Hotel Shanker, Kathmandu
Sponsored by the British Academy UK-South Asia Partnership Scheme and organised jointly by the Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, and Social Science Baha with additional support from Goldsmiths, University of London; Yale University; Social Inclusion Research Fund (SIRF) (SIRF is funded by the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Nepal and managed by SNV in Nepal), and Open Society Foundations, New York. The organising team of the conference consists of: Om Gurung (Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University); Alpa Shah (Goldsmiths, University of London); Sara Shneiderman (Yale University); Mukta Singh Lama-Tamang (Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University); and Deepak Thapa (Social Science Baha).
There is general recognition of the need to address inequality due to marginalisation and exclusion resulting from various historical and social processes. The conference will provide a venue for an exchange of ideas and frank discussions on inequality and affirmative action among academics, policy-makers and activists. The conference is being organised at an opportune moment since Nepal is undertaking an exercise in constitution-drafting and state restructuring meant to lead towards a more equitable future.
This conference will conclude the three-year British Academy UK South-Asia Partnership Project ‘Inequality and Affirmative Action in South Asia: Current Experiences and Future Agendas in India and Nepal’, which has fostered an interdisciplinary partnership between scholars in Nepal, India and the UK since February 2009. These scholars have worked together to analyse historical and contemporary debates on affirmative action in India, and their implications for emerging policies on affirmative action in Nepal.
In particular, the conference will seek to understand and inform the debate on affirmative action by generating theoretical and empirical frameworks of analysis under five themes: 1) the incongruity between and complements of democratic ideals and affirmative action to address inequalities; 2) the historical and contemporary processes leading to exclusion and marginalisation, and inventing new classificatory processes to map the existing terrain of exclusion and marginalisation; 3) the debate on eligibility for and extent of affirmative action; 4) an understanding of various country experiences of design and delivery of affirmative action measures; and 5) reconciling the seemingly controversial and at the same time incontrovertible need for affirmative action in Nepal. (Please click here to download the concept note on the conference.)
The first two days of the conference will be a by-invitation-only event in which the discussions will be carried out in an academic setting. The evenings will be devoted to two keynote addresses to which a larger group will be invited.
The third day of the conference will comprise three or four open plenary sessions around the themes identified for the conference to which invitations will also be sent to a select group of politicians, senior bureaucrats, civil society leaders, the media, and representatives of development agencies. The event will also be publicised through various media and will be open to the public.
| CONFERENCE SCHEDULE (Admission to this part of the conference is by invitation only.) |
||
| 18 JULY, 2012 | ||
| Inaugural programme: 8.30 – 9.30 am
1. Welcome: Dr Mukta Singh Tamang, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University |
||
| Panel 1 10 am – 12 noon |
Chair: Chaitanya Mishra, Professor, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University | |
| Neera Chandhoke Professor of Political Science, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India |
Locating Affirmative Action in the Concept of Equality | |
| Krishna B. Bhattachan Senior Lecturer, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu & Dilli Ram Dahal Professor, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu |
Inequality and Affirmative Action in Nepal: Issues and Challenges | |
| Chair: Marc Galanter, John and Rylla Bosshard Professor of Law and South Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison and LSE Centennial Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science | ||
| N R Madhava Menon Dr S Radhakrishnan Chair on Parliamentary Studies, Upper House of Indian Parliament, New Delhi, India |
Equalizing Opportunities: Case for an Equal Opportunity Commission | |
| Mahendra Lawoti Professor of Political Science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA |
Affirmative Action and Political Representation across Time, Groups and States: Testing Claims for and against with Cases of India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka | |
| BREAK: 12 noon – 12:30 pm | ||
| Panel 2 12:30 – 1:30 pm |
Chair: Madan Pariyar, former Chair, State Restructuring Commission | |
| Susan Hangen Associate Professor of Anthropology and International Studies, Ramapo College, New Jersey, USA |
Diversifying and Decentralizing the State: Affirmative Action as a Potential Tool for Empowering Local Communities | |
| Pramod Bhatta Researcher, Martin Chautari, Kathmandu, Nepal |
Beyond Affirmative Action: Overcoming Social Inequalities in Higher Education | |
| LUNCH: 1:30 – 2:30 pm | ||
| Panel 3 2:30 – 3:30 pm |
Chair: Gérard Toffin, Senior Researcher, CNRS, Paris | |
| Ajay Gudavarthy Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India |
Can We De-Stigmatise Reservations in India?
