Comments reserved...

The recent furore over the judiciary's reported interference in the sacred duties of the legislature seems rather sad and unfortunate. After all, each has its own assigned jobs and responsibilities in accordance with the Constitution.

But that surely doesn't mean that the judiciary may not intervene when it comes across any instance of the legislature attempting to, either on purpose or inadvertently, contravene the basic tenets of the Constitution. After all, the legislature isn't sacrosanct; it too must be subservient to the law, even if it be the lawmaker itself. And that doesn't mean that the judiciary should also start to scrutinize all and sundry legislations coming out of our 'worthy' legislatures. We already have a 20-year backlog, so let's keep off such political squabbles.

But the current debate merits some discussion. After all, the H'ble Supreme Court of India hasn't said anything wrong. Considering my stand on the reservation issue so far, I have always stated that reservations should be only for those who really deserve them, and not for those who simply are deemed to deserve them on the basis of their communal affiliations. In this country, economic status plays a very important role in how a person goes about his/her life in society. This may seem retrograde, but it is true: money matters. If you have the dough, then you can even make the State change its policies.

In such conditions, that any person who can afford a reasonable avenue of education should avail of reservations seems to me as a most unfortunate occurrence. After all, aren't we defeating the very purpose of reservations? Reservations, in my belief, must have started out as a means to ensure that the poorest of the poor, the most disadvantaged of people have equal access to opportunity. Their inability to conjure up enough capital to finance their dreams and aspirations had hindered their flight hitherto, but the State would ensure that it happened no more.

So, if an individual who can afford a good education should stand competing for reservations vis-à-vis someone who cannot, who, as per all the norms of Reason, all the laws of Logic, should be deemed deserving of assistance? I propose those who cannot.

So, where's the whole quarrel here?

Well, while the OBCs can be divided on grounds of economic status, the SCs/STs, the politicians reckon, cannot, because the 'injustice' that they have borne for centuries cannot be surely wiped out by a single generation's prosperity. No one's saying so. That a father is a millionaire is no guarantee that his wards will also be the same; on the contrary, prodigal descendents often undo all the good that an enterprising ancestor may achieve. But surely this millionaire father shouldn't be eligible for any more benefits so long as he is a millionaire, and surely while he can ensure his children get the best of education, his wards also should be beyond the purview of reservations. If and so his wards should go the way of most children of rich people, then they would be poor, wouldn't they, and hence in the purview of the law.

I am not advocating that once a family has been deemed to have crossed the creamy layer, it should be debarred forever. I am only saying that so long as the family is above the creamy layer, debar it from the benefits, else permit them all that is their due.

But then, why restrict it only to those who fall within some designated community? Open this scheme to all those who should be deemed eligible for these benefits. That way, we can ensure that reservations serve their purpose to the fullest, to the best.