Mission Destroy India !!

kartik

Kartik Raichura
Staff member
Both Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi are very busy persons and may not have much time to read old documents and hence this respectful attempt to help them out.

First, may one point out to a paragraph in a circular to the presidents of all Pradesh Congress Committees issued by none else than Jawaharlal Nehru, on May 26, 1954?

That paragraph said: "In particular, we must fight whole-heartedly against those narrow divisions which have grown up in our country in the name of caste, which weaken the unity, solidarity and progress of the country...."
When the British Government sought to give separate electorates to the Scheduled Castes, Gandhi went on a hunger strike that is old history now, which ended in the Poona Pact in 1932.

Some seven and a half decades later, on September 6, 1990 Rajiv Gandhi made a similar, though not as sensational, effort to promote national unity in a speech in parliament criticising the Mandal Report, lasting, to his eternal credit, some two and a half hours. Rajiv Gandhi, like the Mahatma before him, was not opposed to enabling the Scheduled Castes, make progress in all fields.

Addressing the Lok Sabha he said: "If you believe in a casteless society, every major step you take must be such that you move towards a casteless society. And you must avoid taking any step which takes you to a caste-ridden society.

Unfortunately, the step that we are taking today (accepting the Mandal Report), the manner in which it has been put, is a casteist formula. While accepting that is a reality, we must dilute that formula and break that formula by adding something on to it".

Attacking the then Prime Minister V P Singh whom he charged with not having the guts to stand up and say whether he believes in a casteless society or not, Rajiv Gandhi said: "This government is creating a vested interest in casteism and the country is going to pay a very high price for it".

The Mandal Commission had recommended that "with a view to give better representation to certain backward sections of Other Backward Castes (OBCs) like Gaddis in Himachal Pradesh. Neo-Buddhists in Maharashtra, fishermen in the coastal areas, Gujjars in Jammu & Kashmir, areas of their concentration may be carved out into separate constituencies at the time of delimitation".

An angry Rajiv Gandhi shot out: "Does the government subscribe to the Mandal Commission view that political constituencies should be carved out on a caste basis? Are we going back to the Round Table Conference for having separate electorates? That was designed to break our country, Sir".
Warming up in his address, Rajiv Gandhi said that "even at this late hour (and this was in 1990) there is time to pull the country back from this caste divisionMinisters are provoking caste wars".

Continuing, he said: "The Raja Saheb's (V P Singh's) statement doesnt command wide acceptance in the country. They (the Ministers) have weakened our national fabric and to add to that, the Central Government, the Ministers, have deliberately provoked the caste confrontation and caste wars....".

Rajiv Gandhi said that "an issue like reservation cannot be treated in a piecemeal manner. We must look at the whole picture." He quoted Mandal himself who had said that "the aim is to overcome historical and geographical handicaps, not to create new vested interests" and admitting that "the categorisation of backward classes has always been difficult".

The concept of "Other Backward Castes" has always been a joke. Attacking the Mandal Report, Rajiv Gandhi has said: "I know for a fact that Reddys are included, Vokkaligas are included, Kammas are included, Lingayats are included, Gounders are included, Chettiyars are included. Are these Backward Castes? Do they need help?"

Chidambaram was not around then but were he there, he would no doubt have had a good laugh. He would properly have been described as belonging to the OBCs. Asked Rajiv Gandhi : "On what basis has the Mandal Commission defined caste? How has the Mandal Commission reinterpreted the Constitution and changed Backward Classes to Backward Caste?"

Rajiv Gandhi noted even the Mandal Commission Report had noted that of those whose views were sought on the reservation issue, only 28 per cent of the respondents favoured caste as the sole criterion and that nearly 70 per cent were in favour of evolving "multiple criteria based on social status, political influences, educational attainments, economic level, employment status" etc.
Even, according to Mandal, "most of the respondents who were OBCs have said that they do not want caste as the single definer..."

Rajiv Gandhi reminded the Lok Sabha of an earlier Kakasaheb Kalelkar report which had said that the upliftment of the Backward Classes are extremely wide-ranging and comprehensive and covered such diverse fields as extensive land reforms, re-organisation of the economy, Bhoodaan Movement, development of livestock, dairy farming, cattle insurance, bee-keeping, piggeries, fisheries, development of rural and cottage industries, rural housing, public health, rural water supply, adult literacy, university education etc.

