Talk:Reservation in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Constitution of India

I don't think constitution of India specifies OBCs. OBCs were for the first time mentioned only in the Mandal report. Constitution only talks about the Dalits, who are SCs and tribes who are STs. - redvine

[edit] More Statistics Needed

Could anybody who has studied this topic in depth, please add more statistics to the article? For example, what percentage of India's population is "categorised by Government" as General, SC/ST,OBC? Do we have statewise statistics ? May we can copy some key statistics from relevant Govt of India website. 220.225.120.147 11:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the 2001 census, Hindu SCs represent 16.2%, the STs account for 8.2% of the total population of India . Exact figures of OBCs are not collected in the census; the 1980 Mandal Commission pegs it at 54% of the population. Others have disputed this figure by estimating it to be 36% of the population. siddharth 12:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

SC, ST total population data is available in censusindia. However, OBC data is not available, even the government is NOT sure!!!--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Population data has been added now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think some kind of a caste based census is required.I had no idea that brahmins were 3.5% of population and Kshatriyas were 10% of the population.I think the number is much higher.I think we should have a Census 2006 where we should have facts about percentage of different castes, percentage paying taxes and also living below poverty line. This will help in proper planning and allocation of seats etc..I suspect this might blow away lot of myths about FC's.

[edit] Discussion on Reservation in India

The reservation for poors and particularly for Dalits were for ten years only in The Indian Constitution. It was hopped that within ten years India will be Democratic and Republic. After 60 years, all mos Indian talk about religion and caste systems. Elected Members of Parliament are talking about Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple and help for Kumbh Melas and Haj Piligrims. Reservation in India will continue as long as caste systems are there. Many professors of renowed Universities are also thinking how to eradicate provery in Indian subcontinet. Caste system is major problem to solve. vkvora 15:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The lower castes have had a bum ride for thousands of years...reservation...Why Not! Retribution is more correct but at least reservation. One important point to emphisize upon those recieving reservation rights, is that they have a great responcibility and they must never forget where they came from. They must devote a certain % of their time and money in efforts to improve the cercumstances of those from similar backgrounds. by BB

Caste based Reservation never helps anyone. We should base it instead on income/wealth and the rural/urban divide. Provide ONLY reservation for rural people and for those that are poor. And provide that if these seats do not get filled, that the general quota candidates will be given a chance. And further, provide an end date for the reservations - like August 15, 2016, with no possibility of extension unless there is a constitutional amendment.

Most importantly, there should be no forceful reservation. Provide financial benefits - lower taxes, higher aid etc. - for those institutions that conform. For educational institutions set high taxes and remove excise exemptions if the quota is not maintained.

Affirmative action is only possible when you have a date limit, and when you target the right people. Basing this on birth is ridiculous. Deepakshenoy 08:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought, quite apart from justice, it makes sense. Given the majority of the population belongs to these castes, something is going wrong if they aren't making up the majority of these positions. Since they don't without this system, the system ensures they aren't completely sidelined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.66.51.165 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

The majority does not. What this article states is that in the 1999-2000 census, only 36 percent of the population is OBC. And in that is a category called "Muslim" - Muslims may have their poor, but not all muslims are, and many are filthy rich. Why give them reservation at all? There's no reason for it to be caste or birth based. And frankly, if we're going to distribute jobs by population then we might as well turn communist, because merit doesn't play a role anymore. Deepakshenoy 18:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The upper castes should be thankful to reservation. The issue of persecution of low castes could have been a reason enough for elimination of oppressive upper castes.In armed forces , there is no reservation. But there 80% people are SC,ST & OBC & another 8% muslim (as quoted by army spokesman). This is true picture of india. And armed forces are quite professional & praised by everyone in india.

There are only 3.5% brahmins(top ,priest class) in india. But they are ruling all indians.Upper castes are sitting on every important position and they always try to stop any benefit to low castes.

Almost all hindu marriages are within their caste only, which keeps the caste system alive and kicking. If marriage is by caste then why not jobs and admissions.

Upper castes have ruled this country by dividing it in 4 castes(Divide & rule). Even after that they say in Gita that(Sanskrit) // Karmanya hi wadhikaraste // which means - you have right to work & not to its fruits.Then they say giving donations to brahmins will ensure entry into heaven. Which interprates to- you will work & we will enjoy. As a result in past times , the indian temples accumulated huge amount of gold & wealth of many kinds.

Reservation quota must be increased to 86% ( 25% SC & ST , 52% OBC, 14% minority) There are 52% OBC but only 27% OBC quota is given . This is injustice & denial of opportunity. Whereas the forward caste are only 12-15% but they are sitting on ALL the powerful govt positions. CASTE APARTHEID BY UPPER CASTE MUST BE STOPPED.

What rubbish! Throw all you cooked up stats and filth into the trash, I have no use for it.Cygnus_hansa 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soap box. siddharth 10:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creamybackwards??

I just fixed a typo in this argument--changing "is to need to..." to "is no need to... ." However, as it's phrased, the argument doesn't make much sense. It should probably read

that there are no efforts made to give proper primary education to really deprived classes,[4] so reserving seats in higher studies is ineffective.

that there are no efforts made to give proper primary education to really deprived classes,[4] which must be done before reserving seats in higher education.

or something like that. I hesitate to make the change because I haven't read the sources and am not familiar with the issue.

Also, the argument contains a reference, and the reference is named "creamybackward". Can anyone speculate why "creamy"? — vijay (Talk) 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"creamy layer" is a very common term in reservation discussions. It refers to the fact that certain sections (layer) of the backward classes tend to repeatedly take advantage of reservations, upto the point where they are no longer backward, but continue to take advantage of reservations since they officially still belong to that caste. They're like cream which rises above the milk and stays there. I'm not sure, but I think the term originated somewhere around the time of the Mandal report. --HellFire 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why reservation should be time bound?. Idealy if the backward classes do well due to reservation, they will do well in par in future and there wont be need for reservation. Reservation will be needed till then. Caste system and descrimination exeisted for thousands of years, how few years of reservation can do justice?.

[edit] Quality of article

After reverting some previous edits, I think that the quality of the article is now bodering on acceptable. I've removed the clean-up and disputed tags. siddharth 06:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a tag to cleanup the Arguments section with respect to tone - seems generally unencyclopaedic. --Chrisd87 10:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a revert to fix it up to a version I think is decent. What do you think of the article as it stands now? siddharth 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The last couple of paragraphs in the "History of Practice" section belong to the "Arguments" section. They should be merged / removed. --67.176.37.62 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed them, as they were already covered in the arguments section. siddharth 11:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whatever

A caste system? Wow, India is a sad a depressing country. Why not just eliminate the caste bullshit and implement true democracy where everyone is equal to the state.

That's a dream rationale Indians cherish. Interestingly, it is the democracy itself that has become an obstacle to fullfil this dream.Its complex!--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Simple question, complex answer. Most of it, as always, boils to down to the incompetence of the politicans and the vote-oriented, short term outlook they have. You might want to take a look at the indian caste system also. siddharth 15:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the practice

I think this part requires more citations, to back all the data presented. Also, I think that the tone of writing can be improved. Any other suggestions to improve its quality? siddharth 15:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I copy-edited the history section. Any comments on how it can be improved? siddharth 12:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV claims

This page does NOT have a NPOV. I don't know how to start a NPOV vote but clearly the page is anti quota in its wording. 59.144.44.85 06:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The history of the practice section seems to be POV, in my opinion. siddharth 15:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I copy-edited the history of the practice section to conform with the NPOV policy. If there are no objections, I'll remove the POV tag tomorrow. siddharth 12:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag siddharth 06:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Form of affirmative action

The intro says "Reservation is often confused to be a form of affirmative action." I think that reservation is a form of affirmative action. Can someone explain why it isn't a form of affirmative action? siddharth 15:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the intro to say that reservation is a form of affirmative action. If anyone objects, please state the reason why. siddharth 13:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. Reservation is a type of affirmative action.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, Affirmative Action and reservation are not the same. Reservation mean x% of something is set aside for group y. Affirmative action doesn't set such hard guidelines but just that group y gets somewhat preferential treatment. It can be argued that affirmative action is in effect a reservation due to the threat of lawsuit under employment equity legislation, but the two are absolutely not the same thing. 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To be merged

Moved this here, maybe it can be merged.

Many people in India allege that the minority groups, especially the Muslims and the Christians, are given special privileges and advantages over Hindus.

Since an amendment in 1976, the constitution of India describes it as 'secular', but secularism is actually an alien concept for the Indian society and therefore the overwhelming majority of the Indians understand the word very differently from the rest of the world, as a form of governance that is not affiliated with any particular religion. Instead, it is commonly understood as a philosophy where all religions are accepted/tolerated and the state is expected to involve itself actively in making the balancing act. The state’s organs and bureaucracy’s participation in religious rituals and symbolism, such as during the inauguration ceremony of a state building, are not considered as at odds with secularism, Such events are common and can even be considered secular as long as all major religious priests and uals are represented.

Religious appeasement is more important for the government or legislature than separation of religion from state. Criticism of ay religious dogmas and beliefs are normally not accepted as a genuine right or freedom of expression. Books with even academic criticism of popular beliefs are routine banned. The state has made laws promoting appeasement of religious dogmas, such as banning slaughter of cows for beef, a common diet in many parts of the world and even acceptable diet for many communities in India. Basically, the Indian society does not relate to secularism and confuses it with tolerance of religious dogmas.

