Our caste warriors will not even ask these questions, let alone explore better solutions to address the problems of inequality and skewed life outcomes, argues R Jagannathan.
One of the great privileges of being a social justice warrior (SJW) is that you will never be called to account.
First, you can use one data set to show skewed outcomes.
You can then scream injustice and offer drastic remedies to set things right.
Next, if someone objects, they can readily be branded as casteist, racist, or even a bigot.
Third, you can rest assured that even if your remedies don't sound reasonable, few will dare to point this out.
After all, you have proven your bonafides as a person with their heart in the right place.
Fourth, even if your solutions yield no results after years of implementation, you can mutter darkly about 'systemic' and 'structural' issues that warrant an even more drastic solution.
The best part is you don't even have to indicate what success will look like, if it ever happens.
This way, a career as an SJW can extend well past retirement.
Rahul Gandhi has to quote one piece of data, that only three out of 90 secretaries to the government come from the other backward classes (OBCs), to conclude that we must have proportionate representation in jobs ('jitni abadi, utna haq').
If this does not work, he can then shift the blame to the larger ecosystem of upper caste groups that thwart the rise of OBCs.
His party colleague, Praveen Chakravarty, wrote recently in The Economic Times that since over 90 per cent of leaders in the Nifty50, unicorn founders, and directors are from the 'privileged castes', India Inc must 'confront caste'.
Apparently corporate India must confront not only hyper competition, high costs of debt, global supply chain disruptions, ESG (environmental, social and governance) challenges, and gender diversity, but also caste.
One wonders if corporations will have any time to deliver positive results on the bottom line after confronting all the priorities listed by SJWs.
If seven decades of affirmative action in favour of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, spanning three generations, have not resulted in creating the kind of social and economic support systems where they no longer require additional quotas, what is the guarantee that extending the same to OBCs based on their share of the population will work any better?
It is time to confront the quota warriors with some inconvenient questions, even if it results in naming and shaming those who raise these questions as people who favour discrimination.
So, here are some questions for SJWs.
First, if proportionate representation is the end goal, why is this solution not equally applicable to political representation?
Why should Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have lower representation than some southern states?
Second, if the answer to the above is that one cannot penalise states that did well on restricting family sizes and reward those who didn't, why is the same logic not applicable to SCs and STs, whose reserved seats in legislatures have gone up precisely due to a rise in their numbers in the overall population?
If the upper castes have done better than OBCs and SCs/STs in restricting family sizes, why penalise them?
Third, even assuming quotas are one way to address skewed outcomes, there has to be some upper limit.
Will it be 69 per cent, 75 per cent, or even 90 per cent?
How will we know if even this will work? Should affirmative action always trump merit?
Fourth, how will increased quotas impact new job creation if the entire focus is on distributing existing jobs on a proportionate basis across social groups?
Why will anyone bother to create new jobs when courting diversity to such an extent becomes a headache for management?
Why will they not opt for labour-replacement technologies so that they can focus on the business rather than internal employee compositions?
Fifth, can quotas even work in high-skill areas like cyberspace, Artificial Intelligence, super speciality medicare, or hybrid warfare capabilities where only the best will do?
Or will our SJWs tell us that there are not enough OBC cyber specialists, and so they must be given quotas?
Sixth, in fields where lower skills are required and individuals from different caste groups can easily replace one another, what is the point of quotas when a lottery system for job applicants with some basic qualifications will ensure the same diverse outcome?
Seventh, what will a nationwide caste survey tell us that a socio-economic survey won't?
For example, if it is claimed that some groups are under-represented in jobs, should it not follow that preference should be given to the poorer sections within these groups?
A caste survey, if it does not also indicate economic sub-strata within castes, will essentially allow the better off sections among castes to hijack quota benefits.
So, why assume that we must identify caste numbers, but not the layers internal to a caste?
Or even the layers between backward and SC/ST castes?
Eighth, no caste survey, or even a socio-economic survey, will really tell us why some individuals occupy the top positions, while others remain in the middle or at the bottom.
At best, it will give us a view of the existing state of affairs.
It cannot tell us how those at the top got there, and why others stayed lower down.
This is because success and failures have many causes, and to assume that it is only the caste structure that caused some social groups to lose out while others gained would be a dubious argument.
Regional, cultural, and other factors also play a role.
If many Indians have risen to the top of corporate hierarchies in the US, it is not solely a reflection of their privileged caste status.
It is equally influenced by the cultures they grew up in, emphasising learning and hard work.
Without these cultural changes, merely providing free quotas in education and jobs may not benefit those at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Ninth, even when all things are equal within the same social group, individual talent, the opportunities available at a given point of time, and luck play a part in success or failure.
Equality of outcomes cannot be ensured even in egalitarian societies.
The best we can aim for is gradual elimination of manifest unfairness or levelling the field when it appears grossly tilted against some groups or individuals.
Tenth, social groups provide social capital to their members.
It is normal human tendency to help members of your own group rather than those from other groups, and this human tendency will not go away merely because of quotas.
New hierarchies will form no matter how egalitarian the initial goals are.
Our caste warriors will not even ask these questions, let alone explore better solutions to address the problems of inequality and skewed life outcomes.
Quotas are a band-aid, and probably needed in the short run, but they are not the solution.
But try telling that to your average politician, whose horizon is the next election, not the next generation.
R Jagannathan is editorial director, Swarajya magazine.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com
