Thats the group the creamy layer exclusion clause will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe
Thats what all the politicians are trying to stop.
Printable View
Thats the group the creamy layer exclusion clause will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe
Thats what all the politicians are trying to stop.
Thanks joe for the stats. People from outside like me believed this 'mAyai' until you came out with the stats. Now I'm getting a clearer picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe
Punnaimaran
i have my own personal experience which will clearly show the difference..........but i think, its pretty dangerous to be on "anti-reservation" group here in HUB......theres a grave danger of being stereotyped and generalised.........Quote:
Originally Posted by Roshan
ennathha pesi enna panna - law is already there - pongappa poi pulla kuttingala padikka veinga (mudinja) :wave:
No. I was just demonstrating that there was indeed a case for reservation even at the higher education level because graduation did not make all equal. While at it, I wanted to point out a case where graduation cannot imply equality. This is why I pointed out the rural-urban divide. I shouldn't have left it with just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by thamizhvaanan
To a certain extent caste based reservation does proxy for the rural-urban quality gap. But even beyond that a first generation graduate needs (even in urban centres) may need that extra bit of push to gain exposure in post-graduate institutions. New unopen doors should be shown to those who have had less opportunity thus far.
My dream system would be something like this: If someone gets a reservation for an undergrad degree, then his son/daughter would ineligible for undergrad reservation. However, they would be eligible for postgrad reservation - because they are trying to scale greater heights.
The creamy layer implementation is crucial to this.
Thanks for stats Joe.
I am reminded of a beautiful line from Shashi Tharoor's book "India:Midnight to Millenium".: "Communalism thrives in the absence of specifics"
When discussing communal issues, he says,most of the problems are because people people operate on anecdotal evidence, impressions etc. There is very little supply of (and I must also say, very little demand for) exact precise information. With such 'specific' information, the noise made about 'merit being throttled' etc. should fade.
No. I completely disagree with this. This is the similar to the kind of argument that is made by advocates of "permanent reservation".Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe
Reservation policy should be aimed at including newer and newer people into mainstream and bringing about equality of opportunity. It should not be based on a prejudice - and condescencion - that certain groups are bound to underperform and need perpetual assistance.
A reservation for rural students will perpetuate the urban-rural quality divide in education. Every rural area will have an incentive to continue to be backward. I can even see students from urban backgrounds registering with a rural school to write their board exams just so that they can reap the 'backward' benefits. The real rural students who need the help won't benefit. All the problems affecting our current reservation system will affect this one.
The major parties in the UPA have decided to fight the exclusion of the creamy layer :x :curse:
From TN, PMK was saying till now. Yesterday, DMK has also explicitly stated so. Congress & Co. will now pass the law without this exclusion - as if it is something peripheral to be toyed with. :angry2: To top it all, they will have the audacity to claim that it is a victory for social justice :banghead:
Much to chew on in your post, Prabhu Ram.
As someone who considers himself an ignoramus (yes, apart from being ostentatiously equanimous) by default when it comes to politics, I'm interested to know what's your take on reservations based on economic status. I read an interesting take in an openly right-wing blog. The author says, "if economic criteria were to be the basis for Reservations then we would be locked into Reservations for eternity because there will always be poverty, there will always be economic disparity." Not that I actually disapprove of a "socialistic" approach myself (needless to say, nor do I support it), but, the way I see it, the current Reservations system isn't really meant to achieve economic equality.
A few days ago, my friend was expressing his dissatisfaction on how both anti-reservations and pro-reservations people place themselves in this matter. His point, in a gist was, while pro-reservations people seem to stick to a merit-above-anything-else position, the anti-reservations people seem to have only scant regard for the "creamy layer" clause. I added that, I myself have found many anti-reservations people suggesting that one should adopt an approach better than the existing one, probably based on the economic status of candidates. This alternate viewpoint about having an approach based on economic status is often made, but isn't really seriously supported/rebutted. It's like one of those noble visions that nobody wants to disrupt, but (or, should I say, hence?) neither take seriously!
That also got me thinking as to what Reservations actually mean. A fair reading, I think, would be thus: The system is opening special gates of opportunities to those people who were denied the entry to those gates on some grounds in the past. Inherently, the idea is to only privilege some, not to achieve economic equality.
Good posts Podalai..
Prabhuram,
Nice writeup.
Punnaimaran
Prabhu :thumbsup:
Very interesting and balanced view ,PR :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
Thanks Joe,Punnaimaran and Roshan.
You've asked for it Am going to go on one of my tangents. Please assume some relevance.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Flemish poetry, Polynesian history and number theory enthusiasts notwithstanding, attaining economic prosperity is why people learn.
So it is only natural that reservation should reach those in need.
However, using it as the lone criteria it is nonsense. As the right wing blogger you quote seems to say, "economic inequality is here to stay". So we will end up making reservations permanent.
Even in the ideal scenario there will be economic inequality. We need to strive to reach equality of opportunity. However, I admit that it is tough - most times near impossible - to separate these two out.
As you rightly mentioned the grounds on which education was denied is crucial here. And again, the point is not retribution. The marked underexposure over generation makes the door-opening challenging. While door-opening, horizons broadening are all very good, education is an immediate means to economic progress. So it is essential to exclude those who have already achieved a fair level of progress.
With the creamy layer clause it will be all about achieving economic progress. In socialist vocabulary I guess it would fall under the polite umbrealla 'social mobility' - with its hazardous ambiguity around the direction of mobility ! Well, ambiguity is better than suggesting something like 'being rich' can be good for the conscience.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Just in case there is any lingering doubt, I am not a great fan of the phrase economic equality. To insist on basic standards, that too dynamically improving standards for everyone is something no-one can possibly disagree with. But economic equality is not a synonym for that.
Thanks to the din our politicians have made over the years we have become numb to these differences. In a phrase that marks the philosophical transition of the socialist conscience (!), Deng Xiao Peng once said: " to be rich is glorious !". While the sentiment is universal in its appeal, I don't think any politician will have the guts to say that on stage yet.
Other way round, isn't it. Regarding the scant respect for the "creamy layer" clause, I share the opinion, anxiety and annoyance.Quote:
while pro-reservations people seem to stick to a merit-above-anything-else position, the anti-reservations people seem to have only scants regard for the "creamy layer" clause.