Nandakumar Chandran,

You claimed, "in the usa the latinos/blacks/women are given AA only because they have suffered discrimination in the past"

While it is true that under-representation of large communities within professions and colleges (despite aspiration to get in) is ALWAYS due to past or current discrimination (in India, in the US and elsewhere), it is NOT true that THIS is the essential criterion for affirmative action. The criterion for AA is under-representation. (No under-represented community can be sought to be excluded from AA by arguing loudly and without facts, that they were not discriminated in the past, in your private opinion!)

In the US, Asians too were victims of descrimination in the past -- and they continue to discriminated today to a lesser extent. The Japanese were particularly discriminated against, and were even jailed in large numbers without proper trial during the days of the 2nd world war. Yet asians are not eligible for AA benefits in any of the campuses. Because they are today not grossly under-represented in the colleges.

It is quite foolish to say, "the majority who avail of seats/positions [under reservations] do not have the merit for it - like 69% in tamilnadu."

In Tamil Nadu, 50% of the seats are ASSURED to those (irrespective of community) who achieve the top 1 to 50 ranks in the merit list (when total available seats are 100). Don't you feel ashamed to repeat lies over and over again? (It would seem that perhaps, you lack the moral merit to partake in honest debate...)

And even among those who achieve ranks below 50 (when total seats available is 100), not a single person who gets in through reservations lack the minimum "merit" criterion specified for course or job! In fact, many candidates with the acceptable minimum merit do not get in because seats are insufficient to accommodate them despite possessing the minimum merit.

If you feel any community that benefits from affirmative action is NOT under-represented, please go to court, and contest the government notification on this. It is not legally or morally essential that I (Anand Nair) should have the numbers to prove this to you or any one else. It is sufficient that government notification survives judicial scrutiny!

Anand

Anniyan Anniyan,

The reserved categories in Tamil Nadu (94% of the population) had managed to avail  77.9 % of all available seats in the 12 colleges as per the link Nandakumar Chandran  provided [http://www.hindu.com/2004/08/23/stories/2004082308900400.htm])

This was managed only with reservations, and under the circumstance that general category students with above average merit do not find these colleges illustrious enough to try for admission. Even so, the representation of the reserved categories (77.9% of all seats) is grossly below their numbers in general population (they constitute 94% of the population, as per Advocate KM Vijayan's statement on Court -- Source: [http://www.hindu.com/2006/11/01/stories/2006110100801400.htm])

This shows reservations are succeeding in Tamil Nadu (unlike contrary claims by detractors that reservations have "failed"), though the reserved communities still remain under-represented -- even in the less preferred colleges!
Anand

Anniyan Anniyan,

You asked, "If the communities listed as backward are able to secure 94% of the total seats with out any reservation,...."

So, who is mathematically challenged? In TN, the reserved categories constitute 94% of the population. Reservations do NOT affect candidates with above average merit (that is, those who get ranks from 1 to 50, if total number of seats are 100). Those who get such high ranks are ASSURED of seats, irrespective of community.

Reservations affect only those eligible candidates, who get ranks lower than 50 (where total seats are 100). Reservations ensure that 50% of these seats go to reserved categories. Even with reservations, the reserved categories (who form 94% of the population) do not manage more than 69% of all seats in Tamil Nadu. (Who told you that they "secure" 94% of total seats available?)

Anand

Anniyan Anniyan,

You are as wrong about my math skills as you are about facts. The SC order is NOT that 50% of all available seats should go to the general category students. The SC order is that 50% of all available seats should be allotted based on merit only. This is ENSURED by the Tamil Nadu government as under:-

a) Say, the total seats available are 100.

b) By providing for 69% reservations, the government ensures that 69 out of these goes to reserved category candidates, provided that these many eligible candidates with minimum merit are available within the reserved categories.

