'Affirmative action' in the United States is aimed at the minorities. As such, in India it should focus on Brahmins. They constitute no more than 3 per cent of the population.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while speaking to the Confederation of Indian Industry recently, used the term affirmative action rather than quotas. Implicit in this was the assurance that job quotas would not be forced on the private sector. But that can change if Sonia Gandhi issues a fatwa. Was the use of the term 'affirmative action' appropriate? Affirmative action is an American term signifying voluntary action by the Whites to give the non-Whites a chance in life. It is, moreover, aimed at minorities.

That is not the case in India , where it is aimed at the majority, that is the Dalits and the OBCs, who between them make up over 80 per cent of the population. As long as the OBCs were not included, and the policy was aimed only at the SC/STs, it was genuine because the SCs and STs are in a minority.

However, by that logic, the Muslims and other religious minorities would also be entitled to reservations or, at the very least, affirmative action.

• Quota: A cure worse than the disease
• What is the 49.5% quota all about?
• Should there be quota in IITs, IIMs? Tell us!

This is what gives the game away, namely, that the motives are political rather than justice and equity. Indeed, genuine affirmative action would be aimed at the Brahmins who constitute no more than 3 per cent of the population.

The Americans have had about as much experience with such policies as India has. There also, the issue generates a lot of emotion. The latest instance involved the University of Michigan where the Supreme Court ruled one way in the case of the Law School and another in the case of the undergraduate college.

But the court also ruled that the Constitution did not require race-blind admissions, that is, it was OK to use race as a factor while deciding whom to admit. "Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in university admissions."

As always, economists, too, have been in the fray. Of particular interest to us here should be a paper** by Roland G Fryer Jr of Harvard and Glenn C Loury of Boston University.

They say "economic reasoning can make a contribution to the affirmative action debate. . . insights can be gained when one respects the consistency requirements of formal definitions, remains mindful of incentives, and recalls that the behaviour of interacting agents must adjust to be mutually compatible in equilibrium."

They have examined some popular propositions about affirmative action and conclude that at least seven of these are myths. Thus:

Myth 1: Affirmative action can involve goals and timetables while avoiding quotas.

Myth 2: Colour-blind policies offer an efficient substitute for colour-sighted affirmative action.

Myth 3: Affirmative action undercuts investment incentives.

Myth 4: Equal opportunity is enough to ensure racial equality.

Myth 5: The earlier in education or career development affirmative action is implemented, the better.

Myth 6: Many non-minority citizens are directly affected by affirmative action.

Myth 7: Affirmative action always helps its beneficiaries.

Numbers 3, 5, 6 and 7 are worth paying attention to, not least because we are saying precisely the same things here.

The simple truth is that there is so much that can be said for and against that, in the end, the decision has to be based on moral principles rather than political expediency.

No one in India objected to SC/ST reservations because it was based on a patently moral principle. Everyone, except the OBCs, is objecting to OBC reservation because it is based on an equally obvious political consideration.

If Sonia Gandhi is such a great ascetic, she should renounce (HRD minister) Arjun Singh as speedily as she renounced the other Singh of the oil deal fame.

*The Court and the University, Ronald Dworkin, May 15, 2003
**Affirmative Action and Its Mythology, NBER Working Paper No. 11464, June 2005