It is normal in Indian way of secularism for public money to be spent towards religion’s indirect promotion. All government schools routinely promote prayers.

Many political parties in India have been accused of appeasing the minority groups, which are their vote banks.

The educational institutions established by non-Hindus can apply for the "Religious Minority Status". This means that 50% of the seats in these institutions are reserved for students belonging to a particular religion. For example, in DBIT Mumbai, 50% of the seats are reserved for Roman Catholic students.

The Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) also enjoyed a minority status (50% of the seats reserved for Muslims), until the High Court declared that the status was anti-constitutional. But the Teachers' and Students' Union of AMU, as well as many political leaders protested this decision of the Court.

Many Muslims groups have also asked for quotas in prestigious institutions managed by Government. A committee set up by the HRD ministry in 2005 recommended quotas for Muslims in institutions such as IITs, IIMs and IIFT [1].

Recently, the Congress Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a 5% job quota for Muslims, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court of India.

Also, the Government of India allows different laws for different religions, which it says is a consideration to accommodate for the religious differences(see Shah Bano case). For example, the Muslims are allowed to have more than one wife and divorce their wives using the triple talaq method. Many Indians (including moderate Muslims and Christians) are pressing for implementation of a uniform civil code as originally proposed in the Constitution of India.

Some other examples of alleged pseudo-secularism in India are the special concessions given to Muslims for pilgrimages (Hajj). Public figures in the government reflect the society and practice religious rituals in matters of governance such as 'Yagnas' for a good monsoon etc.

Also read :

[edit] Pro - Anti

I suggest this section be moved out as a seperate article to save the sanctity of this article, as it is a highly emotional for some youngsters and usually invites vandalism and false/ unvarifiable claims/ arguments for some people.

The pro&anti sections seem to invite trouble and very poor edits. I think it would be better for the quality of the article if it was a) deleted b) copy edited into para format. 59.92.52.58 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

An ‘expert in times now tv channel’ states with illustration that for every 10 seats available now, additional 5 seats need to be added to implement obc reservation but the fact of the matter is a mere increase of 36% seats will cater to the 27% reservation needs without “affecting” oc seats !!!!!

nice try, but wrong. increasing seats by 36% will result in the following breakup: sc 20.4 (15% of 136), st 10.2 (7.5%), obc 36.7 (27%) and unreserved 68.7 (balance). oops, the unreserved seats have dropped from 77.5 to 68.7. the sc and st percentages are mandated and 36% increase in seats will be enough only if sc and st category seat counts are frozen (allowing the percentage to drop). perhaps, that is what this author was thinking - with 136 seats, sc remains 15, st remains 7.5, obc gets 36.7, so unreserved is 76.8; in doing this, the reservation percentages of sc and st drop from the mandated 15% and 7.5% to 11% and 5.5%. if we increase the seat count by 54%, then we get the breakup as sc 23.1, st 11.6, obc 41.6 and unreserved 77.7 - and this is retaining the 77.5 seats that were unreserved before the obc reservation.Iitmsriram 08:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr veerappa moily report does not condemn the subversion attempts by iim . The iims had argued that in order to maintain the “brand equity” (I infer as hoodwinking constitutional benefits) reservations be confined only to diploma programmes & NOT DEGREE PROGRAMMES. They also want to confine reservation only to postgraduate programmes & NOT UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES .too smart? Do they think merit of outgoing graduates will be compromised by initiating a bc/sc into iim? Do the iim s fool themselves into the belief that reservation applies for pass percentages or are they afraid that new bench marks will be attained by bc/sc students? As far as increasing seats to “not endanger oc”, the government has actually increased intake in all institutions (from the time of inauguration of such an institute to present day) by 15% to 70% (figure varies with each institution). So if the intake capacity at the time of inception is taken as the base line reference value, the govt can straightaway implement reservation in all the present institutes with minimal fuss since the number of oc intake wont be less than that at inception!! Simple maths? Many institutes, which already have reservation for sc/ st , need only 36%, increase as pointed above. Anyway there is NO COMPULSION or CONSTITUTIONAL/ LEGAL LOGIC behind holding implementation of reservation hostage to time delay in implementing the “not to harm oc “ clause (which is a political one appeasing the minority but nevertheless powerful fc lobby in our nation); nor does it violate any law to implement reservation straightaway in the existing number of seats (with proportionate increments in oc , bc , st & sc seats as it happens over due course till it reaches present level (that way the fc dominated institutes will have an incentive to not delay expansion plans on flimsy excuses !!!! I don’t accept Aryan superiority since our human brain is infinitely capable of encroaching into other adjacent areas to expand its function (functional adaptation- there was even a bbc docu on human brain that illustrated the rapidity at which our brain adapts) .

I wont agree that a particular community is best suited for a profession. All these religious liars , sastras, Vedas. . . were written by fc people for benefit of fc people. Any other line taken by non fc writers wont be propagated as they controlled the transmission of info from one gen to next – through so called ‘guru’ s )

I feel those who have shown some results in any community is just a fraction of the potential of any community (depending upon their initiation into such a line & support/hindrance that the environment gives) Why delude ourselves into thinking that all bc/ mbc/ sc know that they are entitled to so many benefits? I certainly know of atleast 20 to 30 families in my native village who didn’t bother to get community certificates till they were asked proof of community (caste) in 10th std level (fearing “alaichal” & “mamool” at the hands of fc dominated bureaucracy). I personally know that still many oppressed people don’t even know/ believe it is possible to study mbbs with approx 6000 rupees p a (bc) , rs 3000 pa subsidy for mbc & 80% + fee waiver (forsc/st).

Why must forward caste students protest now?

1scope to sensationalize & spread biased info through fc dominated media to serve whipped up passions of a ‘well to do’ community is pretty obvious to anyone watching tv channels which didn’t reflect public opinion outside cities of north india 2The fc controlled media have an obvious hysterical bias against social equality 3 forward caste dominated media hype (against social equality) is against the constitutional right to reservation for socially oppressed classes (that has not been fully utilized even 50 years after independence due to fear to challenge the fc). 4If people want economic criterion for reservation, there is simply no constitutional guarantee for such a purpose. 5Further all the anti social equality protests were localized to urban areas (correctly speaking only in big cities of north India with bangalore as an exception). 6and even there was nil / forced support from bc/ sc / st candidates who had gained entry against all odds. 7They know that their superior staff & judiciary (mostly if not all are fc) will be biased against punishing them. 8To top it all sc directs govt to pay those who killed innocent bc/ sc / even oc patients for sake of striking unethically against our peoples’ unanimous (though belated) democratic constitutional move to implement legally what our constituent assembly wanted in 1947 with all major political parties supporting it even now. 9although the students are free to challenge reservation legally / by voting for any party that supports their selfish demand or to get elected as law makers & even get 2/3rd majority to amend the constitution, they know they cant achieve that in a country where they now enjoy much more than their electorate might (& don’t fool anyone into hitler’s Aryan superiority theory) !!

to punish for sake of coming up in life in spite of odds?

However to punish the rare few among the oppressed classes who have come up in life marginally in spite of social oppression & in spite of fc domination in whatever domain they enter is ridiculous. If such ridiculous arguments are accepted, then since (for sake of coming up in life in spite of odds) all ‘well to do bc/sc’ candidates will have to lose the right to govt jobs/ subsidized education ‘as bc/sc’ candidates ,

the same argument can be put forth for oc s too.
all ‘well to do oc candidates’ too (including fc) will have to lose the right to the govt jobs/ subsidized education  ‘as oc’ candidates– thereby
forcing all ‘well to do indians’ to study iim / iit /  mbbs/ any high degree at their own cost at their own private colleges (like bits pilani) .
if bc/ sc must be punished  for coming up marginally in life to middle class standards through ineligibility of  reservation benefits , then ‘well to do oc ( fc)’  too must also be made ineligible to compete in the open competition  among all economically backward Indians ( who are the only ones deserving admission according to fc s) . anyway fcs have no right to say some bcs must be made fc/oc until bc themselves protest!!!

Or the criterion for “well to do” must be appropriate example : if a middle class parent who has come up in life (in spite of fc/ inexperience/ lack of govt help) wants his two children to study mbbs in tamilnadu , it would cost 30+2+2+2+2+2+1 x 2 = 80 lacs over 7/8 years . Only those who can afford to spend more than 70000 to 1 lakh per month can dream such a thing. But if all central/ state govt / other salaried private employees having salaries around less than 2 lakh rupees / year are denied reservation benefits in govt supported institutes [this policy will injure EXCLUSIVELY only middle class bc/mbc/sc/st & NOT A SINGLE FC (irrespective of economic status) WILL FEEL CHEATED], what other option do these salaried employees have other than to cry at being punished for coming up in life marginally . [pandora’s box mischief : why not have an economic exclusion criterion of say 3 lakh p a for all MLA/ MP / MINISTER posts ?] .even if the economic-social-exclusion criterion is to be implemented by politicians (who have failed to implement social empowerment/ upliftment of socially backward communities, guaranteed in constitutional guidelines through reservation ,for more than 50 years in its full scale , at all levels , full heartedly) , it must be raised to such a limit where people no longer need govt help to pursue what they want (earning approx 1 to 3 lakh+ per month ie 10 to 30 lakhs+ p a – since they don’t need govt subsidy for studies. However the criteria can be halved to 5 to 10 lakh+ for jobs).

