Of Reservation, Merit and Distributive Justice

The Backward Classes in Contemporary India by Andre Beteille

Review by: Ghanshyam Shah
Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 28, No. 15 (Apr. 10, 1993), pp. 633-635
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4399578 .
Accessed: 25/03/2012 17:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWS

Of Reservation, Merit and

Distributive Justice
Ghanshyani Shah
The Backward Classes in Contemporary Indlia by Andre Beteille; Oxford
University Press, Delhi, 1992; pp 117, Rs 110.

caste. Pro-reservationists demand affirmative action to give concessions to those

members of the deprived communities
who have been systematically denied access to the modern sectors despite their
qualifications. It is their social status that
has been the stumbling block. Therefore,
in a given situation, they have to demand
caste-based reservation. However, Beteille
is right that "protectivediscriminationcan
and should seek to satisfy present needs,
it can do nothing to repair past injuries"

themselves and "the discrimination which

the Brahmins practised against them was
in turn practised by the superior Shudras
(p 19).
against inferior" (p 5).
One of the central arguments of the
It is Andre Beteille'scontention that life
book is that in modern society an indi- chances are not related to caste. A rich
vidual and his merits be given "a place in Brahmin and rich Koli (OBC) or a poor
Brahmin and poor Harijan have equal
the centre".An individual is a citizen and
he should be treated as an individual qua chances in developing professional skills
individual. The author argues that "in the (education) and getting jobs. He asserts
context of Indian society, here and now, that employment is determined by imperwe must realise that the alternative to in- sonal laws of the market. One's life
dividualism may not be cherished dream chances are no longer determinedby one's
birth in a particularcaste. In other words,
of socialism, but a moral order in which
the individual is once again displaced by cultural values and social proximity are
clan, caste and community" (p 38). In- unimportant. Though I wish he were
position.
dividualism is closely associated with the
right, I am surprisedthat sociologists who
None would disagree with the author
meritarian principle which takes indi- more often than not talk about culture,
that no society can move forward unless
vidual alone into account, ignoring the
now have begun to emphasise economic
it sets for itself an ideal of achievement
factors alone. Ground level reality, as of
group or community to which he belongs.
that is superior to the present reality. But
No society can prosper unless it gives an
today and given the manner in which the
such a new social order cannot be built
important place to the claims of indivi- country has developed in the last four and
in a vacuum. As he himself concedes, "no
dual merit (p 18). In a society where high a half decades, debunks this particular
society startson a clean slate, everysociety
value is placed on the individual, he is ex- brand of modernist theory. We must
has its historical legacy" (p 19). Policyrealise that market forces in the sluggish
pected to make his own life for himself
makers aiming at building a new social
and to be judged on his own merit, ir- Indian economy are not as strong as
order "cannot afford to lose touch with
Beteille would like to have them. They
respectiveof family or community (p 48).
social facts as they are"' What are these
This is an ideal which Beteille cherishes. have not disrupted completely the agrasocial facts? This calls for detailed studies
To be sure, those who demand casterian village economy, hence the social
of social complexities. Empirical evidence
structure has not turned topsy-turvy. In
based reservation also desire to have a
does not mean that one should get bogged
the villages people from the same caste
casteless society. They want equality and
down in it, but one cannot simply wish
not the caste system. They know very well but of different economic strata live
it away. One has to find out options at a
that continuity of the caste system is anti- together in the same localities. The patgiven point of time within an ideological
thetical to their own development. Their tern has changed somewhat in the urban
perspective. Beteille's options are within
fight is against the Brahminical ideology
areas. Persons from the same caste and
the framework of liberal democracy. He
which adheres to the principle of hierar- economic strata live together in the same
is not talking about fundamental changes
chy. It is too simplistic to depict pro- neighbourhood. Here the caste-class as a
in the economic and political structure.
cluster go together. Even in Gujarat,
reservationists, as the author does, as
It should be mentioned at the outset
claiming "that the state should distribute which is relatively a developed state, an
that Beteille supports reservation for
the benefits of education and employment OBC or a Muslim-not to speak of a
'Harijans', i e, scheduled castes, and
Harijan-finds it difficult to get a house
equitably between the different castes and
'Adivasis'i e, scheduled tribes, but not for
in predominantly upper caste localities.
communities" (p 50). Or that "the object
the Other Backward Classes-Castes
(OBCs). Backwardness of SCs and STs, of reservation is to provide equitable This pattern reinforces caste-based conrepresentation in them to all castes and
tacts, values and prejudices. A poor
according to him, is not solely a matter
communities" (p 83). Beteille caricatures Brahmin residing in a predominantly
of poverty. The former suffer from the
them as stupid enough to consider that
upper caste locality is likely to get help
stigma of pollution and the latter are exfrom middle class residents or rich casteterior to the largersociety. The disabilities "every institution (university, hospital,
that they suffered were "in each case imgovernment departments, etc) performs brethrento pursue studies or get more information which is relevant for the job
representativefunctions" (p 83), those of
posed on the community as a whole, and
not on individual members of particular. electoral bodies such as village panchayats market and also get contacts necessary to
improve life-chances, whereas such possi(p 75). Article 16(4) of the Constitution
communities" (p 35). This is not the case
uses the word 'adequate' and not 'equita- bilities are less for a poor Koli because he
with OBCs. They are a "residual category", and their position is highly "am- ble. And, SCs, STs,and OBCs are clusters lives in a neighbourhood having similar
economic and educational status. Thereof a number of castes/tribes and not one
biguous".' They are differentiated among

