Anniyan Anniyan,

Math is like a software program -- garbage in, garbage out. Math works, provided the facts are right!

I had already explained how the Tamil Nadu Governments manages to conform to the SC ruling that 50% of all available seats must be allocated based purely on the merit list (irrespective of reservations). I will repeat (perhaps for the third time in this very blog, but in greater detail this time), for easy understanding:-

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 avaialble 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!

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 is no real requirement for the government to increase total available seats in order to comply with the SC ruling.

In any case, the situation in TN is that if there are 100 seats, all the top general category students who manages to attain overall ranks from 1 to 50 are ASSURED of getting admitted.

This actually amounts to a reservation of 50% of seats for the general category who constitute 6% of the population -- provided this can be availed based on merit. In practice, this undeclared "merit only quota" remains unfilled because of insufficient number general category candidates making it to the top 50% in the open merit list.

Do you understand the math now? May we also take it that opposition to reservations (that "merit" is overlooked) is largely based on misinformation and false propaganda?

Anand

Under the orders of the SC, the State ensures that all general category candidates whose ranks are above 50% of all available seats do get admission, though 69% of seats are reserved. (This is done by increasing the number of seats available for this purpose on an as required basis, to comply to the SC order).

Let us consider a course (in Tamil Nadu), for which the total available seats is 100. Out of these 69% are reserved for groups that constitute 94% of the population. But all  candidates from the general category (that form 6% of the population) who achieve ranks from 1 to 50 are ASSURED of admission (complying with the SC order).
What kind of Math is that? If there are 100 seats and 69 seats are reserved, only 31 seats goes to general category people and not 50%. Please explain your logic how Tamil Nadu govt is ensuring 50% going to general category?

Krishnan Bala,

You said, "Theoretically speaking, you would wish to divide the nation in to as many castes  and sub-castes as were prevalent in the 19th century...."

What is so "theoretical" about this? The fact of persisting endogamy (social taboo against inter-caste marriages) means that these "castes  and sub-castes" remain practically identifiable in the 21st century.

This is NOT my wish at all. My wish is that through social uplift of some castes, this taboo against inter-caste marriages gets shattered, and then,  "castes  and sub-castes" would cease to be socially IDENTIFIABLE.

You further declared that it is my wish -- theoretically -- to "distribute the number of medical,dental and engineering seats in proportion to their population and further ensure that the administrative services and judiciary  and all arms of governance are also populated by this definition."

This is NOT my "wish" -- theoretically or in practice!

Affirmative Action comes from the realization of the existing circumstance where the playing field is not level, where kids from grossly under-represented groups do not get the same opportunity (as Lyndon Johnson pointed out). This realization calls for us to create a situation where those from under-represented groups are provided separate facility to comptete freely only with others from similar social backgrounds -- and protected from the losing proposition of having to compete with those from groups that are over-represented.

You asked me if Lyndon Johnson said "that all those who are merited and eligible drop out  of the starting line"

No, he did not say this. Affirmative Action does NOT require this to happen -- as I showed in case of the 60% reservations in Tamil Nadu. Let me repeat (as this is an important point):-

Let us consider a medical college (in Tamil Nadu), where the total number of available seats is 100. Out of these, 69 seats are reserved for groups that constitute 94% of the population. But all  candidates from the general category (that form 6% of the population) who achieve ranks from 1 to 50 are ASSURED of admission. (This is done by increasing the number of seats available on an as required basis if required, to comply to the SC order).

Thus, in Tamil Nadu, "all those who are merited and eligible" -- that is, all those who are top in the merit list from 1 to 50 (from among the general category who form 6% of the population, the total number of available seats being 100) -- are ASSURED of admission. Those from the general category with even average merit are NOT required to "drop out  of the starting line"! Do not misrepresent FACTS, please...

Anand

Nandakumar Chandran,

I too do not dispute that you do not dispute that "certain sections of the society need assistance". So no need to stress on that again and again. This is an area that both of us are AGREED upon. right?

Thus, our difference of opinion is only on how to remedy this situation of under-representation. Let me list the specific differences in our positions:-

a) I do NOT agree with you that affirmative action (by way of reservations for notified categories of under-represented people) amounts to "unbridled assistance".

Reservations in India are highly "bridled", available ONLY to those possessing minimum eligibity from within the notified groups. Which is why reserved seats often go unavailed, despite the aspiration for these from within these groups.

Recommendation for notification of groups itself can be approved only after following due procedures and checks; and these notifications are subject to legal scrutiny.

b) I do NOT agree with you that affirmative action "can only lead to laziness, lack of effort, taking such assitance for granted and political manipulation for the undeserving" or that this is what "is clearly happening in india today"

Not at all so! Reservations have been a success where ever this was implemented with seriousness. The social benefits of affirmative action are there for all to see in states like Kerala & Tamil Nadu. These benefits are measurable in terms of increased State Domestic Produce; and more significantly, in terms of high levels of Human Development Index (HDI) that has been achieved in the past 60 years.

c) 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.

d) I do NOT agree with you that "usa cannot be compared to india - because those who are given such priveleges are a minority..."

The principle behind AA is the widely accepted understanding that increased social diversity is essential to realize the full potential of merit within the people.

This principle is more applicable for India than for the US, because in the US, the under-represented communities are a minority, whereas in India these sections constitute an overwhelming majority.

