Inclusive policies ensure diverse public service, acknowledging that capabilities extend beyond physical fitness to intellectual and managerial excellence.
Recent remarks by IAS officer Smita Sabharwal, questioning the existence of disability quotas in the Indian civil services, have kicked off heated debates around the issue of inclusion and diversity. Specifically, her remarks pointed to the eligibility of differently-abled people at posts that required a physical fitness test, which was sharply criticized by all, including Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi. This controversy brings to the fore the broader issue of how societies strike a balance between the imperatives of efficiency in certain professions and the imperative of inclusive policies.
Smita Sabharwal, a seasoned bureaucrat and presently member-secretary of the Telangana Finance Commission, asked some pertinent questions in her social media post. She drew a comparison between other professions like aviation and surgery, wherein physical fitness was non-negotiable. “Does an airline hire a disabled pilot? Will you allow a surgeon with a disability to operate upon you?” she asked, indicating that the rigors of the AIS, including the IAS, IPS, and IFoS, demand a minimum level of physical capability. She makes this argument based on the fieldwork and long working hours that such professions require, contending that they may not fit with certain kinds of disabilities.
This viewpoint, however, has not gone down well with everyone. Congress leader Priyanka Chaturvedi termed the views of Sabharwal “pathetic and exclusionary.” She tweeted that this kind of commentcomes from a narrow vision and privileged space. According to Chaturvedi, reservations are important for diversity and inclusion. It is the bureaucrats who raise questions about the misuse of quotas and are not against having them at all.
The crux of this debate rests on the definition of disability and what a differently-abled person is capable of. Disability is such a broad concept that it includes in its fold a diverse array of conditions, many of which do not necessarily affect an individual’s intellectual and managerial capabilities. The notion that one needs to be physically fit in civil services ignores the services that can be rendered by those who may be differently-abled but have exceptional administrative skills.
Seat reservation in the civil services for differently-abled persons in India purports to guarantee representation and opportunities for all sections of society. It is premised on the presupposition that inclusiveness will enrich governance by bringing diverse perspectives to the table. As such, it challenges the ability paradigm by insisting that the capability to contribute to society cannot be judged by any physical standard of measurement.
Critics of Sabharwal’s stance do point out that she has undermined the movement toward disability rights and inclusion. They said that actually, it is in creating supportive environments where differently-abled persons will be able to fulfill their roles effectively, including the provision of reasonable accommodations like assistive technologies and flexible working conditions that would allow them to meet the demands of their jobs.
Add to this the controversy of Puja Khedkar, a probationary IAS officer who was selected under the disability criteria and who was later found involved in misconduct. While it is correct that these kinds of quota misuses need proper redressal, it is equally erroneous to generalize such incidents as indicative of the entire policy’s efficacy.
The debate on disability quotas in civil services is not simply about physical fitness; rather, it is the redefinition of suitability criteria and recognition of the multifaceted nature of capabilities. A move toward opening the doors of civil services to differently-abled persons for establishing inclusive civil services is a movement toward an egalitarian society where diverse contributions have a place. It reflects the commitment to the principles of social justice and equality.
Smita Sabharwal’s remarks have finally put forward the much-needed debate relating to disability quotas in civil services. Apprehensions that physical fitness and job demands may be compromised are understandable, but they must not overshadow the bigger goal of inclusiveness. The debate must now turn towards ways of supporting differently-abled persons in their professional roles so that civil services benefit from the wide range of talents available in society. Diversity and inclusion are not moral imperatives alone but a sine qua non for any nation desiring holistic development.