All agriculturists/ businessmen cheat salaried employees by claiming nil profit/ lowincome And those who speak of economic criteria forget that only 2% pay taxes & less than 10% file their income!!! All rich forward class agriculturists/ businessmen can easily cheat salaried employees by claiming nil profit & hence reservation to economically backward (with present criteria demand of fc s), without considering social backwardness , will enable such cheats to gain entry through reservation as it is next to impossible to find out who is actually making losses especially with all agriculturists (more than 50% of Indians) exempt even from filing IT returns !!!!

No predictability/ accuracy of income for more than 90% of all Indians. The rich can become poor & vice versa any time (for any vested interests) no constitutional backing for community ineligibility clause on economic or religious grounds although not stressed upon by fc dominated judiciary No credible voluntary private sector implementation of reservation to oppressed communities in spite of getting government sops & exemptions for everything . No inbuilt mechanism to prevent fc favouring bias at jobs, studies & schooling opportunities to enable their social upliftment None can truly find out the actual income of those who don’t get salary slips …!!! The private sector must also not be allowed to discriminate in the economic ineligibility clause. They must include economic ineligibility clause for all types of competition among/within communities if they hold it as an alibi to turn away a bc/mbc/sc/st candidate from joining / joining as oc . However the liberty to exclude all Indians above a certain income should be made only if 100% proof of all income is obtainable & only if the person is willing to live under the shelter of his parent’s money.

Why punish the sons/ daughters for the sin of coming up economically in life marginally against all odds ?

Our whole hypothetical reservation argument also loses sight of the fact that any major(>18) can chose to lead an economically independent life All parents need not necessarily support a person’s personal career ambitions economically.

A parent may earn x money & yet the rebellious estranged son/ daughter candidate could be a jobless below poverty line pauper.
A fiercely independent ‘major’ candidate of a bc/mbc/sc/st community cannot be prevented his/her constitutional right to social upliftment just because his/her parents (with whom he may have ended all contacts in enemity) earns some x money which is going to be of absolutely no use to his struggle in life/ studies/ jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, the obvious solution is to reject the derecognition of bc/sc clause based on parents income as demanded by fc which does not have any constitutional backing. To exclude another person (son/ daughter) from a community for his/ her sin of marginally climbing up the economic ladder in spite of social oppression is feudal oppression [in the name of community exclusion (punishment) for economic upcoming]. Only people from the bc/ mbc/ sc/ st who have marginally climbed the economic ladder (not necessarily social ladder) stand to lose by this mischievous demand

Reservation to oc ?!?

If oc wants reservation i guess that implies fc need reservation . Ok lets consider its merits too.. fc can be given reservation only if all 100% seats are reserved and if there exists no such thing as open competition ( proportional communal representation that allows no incentive for merit / social equity / social integration / destruction of casteist social superiority) .1.fixing such a quota shall take out the drive to do well to come into oc for bc / sc candidates.

2. Encourages fc people to not have any incentive to marry sc/bc & practice social oppression / untouchability

3. It does not rectify the gross over representation of fc s (who obviously have no superior brains to all other communities' brains since essentially all humans are equal in potential) & gross under representation of bc/mbc/sc/st (victims of systematic albeit unorganized discrimination through preferential treatment to fc , economic/social/cultural untouchability, biased interviews to annul entrance merit & illegal interpretation of reservation rules by denying the oppressed communities of oc seats by being forced to fill up a reserved seat in spite of superlative performances against all odds) 4 the oppressed classes merely demand right to opportunity & they are willing to come out successful in their disciplines (just like their fc counterparts) & in spite of fc dominated teachers bias / interview evaluations in practical/internals (unlike their fc counterparts)

anti merit? where does the question of loss in quality arise since you dont have a reservation among pass percentages? Only the really strong who endure fc oppression/ insults at all levels pass out in spite of the social discrimination. None can say 94% is poor performance (although<97%) – anyway how much marks do those paying 30 lakhs to buy a seat score?

Fight for merit must not be hypocritical & and what difference does that 3% have on the candidates pass/ fail after joining the course (say, in mbbs) ? if argument that 97% scoring candidates are superior , then there must be no failures among oc / fc candidates after joining the course . but that is not the case (atleast in mbbs)
Merit among the reserved is better to dogmatic hyper merit. Anyway why does mci / dote / aicte  prescribe a mere 60% requirement to enter such colleges?
So merit should be a means of selecting the best possible group from a single day lottery (entrance to judge 2 years preparation) systematically & transparently.

In the end, doctors getting distinctions don’t necessarily offer better quality health care!!!!!

Solution However the most easy way out is to give loans till 5 /10 lakh without any counter guarantee, at minimal interest through the college/ institution to every one who needs / requests , irrespective of fc/ bc/ mbc/ sc/ st . But they can withhold the original certificate till repayment of such a loan (eg:not later than 15 years after joining the course) . The college can issue provisional degree with amount of loan yet to be repaid printed on it for the benefit of such indebted candidates besides enlightening the employer of the economic liabilities of the employee!

Alternatively the college can utilize him (optional bonded labour – oxymoron!) for half the usual pay to tutors till such loan amount is recovered 
Another adjunctive option is to cross subsidise studying costs of bc /mbc/ sc / st with premiums on oc seats (secured by non oppressed classes). of course relatively well off among the oppressed communities need not benefit from such benefits*.

Simple !!!! anti reservation lobbyists will agree atleast to the practicability of my economic suggestion. Critical reviews welcomed

[ *at the same time they need not be burdened with subsidising others (including fc)]

blatant examples of discrimination are obvious in discrimination against

dark complexioned, dravidian featured (mostly non fc) persons for jobs like air hostess , receptionists. ..

[edit] Tamil Nadu

From The Govt Policy Note

Category---------------Population(2001)-% of Total Population--% of Reservation at present

Backward Classes-------2,87,93,980------46.14%----------------30%

Most Backward Classes--1,08,77,310------17.43%----------------20% (for MBC and DC)

Denotified Communities---21,46,755-------3.44%----------------

Scheduled Classes------1,18,57,504------19.00%----------------18%

Scheduled Tribes----------6,51,321-------1.04%-----------------1%

Others-------------------80,78,809------12.95%----------------No reservation

Total------------------6,24,05,679-----100.00%-----

Admission Data from http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/20/stories/2005072011970100.htm

Community	Population	%	Reservation	Seats in 2005 in General Quota	%
BC	2,87,93,980	46.14%	30%	321	74.65%
MBC/DC	1,30,24,065	20.86%	20%	57	13.25
SC	1,18,57,504	19.00%	18%	14	3.25%
ST	6,51,321	1.04%	1%	0	0%
Others	80,78,809	12.95%	No reservation	38	8.83%
Total	6,24,05,679	100.00%	100%	430	100%

[edit] Reservation in India and not Caste Based Reservation in India

Too much importance given to the Caste Based Reservations has been removed. The article deals with ALL kinds of reservation Doctor BrunoTalk 15:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't confuse the Students selected out of Total seats with the students selected out of General Turn

There has been confusing edits regarding the number selected out of the General Turn and the number of students selected out of Total Seats. Please read the article before making hasty edits Doctor BrunoTalk 18:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr.Bruno

I have modified the table to give both figures(No selected out of general category) and No selected on total seats. My contention in anti reservation argument is that No of forward castes admitted in total is around 3% of total seats as against 13 % population. I will make this point crystal clear in my argument. So please don't update it as 9% again. I have given calculations for the same in the table.

Thanks

Ravikumar

Agreed. If you have done this initially, I would not have bothered Doctor BrunoTalk 19:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced Edit

With reference to [2] I raise the following objections

Edit: You can observe that all communities gained more seats than their population at the expense of Forward Castes.

Fact: Only BC have got more seats. The seats of MBC/SC and ST are less than their population percentage

Please use the General Seats for Calculation and Not the total seats. Please discuss those points here Doctor BrunoTalk 19:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I quoted all others except Forward Castes were gaining in total no of seats in proportion to their population. I think this has been stated clearly. My statement does not say in OC all others are gaining.This has been put in clear terms in accompanying table also. If you still think that statement is not correct, you can modify the statement to reflect the meaning that in total seats only Forward castes are losers in comparison to their population.

Thanks Ravikumar

To all, People are removing Anti Reservation arguments and keep adding pro reservation arguments. I suggest to everybody to put their views in respective section and don't remove Pro/Anti reservation arguments. Can somebody try to add removed points in Anti Reservation arguments. Wikipedia forum is not court, removal of points from one section is not going to bring any benefits. So let us respect the sentiments and accomodate view points of everybody and be courteous while editing different sections.

Thanks Ravikumar

[edit] Use Common Yardstick

My point is that you should follow an uniform method

If you are rounding off 13 to 15, you should round of 8 to 10
If you are taking the TOTAL SEATS to discuss about the FOrward Caste, you should take that for SC/ST also (Remember that I started this section with General Turn Seats for all categories)

User Ravi and I have included both the figures. If you can see the table, I feel that it presents a better view for understanding. Hope the present stand is Ok for the time being. Since, at present we are talking about the TOTAL SEATS (and not the reserved seats), your edit regarding SC/ST has been modified. If you want to retain your statement, then please change the data for ALL the communities. There should be an uniformity. Any thing (either % of Total Seats or % of Unreserved seats) are OK with me, but the same yardstick should be used for all the categories.

