Shashi Tharoor and D.Y. Chandrachud on the Merit vs. Reservation Debate

Written by Jeet Sinha.

On a question that reservation was only envisioned as a temporary corrective, but today has become politically untouchable, more than 50% seat is reserved, and merit is often compromised in the name of reservation. Do you believe India can ever move beyond reservations, or are they too entrenched in vote bank politics? Dr Shashi Tharoor and Retd. Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud opens up their perspective on these questions in an intense discussion during the IIMUN Author series. In this article, I will delve into their key arguments in the discussion and give my comments on their perspective.

Dr Shashi Tharoor on the Political Reality of Reservations

“I think they’re (reservation) very very entrenched. In fact, the irony is a lot of the founding fathers were against reservations… but the fact of the matter is they’re(reservation) here to stay.”

“The American subway system… has three rails… if you accidentally touch the third rail, you’re instantly electrocuted. Reservations are the third rail of Indian politics. No one’s, no politician is going to dare to touch them because he’s instantly fried.”

“Even within reservations, it’s possible to promote merit… I have been advocating for a long time… that many of the underprivileged communities… should actually be getting also another kind of affirmative action: Extra courses, remedial instruction, a leg up, extra coaching.”

Analysis of Dr. Shashi Tharoor’s Statement

It cannot be outrightly said that the Founding Fathers were against reservations, as there were immense discussion both in favour and against reservation. It was discussed in depth on all three kinds of reservations, i.e., Political, Educational and Jobs. There are three points on which the Constituent Assembly Members have considered reservations. The need for each reservation has been categorically debated in CAD. For each type of reservation, there was a huge debate over who should be considered as the category for reservation. Whether only the scheduled castes should be granted reservations. The various religious minorities have been considered for granting reservations in the CAD, such as Muslims, Christians, Parsis, and Anglo-Indians. Reservations for these groups have been debated in the Constituent Assembly.

In the Constituent Assembly Debates, H.J. Khandekar, a member of the Constituent Assembly, highlighted the cruelty suffered by the members of the Scheduled Castes and stated:

“I would like to submit that the reservation which is being provided for us is no favour to us. The members of the Scheduled Castes have, for thousands of years, suffered cruelties and oppression in various forms at the hands of their brethren belonging to castes other than their own. Now reservation is being provided for us as compensation for the atrocities we have suffered, and therefore I do not deem this provision as any great favor to us.”

I agree with Dr Tharoor’s argument that no politician would dare to touch the reservation. The politicians use reservations as a political weapon to gain votes; no politician to date has worked affirmatively towards the betterment of the backward class, in the sense that reservations can be brought to an end, as was actually sought by the makers.

The last statement Tharoor makes is that even within a reservation, merit can still be promoted. The argument is based on a premise that is common in India, that the reservation conflicts with the principle of merit. In the latter part of this article, Dr Chandrachud argues that Merit and Reservation are not antithetical to each other. When people are not included and given space to take part in the mainstream, we cannot say that merit will be in a dangerous position. As reservations put them in such a position where they can compete by participating in mainstream platforms.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on the Purpose and Definition of Merit

“The Constitution itself was not just an instrument for the transfer of political power… but an instrument of social transformation… you can have a stable society when all elements of the society, including those who have been historically discriminated against for centuries, are brought into the mainstream.”

“Can we say today 75 years after the Constitution has been adopted that discrimination against say the marginalized communities… has ended? And the answer to that would be clearly in the negative. You still have students who commit suicide, Dalit students who have committed suicide in the IITs.”

“The raw scores which students attain in these tests are themselves the product of your cultural and social capital… If you define merit not in terms of your ability to score in examinations but merit in terms of inclusion… Then reservations are not contrary to merit but they in fact further merit because it allows for people… an equal share of social development.”

“In some communities, birth within that community is itself a source of discrimination. Even in India today, if you go to the villages, birth within that caste or community is a very potent source of discrimination.”

“I still do believe that India has not still come to that point where we can say that well all communities are equally or all castes are equally situated and therefore we can end reservation. I don’t think India has come to that level at all.”

Analysis of Retd. J. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud’s Statement

I agree with the first statement that for a stable society, the upliftment of those who have been historically discriminated for centuries is necessary for a stable society. Inclusion of those who have been socially and educationally discriminated against is necessary for the growth of the whole society.

On the second argument, I agree that we cannot till today say that discrimination against marginalized communities has ended completely. Our Constitutional fathers have kept this in vision, one of them, Brajeshwar Prasad made the following observations:

“Recently the House agreed to reservation of seats for aboriginals in the Federal and State Lower Houses for ten years. With that decision few will quarrel; but its value will depend on the mode of choosing these representatives, whether as trusted spokesmen of their tribes or because of party allegiance. The evils of political strife among peoples ill-fitted for it by temperament and intellect have perhaps been too little appreciated in the provinces.”

It is clear from the statement that the reservation was only for 10 years. But the members were not sure whether the period is sufficient to eliminate the cruel practice of discrimination based on caste. Muniswamy Pillai argued that reservation for the Schedule tribes also must be for ten years. He believed that the condition of the country is so bad that it will be impossible for any Government or people to uplift marginalized communities in ten years. This statement clearly states that under no circumstances can the reservation provide such a change in the minds of people that there will be no reservation after ten years.

The statement, which has been stated by the me, quoting Khandekar’s statement that the member of the Scheduled Castes has, for thousands of years, suffered cruelties and oppression in various forms at the hands of their brethren belonging to castes other than their own. Now, a reservation is being provided for us as compensation for the atrocities we have suffered, and therefore, I do not deem this provision as any great favour to us.

Khandekar’s statement was really important, and it reflects that the 10 years were never enough to remove the atrocities against the Scheduled Caste. Therefore, the provision inserted into the constitution is a permanent one unless a significant social change occurs in the country. Recently, we have seen the Supreme Court allow Sub-classification by which even creamy layers from SC/STs can be removed from taking advantage of the reservation. This helps ensure that the reservations reach the right people who really require them for their upliftment.

At last, from the above discussion, I conclude that I agree with the statement of Retd. Justice Chandrachud, that India has not yet come to that point where we can say that all castes are equally situated, and therefore we can end reservations. To reach that point, India requires continuous efforts on ensuring inclusion of needful and exclusion of creamy layer from taking advantage of reservations.

To read more content on similar topics click here.