Addendum to Doug's post on "The Mystery of the Missing Outrage"

The fact is that, while reservations - whether in educational institutions or public sector jobs - have become to be known as instruments of "social" justice, the economic logic behind this has been ignored in debates for long.

Leaving aside political issues, there has always been an economic rationale behind reservation. Historically, the people belonging to the lower castes were denied, apart from their social status as fellow human beings, some critical economic rights. They were involved in mundane and routine jobs for which they were paid mostly in kind – they earned only that which they could consume, mostly within the same day. They did not have assets such as land that could go as material capital nor did they have an education or skills which could go as human capital, which they could invest and reap benefits for themselves. Since they consumed their earnings within days, they lacked savings that could purchase them other assets. The idea is to make the households own their economic lives, as that is what they lacked when oppressed.

Hence the concept of reserving a. some jobs, b. some seats in educational institutions, c. some amount of total capital formation in the economy and such other measures that would “set them free” on an economic path of their choice. The fact that these were reserved implies the basic economic truth – there is a limited supply of those that are reserved. This was also the logic behind the suggestion that any reservation must be within a timeframe, as once a household is set free, it is no more oppressed. It may be recalled that the Constitutional Committee, when it formed the reservation policy, it suggested withdrawal of all such policies after 25 years. Thus, the same economic logic that proposes the reservation policy argues for a timeframe or at least a ‘creamy layer’ policy.

When this basic economic logic on both sides of reservation debate - one that puts forth the case for reservation and the one that puts forth the case for ending it is missing, there is no objectivity, and only hate posts.

Coming to the two important questions raised by Doug: First, in China, people in general do not talk against any government policy. On contrast, in India, there are hate posts on almost every issue, on both sides of the argument.

Second, we do miss the outrage over the "abysmal state of education in general" and basic education in particular in the blogosphere, though there have been in the print media to a small extent. The reason being, this would open up the issue of the quality of teachers appointed either through reservations or through the powerful politicians for a gain.