The EWS quota wrench in the Idea of India process

In 2019, the Narendra Modi govt announced a 10% quota for “EWS – Economically
weaker sections” by passing the 103rd Constitution Amendment which introduced
Art 15(6) education and Art 16(6) jobs into the Indian constitution.

‘15(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2)
of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,— (a) any special provision for the
advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes
mentioned in clauses (4) and (5);

gazette notification dated 12-jan-2019

In my view, this is the standout accomplishment of Narendra Modi’s first term

because it is addressing a core agenda item no 3. Like all core items, these may not
create noise but permanently disrupt the earlier idea of India equilibrium. Several
controversies have arisen in the wake of this EWS quota. Here I try to answer them
in a Q&A format rather than a long winded essay. I believe it is the right format
because the questions are as important as the answers to them.

Q1. Why are people opposing quota for all poor , since this is poor from Open Category?
Lets get this common misconception out of the way. The 10% EWS quota announced
is only for those NOT covered under reservation. Only those castes who are
disqualified from availing OBC, SC,or ST status would be eligible.

On the other hand, since there is no list of Forward castes , in theory anyone can
reject their birth caste group and avail of this quota instead. In practice however, this
may not make unless there is advantage of doing this.

Q2. It is unconstitutional to give EWS quota

A common strategem of Idea of India groups against #core3 is Justice O Chinnappa
Reddy’s famous observation during Indira Sawhney case – ‘reservation is not a
poverty elimination program‘ . Dravidian ideologues like the erudite Prof Suba
Veerapandian have latched on to this for years justifying the inclusion of the creamy
layer in Tamilnadu. This has denied benefits to millions of poor OBCs while
enriching the already advanced groups. The correct response to this is :

While it may be true that reservation is not a poverty reduction program, it certainly
does not mean ‘reservation is an unjust enrichment program‘.
 The Supreme Court is about to start hearing petitions challenging the constitutional
validity of the 103rd Constitution Amend starting July 16 2019. But keep in mind
, this is a not a review of a law against the existing provisions of the
constitution. They are not bound by the usual core3 cases like Thakur
(2007), Sawhney (1992), MR Balaji (1962). The upcoming judicial review will be
a basic structure test. Think about it, if the Supreme Court were to strike down the
103rd Amend it would be in effect be saying “Helping the poor of the general
category is against the basic structure of the constitution” !! This is an extremely
bizarre position and would require significant literal obfuscation by the ecosystem to
make palatable. The expansion of #core elements across India will make this task
much more difficult.

Q3. Do you support EWS quota ?

No. It is crazy. I have already stated during the RTE case , EWS quota gives a
permanent benefit on what is a temporary disadvantage. Peoples fortunes change all
the time. You cant put a checkpoint at a particular instant and then give a permanent
benefit based on that. This is especially true of high echelon goods like MBBS
admissions. It is unacceptable that a student has to give up his MBBS seat which
determines his entire life trajectory just because his dad committed a crime of owning
a flat, or succeeded in a job.

But .. but.. but.. there is a gotcha.. see next question.

Q4. So you dont support EWS, so why are you jumping ?

Well core analysis always look at the entirety of the picture and not unbundle and
then pick and choose. There are two issues in the current reservation regime which
makes EWS a necessary check.

1. The startling delinquency of the judiciary in monitoring of the OBC group. This is
the fundamental issue. Until now the idea of India jurisprudence adopts a ‘rational
basis’ standard to examine classification of groups. In simple words, it defers to
the political players to select their groups for special treatment. The jurisprudence
also invidiously discriminates between the INSIDE and the OUTSIDE groups. For
example – in the Jat 2015 case the honorable court put a very high evidence bar
on entry of outside groups into the inside. But those already on the inside are
permanently immune from that same level of scrutiny. I recall blogging the KGB
court with much bombast in 2007 Thakur case announced a full monitoring of the
OBC group in 5 years or 10 years. Both the deadlines have come and gone.
2. There are some mechanics issues with the system that demand a separate quota
for unreserved. An example is the Roster System followed in promotions. It can
be mathematically proven that the roster system and the consequential seniority
 issue can wipe out the unreserved , with enough turns of the roster. The effects
will be apparent as time goes by and the senior tier retires.