And for good measure he added: "Do we want the benefit that the Government is giving to be cornered by the Ministers or the sons of Ministers or the families thereof? Do we want the benefits that are being given by the Government to be cornered by big landlords and people who have a lot of property? Why do we not exclude the people with a certain number of properties from such benefits? Do we want these benefits to go to high senior Government officers who have already got that privilege? The Government is aiming these benefits at a particularly privileged group and not looking at the really poor".

This is Rajiv Gandhi's much-interrupted speech in summary. Rajiv Gandhi quoted V P Singh as having told a newspaper that implementation of the Mandal Commission Report "was purely a political strategy".

And he went on to say: "Raja Saheb's policies are not very different from what the Britishers were doing. It was the British who tried to divide our country on the basis of caste and religion and today it is Raja Sabheb sitting there, who is trying to divide our country on caste and religion... Already you are taking this country towards religious electorates. First you are dividing into reservations in jobs. This government is taking the country in this direction".

Are you reading this, Soniaji? Are you reading this Manmohan Singh? Kindly read the parliamentary proceeding in full, and carefully. Rajiv Gandhi believed in the unity of this country. Are you?
-By M V Kamath

This is a email I got from someone. Its a very nice one and hence am posting it here. If the author has any problem with this being put up on site, please email me and it will be removed asap.
 
And for good measure he added: "Do we want the benefit that the Government is giving to be cornered by the Ministers or the sons of Ministers or the families thereof? Do we want the benefits that are being given by the Government to be cornered by big landlords and people who have a lot of property? Why do we not exclude the people with a certain number of properties from such benefits? Do we want these benefits to go to high senior Government officers who have already got that privilege? The Government is aiming these benefits at a particularly privileged group and not looking at the really poor".

Absolutely true! The cabinet ministers asking for reservation have even ignored this fact that implementing reservation purely on caste basis would ensure the benefits even to those who can afford which is pure hogwash.... Why should a minister's son get benefits of reservation when he can afford it and not a poor brahman's son, who can't, just bcoz one belongs to a backward class? Pure crap
 
1.Reservations compromise the quality of medical care as merit is ignored and those who might not be competent enough might get seat.
2.Reservations have been a colossal failure.If 60 years after initiating reservations the govt is feeling the need to extend them, it is but obvious that these measures have failed.Needed instead are newer & more innovative measures like better facilities.
3.Reservations are crutches which severely limit the ability of such backward communities to equal or even better others.
4.Such measures do not benefit the really improverished and backward people, rather only end up dividing us.
5.Reservations add momentum to the already increasing trend of braindrain

1951: Amendment to constitution says that states can make special provisions for advancement of any backward caste.
1953: Govt. sets up 1st backward castes commission, under Kalelkar which submits report in 1955.
1963: Supreme court ruling limiting max. possible reservation to 50% in any institution.
1977: Mandal commission set up... Recommends OBC quota in "JOBS" in 1980.
1990: VP Singh proposes implementation of Mandal's reccomendations.
1992: SC upholds 27% quota for OBCs in govt. "JOBS" subject to exclusion of the 'creamy layer'.
1993: Govt. defines "creamy layer". Mandal implemented.
2006: Arjun 'Mandal' Singh proposes resevations in all centrally managed institutions/ universities (both funded and non-funded). AND we can already see him drooling for petty votebanks... SHAME ON SUCH REGRESSIONIST 'LEADERS'!!
They are no more than a bunch of crooks who can see no further than their own vested interests...

being a doctor is not just being educated.it means much more than that.the lives of the people are at stake.and u cant ignore that just for the sake of the said "upliftment" being taken care of by the politicians of our country.this is just vote bank politics and nothing else.anyone with a sound mind should oppose this menace of reservation.the max that should be done is give them scholarship once they are into a college and that admission is on basis of their merit and not other considerations like caste.
NOW HERE IS THI IMP INTERVIEW

interview was telecasted on May 24,

2006 on CNN IBN and hats off to Karan Thapar, who had displayed the

true spirit of journalism without getting diverted of questions, asked although MR.

