Sociology of equality through equity
By Jyotica Pragya Kumar

EQUITY is, from the standing of sociology, the quality of being fair and reasonable in a way that gives equal treatment to every one. In functional terms, recourse to equity means the creation of conditions of being equal. Under the Constitution of India, we have invoked the principle of equity through the policy of reservation primarily for the uplift and encouragement of weaker sections of society. In other words to compensate for social disadvantage, to bring about equality of condition, and to promote social mobility, the founding fathers of our Constitution introduced the concept of positive discrimination in favour of backward classes of citizens — namely the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. However, realising the constitutional context in which this policy has come into being, it is found to be informed by the following considerations. One, it is an exception to the well-accepted principle of equality. Two, it is compensatory for those who had suffered for centuries for ‘no fault of theirs’. Three, it is to be given effect in such a manner so that the efficiency of the system is not seriously affected. Four, it is eventually for the good of society as a whole. Five, it is transitory in nature. We may now briefly analyse these considerations for comprehending the perspective as perceived by the Constitution makers for raising the edifice of our social order.

Manifestly there is a conflict between the principle of equality on the one hand, and the policy of reservation on the other. An attempt to reconcile the two has been made when it is constitutionally commanded that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration "consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a state." But in the absence of any articulate and specific measure of "efficiency", the conflict remains unresolved. One of the distinguished members of the Constituent Assembly, Sardar Hukam Singh, while participating in the debate on this issue, said: "If we are to fill up these posts by open competition and on merit, certainly we cannot give recognition to the claims of all minorities. Then the best men would be taken in, and if some members of the minorities do happen to succeed, that would not be on the consideration of their claims as minorities but, that would be ... as equal citizens of the state ... "

Thus, here is a conflict: There can be only one of these two things — "either there can be clear equal opportunity or special consideration."

Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of our Constitution, while responding to the debate on this issue, suggested a sort of functional strategy for reconciling the conflicting claims. According to him, reservation "in favour of any backward class of citizens" as an exception to the "generic principle" of equality had been made "for historical reasons." But this was only a partial concession, and not conceding "in full." His elaboration and elucidation deserves to be quoted in full, for no other reason but showing how he envisioned equality through equity: "Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity. Let me give an illustration. Supposing, for instance, reservations were made for a community or a collection of communities, the total of which came to something like 70 per cent of the total posts under the state and only 30 per cent are retained as unreserved. Could anybody say that reservation of 30 per cent as open to general competition would be satisfactory from the point of view of giving effect to the first principle, namely that there shall be equality of opportunity? It cannot be in my judgment. Therefore, the seats to be reserved ... must be confined to a minority of seats. It is then only the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective operation."

Thus, the policy of reservation was envisioned consistently with the generic principle of equality of opportunity to all. This was done by confining the scope of reservation to the principle of ‘exception to the rule,’ and not vice versa. The exception was to remain restricted to that segment of society which ‘for historical reasons’ was excluded from the main stream of social life purely on ground of communal considerations. Such a protective provision of reservation was not to be in perpetuity, for that was good neither for the direct beneficiaries nor for the envisaged social order. However, during the course of its operation, the envisioned perspective of reservation somehow or the other got lost on the way. With an all round clamour for more and more reservation, the exception is continually eating up the rule. We are crediting ourselves for creating new divides by splitting society into ever increasing number of castes, classes, tribes, and minority groups. With no time-constraint, do we mean that we are destined to become more and more backward — socially, economically and politically!

The reservation policy was envisaged simply as a means to an end, the end being ‘social justice.’ Alas! we have made it as an end in itself. The state thinks, its solemn responsibility is over once it meets the growing demands for reservation from diverse groups, quite unmindful of the injury to the social system. It does not realise that thereby it sets in the vicious cycle of poverty. It only testifies, what Gunnar Myrdal said, "A country is poor because it is poor."

Unwittingly, we are promoting the "culture of poverty." (Oscar Lewis) Shouldn’t we look and locate our lost perspective?