Talk:Reservation in India/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Alternative to Reservation

In my opinion this page should reflect POV of all. However it is better also to invite suggestion regards to alternative for Reservation that may end the feud between those who are 'for' and 'against' Reservation Policy. For example I feel that in Elections in India the Reservation can be replaced with the alternative of Weightage system. There is many possibility in this also. For example

1. A candidate of underprivileged community can be given a weightage (Say 1.2 or 2.0 etc) so that the total vote polled by him will be multiplied with this weightage (1.2 x Vote or 2.0 x Vote etc) and compared with the other candidates.

2. A vote cast by an underprivileged voter can be given a weighage so that the candidate getting his or her vote gains as per the weightage.

This is certainly a better alternative then the present Reservation System in India. Sailapathi (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Sailapathi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailapathi (talk • contribs) 09:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

who is ordinary indian citizen

i dont think people who constitute less than 12% of population (actual percentage varies but if bc percentage has been stated as anywhere betweeen 31 to 54% & the other chunk of atleast 22.5% made of SC /ST, i guess the % of pepople who are not obc / bc / mbc/ sc/ st is a small minority! obviously they cant be called as "ordinary"....comparison with ambani/ sachin is apt too since such a vast range of income has been clubbed as "creamy" while such a miniscule range has been set for non creamy among obc (note that creamy concept is not applied to sc/ st using the same logic that was applied to obc) ..so i am reverting those edits ..feel free to discuss to evolve a FACT based consensus...Cityvalyu (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

To state that Affimative Action and Reservation in India are not the same is a big claim and should be backed by proper reference. I see that most authors (almost all the authors I have come across) use them as synonyms. The above statement is agaisnt NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy of wikipedia, and it becomes POINT OF VIEW of a person or a group. I have done a bit of search and found quite a lot of references in which the authors use affirmative action as synonym to reservations. To quote a few [1],[2],[3],[4] and [5]. Since these are journal papers, the most reliable source as per wikipidia norms, the counter argument should also be from published peer reviewed journals. If there is any such reference, we can stay with the present statment, or else we need to change it. Thanks ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no reference for the claim that Reservation is not a form of affirmative action is provided, I am removing the POV stating the differences. If there is any concern, please raise it with proper source. Thanks! ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε ^†αLҝ 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Anti reservation

1. Equality can never be achieved using reverse discrimination
2. Most of the countries have inequality problems, but India and Malaysia (See Bumiputra) are the only countries which advocate Reverse discrimination
3. 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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

Regarding counterpoints=

I suggest not to add more than one level of counterpoints. Adding multilevel counterpoints will make Wiki article to look like discussion forum. If no objections from others,i will remove multilevel counterpoints. --Indianstar 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Reservation in Tamil Nadu

This article seems to be a blatant justification of reservation in Tamil Nadu and constitutes a biased analysis of the whole situation without given proper weightage to contrary views. It simply highlights the good reservations have done for the backward, most-backward and scheduled castes without examining the extent of harm it has done to the forward castes. - Ravichandar84 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki authors are urged not to express their anger in Wiki pages. The last author who did vandalism is warned that he may not vandalise the page again. You may have a different opinion, but that doesnt mean you can give a vent to your anger in Wikipedia. You can go to the streets and protest not her. (Niketsundaram1977 (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

The 2008 Figures for the Top 500 Rankers (based on +2 Exam March 2008) in Tamil Nadu

1. Forward Community - FC - 11 %
2. Backward Community - BC - 58.6 %
3. Christians - BCC - 5.8 %
4. Muslims - BCM - 4 %
5. Most Backward Community - MBC - 14 %
6. Scheduled Castes - SC - 6.4 %
7. Scheduled Tribes - ST - 0.2 %

== To all SC and ST They are fuckers. and they should not get any kind of reservation. It is just a vote bank policy of government. Now after 62 years of independence indian government should not do such cheap things. If some one is socially or financially backward then government should improve gthe conditions personall. Not just according to their caste. If they are so well wisher of SC,ST,OBC then why dont they do reservation on President, PM, CM post. May be some one can use this and form a revised Table  Doctor Bruno  21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Forward Caste, a misnomer

To my knowledge there is no division called "Forward Caste" in our (Indian) constitution. This word might have started as an opposite word for "Backward Caste", hence I request the author to change the word "Forward Caste" as "Other Caste" or "OC".--Go4ash (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact the supposed to be the Forward Caste communities in India are turning in to the most depressed and oppressed community in reality. Sailapathi (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Sailapathi

Gujjar Campaign

Why do people think that the only way they can rise is through reservartion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totallyred (talk • contribs) 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

This article indeed does not have NPOV. It is more of an argument going on between pro and anti reservationists. Can we have sugestions on how to get this on NPOV. I would like to rewrite the whole article, but only if others are comfortable about it. Wikiality123 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your views on Pro/Anti reservation arguments section. It currently looks like discussion forums. I don't like more than one counter point.... and all points should have some statistical basis. Some statements looks like personal opinions and not verifiable. For example, one statement says Indian farmers are always losing their money to Upper caste middle man. Is it verifiable? We can remove multi level counter points. If counter to counter point has some substance then it can be moved as additional point. Non verifiable statements can be removed.Other sections seems to be OK.--Indianstar 01:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The page does not follow NPOV. It is slightly tilted towards pro-reservation. Many arguments seem like opinions and there is a lack of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishch (talk • contribs) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Organization

This article has a lot of crucial information missing, as well as valuable and reliable sources from where the existing information came. It's also difficult to read, not so much for the content but for the structure and organization of it. I want to define certain terminology in the article (as many people might not be very aware/knowledgeable of it) certain terms like the Women's reservation Bill need to be defined, as well as add information from reliable sources. I also want to have the structure of the paper run more smoothly, and not be a huge paragraph.

Wendy Montero.Wendy61 (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wendy, I agree the organization is weak right now. You and Kriti should meet to discuss how it could be better organized and to divide up the work for improving certain sections and adding definitions. Don't forget that certain terms may already be defined in other wiki articles, so be sure to link to those when appropriate. Prof M Johnson (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I am currently setting an autoarchive for this talk page, because it is getting lengthy. Any user who disagrees to my placing can discuss on this thread. Thank you, Lynch7 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Caste System

This article doesn't include as to who are the SC and ST people. It doesn't even talk about what type of people form the backward classes. It also does not mention as to who are the forward classes. It doesn't tell us who holds the most power in the society.It doesn't give a solid reason as to why India does or does not need a reservation system. I liked how the history and the court rulings have been laid out in the article. I plan on formatting the document from history to present. I also want to include current ocntoversies that surround the reservation system in india today. I also want to include as to who are a part of ST, SC, forward and backward classes. I also want to include current info about how many people are in each category and what the reservation level should be because reservation system may just be unjustful. I also want to add a section to the article that explores current debates as to the appropriateness and fairness of the reservations system as there is a lot surrounding the issue. Kkhari29 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Good assessment of the article Kriti, I agree with you on the court rulings part. Have a good time editing here, and you can contact me on my talk page if you need assistance. Thanks, Lynch7 17:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)