Talk:2006 Indian anti-reservation protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments by AShankar[edit]

Since our entire knowledge of the anti-reservation protests come from the media, it is appropriate, I believe, as has been done in countless other Wikipedia articles that the views of those who believe that the media reporting on this issue is particularly biased be recorded.

Ashankar 14:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the noting that the amendment "allowed the govt. to supercede the judiciary". parliament makes the laws and the judiciary enforces the laws. In Inamdar, the court held that the action was against the constitution, so the constitution was amended. This is not about superceding the court, it is about the natural exercise of the powers of Parliament. As long as parliament does not change the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution, such as make India into a theocracy, they can change the Constitution.

In addition, I believe that it is crucial that it be noted that the amendment specifically gave the govt the power to reserve seats in all colleges, even in private ones.

Ashankar 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please let the fact that it was in response to a Constitutional Amendment unanimously passed in Parliament remain on the page. I think that's the bare amount of historical context that this article warrants.

Ashankar 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reference is made to "an independent political panel". Which one? Any news links?

Ashankar 12:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reservation is byproduct of Caste System and Caste System in India is byproduct of Religion and Religion is by product of myth. vkvora 04:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather bold statement.

No original research please. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of photos are needed? obviously not photos of lathicharges... thats for when this becomes history ;) Pulveriser 10:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos have been added. Exactly the kind of which I requested for. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to "selfless"[edit]

In the section on the events of the protests, the reference to "selfless contributions to the society" is opinion, not fact.

"Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra. Mr. Mishra went on a three day hunger strike to protest against the same, finally giving in to dehydration. His selfless contributions to the society were later translated into a Public Interest Litigation filed at the District Court of Guwahati City." He is alleged of having ties with BJP.

99.141.98.147 (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPA Government at the Centre[edit]

What in the world is this referring to? Is there a government centre for education that they're talking about, or...

Based on a current edit, it's a mistranslation of "central government".

The context[edit]

Errrrm I don't know if it's just me, but I have no idea what this article is about. News reporting is not the job of Wikipedia... Instead Wikipedia is supposed to provide background information for such news, no? Would anyone who know what this article is about fill in the missing context please? --Lorenzarius 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. I can't figure this article out at all. Are the 'reservations' good, bad? Do they give the lower caste folks an opportunity they did not have before? Are the students protesting because they do not want lower caste to have opportunity? Or is the reservation system somehow discriminatory? This just makes no sense to me at all. (Anon Y. Mouse 19:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

While I admit that the article is not perfect and not comprehensive, and there is scope to elucidate the context, still the article gives more context than at least one more "In the news" currently in the main page, the article being Operation Astute (permanent link of the present version). This article would be further enhanced soon so that anybody from any part of the world can easily comprehend. In fact, it had some more info of the historical context of the protest, now that has largely been moved to Reservation in India which is also a current event article.
"Are the 'reservations' good, bad" — probably become original research, We can only cite different views. "Do they give the lower caste folks an opportunity they did not have before"— in detail in Reservation in India and some other articles (all wikilinked here).
"Are the students protesting because they do not want lower caste to have opportunity? Or is the reservation system somehow discriminatory?" — yes, need to be addressed in more detail in the article. Will be done soon, hopefully. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would stating that these reservations discriminate be considered POV? I think it's obvious that these reservations do discriminate on the basis of caste, but I'm hesitant to add it to the article because it may be considered POV? siddharth 17:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way you have added the discrimination is NOT a POV. Things can be further elucidated by adding the terms "Positive discrimination", and the resultant "Reverse Discrimination". Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make clear something that can only be said on the talk page. The students are revolting because the kind of reservation being offered is purely votebank oriented. Of course there is no way this can be stated in the article but i think we should add a section making clear why the students' logic in revolting and the govt's response. It should begin with a short POV description of how reservation is relevant in India, how and when it was suggested (with apporpriate links to the reservation in india article) and stating why the majority claim that in this case atleast reservation is not agreeable. Citing the original mandal comitee's findings and stressing that several of the new mandal comitee's members have resigned. 203.200.95.130 12:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostels?[edit]

"The government took stern measures to counter the protesting doctors by serving them with suspension letters and asking them to vacate the hostels to make way for newly recruited doctors." Should this read hospitals? Also, what is the HRD? I don't think that acronym is spelled out anywhere.

