A dangerous road

When the Prime Minister said at the meeting of the National Development Council a few weeks ago that Muslims and other deprived sections must get first charge on the government's resources, there was the predictable dust-up. The government clarified that Dr Singh's comments had been taken out of context. But subsequent actions and words suggest that the government's intention was exactly as was stated. In the event, the government may be making a serious mistake, politically and in terms of establishing rights.

The United Progressive Alliance's stress on the "aam aadmi" has a humanist context, in that development and prosperity should benefit everyone and not just the rich. It also has a political context, in that the Congress has staked its position on winning over the disadvantaged and the minorities. On the evidence so far, the government's initiatives seem to be driven more by the political agenda of showing that steps are being taken, without sufficient consideration being given to delivering the substance of 'inclusive growth', which might entail an entirely different set of measures. In the process, the government risks a majoritarian backlash of the kind set off by Rajiv Gandhi by his actions in the wake of the Supreme Court's Shah Bano verdict two decades ago.

The political sloganeering has taken the form of seat reservations in educational institutions for the other backward classes (OBCs); pressure on the private sector to take affirmative action, accompanied by the threat of job reservations if enough is not done voluntarily; and, in the wake of the stark findings of the Sachar committee on the status of Muslims, talk of a minority quota in the government's spending on big-ticket programmes, like the various employment schemes. The ministry of minority affairs, meanwhile, says it is working on job reservations for minorities in the private sector. It may well be the case that the government does not seriously intend to follow up these threats with real action, but large political currents have the potential to sweep away those who thought they would be able to control the flood.

None of this is likely to do much good for those sought to be favoured with special treatment, because the truth about how to claim a rightful share of the pie is more complicated than the government's initiatives might suggest. Job and seat reservations for the scheduled castes and tribes have been on the statute for nearly half a century, yet they remain among the most deprived sections of the population. Extending the same solution to a much larger group (the OBCs and Muslims) is not likely to deliver very different results, other than provoking a backlash. The damage that this does is to put into circulation bad ideas that become political shorthand for social and economic equity. The real solutions to the genuine problem of inclusiveness lie in less headline-hitting actions, and entail supply-driven responses (seats and jobs) more than demand management. But there is no political mileage to be gained from this because the politician cannot demonstrate that "special steps" are being taken. As with the special economic zones, so with reservations: systemic solutions are no one's concern.