Seen in isolation, the EWS quota is absurd. The full picture demands you have to
account for the Idea of India jurisprudence that defers to the political forces to reward
the very groups that sustain them. I believe this has major effects – groups like
Marathas , Kapus, Patels cannot wait forever biding their time for #IOI jurisprudence
to develop a spine , i.e develop a first principles position. The spine.

Q4. What a joke – how is the the 8 Lakhs limit economically weaker ?
In a Dravidian Kazhakam meeting last month, Prof Suba Veerapandian drove home
this point to a gullible Tamil audience who cheered – rather mindlessly. He called
out “Not only was the EWS quota anti-social justice but the limit of 8Lakhs was a
joke.” (paraphrased)

There is some truth to it, how can you call someone who earns 5 times the per-capita
as EWS? But the issue is not that simple when you apply a core type analysis. This is
going to be really counter intuitive . Follow me, you will get the A-Ha! moment.
Will a 3 lakhs limit be better?
I am going to directly use Tamil Brahmin as a stand-in example to expressly answer
the Dravidians. Stay with me.

Say the EWS quota were to be restricted to poor tamil brahmins who earn less than
3Lakh instead of the 8Lakhs. Would the DK then support it? The lower level cadre
will say yes. But the upper levels will be quite alarmed. Why? because you have to
see all quotas as a state allocation program.

Every state program has a “social-impact-index” independent of the ecosystems

efforts to hide it. The poor among the BC , SC, do not get any benefits because the
targeting is at the elite layer. The dravidian argument is that targeting the elite benefits
the poor via trickledown. A highly specious claim, but be that as it may. To this
scheme lets assign a social-impact-index=50, if you introduce a program for poor
tamil brahmins at 3L, then you directly and highly efficiently target the poor rather
than the elite trickledown, so that has a social-impact-index=100.

Therefore instituting a 3Lakhs cutoff for poor tamil brahmins and having no such
program for poor among BC/SC/MBC means the state gives a high-social-
impact product to the brahmins and a low-social-impact to the non-brahmins. On the
ground this will manifest as a son of a tamizh brahmin dosa master cook getting the
benefit directly but the son of a non brahmin parota master getting nothing and
waiting for trickle down from the hotel owner.
This kind of anomaly will expose and decimate an elite targeting movement like
Dravidianism. Clearly Prof Suba Veerapandian has not really thought it through. A
hypothetical smarter BJP would counter this by reducing the income cutoff to 3L and
then see how they respond.

Even a 8L cutoff in TN suffers from the issue , because BC/SC/ST students whose
parents make less than 8L get no special treatment. But the effects will be more
muted than a much lower cutoff. I am willing to bet, while hearing the case the
Supreme Court will get caught up in this paradox and miss the nuance completely.
They simply have not evolved the bedrock principles to analyze these things beyond
superficial.

See this video of Prof Suba Veerapandian delivered to a packed Tamil audience.

Watch the cunning deception here : on one hand they say “Reservation is not a
poverty reduction scheme” while justifying the targeting of the elite. But when
cornered on that , they switch to economic grounds. In the above clip he says
in Tamil ( மாடு மமய் கிறவர்கள் , கூலி த ாழிலாளிகள் , ன
முதுகில் மூட்டட சுமந்து மவர்டவ சிந்துபவர்கள் , துப் புரவு
த ாழிலாளிகள் – இவர்கள் எல் லாம் ஏடை இல் லயாம் , அனால்
மா ம் 64மக சம் பாதிக்கறவர்கள் ஏடையாம் ) in English – (those who
herd cows, daily wage coolies, those who lift gunny bags on back for a living,
those sanitation workers, they are not poor. But Modi govt has announced that 65K
per month is EWS.)

The gullible and low info Tamil crowd laps it up and no one on stage has a proper
response. Dravidians should not use the gunny back lifter to justify their stand, they
should use doctors, professors, and govt servants in defence of their stand.

Q5. Why is this such a hot issue in Tamilnadu alone ? all states notified
If you are a non Tamil, you can skip this section.

Most states across the country , Assam, MP, UP, even Momata’s WB, GJ, MH, have
notified the quota or are will notify it next year. What is surprising is even the
Dravidian states – Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala , Telangana are implementing
in various forms. So the question for Prof Suba Vee is – how come your Racial
dravidian brothers have no problem with this?