Could be hostels. These are medical students living in hostels. deeptrivia (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRD is Human Resources Development. Loom91 06:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC) 68.211.107.35 03:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Make it simple...Do not convolute the facts.... Reservation is BAD. Laloo Prasad and Mulayam Singh will come under OBC. You tell me , are they really backward! They are more forward than the most forward brahmin. Reservation will diminish India's dominance in technology. China will take over. Indian economy will go down the toilet. China will take over the lost market from India. And it will all be really really ugly for India. So Indian leaders wakeup! VP Singh and Arjun Singh has nothing to worry as they have probably millions stashed in Swiss Bank. Their kids and grand kids can eat all day long just sitting on their buts and not do anything. It is the poor Indian who has to live in India will have to deal with it. IIT brand name is because its graduates have proven themselves. If IIT's get third get students then brand name will diminish and soon private money based colleges will come up. So do not ruin IIT/IIM/AIMS and other prestigious institutions who have matured to this state because of hard work of the predeccessors. Lort have mercy on India! Kaushal Tripathi..Atlanta, GA, USA.[reply]

============[edit]

Organization[edit]

This article could really do with a good once-over in terms of organization, clean-up and trimming down things not directly relevant to the protests.--Pharos 07:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population Figures[edit]

There is a serious inconsistency in the article. At one point the articel states that

"Currently only 23% of the seats in higher education institutes are set-aside for OBCs, SCs, and STs even though they make up 80% of the India's population."

and at another place it says

"It is highly debatable as to what the actual percentage of the OBCs in the current population of India is. Proponents of reservation give ridiculous figures of as high as 80 %, while most surveys (such as rediff.com) claim that the OBCs constitute about 36 % of the Indian population. It is illegal to ask one's caste during the census, hence the percentage of the castes in contemporary Indian is largely unknown,"

Someone plz fix this thing. My view is that the figure is not more than 40-50%. Pulveriser 08:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily fixed it and added a source. An Indian Express Interview. The paper is reputed in India Pulveriser 10:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changed the source to a better one. One that gives facts and figures. Pulveriser 10:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations for the census data for SCs and STs, the 80% was for SCs, STs and OBCs combined (all backward classes) not OBCs alone. 64.229.25.76 11:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, a question. It is a fact that over 2/3rds of the coutry is rural. then isn tit obvious that atleast half will be OBC SC/STs

No. Rural / Urban distinctions have no bearing on this issue. Caste/ethnicity is what matters. But combined backward classes make up more than half the population. The question is how much more.

65.94.159.231 10:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of course rural/urban issues have a bearing, reservations in colleges have no meaning if half the population of backward classes live in villages and don't even know how to read... remember, rural India doesn't even have schools let alone colleges...

This article is way too large[edit]

The whole background section needs to be seriously trimmed. Refer to other articles about the caste-system instead of explaining every painstaking detail on this page. Besides that, all the information about the scheduled protests are also superfluous. This is not a place to announce demonstrations. Mackan 08:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of information deleted by you is actually an integral part of the article. In its current state, this article isn't justifying why its titled "Indian anti-reservation protests, 2006". Although the details need to be copyedited, I feel that a lot of it needs to be added again. I will copyedit the delted text myself so that its doesn't sound like announcing demonstrations. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ambuj.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
true, but the article is totally unreadable... it needs trimming not in terms of information but in terms of ordering and compactness. Pulveriser 10:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this is probably true. The article was created in an un-organized manner and needs to be extensively copyedited so that the flow is smooth. Unfortunately this isn't easy as the editors here have to deal with a lot of vandalism going on since the article started. I am working on the issue and hopefully things will smoothen in time to come. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a registered user can move some of the stuff on historical information to the Reservation in India article. And use this article to focus on the protests 64.229.25.76 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, but you don't have to be registered to do that. Go ahead.Mackan 14:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things look decent now[edit]

