The basic problem we face is politicians and caste system as Rashmi says. You are talking like a rowdy KK. Please remember our war is against the quota system and the caste system and not against any community. People like KK give a bad name to such a struggle which makes it look like open vs backward. This is not the case.

We are one. Our country is one. It is high time that everyone understands this.

We should indeed get rid of the caste system in Hinduism first. It has ruined India.

Unless the caste system is destroyed the reservation quota will last. So lets get rid of the dissease from it’s roots.

We often form a very black or white opinion on an issue and then try to justify it. This is risky — trying to justify our stand, we often compromise on reason. I have seen many absurd arguments, both for or against reservation, in print or television media. They are often more of emotional outbursts that won’t pass the test of a logically coherent argument.

It is understandable that people get emotional and agitated on issue such as reservations. However, I don’t think emotions ever solve problems. If you feel strongly about something and I feel the exact opposite, it is difficult for us to agree — emotions often override our understanding and closes our mind. I think consensus is reached when different parties sit down, list out some basic assumptions about the issue, and work out a framework for using logic and data to use further conclusions. Then, one digs out that data, plugs that into the agreed upon framework, and agrees on whatever results.

I will now indulge in a similar thought experiment on reservations.

Lets begin with the basic assumptions of reservations:
- There are some easily identifiable (or verifiable) underprevileged (economically or socially) groups of people.
- Reservations are justified for these underprevileged groups on one of the following grounds:
- The underprevileged members had fewer or worse education opportunities and thus haven’t been able to perform on par with the rest. Their current performance is not a true indicator of their true aptitude and efforts; when given equal opportunities as the rest of the society, they will peform better than their current performance indicators. Therefore, selection critera must be relaxed for them. [True merit theory]
- Giving opportunities to anyone will improve his family condition. This improvement will be more for a family worse off than the rest of the society. Thus, it maybe better to compromise even on the true merit because of the net gain to the society. [Net worth theory]

The questions that are asked now are:

- Should we have reservations — are the present reservations justified?

This depends on for whom. The critera, atleast theoretically, could be gender, caste, location, occupation, religion — anything that meets the criteria. It is reasonable to take economic income levels as indicator of well-being. One can find the most backward segments of society by looking at average income/income distribution in census. These are the sections that maybe reserved for.

- Are reservations currently being misused?

An argument against reservations is that most of those availing the benefit don’t need it. It is mostly the rich who avail it. This is a matter of implementation. Abuse a good idea doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be implemented. It should be, but it should also be supported by abuse prevention mechanisms.

Incase of reservations, this is technically easy. Just track the average income level of all availing reservation; marked difference between this and the community income suggest misuse.

- If reservations, then how much?

This will work out different for the two plausible justifications for reservations.

The first is true merit theory — that the current performance indicators of the underprevileged doesn’t reflect their true abilities. It is reasonable to assume, however, that over a period of few years of similar education or work, they will reflect their true potential.

The goal then should be to lower the bar for the underprevileged just enough so that the average last year or last semester performance of those admitted under reserved seats matches that of the rest. The reservation measure then could then be either this percentage of seats, as it is now, or the percentage marks “discounted” for the underprevileged.

We argued that a meritorous underprevileged student who has availed the benefit of reservation once, say to get admission into a college, should be be regarded similarly with the rest by graduation. He must not have the reservation option at higher level of education or for employment. Thus, reservations at higher education level and for employment don’t seem to make much sense. This argument could be extended to restrict exercise of reservation benefit to just once per person or family.

The second argument for reservation suggests compromising on true merit for the upliftment for the underprevileged. This again could be measured by simple book-keeping. Measure the difference between family incomes before and after availing reservation. If this is higher for reserved for non-reserved, there is a net social gain. With lower merit, this difference decreases and eventually matches that of a well-off non-reserved quota student. That is the optimal reservation level.

This approach is not flawless. Policy is always macro. Even the most perfect policy design will look at the overall statistics and optimize the net gains. There will always be advantaged or disadvantaged. While it is difficult, I don’t think there is any choice — those suffering first hand due to reasonable policy changes will probably have to live with it.

So much for a model for reservations. I am quite liking these thoughts — it will be cool if someone can actually do a solid conclusive data backed model on the issue. Its probably unfair on our part to expect our not-so-worthy politicians to do the same!