Personally, I feel the present tabulation, where BOTH criterias are mentioned is the most appropriate Doctor BrunoTalk 12:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Anti Reservation Arguments and Suggestions=

There were lot of valid points in Anti Reservation arguments,due to recent vandalism most of the points have been lost. We need to retrieve old points. I have added few more points in additional suggestions and anti reservation arguments. It would be helpful if somebody can add additional links for the points added by me. --Lravikumar 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You can go to history of this page to find the earlier versions yourself. Hope this helps. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dr.Bruno, This is regarding your edit that ,95% of students admitted in medical colleges in 1950 were from Forward Castes. You have quoted Madras medical colleges admission register as verifiable source. I had tried to contact Madras Medical college administrative department. Few people whom I have spoken to did not have any clue about admission register for year as back as 1950. Could you please name a person and department from where I can get the information.

Thanks Ravikumar

I saw those records in 1996 (In th eold building). Now since they ve moved to the new building, the records will be in some godown. Contact ME1 Section. If you want details year-wise, (for every year for the oast 125 years) file a petition under RTI Act. Doctor BrunoTalk 02:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reservation in the posts of temple priests

an assertion has been made that the post of temple priest is 100% reserved (for brahmins). this is not correct and i have refuted this elsewhere in the article. in rural tamil nadu, every village/town has 2-3 temples minimum. there is usually an ayyanaar temple marking the border of the village. the priest of an ayyanaar temple is invariably a non-brahmin usually called a poojari. the village also usually has a traditional amman temple - a maariamman or an ellaiamman or some variation. the priests of these temples are also invariably non-brahmin. ayyanaar and traditional amman temple rituals occasionally involve animal sacrifice (illegal these days) which cannot be performed by a brahmin priest without seriously jeopardizing his 'brahmin' status. the other type of temple - a siva temple or a vishnu temple or the like - is the only one where the priest is brahmin by tradition. of course, the post of temple priest in hindu temples is about 100% reserved for hindus etc. Iitmsriram 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

user 72.179.29.40 deleted some text with the argument - "please limit arguments for against-reservation in the proper section. also clearly this point was talking about ayyanaar temples but sivan, thirumaal, vinayaka, muruga temples". the issue is not with arguing pro or anti reservation. a statement was made that the post of temple priest is reserved (for brahmins). i just added text to show that the assertion was incorrect. this user also admits that the assertion was incorrect but adds that the point being made was clearly about sivan, thriumaal, vinayaka, muruga temples. actually, the point being made does not mention what kind of temples, so it is not all clear that the point is about sivan, ... temples. the text needs to be edited to read as 'post of priest in sivan, ... temples is reserved'. it also needs to be noted that the ayyanaar and traditional amman (maariamman, ellaiamman etc) temples probably outnumber sivan, ... type temples. Iitmsriram 17:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost 99% of Hindu Temples have Brahmin Priests. Iitmsriram pls check with someone else, I can confirm for central and north India (pls check with people from UP, MP, Gujrat, Maharastra, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Himanchal, Uttranchal etc). Also normally sacrifice is carried out by devotee. Kamakhya Temple is one of famous temple where sacrifice takes place. I myself have seen goat sacrifice (by devotee) in Himachal, where it seems its not that odd a custom. Vjdchauhan 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

Can you cite any sources to back up the 99% figure? It seems to me it's more like 80%, since quite a few temples in Gujarat and Maharashtra have Dalit priests (newly appointed). Of course, majority of temples are run by Brahmins almost by definition.Hkelkar 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to look for the ref, ~~but I recall reading about a very famous Dalit Hindu priest named Pandaram down south~~.Correction. Pandaram is an ENTIRE Order of Dalit Priests, not a name. Hkelkar 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

please provide a source for 99% or 80% or majority. i have already noted the tamil nadu situation and this has not been challenged - in fact this has been acceded to by the other poster clarifying as 'sivan ... temple'. we can ask the opinion of doctorbruno who frequents hereabouts. a majority of temples in tamil nadu, which are small traditional temples, have non-brahmins (usually obc, not dalits) only as priests. these priests are called poosaary (or poojaary). in the absence of quantitative information, i am reverting the article wording to some. we cant even say many or most because that too indicates quantitative information that is not available. these practices vary state to state. in tamil nadu, the animal sacrifices (which are now illegal) are performed by the poosaary and i have witnessed many such sacrifices (even in my own village). i have also visited the kamakhya temple, but all that is totally irrelevant. if we a have source for quantitative data, then we can put many, more, most, 80%, 99% whatever. otherwise i cant see how we can say anything other than some. Iitmsriram 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 'post' of Sankaracharya

it was asserted here that the post of sankaracharya should not be reserved. there is no such thing as the post of sankaracharya. the heads of the (several)Maṭhas believed to have been set up by Adi Shankara are popularly called sankaracharya. the Maṭhas are not government institutions nor are they taxpayer funded. they are private entities essentially in the form trusts. as such, it is a private matter of the trust as to who is named as the head. nobody can claim a natural right to be appointed as the head - just like i have no natural right to be the head of your private family trust. Iitmsriram 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 69% of the article reserved for Tamilnadu??

I feel now article focusses too much on Tamilnadu.It seems 69% of the article is reserved for Tamilnadu. To maintain social justice we may have to give reservations in this article for other 95% Indians. If required Tamilnadu portion can be split as separate article because there are so many issues to be written about Reservations in Tamilnadu.Reservation is religion there.This is the one of the few forums you can write about Reservation in Tamilnadu. Have you ever wondered why no politicians in Tamilnadu has not bothered to speak even single word about under representation of Forward castes in all spheres of life? If anybody speaks they will be branded as Aryans & Anti Tamils..--Lravikumar 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add ALL forms of reservation, but many editors were interested only in caste based reservation. Only then I added the Tamil Nadu information, which clearly shows as to how Caste based reservation can uplift a state and then even without compromising a bit on merit. In my opinion, this page should talk about ALL kinds of reservations Doctor BrunoTalk 02:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr.Bruno, I agree with others view that Caste based reservation is the main chunk and most controversial form of reservation. For example all other forms of reservation may add together 3% whereas caste based reservation is between 50-70%. So there is nothing wrong in 'Reserving' major portion of this article for caste based reservations.

Whether caste based reservation is morally and ethically correct is the primary question. Its impact on merit may be the secondary issue.(Others may differ with my view). But reservation will affect merit for long period after its implementaion.(Tamilnadu also would have faced such a situation between 1920-1990).After few generations, reserved classes will obviously score over general category students as educational opportunities are denied to general category students. In present competitive world, can we afford to sacrifice merit for next few generations at country level is the question.

Regarding Reservation impact on efficiency. I have doubts about whether reservation can be attributed as reason for state's improvement. I questioned the same by quoting my logic in Anti reservation arguments. For argument sake if we accept it contributes to economical progress, then also it cannot be considered as good scheme. Nazi's have killed 6 million jews, all handicapped and old men during second world war and claimed it contributed to economical progress of Germany. Will you accept such a progress for country? Government should treat all its citizens equally and devise schemes to benefit real downtrodden people. Caste based reservation in present form does not benefit real downtrodden people. It creates insecured feeling among large section of its society.

Thanks Ravikumar

[edit] Suggestion to restrict editing of this article to only members with login

It seems users without login have edited this article and removed lot of points from Anti Reservation arguments and other notable suggestions. Sriram has once retrived from old backup,again same user has removed lot of points from other notable suggestions. --Lravikumar 05:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

i have reverted yet again; this is the third time that we have this 59.x anonymous user(s) doing major deletion without explanation. and, following the user record, this type of deletion is all that is being done. perhaps, we do need to restrict. Iitmsriram 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong information being spread by biased anti-reservationists.

To the above concern of the biased members, let me say that I'll come and discuss with you after my civil services exam as to why I keep deleting and will continue to delete those biased suggestions which may appeal only to anti-reservationists. This site is the very proof of how anti-reservationists are misusing the internet and the media for spreading false information about reservation to suit their needs. Unfortunately not many pro-reservationists have access to internet nor the language to put forth their views which are very justified.

Removing reservation altogether may appeal to you, not to pro reservationists. And every time I see that you add that reservation in education was only for 10 years, who told you that?! This shows how ill informed you are. The reservation of constituencies, that is political reservation in the Parliament and Assemblies, was for 10 years, and that doesn't apply for education and for jobs. No mention of reservations in jobs and education and their term has been mentioned in the Constitution. Get your facts right before you edit and spread false information. But I do not have time to discuss it now, will definitely do it after November 10th. And if you think you can run your biased show and provide wrong information to the world, keep trying, I'll keep modifying it as and when you add illogical suggestions and prejudiced arguments. In fact I'll overhaul the entire page after my exam. 59.92.x anonymous user