|
|
| Mukta Singh Tamang Lecturer, Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu |
Breaking Hierarchy, Making Identity: Social Classification and Challenges for Affirmative Action in Nepal | |
| BREAK: 3:30 – 4 pm | ||
| Panel 4 4 – 5 pm |
Chair: Krishna Hachhethu, Professor, Central Department of Political Science, Tribhuvan University | |
| Mara Malagodi Senior Teaching Fellow, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, UK |
Legal Equality between Recognition and Redistribution: Constitutional Drafting and Adjudication in India and Nepal | |
| Kåre Vollan Director, Quality AS and Electoral Expert, Norway |
Affirmative Action and Power Sharing Instruments: Possible Electoral Arrangements for Nepal | |
| BREAK: 5 – 5:30 pm | ||
| Keynote presentations 5:30 – 7:30 pm |
Ashwini Deshpande Professor of Economics, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India |
Caste Discrimination and Exclusion: Assessment of Affirmative Action as a Remedy |
| Glenn C Loury Merton Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics, Brown University, Rhode Island, USA |
The Simple Economics of Affirmative Action Policies
|
|
| Discussant: Bandita Sijapati, Social Science Baha & Nepā School of Social Sciences and Humanities Moderator: Hari Sharma, Social Science Baha and Nepa School of Social Science and Humanities |
||
| 19 JULY, 2012 | ||
| Panel 1 9 -11 am |
Chair: Laurie A. Vasily, Director, Fulbright Commission Nepal | |
| Anand Teltumbde Professor of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India |
Pursuing Equality in the Land of Hierarchy: Positive Discrimination Policies in India | |
| Khyam Bishwakarma Freelance Development Consultant, Kathmandu |
Affirmative Action in Nepal: What Does It Mean for Dalits at the Grassroots Level? | |
| Chair: Ashwini Deshpande, Professor of Economics, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India | ||
| Meena Acharya General Secretary, Tanka Prasad Acharya Memorial Foundation, Kathmandu |
Design and Delivery of Affirmative Action for Gender and Inter-caste Equality in Nepal | |
| BREAK: 11 – 11:30 am | ||
| Panel 2 11:30 am – 1:30 pm |
Chair: Michael Hutt, Professor of Nepali & Himalayan Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies | |
| Ram Bahadur Chhetri Professor, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu |
‘Women and Men Are the Two Wheels of the Chariot’: Rhetoric and Realities of Quotas for Women in Politics and Governance in Nepal | |
| Anjoo Sharan Upadhyaya Visiting Professor of Political Science, Central Department of Political Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu |
Affirmative Action and Women in India
|
|
| Chair: Chaitanya Subba, former Member of National Planning Commission | ||
| Debipriya Chatterjee Assistant Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy, Department of Africology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA |
Can Affirmative Action Policies Succeed in the Presence of Social Marginalization?
|
|
| Uddhab Pyakurel Lecturer, Kathmandu University, Nepal |
Caste-based Discrimination and Discourse of Affirmative Action: Perspectives of Successful Dalits in Surkhet | |
| LUNCH: 1:30 – 2:30 pm | ||
| Panel 3 2:30 – 3:30 pm |
Chair: Pitamber Sharma, former Vice-Chair, National Planning Commission | |
| Sara Shneiderman Assistant Professor of Anthropology & South Asian Studies, Yale University, Connecticut, USA |
Disentangling ‘Ethnic Federalism’ and Affirmative Action(co-authored with Louise Tillin) | |
| Tulsi Ram Pandey Associate Professor, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal |
Subject Citizen Identity and Class: Contesting Dimensions of Social Inequality and the Implication of Affirmative Action for Change
|
|
| BREAK: 3:30 – 4:00 pm | ||
| Panel 4 4 – 5 pm |
Chair: N R Madhava Menon, Dr S Radhakrishnan Chair on Parliamentary Studies, Upper House of Indian Parliament, New Delhi, India | |
| Om Gurung Head of Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu |
Implication of Rescheduling Indigenous Peoples for Affirmative Policy in Nepal
|
|
| Alpa Shah Senior Lecturer of Anthropology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK |
A Step Back from Ethnic and Indigenous Rights
|
|
| BREAK: 5 – 5:30 pm | ||
| Keynote Presentations 5:30 – 7:30 pm |
Marc Galanter John and Rylla Bosshard Professor of Law and South Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and LSE Centennial Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science |
Designing Affirmative Action for Nepal: A Tour of the Choices and Problems |
| Hilary Silver Professor of Sociology, Brown University, Rhode Island, USA |
Social Inclusion and Affirmative Action: Conceptual and Policy Distinctions | |
| Discussant: Mukta Singh Tamang, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University
Moderator: Hari Sharma, Social Science Baha and Nepa School of Social Science and Humanities |
||
| 20 JULY Public Panels (Participation to these events is open to all.) |
||
| Panel 1 9 – 11 am |
Mara Malagodi Senior Teaching Fellow, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, UK |
Legal Equality between Recognition and Redistribution: Constitutional Drafting and Adjudication in India and Nepal |
| Debipriya Chatterjee Assistant Professor, Political Economy and Public Policy, Department of Africology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA |
Can Affirmative Action Policies Succeed in the Presence of Social Marginalization? | |
| Susan Hangen Associate Professor, Anthropology and International Studies, Ramapo College, New Jersey, USA |
Diversifying and Decentralizing the State: Affirmative Action as a Potential Tool for Empowering Local Communities | |
| Respondent: Gagan Thapa, Former Member of the Constituent Assembly | ||
| Moderator: Hari Sharma, Social Science Baha and Nepa School of Social Science and Humanities | ||
| BREAK: 11 – 11:30 am | ||
| Panel 2 11:30 am – 1:30 pm |
Ajay Gudavarthy Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India |
Can We De-Stigmatise Reservations in India?
