservation in its focus on linguistic identity is more about political power-sharing than socio-economic upliftment through this route.

Besides these serious infirmities, there is also a conceptual problem: Paharis are a recent entrant to the linguistic grouping. Indeed, till 1961 it was not even recognised as a language. It was considered and classified as a dialect of Punjabi by the government.

The real problem with giving a linguistic category like Paharis reservation is that they are not a homogenous ethnic tribe; they have a socially upper-class Muslims and upper caste Hindus, who are relatively more affluent. They are also better educated with a 68 per cent literacy rate in Poonch and Rajouri compared to 50 per cent among J&K’s STs, according to the 2011 Census.

There is no explicit precedent in India for granting reservations solely to a linguistic group, be it on its own or under the ST or OBC categories. Even globally, reservations or affirmative action based explicitly on linguistic groups are rare. If indeed it is done, like in Canada for the Francophones outside Quebec, it is priority hiring to ensure linguistic representation and/or protect linguistic identity. Unlike this, the Pahadi case is tied to socio-economic upliftment.

What complicates granting Pahari an ST status is that even though the latter is not formally codified in law, it is based on multiple quantitative and qualitative criteria, like geographical isolation, social backwardness, economic backwardness, and prevalence of indigenous practices. Nowhere is language one of the main criteria, let alone the only criterion. This is bound to result in adverse beneficiary targeting.

1. Implications:

The reserved percentage of reservation stands in stark contrast to the 2011 Census data, which indicates that the open merit category constitutes 69 per cent of the population. This is a serious population anomaly: 69 per cent of the population is competing for 30 per cent of the jobs. The concerns over the narrowing space for merit-based opportunities is completely justified. Contrast this with the reservation in educational institutions and jobs of 70 per cent are left for 31 per cent of the population. This is so assuming that no reserve category person qualifies on the merit category. If they do, the situation is even more skewed.

This design of the operative reservation framework gets even more distortionary and discriminatory when the element of geography is added to it in actual implementation. The concentration of reservation beneficiaries in Jammu region makes the existing regional divide even sharper. Indeed, it becomes a vicious fault line. Blanket reservations without evidence of uniform disadvantage are bound to exacerbate inequities and strain social cohesion between the two regions of J&K.

As tabulated in Table 2, official data presented in the last budget session of the J&K Assembly exposes the stark regional disparity in the implementation of the Union Territory’s reservation policy, favouring candidates from the Jammu region while sidelining Kashmir.

Table 2

(Source: Government Reply to a question by MLA Sajad Lone in the J&K Assembly)

While for J&K, for every 19 people there is one reservation beneficiary, for Jammu, it is one beneficiary in every ten people. Contrast this with Kashmir, there is one reservation beneficiary in eighty-four people. Every single Scheduled Caste beneficiary hails from Jammu. The Economic Weaker Section category also exhibits a stark skew, with 92.3 per cent of beneficiaries from Jammu and only 7.7 per cent from Kashmir.

The above analysis suggests that it is not as simple a matter as is being made out by the opposition parties. Equally, it is not as complicated as it is being made out by the ruling party. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.

(This is the second of a three-part series. The first one, “Reservations: In lieu of a Report” appeared yesterday. The concluding part, “Reservations: Towards a Solution” will be published tomorrow).

The author is Contributing Editor

Greater Kashmir