The New Nation - Internet Edition

M A S Molla

There is quota system prevailing in both cadre and non-cadre services of Bangladesh. In the cadre service under the name "Bangladesh Civil Service" (BCS), the non-merit quota is 55% against the 45% merit quota. There may be logics of reserving quota for the underprivileged groups, but when the non-merit proportion outnumbers the merit proportion, it becomes clear that the State is not encouraging merit.

The students' movement against this long-prevailing illogical quota system seems based on sound reason and I like not to believe that the movement was steered only by a particular students' group. Many aired their views on the matter through writing articles and letters in newspapers and some talks were also held. Perhaps due to the present food crisis, the debate has subsided for the time being. However, this is a very important matter and is sure to resume soon. I am tempted to quote from Prof Asaduzzaman (Former Chairman of UGC, died prematurely on March 28) who very rightly commented that freedom fighters fought the liberation war in 1971 for establishing a discrimination-free society, but a tremendous discrimination has been created due to existing 55% quota system in the BCS. He was a speaker in the talk held in the National Press Club on February 24.

Article 28 of Bangladesh Constitution guarantees equal opportunities of the peoples of the country and Article 29 specifically speaks of equal opportunity in employment. However, there are clauses in both the articles that safeguard the interest of the underprivileged groups. Thus Article 28(4) and Article 29(3) have given the government authority in making rules to favour certain underprivileged groups for the greater equity of the nation as a whole.

The people of some districts were falling behind others in the more developed areas, womenfolk were falling behind their male counterparts and the tribal people are still lagging much behind the main stream of the nation. The Freedom Fighters (FFs) responded positively to the call for the required armed struggle to free the nation. Most of the FFs families were poorer than their opposition Pakistan-loving people collaborating with that occupation force. That is, FFs deserved a quota both for being an underprivileged group and as the valiant rescuers of the nation (while in danger); there was no wrong in reserving quota for FFs themselves as a means to repay a portion of the national debt. The other groups mentioned above also once deserved some favour through the quota system.

Now the question arises what proportion of quota has been logical and how long that should continue. After 37 years of independence and having the privilege of the quota system, the people of some districts should no longer claim that they are still underprivileged. Womenfolk have improved a lot over time and they are now competing well with their male counterparts. The FFs can no longer be within 30 years of age to enjoy the quota privilege. So it is time and may be overdue that the quota system is reviewed and revised logically.

I would like to suggest some logical proportion of the quotas, but before doing that let me say something on merit and the need of encouraging this potential power.

Intelligence and merit as biological in-born assets are located in the brain and are characterised by the nerve cells functioning sharply or not so. However, there are very few biologically inferior human brains (worldwide calculated idiocy is only 0.004%) that cannot process data efficiently. After birth, biological development of the brain is partially dependent on proper nutrition that, in turn, depends on the economic condition of the family. But this factor can harm only the ultra poor section. The rich may provide enough protein to their wards, that the middle class cannot; but that is not a matter of worry because development of intelligence depends more on carbohydrate food and the body has its own mechanism of synthesising the required amount of protein from carbohydrate that are usually enough for most people. So for the most people, the social factors including inspiration and motivation, the psychological support to the motivated people and the persistent efforts (perseverance) in acquiring knowledge on the part of the learners themselves are more crucial in dealing with merit.

Considering the above factors, we can see a discouraging element in having a so-called 'favourable' quota for any group. If the candidates of a certain area (district), sex (women) or any other group (FF wards) know that they have the privilege of quota, they may not have enough motivation to acquire knowledge sharpening their merit. This is the dwindling effect of the so-called favour through a quota provision. Some writers have referred the case of quota system in other countries including India, Malaysia and Pakistan. I take only one example from those. About 60% people in Malaysia are Bhumiputras (Malays) enjoying the quota privilege, but surprisingly the fewer than 30% Chinese are leading in the intellectual and business arena. The discriminatory quota is helping develop the Chinese head against the Bhumiputra hip!

The government's responsibility is not only to do justice now to all the citizens, but it has got the duty also to create an environment congenial for proper nurturing and growth of merit in the present competitive world. So the less discriminatory the situation, the more encouraging would it be for promoting meritocracy through free competition. Only the very underprivileged groups can be rescued through the temporary provision of quota risking the very sustainable development of that very group. I am sorry to say that the FF wards are in the wrong line protesting the larger group of students' vying against the quota. The star wards of our valiant FFs are forgetting their status, downgrading the spirit of liberation and dishonouring their parents - living or dead.

To my thought it was illogical to reserve ever more than 50% non-merit quota. It should have better been merit 60% and non-merit 40% from the very beginning. Now after three and a half decades of independence, the ratio should be merit: non-merit= 4:1; i.e., 80% and 20%. Only the tribal quota can remain as it is (5%) risking their sustainable growth. The women quota can logically be made half (5% in place of the present 10%). The district quota can be abolished just now. I would be happy if I could stop suggesting any more non-merit quota and this 5% + 5% (=10%) would just obey the words of learned men who talked on the matter in the Press Club in February. But the FF wards will be angry because of two reasons: losing the battle of self-disrespect (!) and me being a 'Molla' proposing this. So for the last time, for another decade, let them have the privilege of about 10% quota (information says only 7-8% of quota is actually availed of by FF wards; the rest is mismanaged!) just to have the time to regain the true spirit of liberation. They themselves did not fight for independence; so they really need some time to gain the spirit and to help that descend down to the next generation so that, that generation does not quarrel on quota privilege but sincerely fight for developing merit imbibed with the spirit.