Arjun Singh had tried his best to do so. Look the accountability of HRD

Minister toward country. Most of the answers were 'I DON'T KNOW' and "STILL UNDER

CONSIDERATION'. If everything is under consideration then what is all

this

'Quota stir' about. ( thanks to one of the contacts who transcribed the entire interview worthing reading)





Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to the Devil's Advocate. As the debate

over

the reservations for the OBCs divides the country, we ask - What are the

government's real intentions? That is the critical questions that I

shall

put today in an exclusive interview to the Minister for Human Resource

Development Arjun Singh.





Most of the people would accept that steps are necessary to help the

OBCs

gain greater access to higher education. The real question is - Why do

you

believe that reservations is the best way of doing this?





Arjun Singh: I wouldn't like to say much more on this because these are

decisions that are taken not by individuals alone. And in this case, the

entire Parliament of this country - almost with rare anonymity - has

decided

to take this decision.





Karan Thapar: Except that Parliament is not infallible. In the

Emergency,

when it amended the Constitution, it was clearly wrong, it had to

reverse

its own amendments. So, the question arises - Why does Parliament

believe

that the reservation is the right way of helping the OBCs?





Arjun Singh: Nobody is infallible. But Parliament is Supreme and atleast

I,

as a Member of Parliament, cannot but accept the supremacy of

Parliament.





Karan Thapar: No doubt Parliament is supreme, but the constitutional

amendment that gives you your authorities actually unenabling amendment,

it

is not a compulsory requirement. Secondly, the language of the amendment

does not talk about reservations, the language talks about any provision

by

law for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. So,

you

could have chosen anything other than reservations, why reservations?





Arjun Singh: Because as I said, that was the 'will and desire of the

Parliament'.





Karan Thapar: Do you personally also, as Minister of Human Resource

Development , believe that reservations is the right and proper way to

help

the OBCs?





Arjun Singh: Certainly, that is one of the most important ways to do it.

Karan Thapar: The right way?





Arjun Singh: Also the right way.





Karan Thapar: In which case, lets ask a few basic questions; we are

talking

about the reservations for the OBCs in particular. Do you know what

percentage of the Indian population is OBC? Mandal puts it at 52 per

cent,

the National Sample Survey Organisation at 32 per cent, the National

Family

and Health Survey at 29.8 per cent, which is the correct figure?





Arjun Singh: I think that should be decided by people who are more

knowledgeable. But the point is that the OBCs form a fairly sizeable

percentage of our population.





Karan Thapar: No doubt, but the reason why it is important to know 'what

percentage' they form is that if you are going to have reservations for

them, then you must know what percentage of the population they are,

otherwise you don't know whether they are already adequately catered in

higher educational institutions or not.





Arjun Singh: That is obvious - they are not.





Karan Thapar: Why is it obvious?





Arjun Singh: Obvious because it is something which we all see.





Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that the NSSO, which is a government

appointed body, has actually in its research in 1999 - which is the most

latest research shown - that 23.5 per cent of all university seats are

already with the OBCs. And that is just 8.5 per cent less than what the

NSSO

believes is the OBC share of the population. So, for a difference of 8

per

cent, would reservations be the right way of making up the difference?





Arjun Singh: I wouldn't like to go behind all this because, as I said,

Parliament has taken a view and it has taken a decision, I am a servant

of

Parliament and I will only implement.





Karan Thapar: Absolutely, Parliament has taken a view, I grant it. But

what

people question is the simple fact - Is there a need for reservations?

If

you don't know what percentage of the country is OBC, and if

furthermore,

the NSSO is correct in pointing out that already 23.5 per cent of the

college seats are with the OBC, then you don't have a case in terms of

need.





Arjun Singh: College seats, I don't know.





Karan Thapar: According to the NSSO - which is a government appointed

body -

23.5 per cent of the college seats are already with the OBCs.





Arjun Singh: What do you mean by college seats?





Karan Thapar: University seats, seats of higher education.





Arjun Singh: Well, I don't know I have not come across that far.





Karan Thapar: So, when critics say to you that you don't have a case for

reservation in terms of need, what do you say to them?





Arjun Singh: I have said what I had to say and the point is that that is

not

an issue for us to now debate.





