One of the major debates in the whole issue of reservation

in higher education in India is about merit. Many people

who oppose reservation are of the view that when quota
based reservation is implemented then merit is sacrificed.


Before proceeding further, we should answer the following
questions:-
1. How is merit defined?
2. How do we measure merit?
3. Why is so-called merit confined so far only to a given
minority section of our society?
4. Do the existing institutions (in India or elsewhere)
always respect only merit?

Usually what is understood by the term merit or talent
is that it is the quality of being good at doing something; in
the field of education, one may intend to say that it stands
for mental agility, depth of comprehension, mathematical
talent, analytical abilities, skill of doing something or flair
for noticing connections between apparently dissimilar
things etc. But we should remember that merit is a social
product and is context specific. There is no universal,
omnipresent entity called merit which is a hold-all
substitute for such disparate qualities of a human being.
Therefore, measurement of merit is itself problematic. What
is usually understood by merit is narrowly defined- it is
usually the score/result in a given examination, that is the
percentage of marks scored or the grades obtained. Such
examinations are usually designed to test only a very
specific skill, whether it is really needed for the particular
job for which the test is meant for, of the students/job-
seekers. For example, the IIT-JEE or other engineering or
medical entrance tests are designed to test the maximum
problem solving capacity of the applicants within a limited
period of time. That too almost all the questions are
objective type questions. To be a good doctor or an
engineer, one need not necessarily possess only such kind
of ability. One may take a little more time to solve the
problems, but s/he would not qualify in the test of merit,
even though s/he may possess other qualities of becoming
a good doctor.


The merit based on ranking in the highly competitive
entrance examinations is not without its problems. Any
teacher or administrator at some of the top institutions
(such as IITs or IIMs) will agree that there are typically
several hundred candidates of equally good quality at the
top, and they are able to admit only a small fraction of
them, so that there is a large element of luck and
randomness in the process of selection. For example, at the
national entrance examination to the IITs every year, there
are more than 3,00,000 entrants, yet only around 3,000
gain admittance to the various IITs. Yet it is quite likely
that the top 20,000 are equally good if not better than
those few who are fortunate enough to get selected, since
performance at one single examination is rarely a complete
indicator of actual aptitude or quality. In any case it is also
well known that these entrance tests typically test not
intelligence or ability in the subject per se, but a certain
aptitude for answering such tests, and it is itself a skill
that can be learnt. There are renowned coaching centers in
all cities now, but some cities, like Kota in Rajasthan, is
exclusively famous for providing training for JEE entrance
tests that comes at a high price of about two lakhs pen
annum. One who can spend money, begets merit. This can
be called manufactured talent. So the flourishing
coaching industry for these competitive exams amounts
to another form of exclusion, or reservation for those who
can afford to spend enough time and resources to ensure
this prior coaching.

Another point to be noted: to qualify in the IIT-JEE
entrance examination one has to do very well in Physics
and Chemistry papers. It is a fact that most of them fail in
Physics and Chemistry papers during course work. How
come those who had so much merit to top the list, fail to
grasp the same subject inside IIT? It clearly gives us an
indication that such skills of solving mathematical
problems at a faster rate, or mugging up and reproducing
in the examination hall, are also taught in numerous
coaching centers throughout India. How do we talk about
merit then? To quote Praful Bidwai- .education, surely,
is not just about being cleverer or faster than others - itself
a hierarchical Brahmanical notion: the one who can recite
all four Vedas is inherently superior to one who knows only
two! Education is as much about understanding social
processes and life in all its complexity, about respecting
diversity and difference, understanding and practicing
citizenship collectively, and about building a learner-
teacher community based on free inquiry. Such values are
indispensable for all universities, not just liberal education
colleges.

This is the limitation of our education system and the
patterns of examination. We need to remember that the
criteria for assessing merit are very arbitrary and often not
related to the job or expectation. If we had a better system
of assessing skill and aptitude (other than rote based
exams), many of those currently considered as without
merit, would get in. Most US universities, when they ask
for references for candidates to take admission, specifically
ask whether the marks are a true reflection of the
candidate's ability, and if not, if there were any reasons
why the candidate could not perform well despite being a
meritorious or talented person. In India, we are still not
prepared to look beyond the traditional marks of merit.

