PDS and Reservations

The constitution of India authorizes the state to provide various opportunities to the backward classes in terms of their education, employment, social status and so on. Various govts. over the period of 60 years have sought to implement these provisions. Numerous commissions were set up to look into the operational aspects of these provisions. The basic underlying factor which guided the reports of these commissions was to provide Reservations.


The prime reason for reservations is to provide a level playing field to the different sections of the society. These sections can be classified based on any of the viable criteria like caste, religion, economic status, gender, regions and so on. The census data presents statistics for caste, religion, gender and regions but never has there been a census with an accurate data on the economic status of the citizens.

There are obvious difficulties in collecting the data on economic status compared to the caste, religion or regional data. 92% of the workforce in India is in the unorganised sector which makes it almost impossible to track their economic development. But rich or poor, literate or illiterate, north indian or south indian, all are bound by caste and religion in this country. This makes it a very easy criteria to provide reservations.

In reality, under the veil of reservations the political parties have played vote bank politics. In the name of upliftment they encouraged regionalism and casteism. Yes, there were many beneficiaries of these provisions who have improved their economic status, but even after 60 years of independence, this system has not provided a level playing field for all.

The present state of poverty in India can be attributed to the weak public distribution system (PDS), apart from other important factors like low agricultural productivity, erratic monsoons, lack of access to agricultural credit and lack of proper storage facilities leading to wastage. The way out to strengthen the PDS is have a clear statistics about the BPL and APL beneficiaries so that PDS can be targeted directly to them. Even today, we do not have a clear line drawn for the below poverty line (BPL). There are differences in the findings of Arjun sen gupta committee (72%) and Tendulkar committee (42%) approx.

This seems to be a clear cut strategy of the govt. not to provide the basic rights to the people i.e food security. When the govt. can afford to provide reservations to the poor on the basis of caste and religion, why not then provide food again on the same basis? Why look out for an economic criteria like monthly salary, expenditure on education, food and health which seems to be an impossible basis taking into account the lack of proper statistics?

If economic criteria seems to be the correct way of providing services to the people then why not extend it even to other areas like education, employment, political reservations and so on?

Reservation for the Untouchables !!!

We are a country of paradoxes. As I was studying polity I came across Article 17 of our constitution which speaks of abolishing Untouchability. I realised that practicing untouchability is a punishable offence but the greatest paradox is that practicing caste system is not.While we have abolished untouchability, we have promoted backwardness through reservations for various groups. I fail to understand the difference between the two social stigmas.


Looks like the only difference they make is with their potential vote banks to the power greedy politicians. Unlike untouchability, being in a backward caste has turned out to be of a great advantage. Why can't we abolish even the caste system and have a caste free society?


The irony is that the constitution has become least significant for an ‘Indian’ than for anyone else, after 60 years of India being a republic, because of misinterpretation. 
I am lost pondering over my identity while filling up application forms for various educational institutions and Govt. jobs. Columns like ‘community’ and ‘Gender’ find their places before ‘Nationality’. Is this what the term Equality in Art 14 of the constitution means? 


Today political parties quote, “Our party is a secular party…we give
equal representation to all religious sections of the society.”

Whereas a secular party must quote, “we do not represent any religion,
we have only Indians and we treat all the citizens as Indians and
their problems as ours.” 

Democracy is a utopian idea to an average Indian who does not see himself as a part of policy making in nation building. Sovereignty is lost to the capitalists and mean politicians. 


Today I am seen either as a Marathi or Telugu, as a supporter of Andhra or Telangana. 
I am waiting for the day when I’ll be recognized as an Indian in India.  


Comments are welcome. 

Basics of the basics-part 1

Over the years India has produced many stalwarts in the field of education, medicine and every other field which finds mention in the list of top rated jobs. Unfortunately the basics have been forgotten regarding the basic requirements of a human being. For us to survive on this earth we need drinking water, food, clothes, shelter. In short roti, kapada aur makan. The order of priority is also same.

Approx. 37% of our population (stats by Tendulkar committee 2009) is below poverty line (BPL). 41.2% people are just above poverty line (APL). i.e these APL people live on approx. between Rs 11 to Rs 25/day/person. i.e BPL families live on less than Rs 11/day/person. Arjun sen gupta committee in 2007 reported that 77% of the population spends less than Rs 20/day.

I have not mastered economics but i have a basic idea regarding the needs of a person living in this country amidst the towering prices of the commodities. Having done my own little amateur calculations, I found that     Rs 25/day/person is the approx. value to draw the poverty line for with this amount, an avg. person in India can fulfill all his basic needs (not wants). Thus I find Arjun sen gupta committee's figures more realistic.

Hunger and Illness are body bound rather than status bound. Rich and poor both feel the same hunger and pain.
Govt. has framed various schemes like National rural health mission 2005, Janani suraksha yojana and many more in the health sector and National food security Act 2007, Rashtriya krishi vikas yojana and many in the food sector. But the benefits have reached only a few. The Health insurance scheme seems to be more beneficial to the doctors than the patients.

80% of the ailments in India are due to 5 major factors. Malnutrition, lack of proper sanitation, pollution, stress and lack of clean drinking water. The pvt. sector hospitals concentrate only on profit earning ailments which are not common among the Aam Admi. By privatising the health care, our govt. is shrugging off its responsibility of providing the basic needs to the poor. All it has to do is to provide clean drinking water and proper sanitation.

