Earlier, untouchability was a thing to shame people; now it is reservation: Neeraj Ghaywan

Filmmaker Neeraj Ghaywan's statement at 'The Hindu Mind' event, asserting that reservation is a "reparation for a 2,000-year-old injustice" rather than a poverty alleviation program or a privilege, cuts to the very core of India's affirmative action policy. This perspective is vital for understanding one of the most contentious yet foundational aspects of Indian social justice. It prompts a deep dive into the historical context, constitutional provisions, and ongoing debates surrounding reservation. The background of reservation in India is rooted in the millennia-old caste system, which institutionalized severe discrimination, particularly against communities now categorized as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The practice of 'untouchability,' explicitly abolished by Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, relegated millions to the lowest rung of society, denying them access to education, land, public services, and even basic human dignity. Post-independence, the framers of the Constitution recognized the need for positive discrimination to correct these historical wrongs and bring marginalized communities into the mainstream. This led to the inclusion of special provisions for their advancement. Ghaywan's argument directly challenges the common misconception that reservation is merely an economic welfare scheme or a 'privilege' for a few. Instead, he frames it as a measure of 'reparation' – a way to compensate for centuries of systemic oppression and exclusion. This perspective is crucial because it shifts the narrative from individual merit versus quota to historical injustice versus corrective justice. By contrasting it with untouchability, Ghaywan highlights that both are products of the caste system, one being the overt form of discrimination and the other, reservation, being the constitutional response to rectify its lingering effects. Key stakeholders in this debate include the direct beneficiaries of reservation (SCs, STs, Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and more recently, Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)), who see it as their rightful share in opportunities. On the other side are those who often perceive reservation as a hindrance to meritocracy, leading to debates about fairness, efficiency, and national unity. The government, as the policy-maker and implementer, and the judiciary, as the interpreter of constitutional provisions, play pivotal roles in shaping and refining these policies. Social activists, academics, and public figures like Ghaywan contribute to the intellectual and public discourse, influencing perceptions and policy directions. For India, the significance of reservation is multi-faceted. Socially, it aims to foster inclusivity and dismantle caste hierarchies, promoting a more equitable society envisioned by the Preamble of the Constitution. Politically, it has become a powerful tool for mobilization, with various caste groups demanding inclusion in reservation categories, leading to complex political dynamics. Economically, it provides opportunities for education and employment to communities historically denied them, potentially reducing socio-economic disparities, though its direct impact on poverty alleviation is debated, as Ghaywan points out. The very existence of reservation underscores India's commitment to social justice, even amidst ongoing challenges and critiques. The constitutional framework for reservation is robust. Article 15(4) and 15(5) empower the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, particularly in educational institutions. Similarly, Article 16(4), 16(4A), and 16(4B) enable the state to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the services of the state, including reservation in matters of promotion. The 77th (1995), 81st (2000), and 85th (2001) Amendment Acts further solidified reservation in promotions and carried forward unfilled vacancies. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act (2019) introduced a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) under Articles 15(6) and 16(6), marking a significant shift by introducing economic criteria alongside social backwardness. Historically, the Poona Pact of 1932, a compromise between Mahatma Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar, laid the groundwork for reserved seats for 'Depressed Classes' in legislative bodies, moving away from separate electorates. Post-independence, the Mandal Commission Report (1980) recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in central government services, which was implemented in 1990, leading to widespread protests and the landmark Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India judgment (1992). This judgment upheld the 27% OBC quota but introduced the 'creamy layer' exclusion and capped total reservations at 50%. These historical milestones and constitutional amendments demonstrate the evolving nature and judicial scrutiny of reservation policies. Looking ahead, the debate surrounding reservation is likely to continue evolving. Future implications include ongoing judicial reviews, particularly concerning the 50% ceiling and the 'creamy layer' concept, as well as the validity of EWS reservation. There might be increased demands for reservation from other communities, leading to further political complexities. The discussion may also shift towards the effectiveness of reservation in achieving its stated goals and exploring alternative or complementary measures for social inclusion and economic empowerment. Balancing the constitutional imperative of social justice with concerns about meritocracy and administrative efficiency will remain a critical challenge for India's governance and social cohesion. The conversation initiated by voices like Ghaywan helps to continually re-evaluate the foundational philosophy behind these crucial policies.