Karan Thapar: You mean the chapter is now closed?





Arjun Singh: The decision has been taken.





Karan Thapar: Regardless of whether there is a need or not, the decision

is

taken and it is a closed chapter.





Arjun Singh: So far as I can see, it is a closed chapter and that is why

I

have to implement what all Parliament has said.





Karan Thapar: Minister, it is not just in terms of 'need' that your

critics

question the decision to have reservation for OBCs in higher education.

More

importantly, they question whether reservations themselves are

efficacious

and can work.

For example, a study done by the IITs themselves shows that 50 per cent

of

the IIT seats for the SCs and STs remain vacant and for the remaining 50

per

cent, 25 per cent are the candidates, who even after six years fail to

get

their degrees. So, clearly, in their case, reservations are not working.







Arjun Singh: I would only say that on this issue, it would not be

correct to

go by all these figures that have been paraded.





Karan Thapar: You mean the IIT figures themselves could be dubious?





Arjun Singh: Not dubious, but I think that is not the last word.





Karan Thapar: All right, maybe the IIT may not be the last word, let me

then

quote to you the report of the Parliamentary Committee on the welfare

for

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - that is a Parliamentary

body.

It says that looking at the Delhi University, between 1995 and 2000,

just

half the seats for under-graduates at the Scheduled Castes level and

just

one-third of the seats for under-graduates at the Scheduled Tribes level

were filled. All the others went empty, unfilled. So, again, even in

Delhi

University, reservations are not working.





Arjun Singh: If they are not working, it does not mean that for that

reason

we don't need them. There must be some other reason why they are not

working

and that can be certainly probed and examined. But to say that for this

reason, 'no reservations need to be done' is not correct.





Karan Thapar: Fifty years after the reservations were made, statistics

show,

according to The Hindustan Times, that overall in India, only 16 per

cent of

the places in higher education are occupied by SCs and STs. The quota is

22.5 per cent, which means that only two-thirds of the quota is

occupied.

One third is going waste, it is being denied to other people.





Arjun Singh: As I said, the kind of figures that have been brought out,

in

my perception, do not reflect the realities. Realities are something

much

more and of course, there is an element of prejudice also.





Karan Thapar: But these are figures that come from a Parliamentary

Committee. It can't be prejudiced; they are your own colleagues.





Arjun Singh: Parliamentary Committee has given the figures, but as to

why


this has not happened, that is a different matter.





Karan Thapar: I put it to you that you don't have a case for

reservations in

terms of need, you don't have a case for reservations in terms of their

efficacy, why then, are you insisting on extending them to the OBCs?





Arjun Singh: I don't want to use that word, but I think that your

argument

is basically fallicious.





Karan Thapar: But it is based on all the facts available in the public

domain.





Arjun Singh: Those are facts that need to be gone into with more care.

What

lies behind those facts, why this has not happened, that is also a fact.







Karan Thapar: Let's approach the issue of reservations differently in

that

case. Reservations mean that a lesser-qualified candidate gets

preference

over a more qualified candidate, solely because in this case, he or she

happens to be an OBC. In other words, the upper castes are being

penalised

for being upper caste.





Arjun Singh: Nobody is being penalised and that is a factor that we are

trying to address. I think that the prime Minister will be talking to

all

the political parties and will be putting forward a formula, which will

see

that nobody is being penalised.





Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about that formula, but before we

come to talk about how you are going to address concerns, let me point

one

other corollary - Reservations also gives preference and favour to caste

over merit. Is that acceptable in a modern society?





Arjun Singh: I don't think the perceptions of modern society fit India

entirely.





Karan Thapar: You mean India is not a modern society and therefore can't

claim to be treated as one?





Arjun Singh: It is emerging as a modern society, but the parameters of a

modern society do not apply to large sections of the people in this

country.





Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you Jawaharlal Nehru, a man whom you

personally admire enormously. On the 27th of June 1961 wrote to the

Chief

Ministers of the day as follows: I dislike any kind of reservations. If

we

go in for any kind of reservations on communal and caste basis, we will

swamp the bright and able people and remain second rate or third rate.

The

moment we encourage the second rate, we are lost. And then he adds

pointedly: This way lies not only folly, but also disaster. What do you

say

to Jawaharlal Nehru today?





Arjun Singh: Jawaharlal Nehru was a great man in his own right and not

only

me, but everyone in India accept his view.





Karan Thapar: But you are just about to ignore his advice.





Arjun Singh: No. Are you aware that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who

introduced

the first ammendment regarding OBCs?





Karan Thapar: Yes, and I am talking about Jawaharlal Nehru in 1961, when

clearly he had changed his position, he said - I dislike any kind of

reservations.





Arjun Singh: I don't think one could take Panditji's position at any

point

of time and then overlook what he had himself initiated.





Karan Thapar: Am I then to understand that regardless of the case that

is

made against reservations in terms of need, regardless of the case that

has

been made against reservations in terms of efficacy, regardless of the

case

that has been made against reservations in terms of Jawaharlal Nehru,

you

remain committed to extending reservations to the OBCs.





Arjun Singh: I said because that is the will of Parliament. And I think

that

common decisions that are taken by Parliament have to be honoured.





Karan Thapar: Let me ask you a few basic questions - If reservations are

going to happen for the OBCs in higher education, what percentage of

reservations are we talking about?





Arjun Singh: No, that I can't say because that has yet to be decided.





Karan Thapar: Could it be less than 27 per cent?





Arjun Singh: I can't say anything on that, I have told you in the very

beginning that at this point of time it is not possible for me to.





Karan Thapar: Quite right. If you can't say, then that also means that

the

figure has not been decided.





Arjun Singh: The figure will be decided, it has not been decided yet.





Karan Thapar: The figure has not been decided. So, therefore the figure

could be 27, but it could be less than 27 too?





Arjun Singh: I don't want to speculate on that because as I said, that

is

decision, which will be taken by Parliament.





Karan Thapar: Whatever the figure, one thing is certain that when the

reservations for OBCs happen, the total quantum of reservations will go

up

in percentage terms. Will you compensate by increasing the total number

of

seats in colleges, universities, IITs and IIMs, so that the other

students

don't feel deprived.





Arjun Singh: That is one of the suggestions that has been made and is

being

seriously considered.





Karan Thapar: Does it find favour with you as a Minister for Human

Resource

Development?





Arjun Singh: Whatever suggestion comes, we are committed to examine it.





Karan Thapar: You may be committed to examine it, but do you as minister

believe that that is the right way forward?





Arjun Singh: That could be one of the ways, but not the only way.





Karan Thapar: What are the other ways?





Arjun Singh: I don't know. That is for the Prime Minister and the other

ministers to decide.





Karan Thapar: One way forward would be to increase the total number of

seats.





Arjun Singh: Yes, definitely.





Karan Thapar: But the problem is that as the Times of India points out,

we

are talking of an increase of perhaps as much as 53 per cent. Given the

constraints you have in terms of faculty and infrastructure, won't that

order of increase dilute the quality of education?





Arjun Singh: I would only make one humble request, don't go by The Times

of

India and The Hindustan Times about faculty and infrastructure, because

they

are trying to focus on an argument which they have made.





Karan Thapar: All right, I will not go by The Times of India, let me

instead

go by Sukhdev Thorat, the Chairman of the UGC. He points out that today,

at

higher education levels - that is all universities, IITs and IIMs -

there is

already a 1.2 lakh vacancy number. 40 per cent of these are in teaching

staff, which the IIT faculty themselves point out that they have

shortages

of up to 30 per cent. Given those two constraint, can you increase the

number of seats?





Arjun Singh: That can be addressed and that shortage can be taken care

of.





Karan Thapar: But it can't be taken care of in one swoop, it will take

several years to do it.





Arjun Singh: I don't know whether it can be taken care of straightway or

in

stages, that is a subject to be decided.





Karan Thapar: Let me ask you bluntly, if you were to agree to compensate

for

reservations for OBCs by increasing the number of seats, would that

increase

happen at one go, or would it be staggered over a period of two-three or

four year old process.





Arjun Singh: As I told you, it is an issue that I cannot comment upon at

this moment because that is under examination.





Karan Thapar: So, it may happen in one go and it may happen in a series

of

several years.





Arjun Singh: I can't speculate on that because that is not something on

which I am free to speak on today.





Karan Thapar: Will the reservation for OBCs, whatever figure your

Committee

decides on, will it happen in one go, or will it slowly be introduced in

stages?





Arjun Singh: That also I cannot say because as I told you, all these

issues

are under consideration.





Karan Thapar: Which means that everything that is of germane interest to

the

people concerned is at the moment 'under consideration' and the

government

is not able to give any satisfaction to the students who are deeply

concerned.





Arjun Singh: That is not the point. The government knows what to do and

it

will do what is needed.





Karan Thapar: But if the government knows what to do, why won't you tell

me

what the government wants to do?





Arjun Singh: Because unless the decision is taken, I cannot tell you.

Karan Thapar: But you can share with me as the Minister what you are

thinking.





Arjun Singh: No.





Karan Thapar: So, in other words, we are manitaining a veil of secrecy

and

the very people who are concerned...





Arjun Singh: I am not maintaining a veil of secrecy. I am only telling

you

what propriety allows me to tell you.





Karan Thapar: Propriety does not allow you to share with the people who

are

protesting on the streets what you are thinking?





Arjun Singh: I don't think that that can happen all the time.





Karan Thapar: But there are people who feel that their lives and their

futures are at stake and they are undertaking fasts until death.





Arjun Singh: It is being hyped up, I don't want to go into that.





Karan Thapar: Do you have no sympathy for them?





Arjun Singh: I have every sympathy.





Karan Thapar: But you say it is being hyped up.





Arjun Singh: Yes, it is hyped up.





Karan Thapar: So, then, what sympathy are you showing?





Arjun Singh: I am showing sympathy to them and not to those who are

hyping

it up.





Karan Thapar: The CPM says that if the reservations for the OBCs are to

happen, then what is called the creamy layer should be excluded. How do

you

react to that?





Arjun Singh: The creamy layer issue has already been taken care of by

the

Supreme Court.





Karan Thapar: That was vis -a-vis jobs in employment, what about at the

university level, should they be excluded there as well because you are

suggesting that the answer is yes?





Arjun Singh: That could be possible.





Karan Thapar: It could be possible that the creamy layer is excluded

from

reservations for OBCs in higher education?





Arjun Singh: It could be, but I don't know whether it would happen

actually.





Karan Thapar: Many people say that if reservations for OBCs in higher

education happen, then the children of beneficiaries should not be

entitled

to claim the same benefit.





Arjun Singh: Why?





Karan Thapar: So that there is always a shrinking base and the rate

doesn't

proliferate.





Arjun Singh: I don't think that that is a very logical way of looking at

it.

Karan Thapar: Is that not acceptable to you?





Arjun Singh: No, it is not the logical way of looking at it.





Karan Thapar: So, with the possible exception of the creamy layer

exclusion,

reservation for OBCs in higher education will be almost identical to the

existing reservations for SC/STs?





Arjun Singh: Except for the percentage.





Karan Thapar: Except for the percentage.





Arjun Singh: Yes.





Karan Thapar: So, in every other way, they will be identical.





Arjun Singh: Yes, in every other way.





Karan Thapar: Mr Arjun Singh, on the 5th of April when you first

indicated

that the Government was considering reservation for OBCs in higher

education, was the Prime Minister in agreement that this was the right

thing

to do?





Arjun Singh: I think, there is a very motivated propaganda is on this

issue.

Providing reservation to OBCs was in the public domain right from

December

2005, when Parliament passed the enabling resolution.





Karan Thapar: Quite true. But had the Prime Minister specifically agreed

on

or before 5th of April to the idea?





Arjun Singh: Well, I am telling you it was already there. A whole Act

was

made, the Constitution was amended and the Prime Minister was fully

aware of

what this is going to mean. Actually, he had a meeting in which OBC

leaders

were called to convince them that this would give them the desired

advantage. And they should, therefore, support this resolution. And at

that

meeting, he himself talked to them. Now, how do you say that he was

unaware?





Karan Thapar: But were you at all aware that the Prime Minister might be

in

agreement with what was about to happen but might not wish it disclosed

publicly at that point of time? Were you aware of that?





Arjun Singh: It was already there in public domain, that's what I am

trying

to tell you.





