Best of both sides | Divisive and defective: Five flaws in Rahul Gandhi's roadmap

However, their disclaimer is disingenuous. For, Rahul Gandhi's statements and promises - both before and after the manifesto's release - go well beyond what is stated in it. They explicitly as well as implicitly promise redistribution of wealth. Here is an example. At a rally in Hyderabad on April 7, he said, "We will first conduct a nationwide caste census to determine how many people belong to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and minorities. After that, we will conduct a financial and institutional survey to ascertain the distribution of the nation's wealth. SCs, STs, OBCs and minorities comprise 90 per cent of the total population. But this 90 per cent does not have a share at all. The Congress will ensure that it will give the rightful share of the people." Calling it an "X-ray" of the nation's wealth, he has reiterated this assurance on numerous occasions.

What is the ideological inspiration for Rahul's advocacy of redistribution of wealth ─ also positions in public and private institutions ─ in favour of certain castes and minorities? It can be found in his support of the slogan "Jitni abadi utna haq (rights proportional to share in population)", which has been a war cry in certain Ambedkarite and Leftist intellectual circles for a long time. In October last year, he tweeted that the realisation of this slogan is his "pran'"(pledge). He has not retracted this pledge. He has even described the caste census and the resultant policy actions as his "life's mission".

No sensitive and justice-loving Indian can oppose effective governmental action to minimise the current unconscionable disparities in wealth and social status in our country. Sadly, the ruling BJP is completely silent on this problem, whereas the main opposition party, Congress, has proposed a defective solution.

Rahul's new cased-based political pitch aimed at reviving the Congress has five flaws. First, the idea behind "Jitni abadi utna haq" is patently against the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution. Proportionate representation was a demand of the Muslim League before 1947, and the same was also demanded by Dr B R Ambedkar for the Depressed Classes. (He wanted them categorised as "minorities".) The Congress opposed this vehemently. After Independence, the Constitution did not grant rights or even socio-economic benefits to castes and minority religious communities proportionate to their population. If this is sought to be implemented now, it will result in social strife and chaos.

Second, affirmative action in the form of reservations, which is necessary and justifiable in the case of certain marginalised sections of society, is quite different from "Jitni abadi utna haq". However, even the former cannot be mechanically extended to every public institution (judiciary, military, and leadership positions in the higher bureaucracy, PSUs, universities and research institutions, media, and so on) without severely impairing the core functions of these bodies. The current dismissive attitude towards eligibility and merit in the quota debate, which has not been decried by Rahul and most other politicians, is deeply concerning.

Rahul's great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, had exhorted (in a letter to chief ministers in 1961) "against anything which leads to inefficiency and second-rate standards." While agreeing that "the Scheduled Castes and Tribes deserve help," India's first and visionary Prime Minister had said, "I want my country to be a first-class country in everything… The only real way to help the Backward group is to give opportunities of good education… But if we go in for reservations on communal and caste basis, we swamp the bright and able people and remain second-rate or third-rate."

Third, the logical and inevitable denouement of Rahul's activism for an institutional survey will be the demand for quotas for certain castes and minorities in the private sector, whose weight in the national economy is rapidly growing. This, by disregarding eligibility, will spell disaster.

Fourth, it is paradoxical that the very people who champion the cause of "Annihilation of Caste" (the title of a book by Dr Ambedkar) are rooting for a development model that will solidify and perpetuate caste, sub-caste and minority identities.

Fifth, Rahul is wrong in claiming that "90 per cent of the population" is poor and robbed of a share of India's wealth. While this is true about most STs, a small section of SCs (due to government jobs) and a much larger section of OBCs (due to government jobs, agriculture and other trades) have become upwardly mobile. Coming to religious "minorities", it is a highly misleading term since Sikhs, Christians, Jains and Parsis are by no means poor. While it is undeniable that Muslims face institutional discrimination, it is equally true that not all Muslims are poor. Nor are all "upper castes" rich.

What all this points to is that the national goal of reducing disparities is best achieved not by prioritising the divisive category of castes and religious minorities, but by empowering all our poor brethren without deepening caste and communal fault lines. This requires something that is, alas, missing in the agendas of both the Congress and BJP ─ an honest and long-term focus on wealth-creation at the bottom of the social pyramid through a combination of good governance, politics of dialogue and consensus rather than confrontation, and whole-society mobilisation of the spirit of unity, solidarity and empathy.

The writer was an aide to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee