Quota reform has been a point of contention for job seekers and students in Bangladesh for over a decade now. However, Bangladesh is not the only country suffering from issues like this.
In India also there have been protests against the 27% quota in government jobs and educational institutions for the socially backward classes.
The protests in both countries are of different nature but parallels can be drawn.
The first quota reform movement in Bangladesh took place on 10 July 2013, where hundreds of Bangladesh Civil Service examinees began to protest in order to abolish the quota system in all public examinations. But they were faced with police baton charges while teargas shells were lobbed.
The quota reform movement again resurged in 2018 demanding reforms in policies regarding the recruitment in the Bangladesh government services. At that time also, the law enforcement agencies and the student wing of the ruling Awami League countered the peaceful protest with violence.
This time, the quota reform movement started to gain momentum once again after 5 June this year when the Supreme Court of Bangladesh revived quotas for recruitment in government jobs reversing a 2018 withdrawal of the whole system.
Initially started as a peaceful movement by the students who demanded a fair evaluation of the recruitment in public sectors, it soon gravitated towards a violent reprehension by the government.
Brief history: Quota system of Bangladesh
Sparing the details before the liberation period, in independent Bangladesh, quota system was introduced in the year 1972 in government jobs. At that time, 20% of jobs were allocated based on merit, 40% was allocated for district-wise recruitment, 30% was allotted to the family of freedom fighters and 10% was allotted to war affected women. Throughout the annals of history, this quota system was changed several times. For instance, 10% allotment to the war affected women was transformed into a quota for all women after the targeted applications from the war affected women couldn’t be fulfilled.
Prior to the abolishment of the quota system in 2018 by the government’s executive order, there was a quota reservation of 56% (30% freedom fighter quota, 10% district wise quota, 10% women, 5% ethnic minorities and 1% physically disabled).
On 21 July this year, the Appellate Division of Supreme Court ordered an overhaul of the quota reservation system, increasing appointments based on meritocracy to 93%, reduced the allotted reservation for the descendants of freedom fighters to 5% and remainder going to the ethnic minorities, the disabled and the third gender people.
On 23 July the Public Administration Ministry published a gazette notification in line with the Supreme Court’s verdict on the quota system in government jobs.
What led to the protest
One may ask, “Why are the students protesting now if the quota system had reservations for freedom fighters from the beginning?” The answer is simple, the quota reservation for freedom fighters remained relevant up to 5-7 years after its introduction in 1972, or maybe 10-12 years at the highest, so that the people who fought in the liberation war could reap their benefits in their own rights. But in this current period, reserving a huge percentage of quota for the descendants seems to be baseless, posing a question to its sanctity.
This argument could be further backed up by the fact that there are about 200,000 to 250,000 people registered with the freedom fighter certification, that is, the number of freedom fighters is 0.12%-0.15% of the entire population. That means, for the 0.12%-0.15% freedom fighters, the quota reservation is 30%. It can be seen that if 1,000 people were to be recruited for a government job, then there will be 300 freedom fighter quota reservation among them. Every year, around 2,000-2500 candidates are finally selected per batch in the Bangladesh Civil Service examination, where the quota reservation for the freedom fighter makes up around 600-750 seats which don’t even get properly filled due to insufficient qualifying candidates from these quotas.
If allocated percentage of positions could not be filled through quotas they would remain empty instead of allocating the positions based on merit.
The students never demanded for the abolishment of the whole quota system, rather they wanted to reform the policies based on the economic and social backwardness where the 30% freedom fighter quota stood as an irrationality.
Similar counterpart: Mandal Commission of India, its comparative analysis and the lessons learned
The Mandal Commission, formally known as the Second Backward Classes Commission, was established in India in 1979 under the chairmanship of BP Mandal. The commission’s primary objective was to identify socially or educationally backward classes and recommend measures to promote their welfare and advancement. After extensive research and surveys, the Mandal Commission submitted its report in 1980, highlighting that 52% of India’s population belonged to socially backward classes and recommending a 27% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions to uplift them.
The then Indian Prime Minister VP Singh implemented the first recommendations of the commission by giving reservations to other backward classes (OBCs) in employment. This step was met by widespread protests from the upper caste people and significant political and social upheaval during those initial days, marking a pivotal moment in India’s affirmative action policies.
The second half of the Commission’s recommendation was the reservation for OBCs in central educational institutions for which the OBCs had to wait till 2006.
This was also resisted by thousands of students from five premier medical colleges, Delhi University and its schools brought out peaceful rallies at different places in India with banners and posters against the quota reservations and demanded the quota policy termination.
In 2008, the government proposed the quota reservations to the private institutions as well, which sparked considerable debate and controversy, leading to multiple protests by the students who considered such recommendation by the government would undermine the quality of education and meritocracy. In recent periods, there are still debates and arguments going on among the elite social classes and communities.
Despite widespread protests in different times in India, the quota for the OBCs still remains.
Comparative analysis
Quota reform movement of Bangladesh: 2013, 2018, 2024
- Context: The movement emerged from growing dissatisfaction with Bangladesh’s quota system, which reserved 56% of government jobs for various quotas, the majority being the 30% quota for the descendants of freedom fighters.
- Objective: Protestors initially demanded a reduction in the quota percentage and a shift towards a more merit-based recruitment system.
- Outcome: Though the government has stated the reformation of quota policies, the situation remains unsettled and uncertain as the movement escalated to violence, revealing deeper issues within the country’s socio-political structure.
- Socio-political context: Driven by educated youth facing unemployment, the movement garnered broad support from civil society but faced intense government crackdowns.
- Public and media response: Initially supported by the public and media, the movement’s violent turn and harsh government response complicated its portrayal, leading to a more nuanced media narrative.
- Escalation and government response: Mixed signals and inconsistent responses from the government, including police crackdowns, exacerbated the situation and led to further violence.
- Fatality: According to government data at least 150 died during the protests for quota reformation.
Mandal commission: 1990, 2006, 2008
- Context: The Mandal Commission was established in 1979 by the Indian government to identify socially or educationally backward classes and recommend measures for their advancement.
- Objective: The primary goal was to provide these classes with better opportunities in public sectors and educational institutions through reservations.
- Outcome: In 1990, the government implemented the recommendation to reserve 27% of government jobs to other backward classes (OBCs), which led to widespread protests and debates across the country, mostly by the upper-castes. The recommended policy of 27% reservation of socially backward classes is still in effect today despite many ongoing debates and arguments from different political individuals and social classes.
- Socio-political context: Implemented in a politically charged environment, with significant opposition from upper-caste communities and students who felt disadvantaged by the new reservation policy. The application of law enforcers was on a neutral note, mediating escalations between two parties, upper-caste communities and socially backward classes.
- Public and media response: The implementation led to extensive protests, including extreme actions like self immolations by students. Media coverage was polarised, reflecting the divided public opinion
- Escalation and government response: The government stood firmly on the reservation policy despite the protests, emphasizing the need for social justice and equity.
- Fatality: Rajiv Goswami, while a student at Deshbandhu College, Delhi University in October, 1990 to protest against the implementation of Mandal Commission’s affirmative action, committed the act of self immolation. He was later elected as the President of Delhi University’s Student Union. Rajiv died a decade later because of the 70% burns he suffered.
Lessons learned
- Effective communication: Governments must engage in open and transparent dialogue with protestors to understand and address their concerns, preventing misunderstandings and mistrust.
- Proactive policy adjustments: Addressing grievances through policy adjustments before they escalate into large-scale movements can prevent conflicts.
- Role of mediation: Involving neutral parties to mediate between the government and protestors can facilitate peaceful resolutions.
- Respect for human rights: Ensuring law enforcement act with restraint and respect for human rights is crucial in maintaining public trust and preventing violence.
- Public engagement: Engaging civil society organisations in the dialogue process can bridge gaps and foster mutual understanding.
The Mandal Commission in India and the 2024 Quota Reform Movement in Bangladesh, while distinct in their contexts and outcomes, both underscore the challenges and complexities of implementing and reforming quota systems.