ANDRE BETEILLE is a leading

sociologist who has done considerable
work on caste and equality for now more
than thirty years. The major part of this
book, his two lectures delivered in 1980,
was first published in 1981. This book
adds his one more lectureon 'institutional
well-being' and appendices of eight articles previously published in newspapers
and journals. His position on the issue of
reservationremainsunchangedsince 1980.
He adds argumentswith a view to counter
pro-reservationists-policy-makers, intellectuals and pedestrians. He, however,
does not add evidence in support of his

Economic and Political Weekly

April 10, 1993

633

fore, a family which socialises a child is

also a part of neighbourhood and caste.
Andre Beteille is of course right that
because of various forces dissociation between caste and income, caste and occupation and caste and education has increased. From this he deduces that such a situation compels us "to take more and more
account of the needs of the individual irrespective of his caste, for his caste tells
us less and less about the total range of
his deprivation" (p 37). Such a sweeping
derivation is problematic.
There are differentiations within caste
Hindus as well as SCs and STs. But one
would expect a sociologist to tell us the
nature and extent of differentiation and
whether it is uniform among all castes. It
is by now well documented that persons
from upper castes have moved mainly to
businessand industry,modern professions
and white-collar jobs, whereas the lower
castes have moved to blue collar as well
as petty jobs in the organised and unorganised sectors. Only a few of the latter are
in white-collarjobs. For instance, in rural
Gujarat among the Vanias 50 per cent are
in agriculture (many of them are middle
or rich peasants), 30 per cent are in
btiiness, 10 per cent in professions and
h)ite-collarjobs and 3 per cent in agriWiltureor other labour. Whereas among
the Kolis 65 per cent are cultivators, a
majority of them small and marginal
farmers; less than one per cent each are
in business, white-collar jobs and professions; and 35 per cent are agricultural or
other labourers.The situation is not much
different in urban Gujarat. The condition
of Vagharis, Machhis and other OBCs is
worse than the Kolis. Thus, though differentiationsare there both in upper castes
as well as OBCs, their nature is qualitatively different which affects differently
their life chances. Unfortunately, whether
we like it or not, caste still tells us to
quite a larger degree the total range of
deprivation.

