Ahmedabad

Continuing to bank upon caste-oriented politics in attempt for its revival in BJP-ruled state, the Gujarat Congress today said it will introduce a bill during the budget session of Gujarat Assembly providing 20 per cent reservation for the economically backward class (EBC) among the upper castes.

State Congress chief Bharatsinh Solanki said the party was collecting information about similar provisions in other states to prepare the draft bill.

The Assembly session will start from February 22.

The announcement comes against the backdrop of violent agitation of the Patel community seeking reservations under OBC quota.

“Congress is going to table a bill demanding 20 per cent reservation for those who are economically weaker and not covered under the current 49 per cent reservations,” Solanki said at a press conference in Gandhinagar.

“This will be in addition to the 49 per cent quota meant for SC, ST and OBCs,” he said.

The quota agitation and the Patel community’s resentment about BJP government seemingly helped Congress in the panchayat polls held in November. Before the elections Congress had supported Patel community’s demand for reservation. (With inputs from PTI)

Author’s note: Will EBC quota that Congress is proposing include economic backwards who belong to reserved castes an classes(SC/ST/BC/OBCs) already? At present they enjoy unreserved seats if in merit. If Congress proposes 20% quota for EBCs excluding SC/ST/OBC then will not they protest? If 20% quota includes SC/ST/OBC then Congress proposal would be meaning less. Now suppose if 20% quota is granted as per Congress’s wish, then what shall be left for merit achievers? 30% odd seats and that too open for SC/ST/OBC with merit? As per the Supreme Court guidelines reservation beyond 49% is not permissible. Yes, Rajasthan state has passed a bill, but it is suitable to attract petition in court once it is in implementation stage. Constitution has no provision for EBC. Some state have implemented reservation quota beyond permissible 49%, but that’s a matter of past and very much in litigation.