Reservations in the private sector. Will it work?

“Reservations legitimises demerit”

--Gurucharan Das, author and public commentator

In simple terms, reservations may be seen as an invariable consequence of years of systematic discrimination on the grounds of class, caste, colour, creed and/or gender. It would not be an exaggeration to state that caste has been an undeniable reality in India. It may be termed as a historical “wrong” today but no one can deny its existence. The question to be asked, then, is whether reservation in any sector—public or private—was a logical outcome of the caste reality in India. Though reservations were introduced in the early 30’s, they were formalised only in the latter half of the 20th century. In 1989, the V. P. Singh government decided to implement the recommendations put forward by the Mandal Commission, granting reservation for OBC’s (Other Backward Classes). However, Tamil Nadu was an exceptional State as it offered 75% reservation for the backward castes. This led to heavy protests which compelled the Supreme Court to intervene and give a final verdict that the total reservation for government jobs in any State shall not exceed 50%. In 2004, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) promised to provide reservations in the private sector in its National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) igniting debates and arguments from across the nation as to whether reservations in the private sector will work and if they should be introduced at all.


Before analysing anything about that, we first need to understand why and how reservations came into effect and how efficient and fruitful has it been in its current form. As mentioned earlier, reservations is usually seen as an attempt to correct a historical wrong done to our country—caste discrimination. By providing reservations for a certain section of society marred due to its social and more often than not, economic status as well, it emerges as a potential tool to erase years of oppression and discrimination meted out to certain sections of society and attain the constitutional aim of attaining “social justice”. People who support this concept often cite the example of Tamil Nadu, a state that (possibly) has maximum inhabitants belonging to backward castes. There have been instances of OBCs outshining “forward” classes in the Southern state of India.


When it comes to introducing reservations in the private sector, one has to look at how successful it has been in the public sector. Past experiences and examples have shown how reservations remains a reality only on paper and how the actual backward sections, who are meant to benefit from it, hardly get to reap them as it is often the “creamy” layer who gets the entire cake. If the idea is to attain social justice, the opposite has been true as truly deserving candidates are rarely benefitted from these quotas with rich, powerful “backward” people enjoying all the privileges entitled to them on the grounds of their caste identity. Of course a generalization on the success rate of reservations cannot be thoroughly made. But going by the current situation in India, it would not be wrong to say that attaining social justice is a commendable and ambitious aim that is yet to be achieved and reservations have not helped in any significant way.


The most obvious and common argument against reservations in any sector is that in the process of its implementation, it compromises merit. However, this may not always be true. Malaysia is an interesting case in point. It is an example of a country which has combined a restrictive form of reservation with remarkable economic growth for several decades now. The Indian private sector, consisting of an overwhelming number of MNCs, obviously doesn’t have a tarnish-free image. Notorious for employing people on large discriminatory grounds and a place that is increasingly being seen as a space of red-tapism (often associated with the government and not the private sector), reservations in the private sector seems to be a “social necessity”, as Dr. K. Vidyasagar Reddy argues in his essay. If inheritance, contacts and other social networks determines an individual’s job prospects, reservations for the socially deprived seems to be a necessary corrective measure in order to set things right and give equal opportunity for all.


In one of his earlier interviews, Ram Vilas Paswan, President of Lok Janshakti Party, had once said: “Reservation in the private sector is necessary and inevitable.” His argument is that since tribals, Dalits and other backward castes have neither land nor business, this has resulted in their heavy dependence on government jobs whose number is reducing with each passing day. With no vacant seats left in the public sector, there is no other space except the private sector left for them to look at. Post-liberalization, many public sectors were also privatised. Thus, there is no other way out but to introduce reservations in the private sector in order to achieve two main targets—one, address the problem of unemployment, and two, an attempt to provide equal opportunities for all. But, this remains more like a thing to be read rather than a thing to be seen in action.


Once reservation is introduced in the private sector, “efficiency” is most likely to be affected. What separates and differentiates the private sector from the public sector is this USP that the former boasts of, the reason for which is considered to be absence of reservations. When there is no reservation, there is no discrimination; the very concept of reservations perpetuates caste discrimination. Another argument is that it further weakens the democratic notion of social justice, as reservations evaluate a person on the basis of his/her caste and not merit. Quota implies a denial to the right to equality. Caste prioritises merit, when, ideally, it should be the other way round as far as jobs are concerned. A person’s caste may be decided and decisive but his/her merit is something that the person acquires during the course of his/her life. And by introducing reservations now even in the private sector, merit is definitely seen as secondary which, in effect, is very likely to affect efficiency.


If reservations are introduced in the private sector, it will be difficult for the companies to get rid of non-performing personnel simply because the employee has come because of reservation. This holds good for the public sector as well. Introducing reservations in the private sector would also invariably imply interference of the government as well as politics into management affairs. The productivity as well as the competitive edge that distinguishes the private from the public may get heavily affected. The move could also result in brain drain—a phenomenon which is not new to our country that is already witnessing students leaving India and deciding to go abroad to foreign universities for higher education, only to almost never come back. Reservations in the private sector could also make international clients suspicious and sceptical about the quality of products made in India, and this might lead to a setback in export business. The government has to keep in mind that the quality and credibility of any product and/or company is not affected as that would defeat the very purpose of introducing reservations in the first place.


Paswan made an interesting pointing when asked about his opinion on reservations. “Reservation should be ended if there are equal opportunities for all,” he said. As one knows, attaining equal opportunities for all can be the utopian ideal and target to be achieved in order to attain the constitutional aim of “social justice.” Given that caste has been a reality and there have been years of systematic discrimination and prejudice owing to social discrimination, reservations seems to be the only way out to correct what has been historically gone wrong. However, since reservations have not been really been a success in providing government jobs to “truly deserving candidates” belonging to backward castes, introducing them in the private sector just seems to be an ambitious project that is very likely to go wrong and possibly, also backfire.

Poor, pregnant, prostituted

By Deepa Ranganathan   

Covered from head to toe in a black burqa, her face looks tired. Her eyes are moist as she fights tears. She rubs them every time she mentions she is a sex worker.

Fatima*, a 20-year-old resident of Yeshwantpur and a sex worker “by chance and not by choice,” as she puts it, is a typical example of a woman who was driven into the sex trade as a result of being caught in a bad marriage.

Married at the age of 17, Fatima was impregnated by her husband, whom she describes as “a drunkard,” months after their marriage. He abandoned her last year, but has continued to demand sex and impregnated her again five months ago. Poverty forced her into this profession. Her 18-month-old old son, who hardly knows what his father looks like, is the only hope left in her life, she said.

She pulls her veil back to reveal her left ear, which is stitched at the top—a mark left a few days ago, when her husband assaulted her. A victim of a marriage gone wrong, Fatima is a pregnant mother with no money to have an abortion or raise another child.

And with sex work, she is invariably exposed to all the dangers of the job—the risk of being infected with HIV being the biggest one. If there is one thing she can be thankful for, it is the fact that she did not test positive when she took the HIV test four months ago. But this relief may be short-lived as there is uncertainty attached to the result of the report. She is in a job that can infect her with the deadly virus anytime, and even safe sex practices can sometimes fail.

5 million HIV cases in India

Sex workers, like eunuchs and transgenders, are one of the high-risk groups most prone to contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Other high-risk groups include men who have sex with men, migrants and truck drivers, among urban poor, according to HIV/AIDS specialists.

According to the latest National AIDS Control Organization report, India has an estimated 5.1 million cases of HIV, the second-largest per capita number in the world, and Karnataka is one of four large states of southern India, along with Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, with a relatively advanced HIV epidemic. The adult HIV prevalence in several districts has exceeded 1 percent for the past nine years, according to Karnataka State AIDS Prevention Society (KSAPS) statistics. 

People living with HIV and AIDS are often victims of stigma and social discrimination, regardless of their economic status. But being poor adds to the misery an HIV-infected person faces in society. Though not affected by the virus yet, Fatima is a case in point. Abandoned by her husband and living with a family that already has to feed three other mouths, she is struggling to make ends meet.

The KSAPS statistics show that out of a total of 1,127 people tested in the Yeshwantpur area alone this year from January to September, 29 have been identified as HIV-positive. How many of them are sex workers is unknown as KSAPS does not maintain records on the basis of the economic status of the patient, only on age and gender. Fatima belongs to the high-risk 25-34 age group.

“Given the very nature of their job, sex workers are the most vulnerable lot of the high-risk population. And since their entire economy depends on sexual activity with multiple partners, the aim of spreading AIDS awareness becomes all the more necessary and challenging,” said Dr. Vijay Inamdar, a consultant for HIV-TB, KSAPS.

Bhoruka Charitable Trust (BCT), a nongovernmental organization supported and funded by KSAPS and under the supervision of the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, launched its Female Sex Workers HIV-testing program in 2005, when an estimated 4,400 sex workers were identified for the project. For the current year, the target is to test 2,729 sex workers.

A BCT report says 26 women, who are all members of the Karnataka Sex Workers’ Union, tested positive out of 1,195 tested in Integrated and Counseling Testing Centers between May 2009 and August 2010.

Deepa Vasanthkumar, program officer and counselor at BCT, said: “Even if a sex worker has tested negative for HIV, it certainly does not rule out the possibility of their acquiring it in the near future, given that the nature of their work invariably involves multiple partners. We try and educate them about safe sex practices and distribute free condoms, asking them to insist their clients to use the same.”

‘It’s all about the money’

Sometimes clients lure sex workers into unsafe sex practices by offering them more money in exchange for not wearing a condom during the intercourse—an act that puts them doubly at risk.

“What do you do in such a scenario? You’re getting more money at the cost of your life. It becomes a matter of priority then. Often, money wins over almost everything,” Fatima said. But she says she has not yet faced this problem with her clients.

“I tell them about HIV, how it can spread to both the partners, and brief them about its fatal consequences. That usually scares them into wearing a condom,” she said.

Fatima, too, might get infected someday, given the risk factor involved in her profession, but she says she fears some things more than AIDS. If she doesn’t work, her child goes hungry.

“I don’t wish to do this work,” she said. “But who will support my fatherless child? Which other job can fetch me 1,000 bucks in an hour? And that, too, isn’t enough. It’s all about the money.”

*Name changed to protect the individual's identity
_________________________________________________________________

Link to the above article is here

5 things you should know before dating a journalist

One of the BEST things I've read in recent times. A MUST READ

5 things you should know before dating a journalist

How fair is to be 'fair'?

-By Deepa Ranganathan


His identity is defined by the colour of his skin: an unforgettable dark. He can’t get the right job, the right girl or the right confidence owing to the darkness of his skin. His self-esteem and he probably even feels emasculated.



Boom! Then enters the fairness cream, the religious usage of which, for six weeks, will guarantee a fair, glowing skin—the one thing required to get that right job in the office, to impress the ever-annoyed boss, to woo that one elusive girl in his life who suddenly begins to notice him thanks to his “fair” skin (pun intended).

No, this is not a fake, made-up story, but an actual narration of what the advertisements on these fairness creams for men portray in order to sell their product. Forget about the ads and the success level of these products; what is more interesting to note is this sudden growing obsession of men, particularly youths, with fairness cream products.


Whiteness sells

To say that fairness creams never ruled the market would be too naive and simplistic a conclusion. According to trade analysts, men’s fairness products are valued at Rs.30 million and constitutes 35 percent of the market for men’s beauty products. What has now emerged is an increasingly growing popularity among urban youth and the involvement of men in the market of fairness creams—a domain that was once restricted and meant exclusively for women. Traditionally, women have been expected to be physically appealing, which is closely linked to another booming market—marriage—and hence the need for such enhancing products. But gradually the marketing industry is noticing the sale and growth of fairness creams for men as well. According to a recent report, the men’s fairness products market is estimated at Rs.1.75 billion (nearly $40 million) and is growing at the rate of 25 percent annually, while the women’s fairness market is growing at 7 to 8 percent.


This raises some serious questions. Does the earlier notion of “tall, dark and handsome” no longer hold true, as far as “dark” is concerned? Why is there such an obsession with the need to look fair? Why is there an almost instinctive association of positivity and goodness with white and negativity and badness with black? What is this white-black dichotomy and how deep-rooted is it? The question thus raised is not whether such creams are useful or serve the purpose of lightening the colour of the skin, but whether men ought to be using things traditionally seen as feminine and how such products perpetuate colour discrimination.


Ads play on inferiority complex


A strong argument in favour of men using such creams is too obvious to be ignored: that it’s a matter of personal choice, that it complements the lifestyle of what is popularly termed as metrosexual. According to the definition provided by Merriam-Webster, metrosexual is “a usually urban heterosexual male given to enhancing his personal appearance by fastidious grooming, beauty treatments, and fashionable clothes.” But, the fact that the man is using a fairness cream and not just any other moisturizer, sun block or anti-aging cream speaks volumes about the inherent need to look fair, possibly arising out of a deep-rooted inferiority complex.


