OBC reservations: The government's rebuttal to the supreme court objections

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/28144.html

I thought one argument against removing creamy layer by the government was rather interesting. It appears to me that a clever attorney could very well shoot the govt with their own argument. Points 1 and 3 looked relatively vague to me so I just include point (2) below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why creamy layer cannot be excluded?

• There is a danger that the top qualified candidates with adequate cut-off marks, may be cut off as Creamy Layer. At the other end, candidates who are not in the creamy layer may be cut off on the ground that their marks are too low as compared to the cut-off point. The result of this will be "leakage at both ends" and flow of quota seats to the general category, defeating/ truncating the policy of reservation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what the government is really saying is the following. They anyway cannot benefit the "needy" and the "deserving" people of backward castes, since such students in all probability haven't even had a good schooling background and therefore would be in no position to compete in a university with students whose schooling has been good. And they therefore want the seats to be taken up by "creamy" students, whose economic background and schooling are already strong, even though such students are by no means the "needy" and the "deprived" students one talks about when supporting the idea of reservations.

And thus the government can merrily go on with their farcical "upliftment" of the backward without ever addressing the real issues. With an argument like this the government is implicitly admitting that the only way to uplift the backward is to ensure that they receive good education right from the primary level and that quick-fix solutions at the university level do not reach the intended receipients at all.

So the solution is really to ensure the free and compulsary education for schoolchildren, which was envisaged in the directive principles of the constitution. Of course, such a task is undoubtedly harder than a quick fix solution like passing an OBC bill. It would firstly require that the government has enough money to pay for enough quality schools and teachers, which would mean that the government would have to embrace economic reform quickly and get rid of the perpectually loss making companies that it owns .

It would also have to dump foolhardy expensive schemes such as the rural employment guarantee bill (wherein the idea is essentially that you will "employ" people for some length of time, whether you need them or not... basically dole out free money). Such bills stand in sharp contrast to projects such as the golden quadrilateral project, which involved building good quality highways, consequently employing a good deal of unskilled labor "gainfully". And such projects could easily be paid for by tolls collected from transport vehicles using the highway.