c) However, if there happens that all the top (say) 52 ranks are actually obtained by general category candidates, then 50 of them are allocated seats, in compliance with the SC ruling (that 50% of all available seats must be allocated based purely on the merit list). That year, the government would add 19 more seats for the course as a special case, and would allot these to the top rank holders from within the reserved categories -- thus ensuring that a total of 69 seats are allotted to the reserved categories, without violating the 50% SC norm! (When this happens some one may go to court and contest this. But this is yet to happen).

d) In actual practice, it is seen (as we have seen in case of the 12 medical colleges whose final merit list was referenced by some one in this blog), that the general category students (hailing from 6% of the population) do NOT manage to sweep 31% (or more) of the top ranks in the rank list.Thus, there has been no real requirement for the government to increase total available seats in order to comply with the SC ruling.

The situation in TN is that if there are 100 seats, then the candidates (irrespective of community) who manages to attain overall ranks from 1 to 50 are ASSURED of getting admitted. Can you deny this FACT?

The circumstance that general category students (hailing from 6% of the population -- or even 12%, as you wrongly claim) do not manage to walk away with more than 31% of all seats available, enables the government to declare 69% of seats as reserved, and yet ensure compliance with the SC directive that 50% of all available seats ought to be allocated ONLY based on the merit list!

Anand

Dear Anand,
                            In the light of your espousal of reservation for enabling specified communities take their due place in the national matrix with out denying the opportunities for merit,I would like to place on record my experience in a conference convened to enable a better application of the resources made available.Under the aegis of a mill magnate who was running the institution,we were to suggest ways and means to create a nexus between eucation and employment. Most of the seats were  in the reserved category and a good majority belonging to the trader class were enjoying scholorship were not even putting the minimum attendance and dropping out mid-term or ultimately failing in the university exams thus setting the whole motto of the college to a dead nought. And even such of those who managed to  scrape though the portals, ended up in running their hereditary profession of trading.This was, when so many eligible candidates having been refused admission, had to discontinue their education for not having been born in the preferred castes and were condemned to to opt for low level jobs, to earn a living. For optimum utilisation of the resources, I suggested that  an entrance examination be conducted and admission granted, was resisted by the President of the caste association to which a majority of students belonged on the specious ground, "in that case my community people will not get a chance, to study in college". Though most of the faculty agreed with my suggestion,the mill magnate being an industrialist was cowed down by the political boss and did not wish to appear inimical to his desire. The percetage of admissions to passes, still after another decade  remains abysmal. What is your take on this? Is that the way you desire the scarce resources of our nation be expended?

and this representation of castes in every sphere is not valid in any sense - and it only reinforces casteism which do not anyway want to persist in our society. the government at best can only level the ground in terms of removing obstacles or disadvantages if any for people - but cannot give the seats per se. if people want something they got to work for it and achieve it. if they want an IIT or IIM or engineering seat they can prepare for the exam and get it in open competition. if the argument is forwarded that many of the forward castes avail of specialist training etc, then so can others. if it is said that some of them do not have money or from a remote area where such training doesn't exist, then the government in such cases can provide financial assitance for them to avail of such training. but seats cannot be simply given. people have to put in the effort and achieve them. that is the only fair way possible in any democratic society. there are numerous reports in the media as to how so many of those classified as backward and even from remote areas worked very hard and made it in open competition without any reservation. if one person can do it so can others. there's no substitute for hardwork and achievment.

>for atleast the thief puts his life on the line when he goes after something he deserves

in my previous comment i meant : for atleast the thief puts his life on the line when he goes after something he DOES NOT deserve.

sorry for the typo.

>In fact, I agree with all your prescriptions (stricter enforcement against discrimination, giving >financial aid to poor students, working towards more exposure towards the benefits of >education to people in rural areas etc). It is just that I support affirmative action too, in >ADDITION to the meaures that you support!

if every conceivable short coming of a deprived student can be addressed - like lack of funds, infrastructure, awareness - etc, then what's this additional need for any AA beyond that?

if AA is to be simply given ie seats are to be given to people, then where's the need for addressing issues like lack of funds, infrastructure etc?

the two primary issues : 1. the kind of assistance to be meted out in the name of AA and 2. the need for stricter filtering of AA candidates (keeping out priveleged elements) are the real issues here.

imo those who avail of the reservation system without deserving it are worse than thieves. for atleast the thief puts his life on the line when he goes after something he deserves. while today priveleges sections avail of reservation without any risk or effort on their part.

