New Delhi: The release of a think-tank report on the impact of reservation for the socially backward in Delhi started with a statement that left the audience members startled and angry.
“Three thousand years of discrimination is a false narrative, and there is no record to prove it,” declared Durga Nath Jha, chairman of the Centre for Policy Analysis (CPA) in a half-empty conference hall at the Press Club recently.
“How can you make such a big statement?” asked one of the attendees.
“No exploitative system can work for 3,000 years,” Jha responded vaguely.
The report, titled ‘Integral Social Development: Reconceptualising India’s Affirmative Actions’, underscores the need for a fresh perspective to reassess affirmative actions, making them more aligned with the new realities. It specifically focuses on the backwardness-based affirmative action policy of the government, emphasising the need to “depoliticise” the state’s affirmative action policy.
Jha, the sole author of the report, said that the politics based on the Mandal Commission is “immoral and unconstitutional”. He further claimed that according to the Mandal Commission, if a woman works outside the home, she falls into the “backward” category.
“Can you imagine this? I have read the entire Mandal report, and at the time it was written, a woman working outside her house was seen as backward. The Mandal Commission report was supposed to be a social report, but it has instead emboldened casteism,” said Jha.
Also read: SC must consider the economic impact of its rulings. A good law may have a bad effect
Backwardness of mind
The event was a one-man show as Jha was the only speaker. He was bombarded with questions and criticisms alike. The report, which took Jha two years to research and write, concludes that backwardness should be based on location and not caste.
As he spoke in the hall occupied by journalists and a few scholars, he was interrupted several times.
“During my research, I have come to the conclusion that location should be the basis of backwardness, not caste. This centrality of caste should end through affirmative action by the government,” said Jha.
One of the attendees, Sunil Kumar, aggressively stood up to ask on what basis had Jha made such a conclusion.
“Are you saying there is no caste? And the only divide is between rural and urban people?” asked Kumar.
Jha responded by saying, “Before Mandal, there was no caste identity.” The answer further infuriated Kumar.
“Our country is trapped in identity politics. We need to pull our country out of it. Before Mandal, there was no caste. Mandal gave these rigid caste identities,” said Jha.
Another attendee sought Jha’s views on backwardness of mind and on cases where parents don’t let their daughters marry.
“I am not dismissing all of this. All I am saying is that caste is not as prevalent as it was before. It has become more of an urban and rural divide,” he said.
Someone in the audience muttered, “Why is he so confused? First, he said there is no caste, and now he’s saying there is caste but not as relevant as in the old times.”
Also read: Small anti-caste publisher Navayana is a stone-thrower in the big publishing world
‘Are you a Dalit?’
Halfway through the discussion, another member of the Centre for Policy Analysis joined Jha but mostly remained silent and tried to dissuade attendees from asking questions.
“Aare, pehle inhe bolne dijiye na, phir sawal kijiye. Ladhne thodi aaye hain hum (Hey, let him finish his lecture; you can ask questions later. We have not come here to fight),” he said.
Jha’s lecture on affirmative action kept jumping from one point to another. At one point, he even said the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) should not be considered backward because they don’t go through the same social discrimination as Dalits.
Further commenting on how reservation has only benefited politicians, Jha said, “Reservation should not be a poverty alleviation programme. It is a programme of empowerment. And OBCs are already empowered, so remove them from it.”
His speech drew a lot of criticism, with one woman asking him why his booklet was not written in Hindi when he was talking about backwardness and the rural sector. Her observation drew a round of applause from the audience members.
Jha, who fumbled while answering this question, said that a booklet in Hindi would be released soon. He further added, “CBSE education should also reach the rural areas.”
This saw voices overlapping to ask Jha whether he was aware of the social realities of the country.
Kumar rose again to ask another question. “Are you a Dalit? Is the person sitting next to you from CPA a Dalit? Is anyone in your research organization a Dalit?”
Jha hesitantly responded, “No, I am a Brahmin, and so is the man sitting next to me.”
“This has answered all our questions,” said Kumar as he stood up to leave the room.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)
They will tomorrow say no British had set foot on India as centuries of oppression is not possible….what a bunch of elitist dimwits. Hope this was not government sponsored….cause of this is where my tax money is going then only God can save this country
No matter how controversial the take might be, a reader expects details of the report and how they arrived at it. The transparency will help readers to assess, and then help accept or reject those claims. Instead, we get he said she said in the name of journalism.
Expected better from Print.
This whole article, is written with such a bias. Using adjectives like “vaguely” to undermine the speaker take. To the person who asked why it has not written in hindi when it is meant for rural india. The same reason why jean dreze writes in English while writing about rural india and also so many left thinkers who write in suave English while claiming to be voice of poor, why niti aayog publish reports in english, why mandal commission was written in english etc. because it is the language they are comfortable in conveying among other reasons.
So one can think of audience who clapped on her statement.