|
| Hilary Silver Professor of Sociology, Brown University, Rhode Island, USA |
Social Inclusion and Affirmative Action: Conceptual and Policy Distinctions | |
| Neera Chandhoke Professor of Political Science, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India |
Locating Affirmative Action in the Concept of Equality | |
| Respondent: Pratyoush Onta, Martin Chautari | ||
| Moderator: Ram Bahadur Chhetri, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University | ||
| BREAK: 1:30 – 2:30 pm | ||
| Panel 3 2:30 – 4:30 pm |
Kåre Vollan Director, Quality AS and Electoral Expert, Norway |
Affirmative Action and Power Sharing Instruments: Possible Electoral Arrangements for Nepal |
| Sara Shneiderman Assistant Professor of Anthropology & South Asian Studies, Yale University, Connecticut, USA |
Disentangling ‘Ethnic Federalism’ and Affirmative Action(co-authored with Louise Tillin) | |
| Anjoo Sharan Upadhyaya Visiting Professor of Political Science, Central Department of Political Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu |
Affirmative Action and Women in India
|
|
| Respondent: Prashant Jha, Journalist | ||
| Moderator: Basanta Thapa, Social Science Baha and Himal Association | ||
| BREAK: 4:30 – 5 pm
(Participation to this part of the conference is by invitation only.) |
||
| Panel 4 5 – 7 pm (Special session with policymakers) |
Moderator: Om Gurung, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University | |
| Glenn C Loury Merton Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics, Brown University, Rhode Island, USA |
The Simple Economics of Affirmative Action Policies
|
|
| Alpa Shah Senior Lecturer of Anthropology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK |
A Step Back from Ethnic and Indigenous Rights | |
| Anand Teltumbde Professor of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India |
Pursuing Equality in the Land of Hierarchy: Positive Discrimination Policies in India | |
Abstracts
Locating Affirmative Action in the Concept of Equality
Neera Chandhoke, Professor of Political Science, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India
Abstract: We can draw a significant lesson from the manner in which affirmative action policies in India have been conceptualized and implemented. The notion of compensation on grounds of ‘harm done’ or brute luck, is simply inadequate, if it is left to stand on its own. Though the general feeling at the time of forging the Constitution was and continues to be that those who have benefited from history should be willing to pay the costs, over time this consensus has been watered down. the idea that ‘we’ owe something to ‘them’, in abstraction from a consensus on why people are owed restitution for historical wrongs, divides society along the axis of ‘we-ism’ and ‘they-ism’, and dissolves solidarity. Over time younger generations have begun to raise the following questions: how long should we pay compensation? Arguably, affirmative action policies in India have been embroiled in controversy, and the beneficiaries of these policies have been subjected to animosity, because these policies have been instituted in a political space not informed by a generalised consensus on what human beings are due that is equality of status, or by a moral and political consensus that poverty represents a violation of the right to equality. This paper argues that redistribution has to occur in two stages. The first step is that all citizens have the right to basic goods on non-market principles (assurance of income, free education, subsidized or free food, free health, accommodation, and political and civil rights) which will free them from poverty. Secondly, the state should engage in additional measures to remedy harm done to the doubly disadvantaged. Affirmative action policies are an addition to politics of redistribution, not a substitute to them.
Inequality and Affirmative Action in Nepal: Issues and Challenges
Krishna B. Bhattachan, Senior Lecturer, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu; and Dilli Ram Dahal, Professor, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu
Abstract: The larger objective of the paper is to consider how inequality is produced and how affirmative measures are being taken in Nepal over the years and the prospects for affirmative action as a strategy for addressing inequality in Nepal. Particularly, this paper explores the nature of the respective preferential policy/reservation packages of the government, political parties and the non-governmental organizations, the ways they are written and implemented and their impacts to the concerned groups as a whole. Broadly, these issues are discussed at four levels: i) Concepts of in equality and reservation/affirmative action, ii) Why reservation is necessary for certain groups, iii) Reservation policy: packages of the government, political parties and other various agencies, and iv) Problems, issues and schemes for reservation.
Equalizing Opportunities: Case for an Equal Opportunity Commission
N R Madhava Menon, Dr S Radhakrishnan Chair on Parliamentary Studies, Upper House of Indian Parliament, New Delhi, India
Abstract: Inequality and discrimination are vexed problems in societies aspiring for an egalitarian social order through democratic processes under rule of law. A variety of affirmative action strategies including preferential discrimination in favour of marginalised people, reservation of seats in education and employment and equalizing opportunities through socio-economic planning are employed by countries which advanced the cause of equality in varying degrees. Though reservation and affirmative action can mitigate extreme manifestations of inequality in income and status, long term results by way of equality in outcomes can happen only if equality of opportunities is achieved, particularly in education, health, housing, employment, and other basic needs. Towards this end, an independent Equal Opportunities Commission with constitutional status will be enormously helpful. Outlining the contours of such a Commission is the purpose of this paper.
Affirmative Action and Political Representation across Time, Groups and States: Testing Claims for and against with Cases of India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka
Mahendra Lawoti, Professor of Political Science, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
Abstract: Affirmative action policies, though adopted in many countries around the world, have been controversial. This paper will test some of the claims made by supporters and critics of the policy, such as whether the policy is needed to increase representation or whether education and mobilization would lead to the inclusion of the previously excluded groups, by comparing representation in the Parliament in three multi-ethnic South Asian countries: India and Nepal where affirmative action in the political sector was adopted around six decades and this decade respectively and Sri Lanka where the policy has not been adopted in the political sector. Nepal provides an opportunity to examine the effect of policy by comparing conditions of target groups before and after 2008. Findings based on comparison of target group’s performance before and after the policy was implemented can be more robust than evaluations based on post-policy performances only. If affirmative action policies increased inclusion in the polity after it was adopted compared to the previous years, we can be more certain about the contribution of the policy in promoting an inclusive and just society, and vice versa. Many ethnic and caste groups were represented in the Parliament for the first time in 2008 while many other previously under-represented groups increased their representation. India, on the other hand, provides a social quasi-experimentation setting because it targeted AA policy to some excluded groups (Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes) but not to others (Muslim) over a same period and largely across similar socio-economic policy context. More or less proportional representation of the SC and ST but continuous under-representation of Muslims points to the efficacy of the policy. It also shows that universal adult franchise and periodic elections as well as increased educational attainment are not enough to provide equitable representation. The Sri Lankan data allows comparison between states with AA policies and that without to retest/verify the consequences of not adopting the policy. The three cases demonstrate that the previously excluded groups’ do not gain proportionate representation with the passage of time and increase in education and mobilization; AA was necessary to increase representation.
