lively but in my view ill-in-formed public discussion is currently taking
place on the question of job quotas in the private sector. The controversy
has been sharpened by the weight of legal opinion from the attorney
general who opined that it was not possible to provide reservation for SCs
and STs in the private sector without amending the Constitution. I have my
reservations on the correctness of this view. I realise that the emphasis
placed on the prospect of job quotas is due largely to our feudal and
hierarchical social system which views an office job, whether in the
private or the public sector, as the highest achievement. However, I feel
that while the emphasis on jobs must be maintained, the real battle that
Dalits need to fight is one that accords them a share in now expanding
business opportunities, especially in a proprietary capacity.
It is in this context that I put forward an alternative
that is immediately available and can be implemented without amending the
Constitution, one that can bring more affluence, recognition and
opportunities to Dalits not only for jobs in the private sector but also
to expand their opportunities and share in the growth of the Indian
economy.
It is well known that central and state governments award
thousands of crores worth of public works and contracts to the private
sector. All these activities flow from the government playing a very
crucial and significant role either in opening up a particular avenue to
the private sector as in the privatisation and modernisation of airports,
express highways, projects of the Public Works Department and Delhi
Development Authority and others in a number of states for roads, or even
the construction of government properties that are to be executed by
private contractors. I am of the view that if proper steps available even
under the present legal set-up are taken, a very large segment of the
Dalit population can be absorbed and can benefit from the growing economy.
It is in this context that a reference to the United
States legislation called the "Public Works Employment Act of 1997" would
be apt. This Act contained a minority business enterprise clause which
provided that 10 per cent (minority population of the US) of the federal
funds granted for local public works projects must be used by state and
local grantees to procure services or supplies from businesses owned and
controlled by "minority group members", the latter being further defined
by group. This provision was challenged as denying an equal protection
clause provided under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution (from
which Article 14 of our Constitution has been adopted). The courts however
upheld the validity of the legislation as it contained provisions designed
to uplift those socially or economically disadvantaged persons to a level
where they may effectively participate in the business mainstream of US
economy.
The question of constitutional objections is totally off
the mark. Following the 44th amendment, the right to property is no longer
a fundamental right. Only parliamentary legislation is necessary to
deprive a person of it without compensation. It is also well established
that Article 19 confers no right on an individual to carry on business
with the government – if one wishes to do so this has to be on terms
settled by the government. As such, the private sector can take no
objection to a provision making it incumbent upon it to share
proportionately with Dalits the funds given to it by the government or
local body agencies. Similarly, governments could prescribe
conditions as part of a scheme for public sector disinvestment. It would
then be permissible for the central and state governments to provide that
out of these amounts a private contractor would have to ensure that a
certain percentage which, to start with, could be fixed at 10 per cent
(though this is low when compared to the Dalit population of 15-16 per
cent) is to be made available to them either in the matter of
subcontracting or executing projects or in the matter of employment.
Such a move would not necessitate a constitutional
amendment nor would it require an Act of Parliament. With the government
being the spending authority, executive orders can enable it to direct
that a certain portion of the available funds be utilised either to
provide employment or for subcontracts to Dalits. This is what was done in
the United States which while upholding the aforesaid legislation very
eloquently observed, "if we are ever to become a fully integrated society,
one in which the colour of a person’s skin will not determine the
opportunities available to him or her, we must be willing to take steps to
open those doors." The same principle indeed applies to the position of
Dalits in our country. Our Supreme Court has held that the "economic
empowerment of the poor, in particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, as is enjoined under Article 46, is a constitutional objective as
basic human and fundamental right to enable the labourer, Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes to raise their economic empowerment."
I have no doubt that our Supreme Court, which is far more
progressive and poor-oriented than the US Supreme Court, will reject any
attempts to challenge the move in India should the case arise. But of
course the overriding question still remains – do our central and state
governments possess the political will and determination to take on the
combined forces of Big Business?
I am convinced that it is not only jobs but business opportunities that
need to be made available to Dalits to effect any real changes in their
social and economic situation.