> I do NOT agree with your allegation that affirmative action is "free-for-all" or not accountable. >This is prejudiced opinion -- and casts doubts on whether you really agree that "certain >sections of the society need assistance"! If you feel this is the case, you need to explain >further to substantiate your claims regarding this.

anand, we've been through this multiple times before - the great majority of those who constitute the BCs are wealthy and have no history of social discrimination. so where in lies the necessity to consider them as "backward" or  give them assistance?

your idea of affirmative action based on "representation in elite circles" is ridiculous and does not find a parallel in the usa. in the usa the latinos/blacks/women are given AA only because they have suffered discrimination in the past. show me one document about AA in the usa which does not cite discrimination as the reason for AA.

also if you say that the case in india is different than the usa because the majority are backward here then such reservation will definitely deprive the society of the talented as the majority who avail of seats/positions do not have the merit for it - like 69% in tamilnadu.

you are subscribing to stereotypes with regards india. in china or europe or russia, there was clear class distinctions between upper classes and lower classes - aritocrasy and peasantry. but that cannot be equated to the varna system in india. most brahmins are poor or atbest middle class. only very few of them are wealthy. some half baked or misinterpretation of texts like manusmrithi cannot pass for justification of equating the varna system as class and using it to justify reservation. rather it is the jaathi system of which todays BC/OBC are the elite which bears direct relation to the class system - they are the landed and the politically powerful. but you have not answered questions on this issue earlier. and to give AA to the BC or OBCs thus goes against all logic.

the question is not whether AA is needed in india - but whether those who currently qualify for it really do qualify for it. that's the issue.

with regards the numbers/facts on underrepresentation you said : "I do not have the figures for this -- nor am I too interested. "

i cannot understand how you can say this and still ask for AA. the facts and figures of underrepresentation are the basis of AA. without it where is the need for AA? without it it is only a farce - and that's the reality of the reservation system in india.

powerful sections of the society have manipuated the argument for AA to benefit themselves. and i can't understand why anybody who is interested in the welfare of the truly deprived would not oppose this manipulation.

Your middle name should be stupid as you proved that you don't even know elementary math. If there are 100 seats and 50 seats got filled by unreserved then the seats remaning to be filled is 50. If the govt decides to add furthur 19 seats then the total unreserved seats should be 59.5 out of 119 and not 50. I don't know what else to say of your Math skills.

Coming to the second point, where there are not enough unreserved candidates, shows that
Dravidian politics effectively did an ethnic cleaning in Tamil Nadu. Having packed Govt colleges with undeserving people in the initial years the quality of the insititutions has deteriorated so much that
1) Many people don't even want admissions in Govt colleges, except may be for IIT and REC Trichy which are central govt institution/quasi central govt institution, JIPMER etc and then institutions like BITS Pilani etc.
2) Many people have migrated to different parts of India and US/Singapore that unreserved seats go unfilled.
3) And the % of  forward communities(unreserved) is 12% and not 6% as claimed by you.

And most important.
If the communities listed as backward are able to secure 94% of the total seats with out any reservation, why are these communities not taken away from the backward list? And why not do away with reservation for these communities since they have caught up now?


All of this debunks your social diversity claim. Reservation might have helped a lot of people from once socially backward communities. But it is has degraded and is now abused as a tool to to grab resources. The so-called  'backward' communities are traders, landlords and do agriculture. Whereas many of the 'forward' communities don't have any other occupation other than govt jobs or private jobs. What reservation does is to strip these people of their livelihood. I am not opposed to the 'so-called' backward communities taking up jobs in govt institutions. But then they have to come in thru the merit list and not thru the backdoor. So I am justified if I call them 'Thugs'.