After a lot of edit-conflicted edits, I think the article is decent enough and quite legible. Irrelevent data has either been deleted or moved to the Reservation in India page. Still, there is a need to expand this article especially the "Current protests" section. Hopefully things will improve more in days to come. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had put details of current protests, which have since then been deleted. Please put it back, I think this article is primarily about the current protests. Background can be covered in more detail on Reservation in India. deeptrivia (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The current protests (as Deeptrivia initially put) should be reinserted, however, in a summary form - not all those small subheadings. Could you people try to change the flag image to any of the protest images, in the main page? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They need to be put back. They were deleted in this edit. However, a copyedit is essential before the details can be added in the article. Please go ahead with adding the details. However, I feel that the overview is sufficient and only thoughtful additions should now be made as this article is about protests. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the events back in a paragraph form. I still think they should have been arranged in sub-sections, either city-wise or date wise. deeptrivia (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. The article is legible but still not very readable though I oppose sub-sections on the basis of dates and perhaps even cities. Wikipedia is not a reporting agency. Pulveriser 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current paragraph style is okay for now. There are many more events to come, so it might become unwieldy later. deeptrivia (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Reservation Protests[edit]

"Most pro-reservation protestors belong to the SC/ST or OBC category, but include some upper caste people, who support reservation." Removed this since it is speculation and bias speaking. There is no way to know exactly who composes all the protest rallies. I bet a large number of pro-reservation protestors are the ones who would benefit from it but you can't with certainty that there are no so-called "upper caste peopple" in there. 144.89.103.25 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)k[reply]

I hope there are indeed people belonging to the upper castes supporting the pro-reservation movement. The shame on India social system would be less paining to witness.

It would be good if someone can find a picture of the pro-reservation protests. That would hopefully balance the picture-bias in this article in favour of the anti-reservationists. --Bluerain 07:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the no.of pro-reservation protests are atleast 10-20 times less in number. a kind of "proof" is a comparison of the online petitions for and against reservation... see [1] and [2] both are google caches since the original sites seem to be down/slow. The cache is pretty old since there were 21,000 signs in the anti-reservation petition when i signed it (which was a looong time ago) and 216 on the pro-reservation one (which was a week or so ago). half the signatures in the pro reservations petition were anti-reservation wise cracks insulting the politicians... 203.200.95.130 13:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy[edit]

"Further, the quota of 27% will be added in a slow, three-phased manner of 9% increase each time."

I think that this statement is factually wrong. A media channel reported a minister specifically saying that this quota will be implemented in one go. Can anyone verify? siddharth 16:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes I also heard the news. Not the TV channel, from one friend. If you know which TV channel flashed the news, the channel's website may confirm.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i found a source...[3]. look at the fourth paragraph.

Criticism of media bias[edit]

The criticism of the media bias theory stated facts, not claims, such as the fact that pro-reservation rallies were being covered and the fact that debates were held in which both points of view were discussed. Why delete it for a citation needed claim? Doesn't that make that part of the article POV as it doesn't cover both the views? siddharth 05:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If a statement that there was an apprehension of media bias was made without citing the source of the apprehension, people would immediately strike it down as being without basis, saying it's merely hearsay. Similarly, If any media organisation has responded, defending their coverage as being fair and balanced then it makes sense to cite it as well, don't you think ? Otherwise, the critics of the criticism are unnamed people who have, apparently studied the extent of the protests and their apparent coverage on television. The portion of the media bias section that talks about the media bias is not POV because it cites widely cited reputed print and online journals. If you can find a response of any Indian media organisation to the allegations of bias, countering them, then please reinsert the counter-media-bias-theory along with the citation.