Importantly, in the context of reservation, it should be
mentioned that merit is not the monopoly of any given
social group or community, but are normally distributed
across society. Every individual, irrespective of one
community of birth, or gender, is equally (potentially)
capable of achievement. Especially, in India we are made to
believe that the upper castes only possess merit. It is with
them since birth. It is the logic of caste system and the
logic is still very much operational in Indian society.
Therefore, caste based reservation is seen as undermining
merit. The Brahmans, and other upper caste, since last
many centuries, have monopolized education by excluding
the vast majority of the population. Not only education, but
all forms of capital needed to produce merit- economic,
social or cultural capital- are very unequally divided in our
country. We must also realize that what is recognized as
merit, whether in terms of a specific ability, academic
record, talent, or skill -- all constitute what sociologists
refer to as "cultural capital". While some of these are
acquired in educational institutions, part of these, and how
well we learn them depends on our social background.
Those who are deprived of basic amenities of living and are
poor to provide all the facilities and necessities of good
education, cannot be expected to perform at par with those
who are born with golden spoons in their mouth. The high
castes have much higher literacy rates, and other socio-
economic indicators and best social network to provide the
best possible cultural capital for thsir children to be able to
come to IIT/IIM/AIIMS. Despite of all the obstacles- poor
economy, non-literate parent(s) and inadequate educational
infrastructure etc, when the students from the lower caste
background come forward and compete, they have a right
to gain entry into the elite institutions of the country. US
Economist Gary Backers theory suggests that diversity is
important for economy. We say, diversity also brings merit.
When we draw human resources from a wide pool,
elementary logic suggests that, the results are optimal for
the society.

This case is similar to the issue of IQ (Intelligent Quotient)
tests done earlier during the last century to prove that the
Whites are inherently superior to the Blacks, Browns.or
anybody else on this Earth. Every society has its own
notion of merit. In India it is the Brahmanical notion.
Earlier it was the knowledge in Sanskrit, now it is English.
There is no place for the low castes domain of knowledge
and expertise that they have gained trough thousands of
years of living. Values are differentially ascribed to certain
qualities only.

Now, we discuss another aspect of merit. Do the existing
institutions within India (or outside) respect only merit
when they recruit candidates? The answer is a clear NO.
There are enough literature to suggest that various forms of
discrimination exists all over the world regarding selection
of individuals. Some of such inbuilt discriminatory systems
are given below:

1. Inheritance of property etc: We inherit our parental
property not because we have any merit to get that.
Ratan Tata and Rahul Bajaj like industrialists who
speak so vociferously against reservation and talk
about merit, but how com ethey are the head of their
respective industries and how come their sons (and
not daughters) are being groomed to take over from
them?
2. Capitation fee in the college: We hardly question the
merit of the students who get through into private
Medical or Engineering colleges by paying huge
amount of donations.
3. NRI or Management Quota: In many vocational
institutions we have quotas for the children of NRIs
and also some seats to filled at the discretion of the
management. Where is the question of merit then?
4. Looks, accent, dress, language: Many a times
candidates with so-called smart look and glib talkings
(in English, of course) etc go ahead while the real
resourceful candidate lose out. The selectors often
place so much importance to these outward
appearances that they kill merit there itself.
5. Social Networks: It is an open secret that in many elite
Management institutes and companies, the candidates
from many influential families- bureaucrats,
businesspersons and politicians- are recruited to
facilitate contacts for business purposes in future. No
one, in India, would perhaps like to discard
Anil/Mukesh Ambanis children not to be part of their
institute. Many unworthy candidates have got good
jobs because o f their connections with high-placed
individuals. Lower castes and poor people are the
worst sufferers in such cases.
6. The promotions in Indian Government services etc do
not usually take merit into account. In the judiciary
services, or in case of the University professors, the
promotion is based on seniority in service and not on
the basis of their capability.
7. Institutional Quotas: It is ironic, but we should
mention that the AIIMS students who were the first
and most vociferous against reservation are the
beneficiaries of systematic exclusion principle. In
AIIMS, about 25 seats at the PG entrance level are
reserved for those candidates who are doing MBBS
from the AIIMS itself. It is seen that many such
candidates get into the PG courses despite of scoring
very low marks in the entrance test- as low as 40%;
where as a candidate from a outside medical college
had to score very high. Earlier the seats reserved for
them was even more (33) and the Supreme Court has
slashed it to 25. Similar situation also exists in some
other institutions, officially or otherwise.

Taking all these into account, the visionary leaders of our
country had specified the guidelines to provide quota based
reservation to enable the disadvantaged sections of our
society to get a fair chance to take their share in the
countrys development. And it is not very unique to India.
About 50 countries in the world have some kind of
protective discrimination system or the other. In US there
are about 150 different guidelines to implement the
Affirmative Action plan. In the MIT (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology) of USA, one of the most famous
educational institutes of our times, have about 45% under-
graduate students from the underprivileged sections-
Blacks, Hispanics and Asians etc. Within India, we can give
the examples of our Southern states where reservation has
a long history. And they have excelled in all fields. The
famous Christian Medical College, Vellore also offers more
than half its seats to the low cates through reservation,
and yet it is one of the best medical institutes in India. All
these are given here to show that reservation does not
sacrifice excellence and efficiency.