Diversifying and Decentralizing the State: Affirmative Action as a Potential Tool for Empowering Local Communities
Susan Hangen, Associate Professor of Anthropology and International Studies, Ramapo College, New Jersey, USA
Abstract: Affirmative action policies are usually conceptualized as ways of promoting social equality by increasing marginalized groups’ access to the state and resources. The diversification of state representatives through affirmative action policies can also democratize the state, as these officials will hopefully be more responsive to communities. I argue that there is another potential benefit of affirmative action that has been overlooked – it may promote decentralization, a stated yet elusive goal for the Nepali state for decades. In the highly centralized Nepali state, central authorities appoint local state officials who then move from the capital or district headquarters to run the state at the district or village levels. These individuals are thus more accountable to central authorities than to local people, and often do not serve these communities effectively. The centralization of state power is amplified by the concentration of state power in the hands of a particular ethnic group – the CHHE (Caste Hindu Hill Elites), or more specifically, Bahuns (Lawoti, 2007). From the non-dominant group’s perspective, the state wears a Bahun face, and in many cases these state officials hail from outside the locality where they serve. Thus, state representatives appear as ethnic and geographic outsiders. In my research in rural Ilam, I observed that the local people interpreted the failings of the state through an ethnic lens, as illustrations of ethnic discrimination. Affirmative action policies may assist with implementing decentralization, which is not merely a technical matter of extending the reaches of the state, but rather a mode of redistributing power to local communities (Panday 2009: 119). Panday (2009) argues that in a decentralized state, the possibility of political domination between social groups would be limited and “minorities would get ample opportunities to express themselves ‘as a majority’ and implement their rights fully” (118). To ensure that decentralization achieves this goal, affirmative action policies that prioritize hiring marginalized individuals in state positions should be implemented alongside decentralization. By prioritizing hiring marginalized groups, more opportunities for local people to serve in state positions could become available.
Citations:
Lawoti, Mahendra (2007) Looking Back, Looking Forward: Centralization, Multiple Conflicts, and Democratic State Building in Nepal. East-West Center Washington.
Panday, Devendra Raj (2009) Nepal’s Failed Development: Reflectsion on the Mission and the Maladies. Kathmandu: Nepal South Asia Centre.
Beyond Affirmative Action: Overcoming Social Inequalities in Higher Education
Pramod Bhatta, Researcher, Martin Chautari, Kathmandu, Nepal
Abstract: This paper describes the various social inequalities that exist in Nepal’s higher education and provides a critical analysis of the ways in which affirmative action is posited as an obvious response to address these inequalities. The paper delves into the ways in which inequality in education is understood and debated in the Nepali context, often resulting in very ‘confused’ and blanket responses to addressing them. It argues that while affirmative action may be a highly popular and a widely accepted method of addressing graded inequalities in higher education, it is not the only way per se and that further clarity is required on what the term constitutes. Given that many of Nepal’s inequalities in higher education stem from an unequal base (i.e., school education), the paper concludes that affirmative action needs to be implemented in tandem with a number of other initiatives at various levels of the education system in order to promote equity and social justice in the system.
Can We De-Stigmatise Reservations in India?
Ajay Gudavarthy, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
Abstract: The policies of affirmative action or reservations seem to create an inherent conflict between the processes of redistribution and the demands for recognition. While it is a fact that the policies of reservation have created new opportunities for the specific disadvantaged social groups, these however have come at a cost of causing the more intangible injury of mis-recognition. `The result is to mark the most disadvantaged class as inherently deficient and insatiable, as always needing more and more. In time such a class can come to appear privileged, the receipt of special treatment and underserved largesse. Thus, an approach aimed at redressing injustices of distribution can end up creating injustices of recognition`. In spite of various struggles and new mobilisational strategies, dalits in India continue to be stigmatized and continue to face new forms of discrimination in modern public sphere, institutions of higher learning, market and civil society. This paper argues that the new wave of reservations- also referred to as the `second democratic upsurge`, is to change the stigma attached to the discourse of reservations in India. For the first time in India an already existing elite section of the population would be part of the `reserved category`. Demands from such dominant groups (caste groups such as Jats and Rajputs) are gradually making reservations a more generalized feature of the Indian polity, rather than being identified with any specific caste, community or classes. This in turn makes it very difficult for the so-called forward or upper castes to denounce or stigmatise the discourse of reservations. Instead, this debate has headed in the direction of `reverse social osmosis` seeking reservation for the poor among the upper castes.
Breaking Hierarchy, Making Identity: Social Classification and Challenges for Affirmative Action in Nepal
Mukta Singh Tamang, Lecturer of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu
Abstract: The classification of societies around categories such as caste, ethnicity, race, social class and gender is a pervasive feature of sociality as well as governmentality. Perhaps more starkly in Nepal, social classification by the state is critical to understanding of the past structuring of the inequality, as well as future initiatives for equity. Nepal has traversed through infamous Muluki Ain of 1854 which classified all the people of the country in hierarchy of caste structure to present-day identity-based social categories of Indigenous Nationalities, Dalits, Madhesis, and others for the purpose of affirmative action and anti-discrimination policies. This paper outlines the terrain of the social classification in Nepal along the complexities added by the reclaiming of identities by those who bear them in recent years and challenges for affirmative action policies. I discuss whether the categories we use are socially significant – for politics, culture, social life, personal identity, and for better picture of Nepali society, as well as for serving public policy to judge our progress towards fairness and equality.
