Reservation for upper castes; their silence & confusion of dalits
Reservation is not a low hanging fruit for the exploited in this country. It has a history of centuries of fighting for this, and the sacrifice people like Ambedkar had to make for this to materialize. Now even with reservation, the dalits and other lower castes are still in miserable state in India, one can only imagine what would have been their fate if reservation had not been provided.
Even when the country became free, the power would have merely remained in the hands of upper castes. Reservation was made part of the constitution owing to foresightedness and sense of social justice of Nalwadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar and Shahu Maharaj, and constant fight staged by the lower castes.
Ironically, the 10% reservation that has been incorporated into legal framework of the country, to the upper caste does not have any background as such. No government has come forward to give a true picture of upper caste or Brahmin youths and the state of penury they have been living in, like the Sachar report spoke about the miserable condition that Muslims are living in this country.
In the recent past, even Mayawati had offered reservation to upper caste Brahmins and she was joined by many Congress senior leaders as well. But these promises did not have any other reason. No government has the guts to show the true story of poverty faced by the people of the country. Her assurance to upper caste youths is nothing more than a political farce played against them.
In the recent past, many people were denied food grains because they didn’t have Aadhar card. This had created a situation of the poor being forced to die of starvation in the country. Not a single dead person among these, belonged to upper caste. All those who died belong to lower castes. When one considers the data of malnutrition, it reveals that lower caste, shudra, muslims and others are in majority.
Though it has been more than 50 years, the people from this communities are not able to make a headway into education sector. For that matter, other castes have not been able to tread even half the distance traded by people from other castes did in job sector.
All those people who have been represented in the union cabinet are from upper caste. They have strong political presence. So when the government proposes to offer 10% reservation to the upper caste, what would be the basis and what is the need for a hurried passing of the bill? This must be the only bill in the history of this country that was passed without even much deliberation in both houses in four days and even reached the President’s table for his concurrence.
The whole purpose of this 10% reservation bill is to turn the aim of reservation offered by Ambedkar, upside down. With this bill, the government has created an impression in people’s mind that reservation is for economic upliftment. This 10% may not help the upper caste much, but will deal a massive blow to other marginalized communities which would move into regression mode.
As per a report submitted by Centre for Monitoring Economy, the job market in India is very discouraging. The rate of unemployment by December 2018 was at 7.4% which is the highest in the last 15 months. Secondly, about 1.1 crore people who have lost jobs in 2017-18 have been added to this number. Rural distress with agrarian crisis is the worse, with people losing about 82% jobs and most of this brunt is borne by women.
According to another report brought out by ILO or International Labour Organisation, about 80% of the jobs in India are considered to be tentative with no job security. Only 20% of the employees are on regular payrolls and another 40% are earing way lesser than the norm. Recruitment for vacancies within the government are at snail’s pace. More than one third of the backlogs that lie vacant belong to reserved category. Most of the unorganized and informal sector that created many jobs are worst hit by GST and demonetization and are yet to emerge from the shock.
At a time like this, the government threw caution to wind where the Supreme Court had clearly said the overall reservation should not cross 50%. The government has announced this 10% reservation with the hope of finding more allies for elections and increase its voteshare. This may also help the government find some lost ground in 5 hindi belt states, back.
This economic reservation must be the biggest of all jumlas that is harmful to the maximum extent too to the country. People from lower castes and economic background, should raise their voice against this. Not just the economically poor, but the socially marginalized communities must come together to oppose this. Irony is all those organisations that would dissent against such proposals have maintained strategic silence. The exploited community is confused about the next move since representing leaders like Mayawati and Paswan are in support of this. Their move seems more dangerous at the moment, than Modi’s strategies are to the country.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Justice Nagarathna calls for creation of judicial reforms commission to reduce pendency in courts
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