Ashankar 07:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand what you say, and I'll search for responses to these claims and cite them if I find them. siddharth 08:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of the article[edit]

"The Anti-reservation protests, 2006 currently taking place all over India" all over india i beg to differ. The northern areas are opposing the amendment more vehemently than the southern areas. Pulveriser 16:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reservation protests are taking place in the south also. The intensity of the protests may differ.siddharth 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does differ. in fact the following article states that there are minimal protests in bihar [4] see the fourth heading. Pulveriser 16:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Not to be nitpicky, but I don't think the word "qouta" has a plural ("quotas"?) -- Bartosz 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to have a PhD in theoretical physics yet you don't know that nouns can be made plural. Where did you get this PhD, UC Berkeley? *sigh* Only on Wikipedia. Haizum 19:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quotas -- Haizum 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's personal attack - gross. Should control, man.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only on Wikipedia is debunking a lie a personal attack. Haizum 00:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debunking a lie is NOT personal attack. Someone may not know something or may be wrong at something. That does not mean you should attack/question his credibility. Of course you should make the correction. And English grammer is not a matter of joke, everyday even people with English as mother tongue do errors (and those for whom English is a foreign language do so more). Regarding your comment that nouns can be made plural is not always true. There are some nouns that are inherently plural. As I am weak in English grammer, I cannot remember any example thogh!(probably "asset" is an example, so is "people") You might be knowing better. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said nouns can be made plural, which is a perfectly true statement. Haizum 20:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you are still completely wrong; "assets" and "peoples" are both correct plurals. Haizum 20:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I was wrong! (I admitted I am weak in English grammer). And the way you replied is just perfect. It was not a personal attack. But on the earlier instance, you did a personal attack on Bartosz. It was just to show that debunking a lie is not a personal attack. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all nouns in the English language can be made plural. Although some language pedants may try to argue endlessly that specific examples are incorrect, this also applies even to Nouns that, strictly speaking, defined as being only a singular definite article. E.G. person, the plural of which is people, can both be pluralised without violating the rules of English grammar - persons, peoples. Technically, one could refer to speak of multiple instances of one's self. One's selfs. 144.131.116.25 05:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Silence[reply]

Exactly. Unless of course you have a PhD in theoretical physics, then you might not know that. Haizum 17:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, the word "police" doesn't have a plural (or is neither singular nor plural). -- Bartosz 20:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It already is plural. A "policer" is the singular form. Haizum 21:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Webster, "police" as "a force" is singular, and has no plural. "Police" as "members of such a force" is construed as plural. AFAIK, there is no English word "policer".

"Quota" is trickier. My initial impression was that it's already plural. In fact, according to Webster, there is a word "quotum," which would be its singular. But Latin quota is not plural-- it's some other grammatical form of quotus, which isn't even a noun. So one might argue that quotas is indeed the plural of quota. -- Bartosz 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written in English, not Latin. Quota is an English singular noun. Plural - quotas. Accept it, move on. HenryFlower 11:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro, background, bias, etc...[edit]

I'd like to appeal to whoever edits the page in the future not to add too much info to the Historical Background section. This article is about the current protests, and thus should have more info about that. Historical background is well documented in the main article - Reservation in India. The intro, as it is now, seems fine to me, though we need a citation for the 'independent political panel'. Also, to those involved in the protests, please don't use Wikipedia as a forum for spreading your views - there are many other forums available on the net for you to do that. --Bluerain 07:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dont agree. I have readded the proper into again.Magicalsaumy 11:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper intro"? Your intro, and also the changes you made to the Historical Background section are biased; I'm reverting them back. You're welcome to add in any other points you feel are useful, provided you keep it neutral. Besides, you can add additional historical information to Reservation in India if you want. --Bluerain 13:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Background starts with "India IS divided into many endogamous groups, or castes ..". I was reading the book "Falling over Backwards by Arun Shourie" and found out many citations that say India "WAS" divided thousands of year back. Many British administrators of the time found that caste has become very "FLUID". Now after 59 years of Independence we still believe that India "IS" divided according to castes? It seems to me wrong to say that. We should revise this as it gives wrong meaning to the whole discussion. I can dig up the citations if you want and revise this to show that point of debate too. --Sushant354 21:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the news"[edit]

