Globally and nationally, there is unanimity that federalism is a basic structure of Indian state. Therefore, state universities and colleges need to be seen as centres of federal assertions
In his famous article ‘Tragedy of Commons’, Garret Hardin depicts a situation where a herdsman keeps on adding cattle to the common pasture to maximise his interest eventually results into the depletion of the shared resources. The herdsman is not bothered about the long-term effects of the overgrazing because he is not the owner of the pasture. He is also not satisfied with the existing animals because his self-interest is not met by them. It intuits him adding those animals which will have direct utility to him. Therefore, Hardin argues that the freedoms in the commons bring ruins to all. This article aims to formulate the arguments that would help in countering the unitary planks.
Currently, the concerns around merit, domicile, language and common resources have gained the centre-stage in state politics of Goa. Regional political parties like Goa Forward and Revolutionary Goans are voicing the concerns around these issues and are active in mobilising the electorate before 2027 assembly elections. The statements around the ‘merit and domicile’ by the officials of Goa University have further added to the momentum of regional parties in the state. That makes us inquire into federal structure of India. The subject of education was moved from the State List to the Concurrent List through 42nd Amendment Act in 1976. The ‘federal system with unitary bias’ is one of the salient features of Indian Constitution. The Australian constitutional expert Kenneth Wheare terms Indian Constitution as ‘quasi federal’. The political scientist WH Morris Jones calls it ‘bargaining federalism’ and historian Granville Austin defined it as ‘cooperative federalism’. According to Dr BR Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of India’ in the first Article of the Constitution implies that Indian federalism is not a result of an agreement among the states unlike American federation but an inherent part of Indian Union. Globally and nationally, there is unanimity that federalism is a basic structure of Indian state. Therefore, the state universities and colleges need to be seen as the centres of federal assertions. The inclusivity is not mere assimilations, integrations or synergies of diversity, but ensuring the locals into the structures of the administrations so that they will participate into the practices of the federalism. Nurturing the federal education system through the social justice provisions is the constitutional goal. The way ‘withering away of the state’ does not guarantee the justice, the imagined diversities may not lead to democratisation of education and its pedagogies. The diversities are always imagined as mixing of the people from different states. Are diversities in India inclusive? Indian diversities are prejudiced with class and caste privileges and meritocratic in nature. Diversities need be constructed through federal means. Otherwise, the imagined diversity would only contribute to the tragedy of the commons.
It is very easy and simplistic to confuse merit and domicile. Knowledge is not the hypothesis that is imposed from the top echelons of the power. It is produced by the practitioners of the science. The trickle-down theory holds sway over the government economic policies. Similarly, many believe that merit also descends from the top. This mentality gives rise to meritocracy. The author of ‘the Tyranny of Merit’ and Professor of Government at Harvard University Michael Sandel says that meritocracy has become hereditary system. It refuses to accept that one section of the society can also be competent and meritorious. The same logic is being played out by the advocates of the meritocracy who disguise as the proponents of diversity. In ‘Aristocracy of Talent’, Adrian Wooldridge prefers meritocracy where opportunities for the disadvantaged are offered and their talent is honoured. The popular symbols of meritocracy would turn hollow if the aristocracy of talent is established. Otherwise as argued in the ‘The Rise of Meritocracy’ by Michael Young, the meritocracy would only continue to propel inequalities in the society.
Plato’s theory of the Allegory of the Cave is very useful to understand the controversy around merit and domicile in Goa. In Plato’s ‘Republic’, Socrates explains Glaukon that we all are chained captives of the cave yet to see more reality than the shadows against the walls of the cave. Affirmative action based on domicile is a step in that direction to come out of the captivity and demonstrates the talent. Unfortunately, barring one or two, the discussants on television channels and other media platforms did not address the controversy from the point of view of federal concerns, inclusion and limits of the meritocracy. This is a situation when the party politics in Goa began with the two regional parties fighting fierce electoral battle in 1963 on federal concerns. Even the state units of the national political parties need to prioritise the federal concerns. The logic of the tragedy of commons is also applicable to other public concerns of over-fishing, pollution, noise, fertilising operations, climate change and so on. The commons space is seen as the place for the waste disposal. The solutions to the local and regional problems through sustainable development are not feasible unless they are backed by the federal mechanisms in place. The federal institutions of education such as state universities are very crucial in protecting the commons amidst rampant privatisation of the education.
(Dr Nawoo Varak is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Government College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Khandola, Marcela.)