It is true that SCs being outside the

chaturvarna system suffer more than the
OBCs. But there are some castes who are
traditionally not treated as untouchables,
but who in practicesuffer from the stigma
and entry to many private and public
spheres has been denied to them. Many
of the OBCs are 'socially' and educationally in no way better off than SCs.
This is certainly so because of their poor
economic condition coupled with their occupation, but it is also because of their
traditional social status reinforcedby prejudices deep-rooted in the minds of the
upper castes.
Preiudices, though a socio-psychological construct, are closely related with
ceonomy and power. They reinforce each
other. The condition and life chances of
OBCs on the one hand and of the domi634

nant castes on the other cannot be understood in isolation from each other. One
would have expected a sociologist to examine OBCs in relation with the vested
interests of the dominant castes and the
mechanism- formal and informal-that
they have evolved to push back the new
entrants within their domain. Were the
anti-reservationists who launched their
struggle.in the streets in 1990 and earlier
really concerned with a modern society
based on meritocracy? This is not just a
question of caste status, but is primarily
a political issue-a conflict between those
who are in power and those who have
been so far denied access to economic and
political opportunitieson one or the other
pretext.
In a scenario where 'artificial barriers'
to free competition have not yet been
removedand who-knows-whom counts in
the distribution of benefits, the dominance of the upper and middle castes continues unabated. Individuals belonging to
OBCs are placed in a relatively disadvantageous position. The members of the upper castes sitting in decision-making
bodies consciously favour those whom
they know, who share similar-notions and
styles of discourse and behave in the expected manner. In this situation caste consideration is no less important. Of course
they get advantage not as a legal 'right'
but they enjoy privilege by virtue of their
traditional caste status which is in practice a.defacto right as of being a member
of the particular caste. That gives them
an edge over others.-Opportunities in the
modern sectors are limited for OBCs not
only because of their economic condition
but also their limited contacts with those
who distribute benefits and who happen
to belong to the upper castes. If the state
does not give them preference on caste
ground, the dominance of the upper
castes in the garb of the 'secular principle' would remain unchanged.
Andre Beteille himself has observed in
one of his earlier studies that the meaning
of caste keeps changing from context to
context. Its social and political meanings
are not the same. It should be noted that
the meaning of caste under affirmative
action is not the same as localised endogamous group, it is a cluster of several
castes called 'backward' or 'forward'.
Traditional boundaries of jati for social

interaction have expanded. For instance,

a Patanwadiya has become Koli and then
OBC in which many other similar jatis
have been included on the same footing.
It has political potentiality of evolving a
new identity as backward or deprived,
combining the SCs, STs and OBCs
together. Moreover,under affirmative action, a quota is not given to each caste,
hence a person from OBCs does not get
a position or admission just by virtue of
his/her caste irrespective of his/her
qualifications. Needless to say (though the
author gives a different impression), all
members from OBCs are not entitled to
get the benefit of reservation. It is meant
only for those who are qualified. And obviously in the present capitalist system,
only those can get qualification who can
study at least up to the twelfth standard
and only those can take education who
have some wealth. In an in-built inegalitarian educational structure, only tihose
get 'better' education who have more
wealth and contacts. In such a system even
a relativelywell-off OBC has the possibility to get left out as his access to elite
schools is still limited. In the prevailing
circumstances,caste under affirmative action is a category more for identification
rather than for legitimisation of caste
system as morally good or legally desirable. And whatever element of legitimacy
it has can further be weakened not by ignoring it but by evolving a mechanism of
dereservation. As I have mentioned elsewhere,2 once an individual gets certain
benefits under reservation, he should
cease to get further benefit; thus his/her
family gets dissociated (for this purpose)
from caste. Similar devices could be evolved to facilitate individual mobility and to
weaken caste solidarity. Beteille is right
that reservationof posts "beyond a point
becomes counter-productive when it
creates or reinforces the feeling that the
rights of the weak can be protected only
by those of their own caste".A mechanism
can be evolved to blur such feelings.
However,in the given economy and polity,
ignoringcaste on the excuse of modernisation would virtually strengthen the status
quo, allowing the dominance of upper
castes to be perpetuated.
Despite the availability of a large
number of historical and contemporary
studies that provide ample empirical