India for the past hundreds of years has been woefully short of merit (in terms of nobel prizes, scientific breakthroughs, creativity, sports etc) BECAUSE of the inequitous nature of our society where more than 80% of elite professions are represented ONLY by people from identifiable (endogamous) groups who form less than 20% of the polulation.

In Tamil Nadu, 69% of seats are reserved for groups that constitute 94% of the population. 31% of all the seats are STILL available for open competition for all, including the 6% of the population are in the general category.

Under the orders of the SC, the State ensures that all general category candidates whose ranks are above 50% of all available seats do get admission, though 69% of seats are reserved. (This is done by increasing the number of seats available for this purpose on an as required basis, to comply to the SC order).

Let us consider a course (in Tamil Nadu), for which the total available seats is 100. Out of these 69% are reserved for groups that constitute 94% of the population. But all  candidates from the general category (that form 6% of the population) who achieve ranks from 1 to 50 are ASSURED of admission (complying with the SC order).

I do NOT see how "merit" is overlooked in this scheme!

(General Category candidates who rank from 50 to 100 in the merit list are definitely affected. But that is the price for unleashing the social merit that today remains suppressed due to large scale social inequity. But this does NOT at all adversely affect those with reasonable merit from among the general category)

Anand

anand, the problem i see with you is that you seem to have internalized communist propoganda without a critical evaluation of it especially with respect to india. communism evolved in a particular enviornment and the indian enviornment is quite different from it. but without realizing it you simply try to retrofit communist principles on a society which by its very nature is different. so you see only forward vs backward, upper class vs lower class etc where such distinctions are not so black and white. you also display the typical indian slave mentality where you prescribe a solution simply because it has been done in the west - like AA in the usa. when are we going to see you working for the welfare and happiness for all based on solutions ideally suited for the indian enviornment?

Dear Anand,

                        I am much beholden to your considered reply to my objective evaluation of the reservation tangle. I can not take cudgels against your subjective interpretation but will  point out that the whole premise based on caste based reservation becoming synonymous with identifiable communities is heavily skewed. Theoretically speaking, you would wish to divide the nation in to as many castes  and sub-castes as were prevalent in the 19th century, and distribute the number of medical,dental and engineering seats in proportion to their population and further ensure that the administrative services and judiciary  and all arms of governance are also populated by this definition.Come on Mr.Nair - not even Karl Marx or a Lenin ever showered such a largess under the bolshevik revolution by redefining the existing communities who had their choicest avocations, performing it with a dignity and earned a decent living. Did Chairman Mao, only ever mean the shoe maker and the carpenter when he declared," Let a hundred flowers bloom "?. I appreciate the trace of your nascent capitalistic thought when you dragged  Lyndon Johnson to prove your point and that is exemplary, but did he say that all those who are merited and eligible drop out  of the starting line ? Did not Abraham Lincoln make it from the logger's cabin ?Are you aware that the Latinos that become eligible for sops are looked down even by the blacks because they are even un-willing to learn the language?And what is total percentage the chosen few regime operates? You said that that the scheme of reservation was prevalent even during the princely regime in old T.C. state .That is amazing, but was it based on the lines of  caste? Did K.R.Narayan qualify by that criteria ? Did not another Nair (Shankaran)  first introduce it in the Justice Party of Old Madras state, as communal reservation? You are more read and better informed but when it comes to implementing a policy in a democratic state,you must remember, what is obtained in practice than pursue an utopian road to elysium. The simple fact  that Karunanidhi is not able distinguish between haves and have nots for his pet policy of distribution of CTVs, the shrill voices emanating for the segmentation of Malas from Madigas,Arundhadhiars from Parayars,Gujjars and Meenas make one realise that this pandering to communal greed is a journey in the never ending tunnel leading to dark ages of evolution of man. Your evaluation of the comparative economic and sociological status of population of states that have implemented reservation despite resistance by vested interests, borders on totalitarian concepts and is debateable.

and i also highly object to your inconsideration towards the deprived in the so called "forward classes". people are people. a person suffers whether he is forward or backward. a responsible government/policy should work towards the happiness and welfare of all sections of the society and give a helping hand to all in need. even poor brahmins or other so-called forward classes who are deprived should be given a helping hand.

this is a fairer goal than your objective of equal representation in "elite" sections.

>You seem to agree (at least for tactical reasons) that it is desirable to take measures that >would actively promote greater social diversity

social diversity per se is not my emphasis. you can only give people opportunity - beyond that it is left to them to make use of it. if certain sections of a society cannot make use of it, then who is to blame? 

but you can have an agency which probes why such communities cannot make use of such priveleges and work towards resolving such issues. so effort can be put into that.

but ultimately you can only give an opportunity to reach a goal - but cannot give the prize itself. that would be counterproductive to the progress and development of the society.

in america the minorities who qualify for AA are only 18%. while in tamilnadu they are 69% officially and 94% practically! that's the issue here.

anand, i do not dispute that certain sections of the society need assistance. but unbridled assistance can only lead to laziness, lack of effort, taking such assitance for granted and political manipulation for the undeserving - as is clearly happening in india today. also it is what you seem to support by your *additional* emphasis on affirmative action beyond addressing legitimate causes/concerns. while addressing legitimate concerns and causes is accountable, your free-for-all AA is not. that's the issue here.

also usa cannot be compared to india - because those who are given such priveleges are a minority, while in cases like tamil nadu they are the majority. there's a huge difference in that.