‘Future conflict area: demand for reservations in private sector’

not deny that some amount of violence has been associated with Indian politics. However, it is very limited and restricted. For instance, when V P Singh implemented the Mandal Commission report, there was some localised violence that died down soon enough.

The upper castes simply accepted reservations in representation, jobs and educational institutions without a major fight. There has been a violent Naxalite movement in some parts, but that remained largely marginal. So has localised violence in other parts like Punjab or Kashmir.

Overall, violence in this country just does not compare with the record of China or Russia or Vietnam or several other socialist or even non-socialist countries.

Yet, the social background of representatives entering parliament and legislatures has transformed in a revolutionary manner.

Your data shows that representation to Muslims has declined drastically instead of transforming in a revolutionary manner.

YES, the Muslims have not fared even as well as Dalits in this regard. They are certainly not part of the silent revolution project. They would benefit if they joined hands with Dalits and backward classes.

Communalists therefore have pursued a politics which have led to sectarian clashes between Dalits and Muslims in several places much before Gujarat. The Asti Kalash Yatra in Agra in 1990 was organised to divide Dalits and Muslims. Ditto in Kanpur, Aligarh and Meerut in the early 1990s. The Sangh Parivar’s Seva Bharati does wonderful philanthropic work amongst Dalits, preventing such an alliance between Dalits and Muslims.

Despite attempts to communalise the polity, the interesting point is that what Chechens have done in Russia, Indian Muslims have not done in India. Indian Muslims still do not have a party of their own. The attack on Akshardham may be a reminder that militancy is crossing beyond Kashmir but Islamic fundamentalism has been limited in India to Jammu and Kashmir.

Given that trends of the silent revolution is leading increasingly towards demands for reservations but that of economic reforms in the direction of merit, where will the future arena of conflict lie in India?

IT is most likely to lie in the private sector. After all, most of the jobs today are bring created in the private sector where there are no reservations.

The Indian case in this regard is similar to South Africa, where they first privatised heavily and then extended reservation to government jobs. The difference is that in India, the private sector spurt in jobs began in 1991 right after Mandal. Therefore, the new Mandal agitation is bound to hit the private sector in the future.

How does this record of peaceful transfer of power, in other words, silent revolution compare with other countries, say in the West?

THE Indian case is unique. Such a peaceful social revolution has never taken place in any Asian country; in fact, it is unprecedented in the entire third world. Sri Lanka, which was following a similar trajectory, ended up with a long civil war.

It is unique in the history of the world. Even Britain, which otherwise has a long, unbroken record of peaceful political and social transformation, had a bloody revolution in the Civil War of 1640. The Indian case, of largely peaceful, in fact, Constitutional.

Despite enormous poverty and inequality why did India escape a violent socialist revolution?

THE size of the country is enormous, it takes a long time for masses to get united. Then, the division among castes prevents, for instance, the formation of a proletarian consciousness. That was responsible for the failure of Communists. Additionally, lawyers played a major role in the making of the Indian democracy. B R Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi and others were lawyers. This imbued the movement and later the country with a strong sense of rule of law.

PART I: ‘Reforms, not communalism, driving Sangh-BJP conflict’