TABLE: HIGHE.ST
ANI) LOWEST1
PERCENTAGE
MARKSOF ADMITTEDSTUDENTSIN MEDICALCOLLEGES

Year

1970
1980
1990

Open Merit

OBC

SC

ST

86.50
99.33
99.00

69.66
88.66
90.50

75.83
97.66
96.83

67.00
86.66
92.00

67.16
87.33
93.00

45.50
67.66
80.00

55.33
79.66
82.00

45.83
50.66
48.00

Note: H = highest; [ - loscet.

.Source:See note 6 at end of review.

Economic and Political Weekly

April 10, 1993

evidences debunking the tradition-modernity dichotomy, Beteille does not wish to

re-eamine his own framework.He argues
that modern institutions have impersonal
laws, structure of rights and obligations,
sub-culture of their own with distinctive
set of ideas, beliefs and values. They are
opposite to values perpetuated by caste.
Recruitmentthrough 'distributivejustice'
on the basis of castes would damage
modern institutional culture and lead to
decline of these institutions. Even granting that the values and ethos of caste and
modern institutions are antithetical, to
assume that caste values would not change
or that values and structureof modern institutions are too weak to survive against
caste is a static view of a dynamic process.
It is well documented that caste associations have now undertaken functions of
modern institutions. Many institutions
such as hospitals, co-operative societies
and educational organisations managed
by caste or community associations are
managed as efficiently or inefficiently as
modern secular institutions. The textile
industry in Ahmedabad would not have
developed but for inflow of capital and
labour on caste and kinship connections.
R Gillion observes, "The managing agents
not only had their relatives as joint partners in the agency and as shareholders in
the company they managed but also
employed them on the business side as
well. Thus the caste system and joint family system found new avenues of expression in a modern context... Indeed, but for
the corporate spirit and confidence provided by these ties it is doubtful if
Ahmedabad could have industrialised to
the extent she did"3 I am not arguing to
justify caste ties. I am only contesting the
view that affirmative action on the basis
of castes would invariably be disastrous
for modern institutions.
In the article 'Some North-South Differences'the author argues that "sustained
academic work of a high order" is not
being done in south Indian universities
because of caste quotas. Let us not ask
as to what he means by work of a 'high
order'. He forgets that north Indian
universities(I include most of the departments of the central universities also) do
not havea better recorddespite not having
caste quotas. Beteille,however,has to concede the fact that TbmilNadu or Karnataka
where there is reservation for the OBCs
are better administered than say Bihar or
UP. This anomaly, according to him, is
because "thereare many ways to ruin administration"And if that is what it is, why
is it that the same logic is not applied to
south Indian universities? Why does he
single out 'reservation' for all evils? This
is a classic example, as some eminent
scholars from south India have put it, "of
a 'tails-I-win-heads-you-lose'argument, if
Tamil Nadu is better administered than
Bihar, it is despite reservations and if
Economic and Political Weekly

