Parties should not mix reservation for OBCs with that of SCs/STs: Bhalchandra Mungekar

Interview with Congress member in Rajya Sabha

Congress member in Rajya Sabha and former Planning Commission member Bhalchandra Mungekar has been working for reservation in promotion for SCs/STs for over three decades. He has given inputs to the government while framing the Bill, which has been introduced in the Upper House. In an interview with Sanjay Jog, Mungekar explains his views. Edited excerpts:

What made the government bring this amendment?
Reservation in promotions was first introduced in 1955 by a Constitutional amendment whereby Article 16 (4 A) was added to that effect. The policy continued till 1991, when the Supreme Court stuck it down in the famous Indra Sawhney judgment. Subsequent to this, the 85th Constitutional amendment modified Article 16 (4A) that provided the consequential seniority to the SCs and STs. But again in the Nagaraj case, the Supreme Court put three conditions for implementation — backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency. The government has brought this amendment to overcome the above conditionalities.

Do you agree to the removal of these conditionalities?
First, it ascertains that backwardness is too cumbersome and lengthy a process. We have seen this while implementing the Mandal report. The amendment maintains those communities which are included in the Constitution as the SCs and STs, according to article 341 and 342, respectively. Second, inadequacy of representation from SCs and STs at the higher levels has been one of the major reasons for introducing reservation in promotion. The landmark Justice Gajendragadkar judgment of the Supreme Court made inadequacy the basis of reservation in promotions.

And last, merit and efficiency are not the monopoly of a particular class, caste or community. Today, of 149 secretaries to the government of India, not one is from the scheduled caste. Of the 108 additional secretaries, 477 joint secretaries and 590 directors, there are only two, 31 and 17, respectively, from this community. Though there are four secretaries from the scheduled tribes, their presence in the other three categories is poor.

According to a study, of 1,000 directors of private corporate companies, 94 per cent belong to the so-called upper-castes; and about three per cent each from the OBCs and the SCs. This means 68 per cent (say 50 per cent OBCs and 18 per cent SCs) of our population should remain content with six per cent of the directors in the private corporate sector. Why? Because they are stigmatised as non-meritorious and inefficient. This is unethical and, hence, totally unjustifiable.

It is due to this that the present amendment seeks to remove the condition of efficiency by amending Article 335 of the Constitution and that is totally justifiable. It was grossly misused by vested interests to block advancement of SCs and STs.

How do the other political parties view this amendment?
It was only after the prime minister convened an all-party meeting and all, except the Samajwadi Party (SP), agreed to it the government brought in this amendment. I think, the SP is not opposed per se; they want the benefit to be extended to the OBCs, too. I am personally for that. But they should not mix up the issue of the OBCs with that of the SCs/STs.

What is your immediate reaction to the constitutional amendment providing reservation in promotion?
I am very happy and congratulate the Congress-led UPA government, particularly the UPA chairperson and the PM for bringing this amendment. It’s a right step towards securing justice for the SC/ST communities.