Does the "In the news" on the main page work strictly like a FIFO queue? Many events in that section above this one are one-time events that are not current any more, while this one is still very much an ongoing event. I think it will be a better idea to remove those events first to make place for newer ones rather than this one. What is everyone's opinion? deeptrivia (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. siddharth 17:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree. We've seen earlier prolonged stay of certain news events in the "In the news" section. Gurubrahma may be contacted for further clarification.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. Things like tsunami/earthquake stay for a week almost. Also, it depends on other news stories. However, I recommend we keep changing the blurb in the "In the news..." section to keep it fresh - for example, fasts, immolation bid etc., so that it stays on that section and remains fresh. When you make such a suggestion, also mention that free pics are available etc. On a different note, we should also try for other interesting stories like the kid Budhia not being allowed to run etc. --Gurubrahma 05:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racism[edit]

I find the remark about "backward groups" racist. The whole discussion about what foreign powers might take advantage of disturbances in India has is not NPOV and is highly speculative. I propose to remove the whole "Foreign Reaction" section. -- Bartosz 03:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of protests[edit]

I heard that the protests by the medical students has ended. Is this true? siddharth 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strike at hospitals has been withdrawn. Hospital works will resume from 8 am , 1 June. However, students' protest will continue, along with necessary demonstrations. Also, demonstrations from the part of non-medical students are set to be more agrressive.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay umm, I think all protests have pretty much died down... I think its time to edit the intro to reflect tense... bheekling 10:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population Statistics[edit]

I don't find any POV in this section, and all the sentences seem to be cited. We can remove the POV template now.--Anupamsr 10:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the POV would come from whether these should be included in the first place or not. They are mainly those points that have been cited by anti-reservationists. If there is a reason for them to be included, it could only be under a section that talks about the arguments for and against reservation, which is presently not in the article, and IMO rightly so, as that wouldn't come under the scope of this article, which is mainly about the 'protests'. --Bluerain (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Facultymarch.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Facultymarch.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India’s Reservation Policy in Higher Education Institutions[edit]

The term “Reservation” has been doing the rounds within the Indian media circuit of late owing to the government decision to implement 27% quota for the OBCs in the educational institutions of higher learning. Time has come to study the significance of this matter and see its consequences on the country in the future.

When our country achieved independence, a large section of the society was leading a miserable life. They had been exploited for ages and the false beliefs in the society at that time further worsened their condition. The government of that day introduced the concept of reservations so that there would be equal progress of all sections of the society. Over the years, the condition of the people of reserved categories has improved at a fast rate while that of the middle class, general or open category people has remained more or less the same. After nearly 60 years of independence now, general category people have started to feel that they are being subjugated and that the odds have been stacked against them. At a time like this, the government’s decision to bring out legislation to implement a 27% quota for OBCs adds further fuel to the fire.

There are a large number of failings in the reasons publicized by the government for implementing this decision. Firstly, the government has rooted its decision in a survey conducted by the Britishers prior to Independence, on the percentage of the OBCs in the population. The reserved category candidates occupy nearly 52% of the government jobs today. Then what is the immediate need to increase the quotas? Though the government would not agree to it, most people feel that this is just another way of wooing the voters.

The above stated move by the government brought out the students, resident doctors and even the faculty members of AIIMS and many other hospitals to protest against the government. None of us would hesitate to say that these doctors were inhuman and heartless to have neglected even the emergency services. But isn’t it our government that is to be held responsible for a situation like this. Year after year, the governments of India have been enforcing their will on the people, making us ponder if ours is a democracy at all.

