Private sector reservations
It has been reported that the Centre favours reservation for promotion in the government sector and for jobs in the private sector. However, the time has come to scrap the reservation policy itself. But for fear of losing votes, no party dares say anything against negative about caste-based reservation. In the war of reservation versus merit, merit has been killed. Meritorious persons have remained silent sufferers. Reservation is the other name for discriminating one against the other. Reservation in promotion is nothing but superseding senior employees. There are a number of cases where senior employees have resigned when junior employees have been promoted ignoring the seniority. Even judges have been superseded in Supreme Court and High Courts though the reasons may be political. This is either due to political reasons or due to reservation in promotion makes no difference. Senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge has lamented that only a fraction of officers hail from SC, ST and other backward classes. This is not true. It is not wrong if a large number of people belonging to these communities are in high position based on merit-cum-seniority. It would be fair if two persons—one from SC/ST/backward class and the other from non-SC/ST/backward class, have equal merits in an interview, the person from the former must be considered for job. For promotion, seniority should be only considered. Minister of social justice and empowerment Thawar Chand Gehlot has said that the government has been waiting for a report from the committee appointed by the previous government to look into the issue. It is not the committee that should decide on the issue of reservation in private sectors. Opinion of private entrepreneurs and the public should be the guiding and deciding factor for reservation in private sectors.
I enjoyed reading your recent editorial “Great tax theft”. I could not follow why The Financial Express was being so hard on the income tax department. Officers working in this department have no lobbyists and hence it seems to me that they cannot speak and do not wish to be involved in discussion with a paper. According to me, there seems to be some misunderstanding in the minds of journalists in this country. For example, in this editorial, the phrase “tax terrorism” has been used. Now, who coined this two-word phrase, “tax terrorism”? It appears to me that the greatest harm to the economy of this country calling its tax regime “tax terrorism”, especially in the aftermath of the retro tax legislation passed by the Parliament and any tax arrears that arose or are pending due to it. What is the fault of taxmen? Parliament passed the law. They are simply implementing the law. If they do not implement it, they will lose their jobs. On non-implementation of the law, their senior tax officers will crush the assessing officers. When they have implemented the same, papers are calling them “tax terrorists”. Hence, taxmen are not responsible for “tax terrorism”. I request FE to correct itself and refrain from terming hardworking government officers who are implementing the law of land passed by Parliament as tax terrorists.