might i suggest then that you leave the article alone till nov 10th. we might have our biases but that should not stand in the way of putting out a good article. large scale deletions without explanations only makes you look like a vandal out to destroy the page. i did not write the part about 10 years (i cant tell if your comment is directed at me or ravikumar - please be more specific). it would appear you are better informed and thus better qualified to contribute to this article. (i just did a quick check on the constitution and you are indeed correct). but the way to contribute is not by large scale deletions without explanations. for example, see doctor bruno's contributions - there are verifiable facts and figures just like in your clarification about the 10 year limit. in the absence of such supporting evidence, it is impossible to distinguish between deletions backed by facts and vandalism. in the meantime, do get yourself a user id so you dont have to remain anonymous. Iitmsriram 16:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good article, it becomes a good article only when it has no biases. And sorry, I can't see biased articles anywhere, it's denial of right information to people. So, I'll keep deleting it as and when you try to project your false opinion as true. And large scale misinformation on an important issue as this makes you people not just look like vandals, but true vandals who're out here misusing the internet to spread false information. If you think I'm better informed, you can also be sure I'm better informed about other issues too, civil services exam teaches a lot of things which IIT, IIM and AIIMS grads don't understand or don't even know. The explanation to my deletions is quite simple, the language is horrible, how can you suggest removal of reservation completely as a 'notable' suggestion when it's an absurd suggestion?! You can include that under the heading ridiculous suggestions! And somebody has included that reservations was for 10 years inspite of I telling you that it's false! Why would I tolerate that false information?! And wherever it helps the anti-reservationists, it has been found that words like 'it should be noted' have been added as if to stress that the anti-reservationists are right and pro-reservationists are wrong. This is not a legal case we're fighting here, so nobody need not 'note' anything! The language under 'suggestions' has to be neutral, not a section where anti-reservationists vent their false opinions as suggestions, where is the need for that entire Tamil Nadu story in the 'notable suggestions' section?! Is it needed just because it appeals to the anti-reservationists? First of all, learn the diplomatic language, then you can write articles on reservation. Until then, don't ever think that I'll tolerate such nonsense on a site such as wikipedia, you can go to sites as orkut anti-reservation forums or some other reservation sites owned by anti-reservationists to write what you fancy. I'll keep deleting the illogical and wrong information as and when I see them. I need not have your permission for it nor I need to worry what you feel about my deletions, you may, and all anti-reservationists, may see me with their prejudiced vision as a vandal, I don't care, because those who spread false information with cooked up facts are worse than vandals for me! And I haven't read Dr Bruno's so called facts and arguements, I'll come and overhaul the entire page as I said, there're too many false informations and the language used is anti-reservation under various headings. If you're capable of writing a neutral article after doing considerable research, do it, or else, you keep away from the site, or you keep adding and I keep deleting till I find time to explain!! I don't see any reason why I should heed to your suggestion not to alter the page till November 10th and allow a misinformation campaign continue, forget till November 10th, why even for a single day? If it's about explaining things, then i see that a lot has to be explained by those who're putting up these so called facts and figures; they don't become facts and figures just because some biased website or newspaper published it, it has be recorded in the official gazette to become a fact. You can't quote rediff and timesofindia.com in support of your wrong information. For all you know, most of the media itself is involved in false campaign because of their ownership by the anti-reservationists. They in fact deny all the gazette information as false and misinterpret/mis-quote the Constitution to suit their needs. I see that you have to do a lot of explanation in terms of the so called facts and figures quoted on this page. I'll see that this isn't run like some orkut anti reservation forum, but I'll take my time.

Dear Friend, 1) In Recent days, myself,Sriram & Dr.Bruno were editing this article. Many times our views were contested by Dr.Bruno on facts and we relented based on arguments put forward by him. In the same way he has also graciously allowed us to edit our points of view or suggested alternative terminologies when it was presented with verifiable facts. 2) You are always welcome to edit your points of view if you have verifiable data for your points. Frequently logging in anonymously and deleting points which is not in line with your thinking is nothing but vandalism. 3) Rediff and Times of India were quoted for many pro and anti reservation arguments. If you strongly feel rediff or TOI citation is wrong then you can quote alternative citations to prove your point. Stating that rediff and TOI are owned by communities which don't support reservation is not logical argument to disprove the citation.(By the way rediff is owned by person who has come from backward section of the society) Thanks--Lravikumar 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications regarding Graph.

Dear Sriram, Regarding your clarifications on Graph. 1) It can be observed from the Graph that Growth accelarates to higher % from around 1988-91 period. 2) I added this chart as many people claimed(Mr.Chidamparam Finance Minister also claimed during Devil's advocate talk show )that Reservation contributed to overall development of Tamilnadu. From this chart you can find that Tamilnadu's growth trend is not significant enough and other developed Indian states which follows lesser % of reservation also was able to achieve same % of growth. Many Pro reservation arguments in Wikipedia were also based on Tamilnadu's growth because of Reservation. 3) Data for the period 1998-2006 also reflects the same trend. You can observe it in Tamilnadu section of Wikipedia. (It shows GDP figures. You can get Per capita by dividing with population). I have not included years 1998-2006 as it is not from same source. Moreover objective was to prove that Tamilnadu's growth has accelarated only for the last 15 years and other Indian states also were able to achieve same growth trend pattern without high% reservation. 4) You can edit terminologies suitably if required. Thanks Ravikumar

ok, i will give a close reading and see. well made arguments, good comparative data. i have also left some comments about duration of reservation for different classes. for example, obc reservation is there only for a relative short period. in spite of 50+ years of reservation, sc/st population is not showing significant improvement. in the current noise about obc reservations, the really deserving sc/st segments are getting sidelined, unfortunately. i have given up on chidambaram - i had a lot of respect for him, from his tamil maanila congress days; but when he says 'free colour tv scheme is feasible', we know whats on. anyway, good show. looks like the article is making good progress now. Iitmsriram 13:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the Math

The table says that OBC pop is 2,87,93,980 and that it is 46.14% of the pop. If that is the case then the pop of India is (2,87,93,980/0.4614)=62410000 or 64 million! That is clearly absurd as India's pop is over a billion! Hkelkar 08:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, is all this based on the Mandal Commission data? That is highly questionable per the article itself.Hkelkar 08:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake. This only applies to Tamil Nadu,right? Not to all of India.Hkelkar 08:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

Now the page is in excellent shape and very much adhere to NPOV policy dispite being on a hugely controversial page/topic (thus it took almost 4 months to stabilize). Thanks to all and esp to Dr Bruno, Iitmsriram and Lravikumar. :-) Vjdchauhan 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need a nutral view

To give a nutral point of view to this article, we need to:

  * Remove Data specific to tamilnadu, or separate it out
  * Edit the Section: Types of reservation-> Cast
    (This is highly anti-reservation in nature)

Hi, I modified Type of Reservation-->Caste section. Data specific to Tamilnadu is with proper citations and based on factual data.So,I don't feel the need to modify it. You can be more specific about your concerns.Thanks for your comments.Lravikumar 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I plan to do following cleanup after few days. Pl share your suggestions. 1) Make History,Types of reservation sections shorter 2) Move Up Recent Developments,Population Data to maintain proper flow 3) Move down Caste Based Reservations in Tamilnadu section 4) Remove statements without citations for long time in all sections. --Lravikumar 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Make History,Types of reservation sections shorter

This article is Titles Reservation in India. Hence they should stay. If you want, you can create "Caste Based Reservation in India and remove the Types of Reservation"

2) Move Up Recent Developments,Population Data to maintain proper flow

Tamil Nadu has been following reservation for a long time. That should come first for a proper flow

3) Move down Caste Based Reservations in Tamilnadu section

As above

4) Remove statements without citations for long time in all sections.

Added Citation for many statements
For many of the statements, citations were given previously and deleted by some fanatic editors. So no need to remove that. The following statements are unsourced

ProReservation

South Indians out-numbered the number of Indian students studying/working in International Organization

Anti reservation

Equality can never be achieved using reverse discrimination
Most of the countries have inequality problems, but India and Malaysia (See Bumiputra) are the only countries which advocate Reverse discrimination
Caste-based reservations use wrong method to identify the downtrodden. Doctor Bruno 04:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Point 1 - I never said I am going to remove it. I only planned to make it shorter by removing points which is repeated in other sections and to improve readability as part of cleanup

Point 2 & 3 - OK.

Point 4 - Affirmative action, BumiPutra wikipedia articles are good citations which shows the quota policies used by other countries. Other points can be removed as suggested by you.

[edit] Reservation reason for TN Growth

Dear Dr.Bruno. I have observed you have removed one of the Anti reservation point entered by me with citation from Harvard universit and added same citation as proof for pro reservation argument in Tamilnadu section. I have removed the point entered by you and not reinserting my point as of now till we reach consensus.

My argument was. States A,B,C,D,E were states with good growth rates. Only state A(Read Tamilnadu) follows very high % of reservation and state A growth rate is not significant compared to other states. My argument is valid as long as there is a proof that A,B,C,D,E are good growth rate states(proof as per new citation) and if there is an agreement only A follows high percentage of reservation. Chart is only mode of data representation. So with or without chart my point is valid with new citation.

Your argument was Tamilnadu growth rate is good (Fact1) and Tamilnadu follows high % of reservation(Fact2). You argue Fact1 is caused by Fact2. Sometime back I have put argument which was edited subsequently to make statement simple Kashmir & Punjab were pioneer states in reducing poverty (Fact1)Kashmir & Punjab were affected by terrorism (Fact2). You cannot argue Fact1 is caused by Fact2. Gujarat growth rate is good in recent years(Fact1) and Gujarat is affected by Religious riots in recent years(Fact2) You cannot argue Fact1 is caused by Fact2. Same logic is applicable for Tamilnadu case also.Otherwise somebody can also argue. State X growth rate is good. State X does not follow high % of reservation. So not having reservation is the reason for development.

You also stated Private Engineering colleges were started only in the last 10 years as reason for removing that point. First private engineering college in Tamilnadu was started in Kovilpatti in the year 1984. By 1994,Tamilnadu had atleast around 75 engineering colleges. Jeppiar who runs many engineering colleges in Tamilnadu is one of the wikipedia user. You can cross check with him.