Upon deeper analysis you find the root of Dravidian exceptionalism lies in the
numbers. The annual MBBS admission numbers provide a rare peek into the
statistics. I monitored the last 5 years and found that only between 4.5 to 7% of the
candidate population is classified as Unreserved , i.e. Forward Caste. The similar
number for Andhra are roughly 42%, Telangana 47%, Kerala 40%, Karnataka 38 to
42%.

We can have many conversations about social justice and dravidians but the elephant
in the room will always be the following. The very real possibility that Dravidian
movement at its core is not interested in social justice at all but in outright
discrimination against one group. As one judge remarked , if a state scheme gives
privileged treatment to 94% of the population then you have crossed the line into
reverse discrimination. Unless of course you have data to show that the
6% dominates to the extent that justifies it.

I used to wonder why Dravidian intellectuals Aasi K. Veeramani, Pera Suba

Veerapandian, and Dr Pazha Karuppiah never proposed an easy truce
settlement. You do not have to like the tamizhbrahmins – to say ‘here take your
share and fo’ this truce will leave the Suba Vees in peace to build their glorious
Dravidian society. In one stroke you will silence all criticisms of the
reservation. After all, Dravidians themselves gave 3.5% to Christians and
Moslems. If you do 69% , why not do 72% and in exchange buy complete peace and
immunity?
One is helpless but to draw the correct inference from this strident stand. If
Dravidians concede the 3% , then they also concede their primary raison-d-etre ,
which is anti-tamil-brahminism. Their top tier knows that if they give the share, then
the thundering speeches of intellectuals like Pala Karuppiah will sound hollow and
toothless.

A second , more dangerous issue, is if Tamil Brahmin get the 3%, then the focus will
turn inwards into the vastly disparate Dravidian group itself and demands from
other castes to get a look into their share. That is always the existential danger in TN
politics. Never look under the kimono.

Q5. Is the 10% quota for EWS a ‘slow poison’ for social justice
Stalin thundered recently

Assailing the 10% quota for EWS, Mr. Stalin said it was not only against the
Constitution but also detrimental to social justice. Pointing out a report in The
Hindu that said that only 1% of the top teaching posts in Central universities were
occupied by OBCs, he said while the AIADMK harped on former Chief Minister
Jayalalithaa’s efforts in implementing the 69% reservation, the 10% quota would
make her achievements go in vain. The present system of leaving 31% seats for open
competition candidates was functioning well and there was no need for implementing
10% reservation for EWS, Mr. Stalin argued and charged that the Centre’s
proposal was “slow poison” for social justice in Tamil Nadu.

Source : The Hindu

Is giving 10% quota for FC a slow poison for social justice? Well, as per the Justice
Party leaders including Mr EV Ramaswamy himself – a complete communal quota is
the correct model for social justice. Even Prof Suba Veerapandian announced recently
that the ideal scheme is “Every community gets it share” . Their own
founders notified the Madras Communal G.O and eventually lead to the Champakam
Dorairajan case and the very 1st constitution amendment.

Regarding the statistic that 1% of teaching job in central universities is occupied by

OBC, it may true or not. It is not relevant at all. If DMK wants this level of data,
then it should constitute a proper Backward Classes commission as instructed by the
Supreme Court and demand a study the beneficiaries. If there is backlog and
scamming in Central Univ BC teaching spots, that must be fixed. No argument. there.

Q7. What do the results show in TN

The 2019 NEET results expose one of the foundation lies of the Dravidians. That non
brahmin are somehow inferior in academics. Year after year, I have proven
that brilliant students and toppers come from the non-brahmin tamil community.
EVen in 2009, 8 of the top 10 rankers are BC. Merit is NOT the preserve of one
group. You cannot allow such a patently bogus and casteist stereotype as the
cornerstone of your ideology.

Q8. Any solutions for TN ?

This EWS is not an issue for rest of India or even the Dravidian blood states
KL/KA/AP. A solution can be a lower 4% and a lower limit of 3L, but see my
previous point for the hazard in this.

In Tamilnadu, I feel this is an existential issue to the hardline anti-brahmin elements

within the Dravidian group, while the social justice focused types might accede to
it. The hardline is always represented by the elite castes who do not have a social
justice vision. For these types – conceding the quota has the effect of immunizing
against their rhetorics. Of its most vulgar, virulent, and uncompromising elements
like Dr Pala Karuppiah. Their speeches will have no sting left. Like rabid canines
barking at passing vehicles as they get left behind in the march of civilization.