Despite protests by students and other concerned citizens, the UPA government has decided that the bill to provide 27 per cent OBC quotas in all central institutions will be introduced during the monsoon session of Parliament to be implemented from 2007 onwards. While there are many aspects involved here, it is important to first ask some basic questions. First, what proportion of the population constitutes the OBC and what percentage of the OBC is currently admitted to central institutions? According to the Mandal Commission Report (1980), 52 per cent of the population are OBCs; according to the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) report of 1999, OBCs constitute 32.1 per cent of the population, while the National Family Health Survey places this figure at 29.8 per cent. Since there are glaring differences in the reported figures it begs the question of the government, as to what is the basis for its present decision? According to the NSSO, 23.5 per cent of college seats are already filled by OBCs, so that the visualised quota figure is only 8.6 per cent short. Does this difference justify reservations or do we need to be looking elsewhere to empower the remaining 8.6 per cent of the OBCs?

Furthermore, OBCs can be categorised along with Dalits, SCs and STs, for whom reservation can perhaps be explained - or the status quo urged to be maintained until another alternative is devised - since the discrimination against them, over the centuries was qualitatively different. OBCs, on the other hand, have enjoyed both political power and land and these two basic advantages should disqualify them to benefit from reservation quotas. So, the suspicious timing of Arjun Singh's decision to provide separate quotas for the OBCs seems obviously intended to be a political manoeuvre for boosting the UPA government's prospects in the forthcoming assembly elections in UP.

What else is wrong with the reservation policy? There are undoubtedly urban elites who have entered this debate out of concern for their prospects of gaining admission into preferred educational institutions; this is not the perspective being argued here. Pratap Bhanu Mehta's resignation letter from the Knowledge Commission highlights some of the problems with the government's decision. The Knowledge Commission was designed to review the knowledge potential of the country and assist in creating a society empowered by knowledge. However, Arjun Singh's efforts will only take us back several steps and detract from the basic principles underlying the creation and maintenance of a knowledge society. Furthermore, reservations will politicise education, while going against the freedom and autonomy of educational institutions.

Social justice is a familiar theme in this debate; while rehashing this issue, it is apparent that reservations based on caste do not aid social justice, but reinforces the idea of caste and divides people. The real issue is not the lack of equal opportunity; ironically, the dispute over caste has further accentuated this lack of equal opportunity. And, if the issue is social justice, how about making economic situation the criterion for reservation? This would serve as a more just criterion to provide genuine opportunity to the underprivileged. Further, if reservation-quota policies are implemented over the years, what about the large majority community of the population that does not belong to the urban elite or any of the quota categories? Their chances of gaining admittance to central institutions stand close to zero. Therefore, what is this social justice we keep harping on? Reservation schemes based on caste cannot succeed in bring about social justice and equality. They exacerbate the problem, and if reservations must continue, they must be based on economic criteria alone.

Institutions like the IITs and IIMs are world class institutions that should specifically be kept out of quotas, though not affirmative action, in the name of excellence. In response to the protests, the government has promised to increase the number of available seats in these institutions over a period of time. However, most institutions in their current state do not have the infrastructure to support an increase in seats. Even the IITs are facing a problem in hiring qualified faculty to maintain their high standards.

By stipulating reservation quotas for the OBCs the government is indulging in 'tokenism' and seeking an easy solution to a difficult problem while washing its hands off the real issues involved, to pave a short and easy path to the vote banks. Our silence on the matter is far more dangerous than reiterating repetitive arguments. The difficulty in providing an alternative does not resolve the problems confronting the government's current proposal, but reflects our own inability to proceed beyond existing paradigms, to challenge the government's electoral politics and its persistent mockery of the thinking, well-meaning citizen.