MARRIAGE BETWEEN COUSINS
If we had the vision and feeling of ordinary human life, it would be like hearing the grass grow and the squirrel’s heart beat and we should die of that roar which lies on the other side of silence. – George Eliot
In his excellent small Book ‘One Minute Manager’, author Kenneth Blanchard says that every one of us is endowed with competence of varying degrees to perform a task and also commitment of divergent intensity to complete an assignment.
Thus, those with less competence and more commitment, often slog without much success. Many workaholics belong to this category. They are hard working but not efficient or effective. There are others, who are quite competent, but are not committed enough to the cause. A good number of trade union leaders in enterprises come under this category. They are extremely capable, but their commitments lie elsewhere.
Those with very low degree of commitment and competence cannot be entrusted with any responsibility. They need constant monitoring, guidance and course correction. They retard an organisation’s progress.
Individuals with high degree of commitment and competence can be delegated any task. We have two classic examples in our epics. Hanuman was highly competent to surmount any difficulties and navigate his way and his commitment to Sriram was total and unshakable. Therefore a major responsibility was delegated to him and he completed the project with great acumen. Bhishma Pitamaha was a totally accomplished man. Archery, bravery, political strategy or sheer knowledge, everywhere he outshone others. Bhishma had sacrificed his personal glory and pleasures for the interest of Hastinapura. To him the only mission in life was to serve the interest of Hastinapura’s Rulers. He abdicated his thrown to serve his Cause, an example which centuries later, King Edward VIII followed in England . No wonder, Bhishma was made the supreme commander of Hastinapura’s ruling forces in the Kurukshetra War.
Those with very high degree of commitment, often have a narrower view and are oblivious to their surroundings, save their one cause, object or mission. In his eagerness and commitment to protect the interest of Hastinapura’s rulers, Bhishma didn’t realize that he was not on the side of the Champion of Dharma. Whoever fought Hastinapura had to be repulsed back, seemed to be his war strategy. As the Commander of an army, he cannot allow his enemy to escape. And, as he had taken a vow never to attack a woman, he didn’t attack Sikhandi, Sikhandi being a woman in his previous birth. Thus, at times, his commitments circumscribed his performance. Interestingly, apart from his physical prowess, courage and blemish less dedication to Sri Ram, we haven’t heard much about Hanuman’s dexterity in other areas. Those who instead of trying to understand the Vedas, their metaphysics and Philosophy and devote their days nights in merely repeating their stanzas, Sankara calls as ‘Vedabhyasa Jatas’ - meaning fools who merely repeat the Vedas. One needs to have a wider vision and not mere focusing on a spot.
If commitment has to enhance competence, commitment should play the role of an enabling force and not a retarding one. Krishna too had commitments but his commitments were made subservient to his competence. Arjuna’s commitment to a wrong sense of reverence, compelled to him to lay down his arms. Unlike Bhishma’s commitments, Krishna ’s commitments didn’t distract him. Mahatma Gandhi’s commitment to peace and non-violence did not stand in the way of his fighting the British.
Our commitments should be such that they do not make our competence meaningless. Commitment to a wrong cause can make our competence destructive. We have been reading daily about able men, being led astray because of their commitment to wrong causes.
And finally, let us enhance our competence in our chosen field and make our commitments to add value to our competence. An Abdul Kalam, a Dr.Narayana Murthy and a Mahendra Singh Dhoni exemplify this.
In Part I, I presented the summary of the judgment of Hon. chief justice .Balakrishnan. In this part II, I give gist of the judgment pronounced by Hon. Justice Dr.Paschayat, who delivered the judgment on his behalf and also on behalf of another member of the Bench – Hon. Justice Thakkar.
Hon. Justice Dr.Paschayat agreed with the Chief Justice that as held by the larger Bench in the Indira Sahney case, Constitutional Amendment No.93, inserting sub-clause 5 to Article 15, was not in violation of the Fundamental Rights portions of the Constitution. He also drew support from the earlier larger Bench of the Court in the Indira Sahney case that to begin with, Caste could be the basis. This is because, though poverty was the prime cause for Social and Educational backwardness, caste factor further aggravates the backwardness. Secondly the special treatment relates to a class and not to individuals. Therefore, in his opinion, other Backward Castes, as determined by the Commission for the purpose, set up by the Government, in conformity with the recommendations of Supreme Court in the earlier Indira Sahney case, would constitute the socially and educationally backward classes, after the Other Backward castes are ridden of ‘creamy layer’. Including the Creamy layer of the other Backward Castes and the forward castes in the reservation eligibility category would violate Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution as un-equals would be treated as equals. Other backward Castes, cleansed of Creamy layer, alone would become Socially and Educationally backward classes eligible to be treated differently for the purpose of public employment and higher education. However, the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes list, as prepared by the Government, is subject to judicial scrutiny. Wrongful inclusions and exclusions can be challenged by writs.
Justice Paschayat points out that the backward classes need justice, the general classes demand equity and the interest of the State mandates excellence in education and services. Therefore to properly identify the classes that need support, Justice Paschayat suggests that the list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes is to be reviewed every five years ( Chief Justice Balakrishnan suggested every ten years). To weed out the educationally advanced, Justice Paschayat recommends a cut off minimum educational qualification- University graduation. Chief Justice Balakrishnan did not recommend any cut off qualifications. In the opinion of Justice Dr.Paschayat, the University Graduates are educationally advanced and therefore there need be no reservation at the Post Graduation level.
As a compromise between reservation for socially and educationally backward classes and the need for excellence in Society, a minimum cut off marks - five percent less than the cut off marks for General Candidates should be the minimum requirement for Reserved category Students, Justice Paschayat feels.
Justice Paschayat also said that though running a Private unaided educational institution is a profession and hence is protected by the fundamental rights provisions of the constitution, in as much as no Private Institution has challenged the Constitutional Amendment 93, he is not pronouncing any Order on it.
Thus, while agreeing with the Chief Justice that Constitutional Amendment 93 was legal and that providing reservation of seats for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes after the creamy layer are taken out of the eligibility list, he also suggested a reduced review period of five years, a cut off qualification and a cut off mark of 5 marks lesser than the cut off mark of the general candidates. For the selection of candidates for post graduate courses, no reservation need be done, Hon. Justice Paschayat reiterated.