Welcome to the official website of Youth For Equality, Mumbai. We thank all those who have been supportive of our efforts to create a fair and equitable society.
This is a forum of equals to oppose the recent CHANGE in reservation policy proposed by the Government of India. We are a non-political, non-violent and united group of individuals.

YOU CAN BE A PART OF THIS MOVEMENT...
* Read up more on the issue to educate yourself: unless you are well informed, you cannot convince others
* Talk to people one-on-one to explain the cause to them
* Mobilize people within your college/company/colony to help us create a wider base
* Download, print and spread the signature campaign
* Help us in our research
* Inform us about potential sources of funding
* Write in to us with your queries, ideas and contact details to: yfemumbai@gmail.com
Join YFE Mumbai's Yahoo! Group
Read our blog in detail to get better acquainted with the details of the campaign we have initiated since May 2006. LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR ACTIVE SUPPORT!

Make YFE MUMBAI Your Homepage

"Youth For Equality, Mumbai" has been Registered as an Organisation! We can now accept funding in the form of cheques, demand drafts and money orders made in favour of "Youth For Equality, Mumbai".


Friday, April 25, 2008

Charter of Demands

“How far that little candle throws his beam! So shines a good deed in a weary world” so said William Shakespeare. What Youth For Equality has aspired was good deed in a weary world! The OBC Reservation in the present context is nothing sort of organized loot by the most powerful community of the society. The Supreme Court Judgment regarding the OBC reservation tried to put a permanent break – gradually! As the five judge constitution bench was not unanimous in their opinion, majority judgment is what going to be counted. In his judgment Justice Raveendran said “To start with, the effect of reservation may appear to perpetuate caste. The immediate effect of caste based reservation has been rather unfortunate. In the pre-reservation era people wanted to get rid of the backward tag -- either social or economical. But post reservation, there is a tendency even among those who are considered as 'forward', to seek 'backward' tag, in the hope of enjoying the benefits of reservations. When more and more people aspire for 'backwardness' instead of 'forwardness' the country itself stagnates. Be that as it may. Reservation as an affirmative action is required only for a limited period to bring forward the socially and educationally backward classes by giving them a gentle supportive push. But if there is no review after a reasonable period and if reservation is continued, the country will become a caste divided society permanently. Instead of developing an united society with diversity, we will end up as a fractured society for ever suspicious of each other. While affirmative discrimination is a road to equality, care should be taken that the road does not become a rut in which the vehicle of progress gets entrenched and stuck. Any provision for reservation is a temporary crutch. Such crutch by unnecessary prolonged use, should not become a permanent liability.” There are certain very promising points in the judgment pronounced by majority of judges.

1. Exclusion of Creamy layer.

Justice Bhandari said “For a valid method of creamy layer exclusion, the Government may use its post-Sawhney I criteria as a template. I further urge the Government to exclude the children of former and present Members of the Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies and the said O.M. be amended accordingly.” Justice Pasayat and Justice Thackker said “Inclusion of castes in the list of backward classes cannot be mechanical and cannot be done without adequate relevant data. Nor can it be done for extraneous reasons. Likewise, periodic examination of a backward class could lead to its exclusion if it ceases to be socially backward or if it is adequately represented in the services. Once backward, always backward is not acceptable. In any case, the "creamy layer" has no place in the reservation system.”

2. A person is not educationally backward if he becomes a graduate. This means there should not be any reservation for OBCs in Post graduation.

Justice Bhandari said “once a candidate graduates from a university, the said candidate is educationally forward and is ineligible for special benefits under Article 15(5) of the Constitution for post graduate and any further studies thereafter.” Justice Pasayat and Justice Thackker said “While determining backwardness, graduation (not technical graduation) or professional shall be the standard test yardstick for measuring backwardness.”

3. Merit has been recognized by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms.

Justice Pasayat and Justice Thackker said “the Central Government shall examine as to the desirability of fixing a cut off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). By way of illustration it can be indicated that five marks grace can be extended to such candidates below the minimum eligibility marks fixed for general categories of students. This would ensure quality and merit would not suffer”. Both the Judges further said “The philosophy and pragmatism of universal excellence through equality of opportunity for education and advancement across the nation is part of the constitutional creed. It is, therefore, the best and most meritorious students that must be selected for admission to technical institutions and medical colleges and no citizen an be regarded as outsider in the constitutional set-up without serious detriment to the `unity and integrity' of the nation. The Supreme Court has laid down that so far as admissions to post graduate course such as MS, MD and the like are concerned, it would be imminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence or institutional preference. The need of a region or institution cannot prevail at the

highest scale of specialty where the best skill or talent must be hand-picked by selecting them according to capability. At the level of Ph.D., M.D. or levels of higher proficiency where international measure of talent is made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in the making is a national loss, the considerations we have expanded upon as important, lose their potency.”

Justice Bhandari said “In the case of higher education, the universities that admit the best will likely churn out the best. The point is that universities alone cannot produce qualified job candidates. Forced to admit students with lower marks, the university's final product will not be as strong. I urge the Government to set OBC cut off marks no lower than 10 marks below that of the general category.”

4. Unfilled OBC seats in absence of qualified OBC candidates will go to general category candidates.

Justice Bhandari said “The Government need not always provide the maximum limit. Reasonable cut off marks should be set so that standards of excellence greatly effect. The unfilled seats should revert to the general category.” Justice Pasayat said “If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories.”

5. Unaided institutions are out of quota purview.

While answering the question ‘does the 93rd Amendment violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution by imposing reservation on unaided institutions?’ Justice Bhandari categorically said “Yes, it does. Imposing reservation on unaided institutions violates the Basic Structure by stripping citizens of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on an occupation.”

6. Importance of Primary Education in place of quota has been established.

Justice Bhandari in his judgment said “The Parliament should fix a deadline by which time free and compulsory education will have reached every child. This must be done within six months, as the right to free and compulsory education is perhaps the most important of all the fundamental rights. For without education, it becomes extremely difficult to exercise other fundamental rights.”

The Government is of the habit of misreading the judgment and sabotaging justice. Youth For Equality is planning to file a series of petition in case the government try any kind of dilly dallying with the just implementation of the landmark judgment.