The recent accident on the Indian Railways, which took the lives of about 300 passengers, has reignited a fierce discussion concerning the effectiveness and safety of our rail network. Amid the turmoil, several figures, including Anuradha Tiwari—a TEDx speaker advocating for #OneFamilyOneReservation—have attributed the disaster to the reservation policies currently in effect in India.
Months ago, I tweeted about how we're compromising our Railways with policies like "Best Among Failed Candidates" Category and #Reservation
30 million people use railways daily. There should be no compromise with their lives. Only merit should be a criteria. #TrainAccident https://t.co/5IHk5rJm2V
— Anuradha Tiwari (@talk2anuradha) June 3, 2023
Tiwari’s argument, along with others of a similar vein, hinges on the notion that affirmative action and merit are incompatible, can’t go hand in hand and that reservation policies compromise safety. This standpoint implies that individuals who benefit from affirmative action are inherently less proficient, leading to an overall decline in system efficiency and thus the safety of the railways.
But, does this presumption hold up under examination? Let’s delve deeper.
Also Read: Annamalai statement on Brahmins opened much-needed dialogue for Tamil Nadu—Lay the past to rest
Affirmative action debate
This argument against reservation has been increasing over the years. Whether train accidents or bridge collapses, reservation is the culprit. This exposes a pathology of thinking that needs to be countered robustly. At the heart of it is the word ‘merit’ which is politically and socially loaded, as if the world is synonymous with privileged caste groups and antonymous with reservation. This widespread presumption doesn’t just appear during accidents but also in rhetorical questions about doctors who get the job through affirmative action.
The Odisha train collision shows the real problems affecting the railway system in India lie in outdated infrastructure, not reservation policies.
When considering merit, it’s essential to remember that it isn’t solely about academic or professional qualifications. Merit also encompasses traits such as dedication, hard work, integrity, and empathy. Individuals who have overcome adversity and entered the system through reservation policies may bring a unique set of skills, perspectives, and a heightened level of commitment and sincerity to their roles. This isn’t to assert that individuals from marginalised communities are inherently more sincere but to contest the belief that they are inherently less competent or deserving of their positions. The Supreme Court in its judgment has also endorsed the view that reservation is not at odds with the merit.
Affirmative actions, along with reservation policies in India, were established in the Constitution (Articles 15 and 16) to rectify historical social injustices and to ensure the representation of marginalised communities in sectors like education and government employment. It’s an attempt to equalise opportunities in a society where they’ve been unevenly distributed for generations.
The anti-reservation argument, which is gaining momentum, is fundamentally flawed. It stems from an elitist bias that narrowly construes merit. It originates from a view that equates academic merit with real-world competence. Critics claim that reservation undermines meritocracy, assuming merit can be perfectly quantified and our evaluation systems are flawless. In reality, traditional merit indicators like academic scores are weak job performance predictors.
It’s crucial to recognise that affirmative action is now a globally recognised policy. It is not an arbitrary act of favouritism, but rather a tool designed to address systemic inequality and exclusion. The affirmative action debate has significantly contributed to promoting diversity and inclusivity, which are essential for a well-rounded and equitable society. India is far ahead of the curve as far as affirmative action is concerned. Reservation in jobs was introduced in colonial India by Shahu Maharaj, who issued an order in 1902 to reserve 50 per cent of government jobs for lower castes in his princely state of Kolhapur. By 1921, the Madras Presidency also introduced reservation in jobs.
Secondly, it not only acts as a catalyst for social mobility for those who directly benefit from it but also positively impacts those who are not direct beneficiaries. Its effect in classrooms has been extensively researched, and it is possible to extrapolate these benefits, of more positive attitudes, greater cognitive capacities, and increased civic participation, to the workplace as well.