Legal Equality between Recognition and Redistribution: Constitutional Drafting and Adjudication in India and Nepal
Mara Malagodi, Senior Teaching Fellow, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London, UK
Abstract: The paper uses the constitutional Right to Equality as a prism to investigate Nepal’s post-conflict process of state-restructuring aimed at securing social justice and inclusion for the many marginalised groups in the country. The core argument is that the embattled – and yet unfulfilled – shift from the predominantly negative notion of equality under the 1990 Constitution to a positive one after 2006 requires to address the demands for both recognition and redistribution raised by the People’s War. First, the paper examines and compares the formulation of the Right to Equality with regard to group entitlements in the Indian Constitution, Nepal’s 1990 Constitution and 2007 Interim Constitution, and the CA Committee Report draft. Second, focusing on post-1990 Indian constitutional adjudication pertaining to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, the analysis concentrates on the crucial role of an activist Supreme Court in negotiating the interplay of culture and class in the design of affirmative action measures. Thus, the paper seeks to explore the relationship between the politics of cultural recognition on the basis of identitarian group claims and demands for redistribution of wealth and income amongst different social strata. These categories are treated as the two axes along which demands for institutional reform in Nepal have been more or less violently articulated since 1990.
Affirmative Action and Power Sharing Instruments: Possible Electoral Arrangements for Nepal
Kåre Vollan, Director, Quality AS and Electoral Expert, Norway
Abstract: A complicated system for electoral quotas was introduced during the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections in Nepal. Both excluded groups and the elite were given quotas in the proportional part of a mixed electoral system. The system did produce a more inclusive assembly than any parliament before but a targeted system for affirmative actions designed to include otherwise excluded only may show more efficient in the future. In addition, other elements of the electoral system can be used to secure diverse representation. Whenever designing the system of representation one should establish the purpose that the various elements should serve. Are the measures taken to achieve real (and not just formal) equality over time, are they designed to create a state where rather fixed groups are balancing each other as a permanent arrangement, or are they given to groups with political interests so different from the majority that they should be granted representation even if they have not been systematically excluded? The paper discusses the various options in light of the answer to such questions.
Keynotes
Caste Discrimination and Exclusion: Assessment of Affirmative Action as a Remedy
Ashwini Deshpande, Professor of Economics, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India
Abstract: The paper begins with a summary of evidence on economic disparities between broad caste groups. Measuring disparity is relatively straightforward; estimating discrimination is not. I briefly discuss some of the latest methods for gauging economic discrimination, and present the evidence on discrimination in the Indian context. What this evidence reveals is that lip-service to merit notwithstanding, contemporary, formal, urban sector labour markets show a deep awareness of caste, religion, gender, and class cleavages, and that discrimination is very much a modern sector phenomenon, perpetuated in the present, not a thing of the past, nor is it confined only to the rural areas. Thus, caste discrimination is clear and persistent, and needs targeted interventions. The paper argues that affirmative action should be seen as one of the remedies for discrimination, and not an end-all cure, and that its impact should be assessed in that light. I then present some empirical assessments of affirmative action in India, in particular, examining the debate around its impact on productive efficiency. The paper ends with a discussion of affirmative action measures which could go beyond quotas.
The Simple Economics of Affirmative Action Policies
Glenn C Loury, Merton Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics, Brown University, Rhode Island, USA
Abstract: When choosing which students to admit, employees to hire, candidates to slate, or firms to patronize, the social identity of those selected can be a matter of great importance. As a consequence, regulations intended to achieve more diversity in the ranks of the chosen — policies going under the rubric of “affirmative action,” or “positive discrimination” — have been promulgated in many societies throughout the world. Affirmative action policies regulate the allocation of scarce positions in education, employment, or business contracting so as to increase the representation in those positions of persons belonging to certain population subgroups. Such policies are highly controversial. Consider a few examples. In nations with sharp sectarian divisions — Lebanon, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iraq – political stability can hinge on maintaining ethnic balance in the military ranks, or on distributing coveted political offices so that no single group has disproportionate influence. In the US, selective colleges and universities often feel obliged to alter their admissions standards to enhance the racial diversity of their student bodies. Amid rioting and civil unrest, France is designing policies to ensure more ethnic diversity in schools and in firms. Elsewhere in Europe, some political parties have mandated that female candidates be adequately represented on their electoral lists. In post-Apartheid South Africa, to ensure that wealth is distributed across a wider spectrum of society a policy of “Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment” has been enacted, setting minimum numerical standards of black representation that companies are obliged to meet. In Malaysia, in the wake of widespread ethnic rioting that erupted in 1969, a “New Economic Policy” was instituted, creating quotas and preferences for ethnic Malays in public contracting, employment, and education. In India, so-called “scheduled castes and tribes” enjoy preferred access to university seats and government jobs by constitutional mandate, though amid fierce controversy. Affirmative action policies entail the preferential valuation of social identity based on a presumption that, on the average, those being preferred cannot compete on an equal basis because of a pre-existing social handicap. But the stubborn realities of unequal development create some unavoidable economic problems: In the short-run, at least, enhanced access for a genuinely disadvantaged group to much sought-after productive opportunities cannot be achieved without lowering standards, distorting human capital investment decisions, or both. The relevant economic problem entails understanding how these costs should be conceptualized, and how they can be minimized. This lecture will survey what is known about the economic effects of such diversity-promoting public regulation. In so doing, we hope to illustrate the clarifying power of economic reasoning, when it is used with a healthy dose of common sense, to dispel some myths and misconceptions in the affirmative action policy debate.
