An academic of high standing, Dr Gopal is an alumnus of Harvard Law School, where he also completed his doctoral studies, and has worked with the World Bank and many Indian government organisations in a variety of capacities. In this interview with Christabelle Noronha, he speaks about the logic and the necessity of private sector affirmative action programmes, based on caste, for sure, but also on gender, religion and region.

How real is the danger of social and economic inequality undermining India’s growth agenda?
Social and economic inequality is clearly one of the major threats to sustained economic growth, and this inequality is among the most, if not the most, critical threats to the well-being of India. As a country, we must see growth as an instrument and not as a goal. We have to put growth in the right perspective and the way to start on this is to look for answers in India’s constitution, in the mission of our republic. Our republic was established not to pursue and achieve high levels of growth but to secure justice for all. That means we have to adopt strategies that promote equality, justice, liberty and fraternity. The challenge here is to ensure that equitable growth takes place.

Can this kind of outlook result in economic setbacks for the country?
Clearly, you cannot look at the progress of a country only in terms of its growth rate. Consider the United States, which emerged from colonial rule as an independent nation in the latter half of the 18th century. Less than a century later, when it was doing quite well economically, it was confronted by the issue of slavery. The country fought a civil war to end slavery in which a significant proportion of its population was killed and plenty of resources destroyed.

If you had asked the question in 1857, when the civil war began, whether it would be a setback from an economic standpoint, the answer would have been yes. But America was prepared to fight a civil war to secure the freedom and equality of a small number of African-American slaves. What that country was actually doing was laying a strong foundation for social justice.

I think that’s what India, too, will do. But I believe this can be managed without sacrificing growth. Unlike in the 18th and 19th centuries, we have a world today that is far more sensitive to issues such as social justice, equality and sustainable development. The United Nations has just adopted a set of guidelines on the applicability of human rights standards to the private sector and businesses. It is an important set of principles. There is almost no option for India but to pursue growth in a manner that is compatible with the interests and concerns of its poorest and most excluded people, and not exclusively cater to creating more wealth for its already wealthy citizens.

Are you in favour of private sector affirmative action programmes, where jobs are reserved for people from the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes?
Speaking only for myself, yes, I am very much in favour of reservations in the private sector. The principal economic opportunity we have created for the scheduled castes and tribes of India is in education and employment. The opportunity for entrepreneurship, given the social reality in this country, is still limited. Because of economic reforms, opportunities for public sector employment are declining and the government itself, along with the private sector, has posited that the private sector is the main engine for the growth of employment opportunities.

I think it is necessary to be aware of the social discrimination that people from the scheduled castes and tribes face. We have to ensure that these people do not have to suffer discrimination in an economy where the private sector is going to be the main generator of employment. It is essential, in the circumstances, to set aside a due share of employment opportunities for people from the scheduled castes and tribes.

We must not forget that, as per the 2001 census, the scheduled castes and tribes of India add up to 240 million people (180 million from the scheduled castes and 60 million from the scheduled tribes). Based on these figures — and the numbers would have increased substantially by now — they would have been, if they were part of a separate country, the fourth largest nation in the world. It is vital, then, to ensure that these people get their due share in the new economic order; we need to make a conscious effort to do this through programmes of affirmative action such as the one the Tata group is trying to put in place and expand.

Where do you think India features, as of now, on any index of development and social justice?
There is not a single industrial or so-called developed country in the world that has not had a significant experience of revolutionary change for social justice. Whether it is Europe with its social revolutions of the 15th and 16th centuries, the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries, Japan, South Korea, China and others, the foundation for sustained economic growth and economic well-being has been social justice. India will not be able to bypass this experience.

India stands relatively low on the index of social justice, particularly in the context of gender and caste, because we have, as we all know, the largest number of excluded and marginalised people in the world. But at the same time, the India of today — through its constitutional democracy, through the essential messages of its freedom movement — is in a much better position than any other country ever has been in terms of having a platform for social change and revolution that is constitutional and peaceful.

The main challenge here is to let the constitutional processes take their own course. We should not impede the social vision of the Constitution of India or undermine it. If this social vision is implemented in good faith, the result will be a peaceful and constitutional social change. But if we continue to attack the constitutional vision for social justice, then I think we will jeopardise everything, including growth.

