It can be argued with some justification that the right thing should be done even if many people do not like it and even oppose it. Examples can be cited: Abraham Lincoln's proclamation emancipating slaves at the end of the American Civil War and Mahatma Gandhi championing the cause of the Dalits — his Harijans — in the face of conservative opposition. Of course, a closer scrutiny would reveal that both Lincoln and Gandhi were uncannily shrewd politicians. They were morally committed to their respective issues but they also sensed the popular mood. And they gave the impression that they were doing the right thing in spite of apparently popular opposition.
Lincoln and Gandhi thought deeply and carefully about the blacks and Dalits, talked about it with conviction and argued their case. Of course, Lincoln did not plead for special treatment to blacks. He wanted that the blacks should be treated on a basis of equality with that of whites. Gandhi understood fully the moral degradation inherent in the position of Dalits and argued like Lincoln that they should be treated as equal to others. Gandhi did not ask for reservations for Dalits.
Given his anti-statist philosophy, he would not have supported the idea of state bestowing special favours even to the most oppressed sections of society. Perhaps it is this which must have given both poignancy and strength to the stand that Lincoln and Gandhi took with regard to blacks and Dalits.
In independent India, the idea of reservations has taken deep root as a policy of instrument to right social wrongs. While it is necessary to use the full authority and force of the state to put down practices like burning of widows or 'sati', it is to be debated whether it should be used to make reservations for the oppressed. The principle is unclear if not entirely dubious with regard to reservations. Quotas cannot be used as an argument to establish equality. It revolves, on the other hand, on the principle that the state must ensure numerical representation.
There is something legitimate when the state finds it necessary to intervene forcefully to ensure equality. Despite Lincoln's proclamation of emancipation ways were found to deny blacks both opportunities and rights. That is why the US Supreme Court had to make the famous intervention in 1954 for breaking desegregation in schools. But again, here too the state intervened not to create quotas for the blacks but to ensure for them their legitimate right to attend school and college with white kids.It was only in 1964 that president Lyndon Johnson was able to push through the civil rights bill for the blacks.
The policy of quotas and reservations in India does not promote the right to equality as much as it enhances the power of the state to do social good, which has been expanding continuously for 60 years because it has been felt by political parties that the state must do certain things. That is why reservations for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and Other Backward Classes is a gesture of state benevolence in the guise of fulfilling social commitments which have not resulted in equality but only sharpened the politics of identity.
Women's reservation bill too is supposed to promote gender equality but what it really does is create yet another special interest. And society is turned into a bureau of cubbyholes. And the power of the state is increased yet again. Women will remain beholden to parties and their agendas. The argument that a women's constituency will force the political parties and the state to pay attention to women's issues is not convincing because women do not constitute a homogenous segment. There are as many differences among women as there are in society.
What Indians will have to decide is whether they want to further empower the state or they want greater equality in society.
