A different perspective on those undeserving of reservations

Only some minorities are protected against the tyranny of the majority

If all those people who don’t qualify for reservations belonged to a different religion altogether they would actually be seen as a minority whose interests needed protection, including through reservations and exceptions. The little fact that they historically occupied the commanding heights of India means little today. Buddhists, Jains, Muslims and Christians who ruled large parts of India in the past are considered worthy of protection in the 21st century.

If all those people who don’t qualify for reservations belonged predominantly to one or more geographically adjoining states, they would actually be seen as a people who would deserve a special status under the constitution. And if some among them formed political outfits seeking self-determination, or worse took to violence to pursue their cause, the Indian prime minister himself would negotiate with them.

If the future of all those people who don’t qualify for reservations was threatened by another government policy (say building a dam), human-rights activists and non-governmental organisations would have created movements to fight for their rights and compensation. And prize-winning novelists and disciples would have actually sought to gather some fame off this cause.

Tells you a lot about the absurdity of reservations, special statuses and suchlike, eh!

10 thoughts on “A different perspective on those undeserving of reservations”

  1. Unlike Rdb where the indian media supposedly backs the good guys. In real life they played a double game and backstabbed the good guys. This incident has made the faultlines very crystal clear. The media is on the wrongside of the faultline.

  2. Could you please tell me which Indian christians ruled which ‘large part of India’.

  3. Anonymous, (not even enough courage to ask a rhetorical question?)

    The British were Christians. They ruled over India for over 150 years. And then there were the Portuguese, the French and the Dutch ruling over different bits. Their not being Indian nothing to do with the argument. The absurdity is one of discriminating against some people today for being born to the ‘wrong’ parents.

  4. The English, the portugese, dutch and the french were all christains, but they were foriegners and they all came and have left, never heard them demanding reservations anywhere. The only reason I commented is how you included only minorities in ur ‘underserving list’ but conveniantly left out hindus. Of course you are just being you.

  5. The Jains never ruled large parts of India either. Buddhists only did so for short periods (during Ashoka’s reign).

  6. Anonymous,

    The English, the portugese, dutch and the french were all christains, but they were foriegners and they all came and have left, never heard them demanding reservations anywhere. The only reason I commented is how you included only minorities in ur ‘underserving list’ but conveniantly left out hindus.

    An unprejudiced reading of the sentence would suggest that this post is not about these religious minorities demanding reservations; rather that India (the constitution and the people) believes that minorities need protection. The question is why should this be limited to religious minorities?

    Of course you are just being you.

    Yes, I am being me, publicly, and not throwing allegations/making value judgements at others from under a convenient cloak of anonymity.

  7. Who says religious minorities are the only ones being ‘protected'(what this protection is I haven’t the faintest idea). If you take the case of the current reservation debate, its all about OBC’s not minority OBC’s.

  8. Anonymous,

    I’m not you realise what you write is self-contradictory. The current reservation for OBCs is not because they are a minority, but because they are not.

Comments are closed.