Do you see the emergence of a sociocultural revolution through violence?
I think there is a distinct possibility that India will sink into a violent struggle for social change, where authoritarian forces will seek to suppress the need and demand for social change and, on the other hand, violent forces will take advantage of the need for social change, the demand for social change, and exploit this for their own purposes. The Naxalite violence we are witnessing is a harbinger of what can happen.

One explanation for why such violence takes place is the failure of development, or the lack of its capacity to deliver. But that is only a symptom. Why is it that we cannot deliver with development? The reason is social injustice and the continued discrimination against those who are excluded. Unless we can provide an equal voice to all our people, regardless of their current economic or social station in life, we will cease to be a functioning democracy. We must recognise that a lot of the violence that is going on is because of our failure, at the most basic level, to address the social injustices that prevail in our country.

What role do you see industry bodies and the private sector playing to change this reality?
There is a lot of concern now in India that corporate entities are predatory — towards natural resources, towards the poor and towards the vision of our constitution. There seems to be an excessive need to acquire wealth; this has to change.

Economic growth has to be seen as an instrument that helps improve the welfare and well-being of all Indians, not just of the minority that happens to be in positions of power. Democracy means having to accept decisions that may not be conducive in all ways to achieving corporate growth and objectives. But corporations are subordinate to the overall social, economic and political goals set by this country through its constitution; they must accept and work through those mechanisms that are granted by the constitution to achieve their goals.

Corporate houses should be concerned about the increasing inequality of wealth and consumption that is being seen in India today. They should be much more sensitive about how they distribute the benefits of the wealth they generate to shareholders, management, and the general public; they need to be much more sensitive towards the poor, particularly in relation to natural resources and land; and they must strive to build a consensus around how to develop and implement their commercial strategies, rather than use the power of the state to ram their interests down the throats of the common people of this country.

The affirmative action initiative by corporate India — is this merely to change perceptions or do you see it as something more substantial?
For some it is sincere, as I believe it is for the Tata group. For some it may be more of a sales or brand-enhancing effort, but that can be true of any human activity. I would like to think that many in the corporate leadership rung are, equally, citizens committed to the welfare of India.

Are minority communities likely to benefit from such affirmative action initiatives?
I don’t know the answer to that, honestly speaking, because I don’t have the data, but we need to bring minority communities within the category of groups that benefit from reservation. The ideal would be, in my opinion, to have corporate affirmative action that aims at inclusive development and engages in positive discrimination for minorities and gender as well. That makes for affirmative action on three fronts: caste, gender and religion. And I would put in a fourth category: region. We have to be careful not to fall into the trap of having imbalanced regional development.

How important are societal attitudes in the success of affirmative action programmes?
I think they are crucial. The whole need for affirmative action arises from social prejudice, which, in turn, comes from false and wrong notions of superiority and differences. Unless we are able to change and address these underlying social prejudices, affirmative action alone will not change anything. So even if someone becomes economically successful, the prejudice against the community to which he or she belongs will not necessarily disappear.

What should the government do, in terms of policies and legislation, to promote affirmative action in India?
We need to, first of all, establish a clear law on the right to equality and the right not to be discriminated against. We can then move towards developing a consensus on affirmative action policies in the private sector. It will require a lot of dialogue and consultation to establish legal standards across the country, but this is a huge new agenda and we have to pursue it, push for it.

How do we go beyond divisions and create a unified nation, or is this too much to expect?
There is a constant battle that rages between asserting differences for our selfish ends and recognising the obvious truth that we are one species and, essentially, one people. What we ought to do is constantly engage with this struggle and refute and deny attempts by people who create differences in order to exploit what are finite resources.

Ultimately that’s what this is all about: a fight to get control of finite resources. It is for this purpose that some people create all these divisions and subdue other human beings. The rest of us have to fight back and defang all these ideas and ideologies that are employed to weaken and divide us from one another.

This article was a part of the story on affirmative action  featured in the June 2012 issue of the Tata Review. Follow the links below to go to the other articles that were a part of this story:
	Social kind of justice
	Interview with Pradeep Bhargava, managing director of Cummins India and chairman of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)