Former Union minister and Congress leader, Manish Tewari is the second Congress leader to pitch for revisiting the reservation quota issue in the past week.
Questioning the relevance of reservation in the 21st century, Congress leader, Manish Tewari has pitched for a review of the government's reservation policy, contending that economic condition and not caste should be the basis for it.
The former Union minister's comments come a day after Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat reportedly asked for a review of the reservation policy in an interview to RSS organs 'Organiser' and 'Panchjanya'. The RSS is the ideological mentor of the BJP.
Mr Tewari said, "Notwithstanding whatever Bhagwat has articulated, the time has come to revisit the premise as to whether reservation is at all contextual in the 21st century. And if at all it is contextual then should the basis of reservation be economic as poverty is the biggest indice of backwardness?"
When asked whether he meant that caste-based reservation should be replaced by reservation based on financial position, the Congress leader said, "I am saying that it is first debatable whether we should have reservation. If yes, what should be the basis of it, whether it should be changed from caste to economy?"
Mr Tewari is the second Congress leader to pitch for revisiting the quota issue in the past week. Congress leader Jitin Prasada, a prominent youth face from Uttar Pradesh, wrote a letter to the party leadership, urging it to "revisit Mandal politics".
Mr Prasada was reported to have stated in the letter that the poor suffers "the same fate as the weaker backwards", and held "there seems to be a growing alienation among the upper caste poor who feel that no party represents their concerns and anxieties. Articulating and addressing these concerns will not only be crucial for Congress revival in Uttar Pradesh but would be essential to resurrect the declining legitimacy of the social justice regime."
Reservation has been a sensitive subject for the Congress, which evaded giving a direct response on Mr Prasada's letter, downplaying it as "a view of a particular member".