Pursuing Equality in the Land of Hierarchy: Positive Discrimination Policies in India
Anand Teltumbde, Professor of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
Abstract: Indian society is characterized by the continuum of caste hierarchy for over two millennia. In the source model of Hindu society, this hierarchy is kinked separating people into savarna and avarna (non-varna); touchable caste Hindus and the untouchable Dalits. Besides Dalits, who constituted the lowermost rung of the Hindu society and accounted for 16 percent of total population, there is a tribal community accounting for 7.5 percent, which traditionally lived in forests away from the caste society. Although the tribals did not suffer caste-based exclusion like Dalits, they were physically and culturally secluded from the mainstream. Both these communities, Dalits as the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and tribals as the Scheduled Tribes (STs), have been the focus of the positive discrimination (PD) policies in India. In the 1990s, these policies were extended to the Other Backward Castes (OBCs) (the lower part of the Shudra castes) as recommended by the Mandal Commission. Meanwhile, there have been persistent demands from other sections such as Dalit Christians, BC-Muslims, and even forward castes like Marathas, Jats, Gujjars, etc. for reservations. There have been demands for extension of reservations on the basis of economic criteria. Apart from the vertical extension, there have been horizontal pull by many castes to be included in the beneficiary lists of SCs, STs and BCs. There have also been demands that the reservation quota for Dalits be apportioned among the constituent sub-castes on the plea that reservation benefits have been disproportionately grabbed by certain sub-castes. The roots of these policies go back to the 1902, when a princely state in India had instituted it in some form. But even today, they raise passions in people and cause caste riots. While so much heat is generated every time the issue of PD policies raises its head as to threaten the very fabric of the country, there has been little light as to their effectiveness wherever they have been implemented*. There has not been any objective assessment of these policies over the last five decades of their operation. This paper seeks to contribute to this area of relative vacuum. Towards this objective, it takes stock of experience so far with the operation of the various PD policies, essentially following them through their historical evolution to the present day proliferation; it dwells upon each significant application and attempts to provide an assessment of these policies at the end.
______________
The notable exception is a comprehensive study by Marc Galanter from a legal perspective (Marc Galanter, Competing Equalities: Law and the Backward Classes in India, Delhi, OUP, 1984, p 124.) and a few papers by other researchers, most of which have been referred to here.
Affirmative Action in Nepal: What Does it Mean for Dalits at the Grassroots Level?
Khyam Bishwakarma, Freelance Development Consultant, Kathmandu
Abstract: The term “affirmative action” has been widely discussed in Nepal as a strategy to mainstream the marginalized people such as Dalits. Such discussions have focused on the socio-political structure of Nepal where the underlying causes of marginalization are supposed to have germinated. While it is largely true that Dalits at the bottom layer of social structure are treated as untouchable caste groups and hence suffer from socio-political discrimination, they have also become what Karl Polanyi (1946) calls “the victims of acute social dislocation” due to the recent development practices backed by neoliberal policies and globalization. Dalits as occupational caste groups would earn their livelihood from their indigenous skills on metal-works, carpentry, leather-works, and needlework. However, these occupations have been facing challenges due to the availability of imported goods and equipments from around the globe putting their livelihood options into jeopardy. Although the state of Nepal has enforced some programmes in line to the affirmative action policy with the aim of bringing Dalits into the mainstream of development, these policies, except providing some handful capable Dalits with white-collar job opportunities, do not appear to address the issue of Dalits’ dislocation from their traditional occupations. What does affirmative action mean for a larger portion of Dalits’ population who at the grass-root level suffer from both untouchability and social dislocation? To answer this question, this essay, based on the ethnography of a Dalits’ settlement of a village called Thulipokhari of Parvat district, examines how they have become victim of market-driven neoliberal development policies and hence require affirmative action to address their issue. Locating the discourse of affirmative action in the global context of neo-liberalism, this paper argues that affirmative action, in addition to advocating for the representation of Dalits in state mechanism, should also become instrumental to enhance capability of those Dalits who have become victim of social dislocation because of neoliberal policies and globalization.
Design and Delivery of Affirmative Action for Gender and Inter-caste Equality in Nepal
Meena Acharya, General Secretary, Tanka Prasad Acharya Memorial Foundation, Kathmandu
Abstract: The paper argues that multi-dimensional inequality in results is a function of multi-dimensional inequalities and inequities in the socio-political and economic structures. But each of these factors impact differently in different social groups. In Nepal, while inter-ethnic/geographic/religious group inequality may be a result of political design, geographic remoteness and intra-group cultural /religious/social practices, gender and caste inequality is more a matter of social and in the case of women even the legal rights. Therefore, even with equal political and legal rights and proportional representation in political institutions, women, Dalits and the marginalized ethnicities will need other kinds of affirmative action, which must address the additional factors that lead to unequal access to state and other social resources. But these must be designed in a way not to infringe on the rights of other groups and individuals. They must have a time limit until approximate proportionality is achieved by broad groups. But the proportionality sought must be by political/social status and economic power of the position and not by each profession or sectors of employment.