I have stated that the "boom" of private engineering colleges was after 1995. And you statement regarding Engineering college is a little off the mark. In 1996, there were totally 72 colleges, of which 11 came under DOTE I and 61 under DOTE II and III. I am very sure of this number as I wrote my 12th in 1996.

Coimbatore institute of Technology was running for the past 4 decades. Hence your second statement regarding 1984 is also wrong

I used the SAME source that you used, not another source for the economic development. If you are not satisfied about your own source, and want to remove that, I have no objection comments. Doctor Bruno 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Coimbatore engineering college is Govt.Aided like Madurai Thiagaraja engineering college. Unaided private college has started in 1984. If we had 11 engineering colleges like 1984,even no of engineers generated would be only 1100-2000.Even with 100% reservation it would not have been sufficient for IT companies to start industries in Tamilnadu. With 250 engineering colleges 85000 engineers are getting generated. You can also observe Karnataka,Andhra Pradesh,Maharastra and Tamilnadu are the states with largest private engineering colleges and these are the states which stands top in IT. So reservation as reason looks ridiculous to me. If reservation is reason why it did not show marked improvement till 1985?. Mid meals scheme impact on primary school enrollement is also well documented.You can see relevant wikipedia article. So my contention is with or without exhorbitant reservation TN growth would have been same. In my opinion,Reservation aided rich in Forward caste to become poor, rich in Backward castes to become super rich and it really assisted MBC,SC/ST sections.

The key events for the overall development of Tamil Nadu was the Vaikkom Entry and Midday meals. There is no doubt about that. Without Mid day meals, reservations would not have helped to the magnitude they have helped today. But midday meals are only for schools. The growth of IT sector was not due to reservations. Reservations are needed for the overall social development Doctor Bruno 03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Reservations can be quoted only as a tool for social development not for state's growth rate. Reservation can only distribute what is available.Growth can come only by adding extra.This is exactly I argued in my point.Since we concur on this issue,I wish to reinsert my point.--Lravikumar 03:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Reservations are for improving the Social Status. The are needed, but reservations alone are not sufficient for upliftment. Reservations alone cannot do everything, but it is a gross mistake to tell that reservations are useless or not needed. You can say that Reservations alone cannot uplift a state. That is a sentence. But that is NOT a point against reservation. Such an argument is totally idiotic. If you feel that many factors apart from reservation are needed, that can be mentioned in relevant articles. Not here. Doctor Bruno 07:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The foolish claims of those supporting Economy based Reservations

Merit was just an excuse for Apartheid. I would like to know the reaction of all those who were crying in the name of Merit (including two self-centered caste-centered nepotistic chaps who resigned from the knowledge commission in the name of merit) as to the new shift in demand by those against the OBC Reservations, that they are ready for Quota based on Economy, but not for quota based on Caste.

For those who do not know the difference, let me explain

Now if seats are reserved on the basis of caste, let us assume that a Student from FC will get the seat if he scores 297 out of 300 where as a student from SC will get the seat even if he scores 291 out of 300 (these are the cut off values from MBBS Admission in Tamil Nadu in 2005)

So far the apartheid guys were shouting loud that merit will be affected. There were even remarks from few of those “intelligent” chaps that a guy who scored 292 (SC guy who has got seat) is less talented (or less meritorious – let me repeat the word play) than the forward caste guy who scored 296 (and there fore cannot get the seat as the OC cut off is 297)

But now they WANT QUOTA ON ECONOMY. So they have no problem when a poor guy with mark 292 gets the seat while a rich guy with mark 296 does not get the seat. And strangely, in this case, (according to these doctors and also a person called Narayana moorthy, for whom I had great regard, until he too advised economy based quota) the merit is not affected when quota is based on economy.

Now I am not able to understand this……

If the earlier claim that merit is going to be affected by reservation based on caste is true, then merit is going to be affected if the quota is based on economy or for that matter any other reason like the state of domicile (Delhi – 100 percent reservation for Delhi Undergraduates) , Religion (eg Andhra Pradesh) , college graduated (eg JIPMER)

So a person whose primary aim is preservation of merit should NOT ALLOW ANY QUOTA.

But See the guys who want Reservations on so many other factors.

They do not want a SC student getting 292 marks get MBBS. But they were silent when Private colleges were started that made any person, even those who passed 12th after 3 attempts get MBBS. What were they doing when the private colleges were opened? They did not even give a sign of protest. Do those AIIMS guys think that we all are fools to believe that they are crusading for merit at present? What were they doing for those sponsored seats and NRI quotas

They have no problem when some one gets MBBS from Private College even though he gets 50 marks in 12th. They never fought. It was Tamil Nadu students who had always fought against the private medical colleges

They have no problem of a student getting low marks in PG entrance in AIIMS, but getting MD Gen just because he studied MBBS there. At that juncture they never represented to PM or President

And as per the latest statement, they have no problem if a poor guy who gets 292 marks become a doctor while a rich guy who gets 296 has to watch

BUT THEY ARE WORRIED when a SC Guy (or a OBC Guy) who takes 292 marks get admission instead of a Forward Community guy who gets 296.

SO in effect, all these hullabaloo is not against reservations. It is in fact against the students from the reserved community.

They were not fighting for merit as they were claiming (we already knew that merit is a mask) They fight to maintain apartheid. And see this report in Economic times by Urmi Goswamy from Delhi (as per http://thoughtsintamil.blogspot.com/2006/05/blog-post_23.html) that sums up the issue

PRIVATE schools and parents worried about their children studying along side children belonging to weaker sections can breathe easy. The government proposes to let them off the reservation hook. The model Right to Education Bill proposes that private schools that receive no funds from the government will not be required to take children from weaker sections. The Model Bill will form the basis of states’ legislation to enable the fundamental right of education.

SO there are guys in Delhi who cannot breathe easy when a student from weaker society studies along with his children. Their main worry seems to be the community of the student who studies along with them and not the marks of the students who studies in the college. God Save India !!! Doctor Bruno 08:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making your biases clear.Please don;t make wikipedia a soapbox to air personal viws/opinions and stick to editing.Hkelkar 08:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW India has no need for God. She needs G-d to save it from this reservation stuff.That's MY opinion anyway. Standards have fallen like absolute crazy since the 50% quota was introduced in IIT.Hkelkar 08:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotas in IIT

WHat is the 50 % Quota in IIT. When was it introduced. Can you elaborate ??? Doctor Bruno 08:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Er a massive quota was introduced in IIT just last year. Of course, it is not without restrictions (thank G-d).The quota students who flunk the JEE can still get in, but they have to take a one year prep course. Nonetheless, my alumnus journal says that profs have already had to lower the standards of core courses and eso-bso courses because quota students don't have the background or prereqs to pass the courses as they stood. It's really quite tragic as it would severely compromise the quality of students coming out of the IIT's.Hkelkar 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

this is incorrect information. there has been no 'massive quota' introduced at iits last year. iits do not have 50% reserved seats as of now (2006 november). there has been no change in reserved quota in iits for the last 20 years or so. it has been 15% for sc and 7.5% for st categories (and another 3% for physically handicapped). jee2007 advertisement has already come out and it has this reservation scheme only. as of date, the government has not issued any obc reservation policy for iits and this is clearly stated in the jee2007 advertisement - as and when obc reservation policy is announced for iits, it will be incorporated in admissions. it is likely that obc reservations and 56% seats increase will be phased in over a three year period. i have clearly stated how the reservation policy operates in the iits in the relevant section. jee is a competitive examination - as such, there is no passing grade and therefore, no flunking! please read what i have written about who is admitted and who goes to preparatory course. i know these things, i am teaching at an iit. Iitmsriram 17:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Which IIT do you teach in? Core or ESO/BSO?Anyways my alumni newsletter says that the preparatory course is essentially a stopgap quota measure and effectively carried the 50% thing through. You're right abt JEE of course, when I said pass/flunk I was using the terms loosely (in my day you couldn't get much if your hawaa fell below 3000 so that was the de-facto "pass-rank").Hkelkar 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

you could have clicked on my user link to find that i am a graduate of iitm and have been teaching at iitm (aero dept). your use of eso/bso sez that you are iitk. do you have a reference to your alumni newsletter article which talks about 50% quota and prep course? that information is plain wrong. if it is actually printed so, i need to ask your alumni newsletter to retract it. once again, let me refer to what i have written in this article about how reservation operates in the iit system. it is exactly as i have written for about the last 20 years. you are still mistaken about quota students. if you define scoring below that last admitted general (non-reserved) category student as flunking, then ALL quota admitted students are flunking. however, all of them do not go into the prep course. etc etc etc. read what i have written. thats how it operates.Iitmsriram 08:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well sir obviously you are more knowledgeable on this matter than I am so I'll take your word for it. The newsletter says that there were protests all over the iits regarding the 50% quota implementation (I even got an email from the alumni office regarding this).Apparently, compromises were made.Like I said, I'll leave the editing of this article to users like you or that Lravikumar guy who are more knowledgable about the nuances and semantics of the reservation system .Hkelkar 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