Karan Thapar: Then answer this to me. Why are members of the PMO telling

journalists that Prime Minister was not consulted and that you jumped

the

gun?





Arjun Singh: Well, I don't know which member of the PMO you are talking

about unless you name him.





Karan Thapar: Is there a conspiracy to make you the fall guy?





Arjun Singh: Well, I don't know whether there is one or there is not.

But

fall guys are not made in this way. And I am only doing what was

manifestly

clear to every one, was cleared by the party and the Prime Minister.

There

is no question of any personal agenda.





Karan Thapar: They say that, in fact, you brought up this issue to

embarrass

the Prime Minister.





Arjun Singh: Why should I embarrass the Prime Minister? I am with him. I

am

part of his team.





Karan Thapar: They say that you have a lingering, forgive the word,

jealousy

because Sonia Gandhi chose Manmohan Singh and not you as Prime Minister.







Arjun Singh: Well, that is canard which is below contempt. Only that

person

can say this who doesn't know what kind of respect and regard I hold for

Sonia Gandhi. She is the leader. Whatever she decides is acceptable to

me.





Karan Thapar: They also say that you brought this issue up because you

felt

that the Prime Minister had been eating into your portfolio. Part of it

had

gone to Renuka Chaudhury and, in fact, your new deputy minister Purandar

Sridevi had taken over certain parts. This was your way of getting back.







Arjun Singh: No one was taking over any part. This is a decision which

the

Prime Minister makes as to who has to have what portfolio. And he asked

Mrs

Renuka Devi to take it and he cleared it with me first.





Karan Thapar: So there is no animus on your part?





Arjun Singh: Absolutely not.





Karan Thapar: They say that you did this because you resented the Prime

Minister's popular image in the country, that this was your way of

embroiling him in a dispute that will make him look not like a modern

reformer but like an old-fashioned, family-hold politician instead.





Arjun Singh: Well, the Tammany Hall political stage is over> He is our

Prime

Minister and every decision he has taken is in the full consent with his

Cabinet and I don't think there can be any blame on him.





Karan Thapar: One, then, last quick question. Do you think this is an

issue,

which is a sensitive issue, where everyone knew there would have been

passions and emotions that would have aroused has been handled as

effectively as it should have been?





Arjun Singh: Well, I have not done anything on it. I have not sort of

what

you call jumped the gun. If this is an issue, which is sensitive,

everyone

has to treat it that way.





Karan Thapar: But your conscience as HRD Minister is clear?





Arjun Singh: Absolutely clear.





Karan Thapar: There is nothing that you could have done to make it

easier

for the young students?





Arjun Singh: Well, I am prepared to do anything that can be done. And it

is

being attempted.





Karan Thapar: For seven weeks, they have been protesting in the hot sun.

No

minister has gone there to appease them, to alley their concerns, to

express

sympathy for them. Have politicians let the young people of India down?





Arjun Singh: Well, I myself called them. They all came in this very

room.





Karan Thapar: But you are the only one.





Arjun Singh: You are accusing me only. No one else is being accused.





Karan Thapar: What about the Government of India? Has the Government of

India failed to respond adequately?





Arjun Singh: From the Government of India also, the Defence Minister met

them.





Karan Thapar: Only recently.





Arjun Singh: That is something because everyone was busy with the

elections.





Karan Thapar: For seven weeks no one met them.





Arjun Singh: No, but we are very concerned. Certainly, all of us resent

the

kind of force that was used. I condemned it the very first day it

happened.





Karan Thapar: All right, Mr Arjun Singh. We have reached the end of this

interview. Thank you very much for speaking on the subject
 
When this reservation fiasco was in full swing, I was watching a debate on this issue on one of d news channel. One of the participant was a successful doctor, who came under the reserved category. He was asked the question since he is a successful doctor now, should his son deserve a quota. His answer stunned me

He said that logically speaking his son does not deserve the quota but it is a matter of 'social contract' and hence he should get it..

This is the biggest flaw of reservation. The minority classes are now claiming a reservation as a right. They are becoming dependent on d quotas for each and every thing..
 
I missed this interview... this is the first time i have read it.... i just wanted to jump from my chair and throttle his neck
 
Back
Top