‘Women and Men Are the Two Wheels of the Chariot’: Rhetoric and Realities of Quotas for Women in Politics and Governance in Nepal
Ram Bahadur Chhetri, Professor, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu
Abstract: This paper discusses women’s participation in governance (local, district and central level), describes initiatives taken to increase women’s involvement, and highlight factors that facilitate or inhibit women’s participation in public activities, including governance. The arrangement of quota for women in local and national governance through policy and legal instruments have made a difference in the way the public governance landscape looks at present in terms of gender representation. The affirmative action taken by the state and its implications for women’s empowerment will be examined by presenting selected case studies. I will also discuss some socially and culturally grounded ideals on the issues of women’s involvement in public arenas. The information comes from a study that looked at the status (depth and breadth) of women’s participation in the decentralization process under different contexts in Nepal.
Affirmative Action and Women in India
Anjoo Sharan Upadhyaya, Visiting Professor of Political Science, Central Department of Political Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu
Abstract: The Indian Constitution promises equality to women in all spheres and makes specific statements reaffirming its commitment towards non-discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, class, sex, age etc. There are various institutions that have since been setup to promote this promise and also there exists a rich tradition of decrees and judgments enhancing the scope of this promise. However, because of the variations in complex inequalities and social conditions, India poses completely different levels of challenges. In this paper I propose to highlight some of the efforts made to enhance the participation, equality and non-discrimination of women in India. I will also delineate the resultant gains made in the direction of participatory citizenship and inclusive politics vis-à-vis women. I propose to examine India’s electoral affirmative action program, initiated in the 1990s, that started with the intention of bridging the gender gap in politics and also attempted to bridge the caste gap. The 73rd Amendment provided that one-third of the seats in all Panchayats, as well as one-third of the Pradhan positions, be reserved for women. Membership and Pradhan positions were also reserved for the two disadvantaged minorities in India, scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST), in the form of mandated representation proportional to each minority’s population share in each district. In addition to providing political opportunity to women it also provided a platform where experiment with social inclusion was made possible on a grand scale. Reservation policies clearly have a strong impact on women’s representation. There is evidence to prove that reservations introduce a cohort of women into politics who would go on to become effective members of political parties and mature as leaders in their own right. Another aspect that has remained critical to the success of any affirmative action for women in India is of violence against women. Violence has been disempowering women and has been negating the gains made by various other initiatives. Ranging from sex selective abortions, caste based atrocities; dowry deaths and the prevalence of diverse discriminatory practices pose challenges to establishing an inclusive and egalitarian society. Struggles against such ‘routine violence’ has not in any way discredited the need to go beyond “women’s issues” (violence, reproduction) and provide women’s perspectives in all the challenges that women from depressed classes face in urban and rural areas, including issues of development, ecology, and religion. My paper will attempt to expatiate upon the above mentioned and related aspects.
Can Affirmative Action Policies Succeed in the Presence of Social Marginalization?
Debipriya Chatterjee, Assistant Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy, Department of Africology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Abstract: The key objective behind implementing affirmative action policies, which often take the form of preferential treatment for members of historically disadvantaged groups in matters of education and/or employment, is to bridge the socio-economic disparities across the different groups in a stratified society. However, the empirical fact remains that even after many decades of pursuing such policies, societies have continued to remain stratified and often highly unequal. This paper aims to ascribe this apparent failure of affirmative action policies to the continued social marginalization faced by the disadvantaged groups. Using a simple framework, where an individual’s ability to acquire useful skills is affected by the ‘social capital’ of the community in which she grows up and the socio-economic status of her parents, it is observed that affirmative action policies, although they might mask the disparities to some extent by improving the representation rates of the historically discriminated groups in education/employment sectors, they cannot lead us to ‘equality’ as the communities continue to remain segregated. In other words, social marginalization causes disparities in skill acquisition to persist, thereby engendering grounds for continued affirmative action. Thus, it is recommended that positive discrimination policies be actively combined with policies that encourage greater social integration.
Caste-based Discrimination and Discourse of Affirmative Action: Perspectives of Successful Dalits in Surkhet
Uddhab Pyakurel, Lecturer, Kathmandu University, Nepal
Abstract: Since socio-cultural diversity is one of the dominant features of South Asia in general and Nepal in particular, people are still being marginalized and the practice of inequality remains deeply and firmly lodged. However, some positive attempts have been made in the recent times to correct the past mistakes i.e. the denial of equal access to education, jobs and other policy-making bodies. The policy of affirmative action is one such attempt introduced with the hope of making an inclusive society by overcoming the hierarchical and narrow-minded society of the past. In this context, this essay tries to analyze not only the need of such a policy in the society where hierarchy based on caste, gender and creed are still a naked reality, but also the impact of such policy in bringing a change in the society. The objective behind the analysis is to contextualize it in the ongoing debate on affirmative action in Nepal. While doing so, the author has made an endeavor to put in perspective the facts based on the different models of affirmative action being practiced in the world, as well as the aspiration of the some of the successful members of the most marginalized community in Nepal – the Dalit.
Disentangling ‘ethnic federalism’ and affirmative action
Sara Shneiderman, Assistant Professor of Anthropology & South Asian Studies, Yale University, Connecticut, USA
Abstract: In post-conflict Nepal, one anchor for mobilization has been the demand for ethnic federalism—explicit territorial recognition of ethnic difference at the constitutional level. Another has been the demand for affirmative action—a set of policies to address socio-economic inequality through what has often been called “special rights”. But these two demands are commonly conflated, with arguments for affirmative action embedded in those for ethnic federalism, as if special rights are inherently linked to territorial recognition through the model of self-determination. This presents a seemingly intractable political and analytical problem where many members of erstwhile dominant groups argue almost instinctively against ethnic federalism, because the possibility of separating territorial and non-territorial forms of recognition is not well understood. It is now imperative to disentangle discussions of ‘ethnic federalism’ from those of affirmative action, and consider the theoretical and practical implications of each, as well as the potential administrative implications of initiating both at the same time. As the constitution is promulgated and its principles are codified in subsequent legislation, affirmative action should be considered on its own terms as a strategy to foster equality, and should not be embedded in the discourse or implementation of ethnic federalism. In this collaborative project between a political scientist and an anthropologist, we seek to clarify some of the analytical issues surrounding the potential models for state restructuring and affirmative action that Nepal might choose through a comparative exploration of the relationship between ethnicity, state restructuring, and affirmative action policies in several parts of India. We suggest that Nepal could define its new states in a manner that recognizes powerful ethnic attachments to territory, yet ensures that robust affirmative action measures are legislated equitably at the central level. This would provide a range of necessary mechanisms for addressing inequality universally across the country.
