THE ABSENCE of Muslims in the corridors of power and decision-making is just as stark today as when Jawaharlal Nehru first drew attention to it more than 55 years ago. Their representation in government employment is abysmal and their representation in parliament has dropped from 36 MPs in the 14th Lok Sabha to 30 MPs in the current Lok Sabha. Special measures are clearly needed to redress the underrepresentation of Muslims in public institutions and governance but should this take the form of affirmative action or quotas?
Salman Khurshid, the newly appointed Minister for Minority Affairs, has expressed a preference for affirmative action over quotas. Calling quotas for Muslims a “double edged sword which could create envy, hostility and resistance,” he advocates “affirmative action as a tool to inject the ability to compete rather than quotas which would make them constant beneficiaries of additional help”.
As we debate the pros and cons of the two, it is useful to remember that both are mechanisms of preferential treatment to facilitate inclusion of disadvantaged groups. The policy emphasis of those in favour of affirmative action is on infrastructure for ‘genuine development’ — such as good education for all — rather than on measures like quotas to promote representation. Both measures recognise that certain patterns of disadvantage and exclusion might require special remedies. While affirmative action does not mean reserved quotas, it does mean considering particular identities a factor in educational admissions and employment.
The critical question is whether we should continue to identify groups on the basis of their historically depressed status with reference to the specific ritual and social exclusion that occurs with the caste system, or more broadly, by taking into account the multiple dimensions of disadvantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment