| Revision as of 13:55, 16 April 2021 editSuneye1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,534 edits Reverted 1 edit by Man of failures (talk): UnsourcedTags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:07, 16 April 2021 edit undoMan of failures (talk | contribs)53 edits Removed some biases in writingTags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2020}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2020}} | ||
| {{Use Indian English|date=August 2020}} | {{Use Indian English|date=August 2020}} | ||
| The reservation system in ] is much in contrast to the rest of India, not by the nature of reservation but by its history. When the first reservation protest hit New Delhi in May 2006, a contrasting quiet serenity was noticed in Chennai. Later, as the anti-reservation lobby gained in visibility in Delhi, Chennai saw quiet street protests demanding reservation. Doctors in Chennai, including doctors association for social equality (DASE) were in the forefront expressing their support for reservation in institutions. | The reservation system in ] is much in contrast to the rest of India, not by the nature of reservation but by its history. When the first reservation protest hit New Delhi in May 2006, a contrasting quiet serenity was noticed in Chennai. Later, as the anti-reservation lobby gained in visibility in Delhi, Chennai saw quiet street protests demanding reservation as the majority of students belonged to reserved categories there. Doctors belonging to reserved categories in Chennai, including doctors association for social equality (DASE) were in the forefront expressing their support for reservation in institutions. | ||
| ==Present practice== | ==Present practice== | ||
Revision as of 14:07, 16 April 2021
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
The reservation system in Tamil Nadu is much in contrast to the rest of India, not by the nature of reservation but by its history. When the first reservation protest hit New Delhi in May 2006, a contrasting quiet serenity was noticed in Chennai. Later, as the anti-reservation lobby gained in visibility in Delhi, Chennai saw quiet street protests demanding reservation as the majority of students belonged to reserved categories there. Doctors belonging to reserved categories in Chennai, including doctors association for social equality (DASE) were in the forefront expressing their support for reservation in institutions.
Present practice
At present, reservation works out to somewhat less than 69%, depending on how many General category students are admitted in the super-numerary seats. If 100 seats are available, the top ranking 31 candidates are given admission first, followed by the remaining 69 seats being filled as per the reservation system. The General category students ranking between 32 and 50 are then admitted on supernumary seats added just for them. The 69 reserved seats are filled up using the 69% reservation formula (30 seats obc, 20 seats mbc, 18 seats sc and 1 seat st). The effective reservation percentage depends on how many General category students are ranked between 32 and 50. At one extreme, all 19 may be General category students, in which case the total reservation works out to 69/(100+19) or about 58%. At the other extreme, none of the students ranking between 32 and 50 may be from General category, in which case no super-numerary seats are created and reservation works out to be 69% as mandated by the state law.
Present Reservation Scheme Details
Below are the details of Reservation followed in Tamilnadu.
Reservation in Tamil Nadu
Backward Class (BC) (30%) Most Backward Communities (MBC)(MBV(v)10.5+7+2.5) (20%) Scheduled Castes (SC) (18%) Scheduled Tribes (ST) (1%) General (31%)| Main Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu | Sub Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu | Reservation Percentage for each Sub Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu | Reservation Percentage for each Main Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu | Category as per Government of India |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backward Class (BC) | Backward Class Non Muslims(BC) - General | 26.5% | 30% | Backward Class |
| BC Muslims | 3.5% | |||
| Most Backward Class (MBC) | Most Backward Communities (MBC) | 9.5%
MBC(v) 10.5% | ||
| Denotified Community (DNC) | ||||
| Scheduled Castes | Only Scheduled Castes | 15% | 18% | Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes |
| only for Arunthathiyar) | 3% | |||
| Scheduled Tribes | 1% No Sub-Categories | 1% | ||
| Total Reservation Percentage | 69% |
Timeline
Sourced from a Rediff.com new article.
- 1871
The Madras Census Report of 1871 documents that non-Brahminical Hindu and Muslim communities were eliminated from political prospects
- 1881
Suggestion made to take special interest in socially backward groups
- 1882
Recommendation made to use education as the criteria of backwardness
- 1883
The Report of the Indian Education Commission states that practically no attention is paid to the problems of education of general people
- 1885
Financial support is provided in Madras to spread education
- 1893
Madras government provides special educational attention for 49 different castes
- 26 July 1902
Maharaja Shahu of Kolhapur enacts 50% reservation for non-Brahmins in Kolhapur State
- 1918
Upon receiving commission report for backward classes, Mysore Government had announces reservations in education and jobs
- 1920
Maharaja Shahu increases the reservation percentage from 50% to 90% in Kolhapur
- 1927
Caste is kept as the primary factor in the recruitment process for government jobs in Madras state. The allocation is made as follows:
- 2 out of 12 for Brahmins
- 5 for non-Brahminical Hindus
- 2 for Muslims
- 2 for Anglo-Indians
- 1 for Scheduled Castes.
- 1928
The following classifications are made in the commission established by the Mumbai state Government:
- Depressed Classes
- Original and Hill Tribe
- Other Backward Class
- 1931
Separate election camps are declared for backward classes.
- 1932
Following Mahatma Gandhi's hunger strike, the Poona Pact is signed on 24 September 1932 by leaders of upper-caste Hindus and of Dalits.
- 1943
According to a memorandum submitted to the viceroy by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the First Law Minister, 8.33% of reservation in services in favor of the Scheduled Castes became effective.
- 1944
Education Department have announced scholarship for Scheduled Castes
- 1946
Reservation for Scheduled castes was increased from 8.33% to 12.33%
- 1946-48
Reservation for Schedule Castes was expanded to 16.66%
- 26 November 1949
India accepts the Constitution, which includes the principle of reservations for SC & ST and has Article 340 directing State to constitute Backward Classes Commission to recommend similar measures.
- 1950
First amendment Act of the Indian Constitution)Article 340 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, granted reservation rights to OBCs
27 November 1951: Dr. Babsaheb Ambedkar resigns from the Central Cabinet of PM Nehru, citing deliberate delay in acting on Article 340 as one of the reasons.
- 1951
16% Reservation for SC/ST and 25% Reservation for OBCs introduced. Total Reservation Stood at 41%
- 1971
Sattanathan Commission recommended Introduction of "Creamy Layer" and altering Reservation percentage for Backward Classes to 16% and separate reservation of 17% to Most Backward Classes (MBCs).
- DMK Government increased OBC reservation to 31% and Reservation for SC/ST has been increased to 18%. Total Reservation stood at 49%
- 1980
ADMK government includes "Creamy Layer" for OBC reservation benefits. Income Limit for availing Reservation benefit has been fixed at Rs 9000 Per Annum. DMK and other Opposition parties protested the decision.
- Creamy Layer scheme withdrawn and Reservation % for OBC has been increased to 50%. Total Reservation Stood at 68%
- 1989
Statewide Road Blockade Agitations were launched by Vanniar Sangam (Parent Body of Pattali Makkal Katchi) demanding 20% reservations in State Government and 2% Reservations in Central Government exclusively for Vanniyar Caste.
- DMK Government Split OBC reservations as 2 Parts with 30% for OBC and 20% for MBC. Separate Reservation of 1% introduced for Scheduled Tribes. Total Reservation percentage stood at 69%.
- 1992
- Supreme Court, in Mandal Judgement, reiterated that Reservation percentage cannot exceed 50% and "Creamy Layer" to be excluded from Reservation benefits.
- 1994
- Court instructed Tamil Nadu Government to follow 50% reservations in the case filed by famous lawyer K. M. Vijayan on behalf of VOICE Consumer forum. Anandakrishnan, one of the members of Oversight committee, and then Anna University Vice-Chancellor announced that 50% reservation will be followed.
- 69% Reservation was included in 9th Schedule.
- K. M. Vijayan was brutally attacked and maimed while leaving to New Delhi to file case in Supreme Court against inclusion of 69% reservation in 9th Schedule
- 2006
- Supreme Court asked Tamil Nadu Government to exclude Creamy Layer from Reservation benefits.
- May 2006 -August 2006
- Anti Reservation Protests intensified in many parts of India.). Pro reservationists claim protests were intensified by media bias. Tamil Nadu stayed calm. This is attributed to low percentage of Forward castes in Tamil Nadu (13%) as against 36% in India.
- Alternative systems of Affirmative Action proposed by academics Prof. Purushottam Agrawal of the Jawaharlal Nehru University in the form of the Multiple Index Related Affirmative Action (MIRAA) - http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2006/june06/report3.html and by Prof. Satish Deshpande and Dr. Yogendra Yadav of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies - http://www.hindu.com/2006/05/22/stories/2006052202261100.htm
- Dr. Sam Pitroda, Chairperson of the National Knowledge Commission came out in opposition to the proposed scheme to extend caste-based reservations to OBCs in institutes of Higher Education (http://www.indiadaily.org/entry/sam-pitroda-review-quota-policy/)
- Dr. Pratab Bhanu Mehta, member-convener of the National Knowledge Commission resigns from his post in protest against the policy of reservations .
- Indian Prime Minister appoints Oversight committee headed by former chief minister of Karnataka M. Veerappa Moily to suggest ways for implementation of reservations for Other Backward Classes and to suggest measures for increasing seats in educational institutions.
- Oversight committee submits interim report and suggests phased implementation of reservations in central educational institutions for other backward classes.
- OBC reservation bill introduced in the Lok Sabha and referred to standing committee. It has not excluded creamy layer (rich and affluent amongst the other backward classes) from enjoying reservation benefits per supreme court judgement.
- Supreme court referred inclusion of 69% reservation in Tamil Nadu in 9th schedule to 9 member bench
- September 2006 – 2007
- Supreme court observed that central Government is trying to introduce quota without adequate data.
- Oversight committee submits final report.
- Supreme court upheld constitutional amendment for providing reservations in promotions for Scheduled castes and Tribes. It reiterated 50% limit and exclusion of Creamy layer from enjoying reservation benefits.
- Parliamentary standing committee recommended preference for non creamy layer (Poor among backwards) among backward classes from enjoying reservation benefits and comprehensive population survey to identify real backward people.
- Sachar committee submitted its report regarding backwardness of Indian Muslims. It made many recommendations for uplifting Indian Muslims. It indicated that current enrollment in educational institutions of non Muslim OBC's is almost equal to/close to their population. It also recommended alternative methodfor identifying real needy people.
- Union cabinet meeting rejected Parliamentary standing committee recommendations and decided to bring reservations bill by including creamy layer (Super rich) among other backward classes. Parliament passed OBC Reservations bill through voice vote.
- April 2008
- On 10 April 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld the law that provides for 27% reservation for Other Backward Castes (OBCs) in educational institutions supported by the Central government, while ruling that the creamy layer among the OBCs should be excluded from the quota.
See also
- Reservation in India
- Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (India)
- Ministry of Minority Affairs
- Court Cases Relating to India's Reservation System
- Women's Reservation Bill India
- Dhangar Scheduled tribe issue
- Socialism
- Caste politics in India
References
- "Status of Reservation of OBC in Various States". Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. 14 August 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- https://frontline.thehindu.com/dispatches/reservation-for-vanniyars-only-a-temporary-measure-until-caste-census-report-becomes-available-says-tamil-nadu-chief-minister-edappadi-palaniswami/article33943644.ece
- Evaluating Tamil Nadu's 69% quota
- http://www.indeconomist.com/15thsep06p1_4.htm.
{{cite news}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - Anti-quota protests spread
- Nationwide anti-quota stir continues
- "Doc's hunger strike enters 10th day". CNN-IBN, Global Broadcast News. 23 May 2006. Retrieved 27 May 2006.
- "Caste matters in the Indian media". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 3 June 2006. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
- SC upholds OBC quota, keeps creamy layer out
- Supreme Court okays quotas in IIMs, IITs