dont sir me. we are all equal contributors here!Iitmsriram 09:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it 50 %. Do you mean to say that 50 % of the seats are reserved for SC/ST last year. I wonder as to how the standards are compromised in IITs by entry of Quota students, where as in Medicine and other fields (take Cinema for example - 40 years ago, all the music directors were from Forward Caste, now even other communities are shining in Music and Dance) the standards are not decreased by entry of students from other Quota. Southern states have been following Quotas for long. Yet they have become the Capitals of Health Tourism (with doctors from all communities sucessfully doing surgeries for patients refused by other doctors) and Information technology. Please see Ravikumar's comments, who says that Tamil Nadu benefitted from self financed engineering colleges with the output of colleges being responsible for the IT boom. They are all students from all sectors. How is that SC students affect merit only in IIT, where as in other fields they are able to perform on par or even outshine others. (Another example from Cinema - 40 years ago, the leading directors, leading music directors etc were from Forward castes, but with the implementation of Mid day meals and Reservations, people like Ilayaraja and Bharathiraja were able to come ahead) It is not because Ilayaraja did not have the ability to compose songs. It was because his community was refused education for 2000 years that even those who are brilliant in that community cannot express their talents. Now Reservation gives an oppurtunity for those who have the talent. Merit is affected in any quotas, but I feel that the greatest threat to merit is self financing colleges (which admit students with a pass - sometime even pass after 3 attemtps) and not Quotas where you still need to score 95 % to get admitted. Doctor Bruno 13:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

i have answered about 50% reservation above. tamil nadu engineering/medical admissions and iit admissions are quite different. i agree with your statement about self financing colleges compromising merit more than anyone else. however, please take a look at my iit admission numbers in the article to see how reservations operate at iits. it is not an issue of someone getting 95% getting admitted through reservation. the iit scheme is sc/st candidates getting 65% of last admitted general category candidate gets admitted. even if we assume that the last admitted general category candidate got 100% marks, for sc/st candidates, 65% guarantees admission. in reality, the last admitted general category candidate has, maybe, a 60% or so score (varies from year to year and this figure is not published; it is usually than this). so, something like 40% score on jee will qualify sc/st candidates for admission (which is a far cry from 95%). further, sc/st candidates scoring less than this 65% of and scoring down to about 40% of the last admitted general candidate are offered admission to a one year preparatory course, on completing which they get admitted to the regular iit program. this means, for prep course admitted candidates, the actual jee score could be 25% or less. it is also an established fact that about half of the students with academic problems in the iit system are reserved cateogary candidates. while about 95% or so general category candidates complete the degree program in the stipulated 4 years, the number drops to around 60% for reserved category candidates. all this information is available in the vinay kripal book cited in the main article (based on actual data collected from iits in the 90's). however, what these academic problems and lower graduation rate mean for success in later life is not clear. Iitmsriram 17:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ilayaraja or Bharathiraja coming up in cinema is nothing to do with Reservations. In North India where reservation percentage is no so high so many successful actors and directors are from Muslim community.(Sharukh Khan,Salman Khan,Amir Khan etc etc). It is assumption that only Forward caste people were in cinema few decades back. Sivaji Ganesan or MGR who were at top were not from Forward Caste.So many directors of Tamil cinema are also not from Forward caste. Merit getting affected by Reservation is true when it is introduced. over the time (after 20-30 years) Backward caste people will be able to secure marks over forward caste after 1-2 generation of forward castes are denied their right for education as happened in Tamilnadu. So you cannot say merit is not affected by reservation by comparing cut off marks of Tamilnadu. In Tamilnadu with 85 years of Reservation around 5-6 generation of Forward castes were denied education. Obviously Backward castes will score equal to or more than Forward castes.

I thought we have agreed that Reservation cannot be quoted as reason for Tamilnadu growth. I have observed you have reintroduced your text in Tamilnadu section. Your text makes lot of assumptions like backward castes are represented adequately only for the last 20 years which is not quoted in citation. Citation also shows states like Maharastra growth rate is higher than Tamilnadu which does not have exhorbitant reservations. By using same logic it can also be argued not having exhorbitant reservation aids higher growth rate. You have given Tamilnadu citation for promoting intercaste marriage in big way. citation states 48 people benefitted out of 60 million? Is it big way? I remember having read from BBC article that states like Gujarat offers around 1200 dollars equivalen for intercaste marriage.--Lravikumar 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You give a source and I use that. If you are not satisfied with your own source, you can remove that. That 48 is just on ONE occassion. If you see the first day of Engineering counselling Minister will give allotment letters for 20 candidates and that will be mentioned in the news papers. That does not mean that ONLY 20 students got selected for engineering. This is such a simple logic. I am at loss to understand as to how you cannot even understand such simple things. You can always Gujarat also. No problems. Any how Gujarat as an example for State with regard to Communal Harmony is very interesting Doctor Bruno Talk 02:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

1) I have removed that point since citation does not say BC adequately represented for last 20 years only. It also does not state that Reservation is responsible for growth. 2) Regarding your sarcastic comments on simple logic,You have given two citations for TN Govt. promoting intercaste marriage. Citation one states for 2004-05 48 people were benefitted from the scheme.(For whole year). Citation two states few people receiving benefits out of the scheme. None of your citation says in one event 48 people benefitted. 3) Let me not discuss in detail about Gujarat communal riots here as our discussions will deviate from core subject of this article. In my opinion, discrimination on caste,religion,gender,race,linquistic etc are condemnable.Dalit getting discriminated in villages or grasping seat from poor forward caste and offering to super rich from other caste are condemnable. Condemning only religious discrimination and justifying discrimination against Forward caste inspite of their under representation is unreasonable.Politicians who does that is hypocrites. 4)Why Caste alone has to be used to identify under represented groups? UP,Bihar,Orissa,North Eastern states are not adequately represented in state & central services. Women are under represented in all spheres of life. Raising voice for those under represented groups may not fetch votes for them. --Lravikumar 13:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have begun to Edit the information provided as it is very biased.

I have begun to edit this entire page as it is very biased and prejudiced. I wish to see some objectivity and sense in this article. I have edited the definition to begin with. If anybody has any problem with the definition, I'm ready to debate about it.

Reservation is not meant for 'only' under-represented groups as claimed by the previous definition. It is meant for socially and economically backward citizens and for the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) as per the Constitution of India. In most cases, these socially and economically backward citizens and SCs and STs are under-representated and they are the ones who can claim Reservations. A group, just because it is under-represented, if it is not socially and economically backward or does not belong to the SCs and STs, cannot claim Reservations. Any doubts?

Your definition is correct technically and more appropriate for introduction. I made corrections to reflect that non reserved classes are under represented in some areas.(Otherwise it will give the impression that SC/ST/OBC are under represented in all areas and other categories are over represented in all areas.That kind of political statement is not true.).Govt conducted surveys always indicate that 1) OBC and Others are comparable in many aspects 2)condition of SC/ST is appalling and there is a vast difference between OBC and SC/ST.3) Condition of SC is even worser than ST in many areas. --Indianstar 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You can reflect what you want to say in support of your anti reservation cause under a separate heading than trying to include it in the definition which alters the definition, and is introduced in it abruptly. I don't see how this sentence "However there are many exceptions like Tamilnadu where Non Reserved classes are not adequately represented)." becomes a part of the definition, it can definitely be included in your arguements against reservation.

And I do not understand the need for adding "to make a court judgement invalid", which again is a very biased statement in the definition. You can also say it with a positive tone that the Constitution was amended for the benefit of the other socially and economically backward classes when the court held the reservation for OBCs to be unconstitutional (that's the word to be used and not 'invalid') according to the Constitution before the relevant amendment! After the relevant amendment it's very constitutional and valid. Anyway, I don't see how that explanation comes within the ambit of the definition of Reservations! Perhaps that can be added when you're trying to give the history of Reservations.

And I think you haven't done enough homework before altering a controversial article of this magnitude. You are wrong when you say that the Constitution had not made provision for resevations for the OBCs. Article 16, clause 4,is where Reservations flow from and it states "Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State." When this Article was seen as going against Article 15, and on that ground reservations were held unconstitutional by the Court, the first Amendment in 1951 added clause 4 to Article 15 and made reservations Constitutionally valid. The Amendment was moved by Dr.Ambedkar himself. Get your facts right before trying to spread false information.

I'm not debating the point whether SCs/STs/OBCs are under-represented or over represented and whether non-reserved categories are under represented in some States or over-represented in the definition. Who are we to alter the definition as it was intended to be by the framers of the Constitution? Whether the Government is giving reservations even when a class is over-represented or whether it is not giving reservations even when a class is under-represented is nothing but improper implementation of the reservation policy and has nothing to do with the definition per se. And definitely Government thinks OBCs/SCs/STs are under-represented based on its facts and figures. You can question it and express your apprehensions in the arguements against reservation than trying to express it in the definition itself.

Bu to make place for your apprehension in the definition, I'm adding "perceived by the Government to be inadequately represented."

1) Your new definition is OK.

2) Constitution is not sacrosanct or religious book. Any citizen has right to question it if it was amended violating basic ethics and moral values. So constitutionally correct does not mean ethically correct.For example, Hitler usurped citizenship of Jews as per German constitution. One fine morning he announced that Jews are not supposed to own any businesses as per German constitution. Holocaust is probably conducted as per German constitution. Tomorrow to suit whims and fancies of politicians, constitution can be amended to reserve 100% seats for particular section. Do u expect that affected people have to agree that decision because it is constitutionally valid?

But I believe Indian constitution as drafted originally by Ambedkar looked like religious book. Inspite of discriminations based by him in his life,he wanted positive actions to uplift weaker sections rather than ethnic cleansing policies being followed by many politicians.

