A Useful Lesson
Folks supporting reservations should learn a lesson from Veerappa Moily, head of the Committee in charge of implementing the 27% quotas in higher education. He has cited the example of the FIFA World Cup where there are geographical quotas used for selecting the 32 participating teams. Now such an analogy is much more worthy of consideration and debate as opposed to some bizarre analogies which we have heard, citing Virender Sehwag and MS Dhoni as examples for justifying reservations.
In response to what Moily said, I won't even bring up counter-points like "Oh but a World Cup with the top 32 teams would have been even better" or "The same countries from the lesser continents fill up moist of the 'quota' slots". I won't bring up these counter-points because they are irrelevant.
FIFA owns the World Cup and it can do whatever it wants. No one forced FIFA to adopt the quotas. They took the decision impacting something which they own. The government decision forces quotas even on colleges they neither own nor aid. And that is just wrong.
P.S - One possible benefit of advancing obviously weak analogies like the Sehwag-Dhoni one could be that the respondents would obviously attack your analogy calling it wrong. Then you can keep defending the analogy till you go blue in the face, and the actual issue at hand is forgotten by every one.
In response to what Moily said, I won't even bring up counter-points like "Oh but a World Cup with the top 32 teams would have been even better" or "The same countries from the lesser continents fill up moist of the 'quota' slots". I won't bring up these counter-points because they are irrelevant.
FIFA owns the World Cup and it can do whatever it wants. No one forced FIFA to adopt the quotas. They took the decision impacting something which they own. The government decision forces quotas even on colleges they neither own nor aid. And that is just wrong.
P.S - One possible benefit of advancing obviously weak analogies like the Sehwag-Dhoni one could be that the respondents would obviously attack your analogy calling it wrong. Then you can keep defending the analogy till you go blue in the face, and the actual issue at hand is forgotten by every one.
