There has been a total consensus among all the parties about reservation in promotion for SC and ST candidates in public services. Is that an answer to the problem of deep-seated prejudices and whether there are enough examples of outstanding officers not promoted on account of these prejudices are issues which are bothering policymakers? Evidence is striking that there is still a backlog of thousands of positions unfilled in public systems and that there are few people from these categories on the top. Will reservation in promotion help address these concerns? Will those who are first generation learners, that is, whose parents are almost illiterate or occupy very low position if at all in the society get a major share of these opportunities?

I have been, and still I am, a supporter of aggressive affirmative action but almost all my suggestions sent to the Moily committee and others involved in the matter have remained unimplemented. That gives me an impression that government is interested only in cosmetic changes, capture low hanging fruits and is unwilling to make any long term, durable and significant changes in the system.

Let me illustrate what these changes should be. Any why I believe that without these changes mere reservation in promotion will not help address the inequities that exist deeply in our society still. First thing I have suggested is the expansion in opportunities for first generation learner to enter educational system. Merely reservation does not help enough. Why should not at least one year coaching be provided at public costs to four times the number of seats to prepare candidates to compete in exams for IITs, IIMS and other institutions. For bringing in rural disadvantaged kids, each navodaya vidyalaya should run coaching centre for bright children. With three exams to prepare, board, CBSE and final IIT JEE, pressure on children has increased, no matter what others say.

Undoubtedly, those who don’t make it to top institutions will at least make to the second or third level of institutions. Inclusion will take place with enhanced capacity. In the absence of such a process, children of those already in service have a distinct advantage and that does not enhance inclusion.

Second, we know that majority of the professionals who compete for civil services need coaching and preparation at leading coaching institutes. There is an implicit reservation in favour of those who can afford to go through such coaching. Why should not government pay the cost of coaching at the elite institutions for preparing four times more applicants? Is this too much of an expenditure for making India an inclusive society? Not one committee on inclusion has accepted this suggestion, much less to implement it. How will those who are already weak in English and other subjects be able to repair their inadequacy and then enter the service?

Third, having entered the service, there should be a coaching, mentoring and tracking system. It should be obligatory for cases of all such officers who are bypassed in promotion to be reviewed by a committee comprising the senior officers committed to inclusive society. In cases of poor performance, no relaxation of norms be done, but injustice should be tracked. Mentoring by seniors and also ex-civil servants will help build the linkages that disadvantaged bright officials may need to rise in the service on meritocratic grounds.

Let me conclude that we cannot substitute capacity-building by reservation. Government does not seem to invest in more enduring solution and instead wishes to help those who are already better off among SC and ST. I have no doubt that we need to break the glass ceiling for such officers but mentoring, coaching and tracking will do that better than just reservation.