Coming back to the advertisement of the fairness creams, it is interesting to note that the ads, too, play on this inferiority complex. Going by what they show, the man is unconfident of his looks, talent, his real calibre and worth primarily because of the colour of his skin, which is dark. Thus, consequently, what the ad implies is that fair skin brings with itself not only better looks, but also confidence and success. Isn’t the ad derogatory to people with dark skin, as it categorizes them as a bunch of low, dull, rejected and pitiable souls? And we haven’t even spoken about looks here yet.


The central question that so emerges is: How fair is it to use a fairness cream, more so by a man? India and Sri Lanka have the biggest market when it comes to fairness cream products for men and women. In India alone, this market is worth a whopping Rs.7 billion. It is no wonder that the ads for these creams are coming up with innovative ideas like never before: a bit player getting the role of a lead actor, transformation from a rejected lover to a male heartthrob, getting employed at a top-notch company that chooses its employees by judging their confidence (which is suddenly upped by regularly applying the cream). The list goes on and on, while the obsession seems to be never-ending.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Link to the above article is here

Of freedom and expression

Following is the assignemnt I wrote for my Law and Ethics class...thought this would be a good platform to share it:

__________________________________________________

Arundhati Roy’s latest public speech has landed her in yet another controversy, with critics accusing her of having committed a crime of sedition, while those supporting her continue to defend her by justifying Freedom of Expression. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution clearly states that “all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” However, this seemingly liberal fundamental right, as guaranteed by the Constitution of India, also has certain limitations as mentioned under Article 19(2) which states that reasonable restrictions can be imposed on freedom of speech and expression in the interest of security of State. Since Ms. Roy has dared to express her opinion on something as controversial as the Kashmir conflict—an issue that has been existent for over six decades now (since independence)—she is being targeted more.



In her speech, Roy has very categorically stated that “Kashmir is not an integral part of India and that is a historical fact.” Historically, this is untrue, though the statement may be justified on the grounds that it is emerging out of a legitimate sentiment, a genuine feeling of ill-treatment towards the people of Kashmir. Roy, in her speech, has also raised a very significant question—“An independent Kashmiri nation may be a flawed entity, but is independent India perfect?” There are two things to be noted here: firstly, this is a rhetoric statement, and, secondly, it is subjective, thus inviting multiple opinions and viewpoints. Since it is a personal opinion, there are bound to be disagreements. However, since the statement is on nation state, there are possibilities of looking at it from Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.


In an interview with Tehelka, Roy has made it clear that more than her opinion and/or interpretation of azadi, it is the people of Kashmir whose opinion matters. Roy advocating for Azad Kashmir is no different from the claims and causes of separatists like Geelani. However, it should be noted that Geelani is not the lone man fighting for Kashmir as a separate state. More than anyone else, it is the majority of Kashmiris, particularly the youth, fighting for this cause. For many such people who have been victims of a systematic system of corrupt and inefficient governance and administration in Jammu & Kashmir, Roy is probably a mouthpiece for their frustrated desires, expressed through pelting of stones. While I’m not supporting violence in any form by any one, when one looks at the barbaric and bloody history of Kashmir, one can at least understand the root cause for such a situation prompting the State to impose curfew every single time, with no effect.


Paromita Vohra, in her article published in Mid Day, Mumbai, says that Roy has simply voiced her opinion on a given topic, as “just another citizen of India.” The hullaballoo created in the entire nation over her statement is simply uncalled for. If anyone disagrees with what she has to say (which should be the case in an ideal democratic space, of which India is an ostensible example), there are ways to express discomfort, other than simply cornering, targeting or hurling abusive words at her. As Vohra rightly states: “On your blog, in a letter to the editor, in a Facebook note, in any language…prove her wrong,”


When Roy has made any such statement, the question is not whether she is right or wrong. The question is how well we can take it. Do we create a hullabaloo and advocate strikes and bandhs, burning her effigies (almost our area of specialization after 60 years of democracy)? Or do we listen, understand, form our own argument to counter her (if need be) and express it in as dignified and acceptable form, as she did?

To conclude, it would be best to sum it up with what The Hoot's editorial has to say about this:
" When you raise your voice a little too stridently against injustice in India’s districts you invite charges of sedition."__________________________________________________