Countries like Costa Rica, U.K stand as an example for us as to how a govt. can provide basic facilities to its citizens. In Costa Rica working population pays 15% of their salary to the health care. Thus it provides free health care to all its citizens irrespective of their status. Private hospitals in India will not go for prevention activities as they are not profit earning like curative ones.

Food is a very important issue. More on it in the next article.

Path versus Goal

The whole conflict between Gandhi and Bhagat can be reduced to a generic debate between path and goal. For Gandhi it was Non violence (path) which was more important and for Bhagat it was Freedom (goal).

But then the question to ask is What was more important among the two for India? 


I ask another question. Were we truly ready for freedom? At the dawn of freedom, I am sure there would have been women and children who would have died of Hunger and Malnutrition. There would have been thousands of people who were left unprotected and poor. There would have been thousands of farmers under huge debts of their land lords.


All we got was just a political freedom without social and economic freedom. We were still caught in the web of social stigmas like caste system, sati system, child marriage and so on. Our farmers were grilled day and night by our own people from the rich community i.e land lords. Poor farmers were still paying high taxes to these neo rulers.


Britishers left us high and dry to cope with our own poverty and helplessness. What Gandhi and Bhagat were fighting was for political freedom but with a difference. Bhagat was inspired by Russian revolution and turned a revolutionary. But Gandhi was experienced in these movements as he succeeded in South Africa.


I personally feel that since Gandhi was an experienced player, he should have helped Bhagat come out of his ideology. Instead, by outrightly condemning the acts of violence in chauri chaura and by putting an abrupt end to the almost won battle of Non cooperation movement, he sent a wrong signal to all the youth of India.

I completely support Gandhi for his social and economic movements all over India like Khadi weaving, Self reliant village programs, fighting untouchability and other social stigmas. It was first of its kind. This struggle of Gandhi was for our social and economic freedom which took a back seat, the moment we gained political freedom.


Therefore I personally feel that it is more important to gain Social and Economic freedom first before we can fight for our political sovereignty.

So finally who is correct?  I feel Gandhi should not have concentrated on political freedom at all. He should have put all his energy onto social and economic building of the nation. He gave undue importance for nonviolence and distracted the whole movement. He should have left the political struggle to others like Bhagat and Subhash who would have hastened the movement towards success.


The present situation in India has its roots in the incomplete social and economic struggles. If only we would have waited for these movements to succeed, the situation would have been completely different. 


Organisations are born out of Civilizations. Politics is born out of Organizations. Therefore, if the society is civilised, the politics born out of it would automatically be honest and ethical. Therfore, first change the society to change the politics.

Revisiting History

Before we can make history, we must revisit it to find out the mistakes committed by them and the success stories written by them, so that we learn from those mistakes and follow their success path.
It is with this intention that i try to bring out some comparisons between India's freedom struggle and present political scenario.

The first sign of freedom struggle was observed in the sepoy mutiny in 1857 revolt. Though the revolt was suppressed, it had a great impact on British East India Co. (EIC). The control was shifted from EIC to the Crown through the Govt.of India Act of 1858. The Governor General was designated as Viceroy under the Secretary of State who sat in Britain.


The main reasons for the failure of the revolt was 'Disunity'. every group fought, but separately and with a separate motives. Sepoy fought for their rights in the army. Princely states fought for their sovereignty. Peasants revolted because of the heavy taxes that were being levied on them. Thus the British could easily suppress us.

The first sign of unified struggle was seen in the formation of Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885. But again their were different opinions among the leaders regarding the way of struggle. Based on this, they grouped themselves into moderates and extremists and split in 1906 surat session after the Partition of Bengal in 1905.
It was again in 1916 lucknow session that they joined again.But the damage was already done. Their was wide spread Hindu- Muslim disunity because of the formation Muslim League in 1906. It was further aggravated by the Minto-Morley reforms which introduced for the first time separate electorate for the Muslims (Foundation stone for reservations).

It was only after the entry of M.K.Gandhi (The hero enters) in 1920 that the Hindus and Muslims were united again for a common cause. It took a great deal of effort on part of Gandhiji  to unite both the groups. The problem starts here!!!

There were revolutionaries who were becoming impatient because of Gandhiji's Non violent protests. The chauri chaura act brought the whole Non Cooperation Movement to an end.

I personally condemn Gandhi for this. I understand that violence is not the way to get freedom, but what if the silent marches go unheard??? I recently read one book written by Gandhi for students, in which he terms the acts of Bhagat Singh as Terrorism. I ask him, has he ever seen a terrorist?

A terrrorist is one who kills innocent people who have done no harm to him to put forth his point.
Bhagat never ever killed people. He assassinated a British Officer. They were very cautious while attacking also. There is no comparison between a terrorist and a patriot like Bhagat. Jallianwala bagh massacre was an act of terrorism.

Now coming back to present day situation, we have telangana movement being compared to the National struggle. Students are being asked to leave their studies to join the movement similar to the student movements in 1947. I fail to understand which act is correct? I see no difference between 1947 and 2010...but still i feel that 1947 was justified but 2010 is politcised... someone plz elaborate on this...