3)Regarding your allegation that I have not done my home work:

Supreme court is better judge than you and me about whether phrases about OBC reservation is valid as per original constitution. It has given judgement in 1951 stating that it is not valid.

Please read following article written by famous lawyer which argues how articles stated by you is not valid. I think that lawyer is better person than you and me for intrepreting constitution.

http://www.savebrandindia.org/pil_article.html

There are so many articles available in Internet which is written by good lawyers which says OBC reservation is not intended in original constitution.

I am removing words that it is originaly intended in constitution as there are ambiguities and whether it is part of original constitution or not is not required in the definition.

I think you could have phrased your sentence in a positive way rather than putting allegations like

a) "I have not done my home work." b) "I am spreading false information."

It looks like a personal attack --Indianstar 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Constitution is not a religious book, it is much more than a religious book as it applies to one and all in India unlike the religious books which apply only to people who follow that particular religion. It is the supreme law of the land and hence it is sacrosanct among all laws.

In India, Constitution is supreme, it is above the Parliament, so it implies that it is above the people themselves. So when something is constitutionally correct, irrespective of it being morally correct or ethically wrong, it still is constitutionally correct and valid and neither you nor I can claim it to be wrong or right according to our own prejudices and biases. If something is questioned in a court of law, it is bound to give judgements according to the constitution and not according to your or my or the morals and ethics of judges themselves which may differ from person to person. The constitution thus provides the basic guidelines to the lawmakers and judges whether something is just or unjust or whether something is in accordance to its guidelines or not. Those guidelines are not for fun, they are to be strictly followed if we have to remain together as a country and in peace.

It is unfortunate that you are bringing in Hitler's laws as examples to justify your arguement against the Indian constitution, what an insult! The Indian constitution which is respected by lawmakers worldover for its intellectual and moral depth has been relegated to being compared to some autocrat's barbaric laws because it serves the anti-reservationists' selfish purpose and it goes against their class interests. Just because it doesn't provide them reservations, can anyone go to the extent of maligning the constitution by comparing it to some tyrant's rules which murdered six million people in cold blood?!

And as you said, if some day your own politicians whom you elected reserve 100% of the seats for some section, then you'll have to endure it or you'll have to resist it by creating awareness and bringing them down from power, because this is a democracy, not autocracy, oligarchy or communism, and not by maligning the constitution! Remember that constitution is the one that provides you the power to bring down your rulers, without that you'd be left so helpless. Who is the ruler in a democracy? The people themselves! If politicians remove all reservations tomorrow just to make place for a section which already dominates all educational instutions and services, then should all the pro-reservationists heap accusations on the constitution or on the politicians whom they elected to rule them? That was already tried by the BJP trying to review the constitution, but they feared that in a democracy they might never come to rule the people again, so they had to come to a consensus. If you need such a consensus, and your interests to be taken on board, then go vote, bring the party which serves your needs better, that's how a democracy works. You can't blame the politicians, if that is the case, then you might rather blame democracy itself, that in turn means blame yourself/people, because you've left a number of people behind and created inequality which makes them vote for those who can provide them some equity and equality.

If I think on your lines, even I can say that whatever judgements the Supreme Court judges have given pertaining to reservations since independence smack of anti-reservation prejudices and they are opposed to reservations, and so the judges are no better than the politicians! There is no reservations in the judiciary, all the judges are so called upper-caste judges, who are affected by reservations, they are selfish enough to give more say to their own class and castes in positions of power and privileges, they are affected by their class and caste sentiments, so their judgements are biased and casteist! How does it sound? Very immature? That's how your arguements seem to me.

In spite of there being a law that a judge cannot hear cases in which he himself is accused or has some interests in the case, today the cases pertaining to reservations are being judged by judges belonging to class and castes which are anti-reservations. But still the pro-reservationists accept the rulings of their unelected supreme court judges' rulings, that's because they respect the constitution and the institutions established by the constitution. If they too start behaving immaturely like the anti-reservationists and stop respecting the Constitution, Parliamewnt and the Courts, then the country will not be united anymore. To prevent tensions arising out of such 'biased' judgements, and to maintain the sovereignty of the country, the Ninth schedule was introduced in the constitution in 1951 and contentious laws were put under it, keeping them away from the purview of courts. Otherwise, states like Tamil Nadu would be the first to break away from India and provide 100% reservations, and the anti- reservationists would've seen real holocaust like that of your German example. Holocaust is not provided by the constitution, but our constitution has successfully prevented it inspite of we being so divided a people.

And the job of the supreme court is to say whether a law, according to the constitution, is valid or invalid, and it is not it's job to make laws. It is the job of the Parliament to make laws and it is the Parliament that can ammend the constitution. As originally intended by the constitution, the Parliament can amend the constitution in whatever way it wants and the courts couldn't question the amendments, but now the Supreme Court is trying to limit that power of the Parliament by coming up with something called the "Basic Strucure of Constitution" concept. That is leading to friction between the parliament and the court as the court has assumed to itself powers to limit the amendment power of the parliament which isn't provided for in the constitution. And soon there will be pressure from the parliament on the court to define this concept as the judges are trying to make laws of their own under the garb of 'basic structure of the constitution' without defining what basic structure is. That takes away the power of the parliament and puts it in the hands of the court, whose judges are not elected representatives, so it becomes a rule by the judges than the rule by the people as it is supposed to be in a ademocracy. This was seen recently when Ram Jethmalani in the Supreme court, told the court to behave with more responsibly and with sensitivity towards people's aspirations, and that five or seven or eleven judges can't cannot decide the validy of amendments and that parliament, being the elected body, was the authority to do so according to the constitution and not the supreme court.

Again, I hate to say this, but you don't seem to have done any homework. What you are saying about reservations for OBCs not being mentioned in the original constitution is completely wrong. It is mentioned in Article 16. But it was seen as going againt Article 15. So the Article 15 was amended in 1951. The court had not ruled 'reservations for OBCs/SCs/STs' as invalid, but it had ruled 'reservations' in itself as an invalid policy because it went against Article 15! Then the technical glitch caused by the Article 15 were rectified by Ambedkar and the rest of the constitutional framers themselves. The supreme court is not what has made the constitution, it is the constitutional framers who have made the constitution. Though the sentence " Reservations were originally provided in the constitution" is 100% right, I'll not mention it in the definition as you desire.

And I don't go by what plenty of lawyers say on the internet nor their articles which may be biased or othwrwise, I go by the Constitution, the bare-act, which has every minute detail in it, it's available in the market. You can buy it and go through it yourself than depending on the interpretations, biased or otherwise, of various lawyers on the internet. And it is no rocket science, it is very simple, clear and has no ambiguities whatsoever.

I do not intend to make personal attacks, but the attitude of 'i know all' as being expressed by anti-reservationists and trying to ,by hook or crook, justify/bolster their movement with false information makes me make subjective remarks at times. Sometime those subjective remarks may even be true and as they say reality bites. And I pity the pro-reservationists who really have a cause, but neither the knowledge nor the language nor people with leadership qualities who can argue for their cause.

[edit] Biased Arguments/Weasel Words

I have edited some of the sentences under the Arguments section. These sentences did not have any supporting materials, and were highly biased; they were based more on personal opinions than fact. Please guys, wikipedia is not a forum for debate; it is an encyclopedia and should offer unbiased information for both sides so that readers can get the general picture, and not others personal opinions. LostTemplar 13:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance Assessment

I have marked Importance as "Top" due to following reasons. 1) Subject matter covers entire India.(Not applicable to specific region/group). 2) This matter is one of the most discussed subjects in India. 3) This article is referred most in non wikipedia pages of web.(Can be confirmed by Google Page rank of 7,very few articles in India portal has such high page rank like Indian Economy.

For Information,Article India leads Indian portal with page rank of 8.(India article is appearing in Top 100 wikipedia articles by viewership).

Even India's No1 website(As per Alexa) Rediff has a page rank of 7. So I presume this article with page rank of 7 should have high viewership.

--Indianstar 02:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/s/Talk%7EReservation_in_India_420d.html"

Categories: India articles with comments | India articles assessed in November 2006 | Start-Class India articles | Start-Class India articles of Top-importance | Top-importance India articles

Talk:Reservation in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Constitution of India

[edit] More Statistics Needed

[edit] Discussion on Reservation in India

[edit] Creamybackwards??

[edit] Quality of article

[edit] Whatever

[edit] History of the practice

[edit] POV claims

[edit] Form of affirmative action

[edit] To be merged

[edit] Pro - Anti

[edit] Tamil Nadu

[edit] Reservation in India and not Caste Based Reservation in India

[edit] Don't confuse the Students selected out of Total seats with the students selected out of General Turn

[edit] Unsourced Edit

[edit] Use Common Yardstick

[edit] Additional Anti Reservation Arguments and Suggestions=

[edit] Reservation in the posts of temple priests

[edit] The 'post' of Sankaracharya

[edit] 69% of the article reserved for Tamilnadu??

[edit] Suggestion to restrict editing of this article to only members with login

[edit] Wrong information being spread by biased anti-reservationists.

[edit] Clarifications regarding Graph.

[edit] Problem with the Math

[edit] Well done

[edit] Need a nutral view

[edit] Cleanup

[edit] Reservation reason for TN Growth

[edit] The foolish claims of those supporting Economy based Reservations

[edit] Quotas in IIT

[edit] I have begun to Edit the information provided as it is very biased.

[edit] Biased Arguments/Weasel Words

[edit] Importance Assessment

Views

Navigation

Search