In a free and fair country, the candidate who is the most worthy should get the opportunity irrespective of his caste, creed and religion. When caste becomes the criteria for selection, how can one expect to get what is honestly due to him. The government argues that it can balance the equation by increasing the number of seats in the educational institutions. But then it is the quality of education that suffers. Before we come to the higher secondary stage none of us even talks of these quotas. Then the process of applying for the entrance exams for the professional courses starts and the seeds of caste get drilled into our minds. Each time before elections, new reservations start to emerge. Governments are practicing the policy of “divide and rule” with our own people. We hear this even during admissions to under-graduate courses. But is it correct to carry it into the post-graduation phase also?

Nowadays the value of professional education has plummeted with a large number of private institutions entering into the stream. The number of engineers coming out every year is beyond the imagination. It is like pampering kids through school and junior college right into the professional education stream, without requiring any effort from them at all. But do we need to do it even at the post graduation level? When will a person learn to go all-out for something in life? How far can they go when they have been driven into the industry and have not learnt the art of survival to start with?

The decision has indeed drawn flak from many quarters. Getting reservations would be a good thing, but the advantage always lies with the “more privileged” section of these backward castes. For instance, most students from backward castes do not reveal the truth about their parents’ income and get the scholarships for education that they wouldn’t get normally. We must also consider what the future of the candidates who acquire education through reservation will be. At present, since the percentage of quotas is small, the employers don’t bother. If the government implements this decision, nearly 50% of the seats will be under reservation. The employers in future might start dividing candidates into reserved and unreserved categories. There are many merited students even from the OBCs and other reserved categories. Wouldn’t it hurt their sentiments if the employers start to look down at them as they have obtained their degrees through reservation?

It is right that some sections have been oppressed for decades, hindering their progress. But the government cannot reverse the process and repair the wrong done in decades with a single move. This decision has occurred mainly as a result of the hype over the high salaries that IIT and IIM graduates have been getting recently. These institutions are seen as places where people can get rich. The government wants to give opportunities to the backward castes to earn similar salaries. But this should not happen at the cost of the quality of education. There is no doubt that when the quality of education suffers, there won’t be such high salaries anyway.

There is one more thing we should look at. The involvement of the courts in various strike-related issues has just lead to the end of these strikes, but it hasn’t been able to provide justice to the protesters. The courts, which we look to for a fair solution to any issue, have only been leaning toward the government. Even in the case of the protest of resident doctors in Andhra Pradesh against increase in the quota for service candidates in the PG course seats, the protesters got nothing but an assurance from the government that the matter will be looked into. The courts in many other cases have been successful only in obtaining assurances and not in delivering justice to the people. This really questions the law which states that no strikes or protests must be staged on an issue when the matter is in judicial review. This law is in favor of the government and must be looked into immediately.

There is a strong feeling these days that in the future there won’t be a single general category student going for higher education in India. It looks like the government wants to make it a reality too. It is alright as long as there is no limit on the number of general category students going abroad and banks keep providing huge loans, but there are many who cannot afford to take these loans at high interest rates. The solution to the overall problem cannot be obtained in a short period of time. Firstly, the government should have the latest statistics of different categories of people within the society at the present time. Since India has a large population, more institutions which can impart high quality education to the students should be opened in various parts of India and the institutions that we have at present should be upgraded to meet the rising demands. The government should also do something for the economically backward people of the higher castes who have been left to strive for themselves. Let’s be positive and hope the government will consider all these factors and find a solution that is fair and just for all and not try to impose its will on the people.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to "See Also"[edit]

I think the 'See Also' section should include hyperlinks to civil rights movements and to affirmative-action or equity laws enacted in countries elsewhere. Nandofan (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Indian_anti-reservation_protests&oldid=1196483870"