India has the longest history of affirmative action programs in the world and they have become the center of heated controversy between two clashing viewpoints. On one hand are followers of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who was responsible for making an affirmative action program targeting the untouchable castes legally enshrined in the constitution. On the other hand, there is the viewpoint of those who advocate the abolition of these caste-based quotas in government jobs without advocating for other reforms that a libertarian would advocate to ensure the minimization of caste-based atrocities and fair treatment of all citizens under the law.
Context and History
Caste-based quotas were not first introduced by Dr. Ambedkar. They arose first in the Indian state of Maharashtra in the context of a power-feud between the King of the Maratha empire named Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaja and his predominantly Brahmin advisors who refused to accept the legitimacy of his rule on account of him not belonging to the warrior caste. To break the dominance of Brahmins in the advisory council, he declared that certain posts would be set aside to be filled only by members of the working castes.
Fast forward to the dawn of Indian independence from colonial rule. India was to become a parliamentary democracy. But many leaders sensed that this democracy was soon going to devolve into majority rule with the resultant drowning out of the voices of minority groups. The demographics were as follows: roughly three fourths of the population was of Hindus, while the remainder was composed of mainly Muslims; 25 percent of Hindus belonged to priestly caste, warrior caste, and merchant caste combined; 50 percent comprised the working castes, and another 25 percent composed of untouchable castes and tribals. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar—representing the untouchables—demanded separate electorates for them. Mahatma Gandhi is said to have gone on a fast unto death upon hearing the idea of separate electorates. When he broke his fast, separate electorates were dead.
Reservation of seats for untouchables was instituted in the Indian legislature with the Poona pact. These quotas were later extended for all government jobs and for all state-run as well as privately-run educational institutions and were later extended to the working castes (25 percent quota) making up 50 percent of the Hindu population with the Mandal commission. Recently, quotas in educational institutions have been set aside for members belonging to poor households having income below a defined level. There are also very small nominal quotas for dependents of deceased army members, dependents of dead freedom fighters, quotas for tribals belonging to the north-eastern parts of India, and finally, physically handicapped candidates. There is also some agitation for the extension of these quotas to the private sector. Less than 50 percent of the seats in universities, whether state-run or private, are filled on the basis of merit—25 percent quotas being allocated to the untouchables and working castes each. Tempers on all sides are high at present with frequent acts of vandalism committed on statues of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and caste-based atrocities committed largely against untouchable castes on one hand and pro-quota rallies and caste-riots on the other. Inter-caste fraternity is only a distant dream at present.
The Argument for Caste-Based Quotas
The first is the compensation argument. Untouchability in India has a long history, from 500 AD onward. The untouchables were confined to lowly jobs irrespective of talent like cremating dead bodies, cleaning sewers, as bonded agricultural laborers, etc. Education in ancient India was primarily oral and imparting instruction to an untouchable was forbidden. Their mere touch was considered “polluting.” They were not allowed to share public property with the other castes such as roads, public wells, etc. Now, the present-day descendants of these untouchable castes argue as follows: We want reparations for unpaid labor, violent injustice spanning over millennia, and systematic denial of education. These quotas are compensation for what our ancestors and we ourselves have suffered and to a certain extent continue to suffer today.
The next is the equity argument. The untouchable castes suffer from a major historical setback. If the descendants of the other castes have more money than untouchables and enjoy a privileged position with respect to them, it makes sense to introduce measures that make sure that the starting-point of everyone in the competition for various jobs is equal. Everyone deserves an equal and fair chance at life. In other words, there should be equal opportunities for everyone.
Last is the proportional representation argument. Untouchables and tribals are underrepresented in various branches of government and quotas are a means to correct this situation so that they get a fair shot at influencing public policy.
The Arguments against Caste-Based Quotas
Against the compensation argument, it is argued that compensation in order to conform to justice must fulfill certain basic criteria: the compensation must be given by an individually-identified culprit and received by an individually-identified victim. The amount of compensation must be of a finite value, decided after due consideration of the amount stolen or the extent of human rights violation. The problem is caste-based quotas—implemented once and forever—create beneficiaries and people who face losses without any set limit on the amount of compensation paid. The beneficiaries and the people suffering losses are not identified individually but rather communally. Giving untouchables compensation by making some of them state employees is thus a dubious way to achieve just compensation because some untouchables will always remain non-members of the state and their situation remains unchanged. Monetary reparations for recent caste-based crimes paid on an individual-to-individual basis are far better at compensating for injustices suffered.
Moving over to the equity argument, quotas in educational institutions and employment don’t create equal opportunity for the advantaged and disadvantaged alike. For the quota is filled by untouchables who must compete among themselves to fill up the vacant slots. But the individuals competing for these reserved slots are not equal in wealth, prior education, and talent. The government of India has recognized this and has tried to provide further alleged corrections by excluding the wealthier and better-educated working castes from scholarship benefits creating a so-called “creamy layer.” But how many creamy layers of different gradations would one need to create in order to ensure perfectly equal access to opportunities?
One can argue that caste-quotas do not eliminate the inequality but lessen it and hence are to be preferred. Let us examine this claim. Career opportunities have to be created before distribution. Now, we know that relatively unskilled workers and students who would not have been accepted in the absence of quotas are now welcomed into the educational system and the workplace. Certainly, for the beneficiaries, inequality of opportunity is reduced. But what is the long run effect for everyone, as Henry Hazlitt would say? At the workplace, these lesser-skilled workers will now take more time to learn their work along with greater expenses. As they ascend through the ranks with the help of quotas, they will remain less skilled with respect to their peers who have made it on merit. The segment of work under their charge will grow more slowly in revenue than would have otherwise been the case. This holds irrespective of status. What does it mean for a business to grow? It means, among other things, more investment of money and manpower. The slower a business grows, the slower will be investment in manpower and hence the job growth will slow down. Thus, in the long run, caste-based quotas in employment will benefit some people but only by reducing the growth of new jobs just as wealth redistribution benefits some but with the cost of reducing the overall wealth of the society considered as a whole.
Moreover, involvement of the state in the selection process for educational candidates and career opportunities creates perverse incentives and leaves the door wide open for corruption. Is there a better way?
Yes, there is. Charitable schools for educating the disadvantaged, but hard-working and talented individuals. Vocational training may be offered to unskilled workers in return for a service term, abolishing copyright laws, etc. The possibilities multiply as one uses one’s imagination. Overall, whenever there is a healthy amount of competition among employers for prospective employees, irrational criteria like race and caste are set aside in favor of efficiency and revenue-generation because disgruntled but able employees may easily find a fairer and more generous employer.
We now move to the proportional representation argument. There are better ways to achieve proportional representation than quotas. One could decentralize decision-making power down to the village level and allow individual villages to frame their own policies. Villages with high proportions of untouchable population will be able to set their own policies and would thereby not be excluded from the political decision-making process.
Conclusion
India needs a strong dose of free-market or voluntary/charitable solutions for its social problems. The problem of untouchability is no different.
