To Quota or Not to Quota

Mian A Waheed and Naseem Majeed
May 15, 1998


There was a recent news item in Dawn about the national assembly
debate on the quota system which led us to join the fray on this issue.
This is an old debate and we have ambivalent feelings about it. Both sides
have presented valid and reasonable arguments. It all depends on which
side of the divide an observer is situated. From the historical perspective,
the quota system was a blessing for Muslims in pre-partition . It
helped Muslims in gain access to top educational institutions, jobs
in as well as seats in legislative assemblies. All Muslim
League fought for separate seats for the Muslim minority in . Muslim
League won the majority of seats reserved for Muslims in 1946
to put the pressure on British rulers and Congress leaders. Once
came into existence; all those who benefited from the quota system started
arguing against it. Reason, time and circumstances changed.



Opponents of the quota system maintain that the quota system is against
the spirit of equal opportunity, and that is quite a powerful argument.
When a deserving person cannot get admission in a university or a job in
a agency only because he belongs to a certain area, group or
class, he or she is being unfairly discriminated against. Many victims
of the quota system would like to see it abolished as soon as possible.
Author Waheed had first hand experience with the quota system when, about
12 years ago he was denied a job as a CSP (Civil Service of ) officer
despite having higher grades in the CSS (Central Superior Services) exam
than a candidate from Baluchistan.



But when we put ourselves in the shoes of a person who is born in a poor
of six or more (not by choice), and has to walk to a "nehr"
(canal) every day to get drinking water for the , we feel differently.
When we think of one who has to walk 5 miles on unpaved paths each way
to school, has no electricity in his home, no libraries to do research,
no newspapers and magazines available to stay up to date with current affairs,
we think otherwise. When we consider the person who has to help his parents
in the farm or at local store, and has no access to modern conveniences,
the quota system does some to that person. Another benefit of the
quota system in was to put a tap on incessant outcry of small
provinces being dominated by large ones. The abolishment of quota system
will bring us back to the immediate post-partition period when most of
the civil service jobs were quickly taken by Urdu speaking immigrants from
Bihar & Gujrat () who have the qualifications for these jobs.
But the real question is whether the quota system should continue at the
expense of denied opportunities to certain areas and groups within the
country?



The quota system cannot be abolished completely in our society. It is here
to stay in one shape or another. It has served as a useful social and economic
tool to regulate and distribute the available resources of jobs and
among the needy people with some degree of and fair play. We need
to improve and take the evils out of the system until equal opportunities
are available to all. A far greater problem than reserved seats for underdeveloped
areas is the issue of reserved seats in educational institutions for president,
governors, army generals, doctors, engineers, or professors that open the
back doors to enter.





Quotas do not kill the competition completely, rather they allow competition
within a group of people who are equally blessed. For example, if 40 percent
seats are allocated for a certain area in the country (e.g. ) and
there are 500 candidates, then all 500 will be competing for 40, not 100
percent of seats. So only the cream of will succeed and same with
Baluchistan, Punjab or NWFP. Will the cream of be able to compete
against the cream of Baluchistan and of the Tribal agencies? That is a
different debate.



What we see in recent press reports is that all parties, except those from
Baluchistan, are against the quota system. The argument is only on the
timing. When PPP demands extension of 20 years, it means PPP also wants
to abolish quota system, not today but after 20 years. The 20 years may
be too early for availability of adequate facilities for the disadvantaged.



In closing we would like to make a few recommendations for alleviating
some of the current abuses such as city residents obtaining rural domiciles
that give the system a bad rap and deprive genuine candidates the opportunities
they deserve. The should consider creating a review committee
or board in some respects similar to the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) that collects data, studies admission and job trends
by region and to review system performance. As part of its functions,
the committee would conduct random audits to determine admissions and employment
compliance with eligibility requirements and guidelines, processes, grievances
and complaints. The board would be also charged with setting up a periodic
review of the quota system to determine its costs and benefits to the nation
at large.