Bihar is worse administered than Tamil

Nadu it is because of factors other than
reservations".4
No one will dispute with Beteille that
'merit' is important for institutional wellbeing. But he and all those who oppose
reservation on the ground of merit alone
do not spell out what they mean by merit.
They play with words. It seems for them
merit is more or less metrical which ranks
persons along a single, quasi-quantitative
dimension. But "such tests do not take
into account the more impalpable or less
easily measurable qualities'.5 Moreover,
the author ignores that individual performance is influenced by organisational
culture And such culture is so far evolved
and dominated in the central government
departments by those who claim to have
more merit than persons from the OBCs.
The book under reviewgives an impression that all members of the SC-ST and
OBCs get recruited just because of their
caste status, as if they have not to pass any
qualifying examinations. This is common
propaganda made by anti-reservationalists, to which the book gives credence. It
should also be mentioned that candidates
just with a pass class are not eligible for
admission to medicine or engineeringcolleges or for white-collar jobs. In all cases,
there are some minimum requirements.
These minimum requirements have been
raised over a period of time, and the gap
between the general and reserved seats is
getting narrower.This is borne out from
the data on medical college admissions in
Maharashtra. The accompanying table
shows that there is very little difference
between those who got admission under
OBC quota and open merit. "The fact
that even the lowest percentage of those
admitted from the reservedcategories was
67 per cent in 1984 suggests that there is
no basis for thinking that unqualified
students are admitted to medical education because of the policy of reservations'6 Similar was tte case for MBBS
course in Tamil Nadu in 1990. The cutoff point for open competition was 95.22
per cent. It was 93.18 per cent for Backwards, 89.62 per cent for the Most Backwards and 83.98 per cent for the SCs.7
Anyone who is working in universities
knows that marks do not always indicate
merit, and it is difficult to say that one
who gets 10 or 15 per cent more marks
is betterqualified than others. Here we are
not even considering that the OBC candidate has generally to face many adverse
situations to appear in examinationscompared to his upper caste counterpart
belonging to similar economic conditions.
Besides examination marks, another
way to judge merit is open interview. We
all know that it is difficult to judge the
'merit' of a person in about 30-40
minutes. Those who are smart, vocal and
have mastered interview techniques have
an edge over others. More important, in-

April 10, 1993

terview situations provide a free hand for

nepotism. In such a situation those who
do not have contacts, access to coaching
classes and so-called modern life-stylesare
in a disadvantageous position. The OBCs
along with SCs and STs fall in this group.
One would expect scholarly discourse to
show ways and means to tackle this tangle.
Without this, an aggressive concern for
'merit' would result in supporting subjective notions of merit which continue to
be reinforced by those who perpetuate
their power and influence in society.
Similar to most anti-reservationists in
political circles. Beteille has also indulged
in distorting facts. For instance, he accuses
the Mandal Commission for using caste
quotas as "the only way of reducingsocial.
disparities between groups" (p 97). This
is not true. The commission emphasises
the need for far-reaching structural
changes. It strongly recommends implementation of "progressiveland legislation
so as to effect basic structural changes in
existing production relations in the countryside'. It is not the contention of the
commission that "by offering a few thousand jobs to OBC candidates we shall be
able to make 52 per cent of the Indian
population as forward".'
Notwithstanding our substantial differenceswith the author on existing social
reality, some of the questions raised by
him cannot be brushedaside by those who
strive for an egalitarian society. There is
no royal path for social transformation in
favour of the have-nots. There are dilemmas and dilemmas. Beteille, though, does
not face these problems, as he has definite
answers irrespective of social reality.
Notes
[I thank Jan Breman and Biswaroop Das for
their comments.)
I One may not agree with the list of OBCs
given by the Mandal Commission or other
commissions appointed by the state. Some
castes may be included or excluded on the
basis of certain criteria. But this is not an
issue for Beteille. He rejectsOBCs altogether.
2 'Caste,Class and Reservation'Economic and
Political Weekly,20(3), January 19, 1985and
'Social Backwardness and Politics of Reservations', Economic and Political Weekly,26
(11 and 12), Annual Number, 1991.
3 Kenneth Gillion, Ahmedabad: A Study in
Indian Urban History, Berkeley, University
of California Press, 1968, p 94.
4 S Guhan, et al, 'South India and Reservations: A Reply to Andre Beteille, Hindu,
October 27, 1990.
5 David Riesman, 'Notes on Meritocracy:
Daedalus,, Vol 96, No 3, Summer, 1967.
6 H K Paranjpe, 'Educational Reservations:
Results of a Survey', Mainstream, Vol 28,
No 23^ March 31, 1990.
7 Hindu, October 1990, quoted by Madhu
Kishwar,'Beyond For or Against: Exploring
the Complexities of Reservations',Manushi,
Nos 63-64, March-June 1991.
63>