Subject Citizen Identity and Class: Contesting Dimensions of Social Inequality and the Implication of Affirmative Action for Change
Tulsi Ram Pandey, Associate Professor, Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal
Abstract: It is an obvious fact of society that people in all contexts are characterized by a number of differences. Some of these differences are natural and are marked by the feature of one’s race, sex, age and such others. Some others are constructed and structural, and are marked by differences of culture as well as that of control over or access to power, property and other productive resources. Still others represent the differences of individual capability of people based on variations at the level of their exposure, achieved skills and related ability.
All these three categories of inequalities and differences have their own specific social importance. However, they are mutually related to each other. Each of them is used as a factor for shaping the features and modality of inequality generated by another. The social categories formed under natural type of inequality are used in many contexts as a proxy to impose constructed type of structural differences and inequalities. Similarly, the social injustice felt under a given framework of structural inequality by the human agency of a social collectivity has motivated its members to engage in collective action for change to transform that structure of inequality.
Social inequality in a given society is therefore a dynamic phenomenon. It changes through the process of interaction between its structure and the perceptions as well as activities of people who establish the framework of or face problems from that inequality. It is through this interactive process that human population in many contexts at different phases of their history has been able to transform its status from subject to citizen, raise voices on separate identity of its group and question the justice of its position in a specific type of class. Current demands for affirmative active in Nepal are also the ones to produce some sort of such a social transformation.
In this paper, I argue that the changes that may happen through the fulfillment of these demands are useful to promote the environment for enhancing justice and equality in society and hence for institutionalizing its endeavor towards practice of democracy. However, I also argue that these demands are posed to address the problems of a specific structure of social inequality. The social transformation that may happen through the satisfaction of these demands still leaves room for the operation of other social process directed to question the justice of inequality faced by people as rooted in terms of their position of a class.
Implication of Rescheduling Indigenous Peoples for Affirmative Policy in Nepal
Om Gurung, Head of Central Department of Sociology/Anthropology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu
Abstract: Nepal government’s Act of 2002 legally recognised 59 groups as indigenous peoples with their distinct identity. But many others were left out. This not only affected their ethnic identity but it also deprived them of the socio-economic benefits of the state. This led to the agitation for self-identification as indigenous peoples. In order to address this agitation, the Council of Minister of the Government of Nepal formed a 9 Member High Level Task Force under my Coordinatorship in April 2009. The main task of the Task Force was to re-identify and reschedule indigenous peoples and reclassify them into proper groups for social services and economic benefits. The Task Force spent 10 months to study. Based on national and international standard and criteria, the Task Force revised the list of indigenous peoples by rescheduling them into 81 distinct groups and finally reclassified them into 4 groups. With the revision and rescheduling, the Task Force submitted its report to the government of Nepal in February 2010 for official approval. Although the government has not yet implemented the report, the rescheduling and reclassifying of indigenous peoples has pacified the agitation to a great extent. Besides pacifying the agitation, it has also had a great implication for affirmative policy-making in the present context of formulating a new constitution and building an inclusive society in Nepal.
A Step Back from Ethnic and Indigenous Rights
Alpa Shah, Senior Lecturer of Anthropology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK
Abstract: This presentation will reflect on insights from the Indian case of adivasi rights to explore the relationship between ethnicity and socio-economic concerns. It will suggest that while the focus on indigenous or ethnic rights must be celebrated in particular moments in time, we equally need to reflect on and call attention to the limitations of struggles based on such rights. Drawing on more than a decade of field research in Jharkhand, Eastern India the presentation will address adivasi rights activism and the Maoist movement in India.
Designing Affirmative Action for Nepal: A Tour of the Choices and Problems
Marc Galanter, John and Rylla Bosshard Professor of Law and South Asian Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and LSE Centennial Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science
Abstract: This paper provides a schematic overview of affirmative action policy in a democratic polity with commitments to multiple groups of beneficiaries. It sorts out the major choices about structure, operation, extent, duration, and evaluation that policy architects must make and suggests some of the potential advantages and disadvantages of certain architectural features. It proposes the necessity for continuing assessment and adaptation to changing conditions.
(This is a revised version of The First Samata Annual Lecture, delivered in Kathmandu on September 23, 2011.)
Social Inclusion and Affirmative Action: Conceptual and Policy Distinctions
Hilary Silver, Professor of Sociology, Brown University, Rhode Island, USA
Abstract: This paper examines the relationships—and disjunctures—between social inclusion and affirmative action as policy frameworks to address multidimensional inequalities. Both concepts are currently circulating widely in the public sphere in Nepal, but there is a great deal of confusion about what ‘social inclusion’ in fact means, how it can be best implemented through policy measures, and how it is similar to/different from more well-understood but equally contentious concepts like affirmative action. The paper will provide a comparative framework for considering these issues drawing upon experience from various countries.