Also Read: Indians in US aren’t ‘casteless’. Why they’ve got the wrong basis for opposing California bill
The myth of merit
To refute the idea that reservation policies compromise efficiency, let’s consider empirical evidence. Ashwini Deshpande and Thomas E Weisskopf analysed the impact of affirmative action policies, specifically job reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), on the productivity of the Indian Railways. The study “Does Affirmative Action Reduce Productivity: A Case Study of the Indian Railways” was published in the research journal World Development in 2014.
The objective of the study was “to shed empirical light on a claim often made by critics of affirmative action policies: that increasing the representation of members of marginalised communities in jobs comes at the cost of reduced productive efficiency.” The authors concluded that “We find no evidence for such an effect; indeed, some of our results suggest that the opposite is true.”
The researchers compiled data from annual reports on productive inputs (labour, capital, and fuels) and outputs (passenger kilometres and freight tonne kilometres), distinguishing SC/ST employees from non-SC/ST employees at different job levels, for eight regional railway zones from 1980 through 2002. By employing production function analysis and data envelopment analysis, they estimated the total factor productivity (TFP) for each zone in each year and assessed whether the proportion of reserved category employees could account for the variation in productivity across zones and years.
The results of their analysis revealed no evidence to support the claim that increasing the proportion of affirmative action beneficiaries adversely affects productivity or productivity growth. On the contrary, the proportion of SC/ST employees in high-level positions was positively associated with Railway’s productivity and productivity growth. This finding is significant because high-level managerial and decision-making jobs have a more substantial impact on overall productivity than lower-level positions. Furthermore, reservation has been indispensable for increasing the representation of SC/ST employees in high-level positions.
These results are consistent with productivity studies in the United States, suggesting that while affirmative action may result in lower qualifications for minorities, there is less consistent evidence of lower performance. One possible explanation for the positive effects of affirmative action on productivity is that it counteracts job market discrimination. Hiring practices are often far from meritocratic, and the capabilities of applicants from marginalised groups are not fully recognised. Affirmative action can redress the negative effects of discrimination, motivating individuals from marginalised groups to perform well when they attain decision-making and managerial positions.
Also Read: Bihar caste census stay complicates it for other states. Onus is now on Modi govt to fix it
A crucial tool
A closer examination reveals that certain groups are still underrepresented even with affirmative action in place, indicating unspoken favouritism and unfair advantages for majority groups. If our systems were truly meritocratic and geared up to factor in historical disabilities and backlogs, there would be no need for affirmative action or reservation policies. However, we are far from that ideal, and thus, affirmative action serves as a crucial tool to move towards a diverse and inclusive society.
Blaming reservation policies for accidents on the Indian Railways is not just an oversimplification, but a misdirection of blame. It diverts our attention from identifying and rectifying the real issues plaguing our railway system.
The real problems affecting the railway system in India lie in outdated infrastructure. Many rail lines, tracks, and bridges are old and in need of repair or replacement. This lack of modernisation and stress on speed increases the risk of accidents and jeopardises passenger safety. Additionally, the absence of sufficient safety measures, such as advanced signalling systems, automatic braking systems, and efficient maintenance protocols, contributes to the occurrence of accidents.
Moreover, the railway system in India often operates under heavy burdens, with overcrowded trains and congested networks. This system puts strain on the infrastructure and increases the chances of accidents. Addressing these issues requires investments in infrastructure development, the implementation of advanced safety measures, and the modernisation of railway systems.
By solely blaming reservation policies for accidents, attention is diverted away from these critical issues. It is important to acknowledge that reservation policies are designed to address social inequalities and provide equal opportunities.
The focus should be on improving the overall railway system to ensure safety and efficiency for all passengers, irrespective of reservation policies.
Rather than engaging in a blame game, it is high time we focus on holistically improving our railway system, considering both safety measures and social inclusivity. Let’s not allow our biases to cloud our judgment. By addressing the genuine challenges and working towards a more equitable and efficient railway system, we can create a safer and more inclusive future for all passengers.
Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)