POLITICS has overshadowed social justice, with more and more layers of the reservation onion likely to be unpeeled. The increasing demands for a job quota under the OBC category, for the inclusion of the Gujjars in Rajasthan among the Scheduled Tribes and its opposition by the Meenas form part of this trend. Except for demands for the inclusion of converts to Islam and Christianity, there is little to contest in the SC and ST reservation. Indeed the sub-categorisation of the SCs is a thorny issue, but it does not render the original reservation scheme a matter of controversy.
However, new issues such as caste enumeration in the census have sharpened the case for OBC reservation. The strategy is to compel the government to reserve jobs on the basis of caste rather than backwardness. In 1990, the Mandal report was viewed as a programme of social justice. In two decades, it has turned out to be a blatant and expedient use of caste by leaders and parties. They are doing this under the pretext of social justice and for their own political survival. Casteism has intensified with violent manifestations. This is a natural corollary of the trend. The other corollary, equally logical, is the demand for caste-based census.
Conflict of interests
THE consensus on the SC/ST quota was based on the historical victimisation of these two social groups. The demand to extend the quota to the backward castes in the 1950s was based on the discovery that the caste system had spawned several groups ~ between the SCs (untouchables) and the shudra category. The socio-economic disabilities were common. However, Jawaharlal Nehru was acutely aware of the possibility of friction within caste groups, and was anxious to avoid a conflict of interests. Hence “caste” became “class” in the Kaka Kalelkar Commission report, but the commission failed to address the issue of OBC reservation. Even the Mandal Commission attempted a balance between caste and class, and advocated a cautious approach. It avoided a blatant caste-based approach.
The sub-categorisation of the Dalits that has been viewed by some activists and scholars as a move to divide the community, the extension of the SC/ST quota to the converts and the expansion of the OBC quota to education as well as private sector employment, the demand for bringing in new caste categories in the web and universalisation of categories are some of the issues that have recently been raised. These developments will have to be factored in before firming up the decision on caste enumeration.
The debate on a caste-based census has resumed after eight decades. That form of enumeration was discontinued in order to do away with the backwardness of certain groups. Two factors need to be considered. First, between 1853 ~ when census operations were introduced in parts of British India ~ and 1871, when the pan-Indian census was commissioned, there has been a marked increase in the number of castes. This has added to the confusion. There is also a widely held view that HH Risley, the Census Commissioner in 1901, had politicised caste in relation to census in British India. He had also noted what he called the “perceptional problems” of enumeration, both at the individual level as well as that of the community. Let us not forget that the martial caste theory for appointments in the police and the army was part of this politicisation.
WR Cornish wrote in his report on the 1871 census in Madras Presidency: “The castes were entered in the order in which native authorities are pretty generally agreed on their relative importance.’ Hutton, Commissioner of the 1931 census, regretted that “all subsequent census officers in India must have cursed the day when it occurred to Sir Herbert Risley … to attempt to draw up a list of castes according to their rank in society.” He added, “An abandonment of the return of caste would be viewed with relief by census officers.” The distinguished anthropologist, Ghurye, saw no compelling reason behind Risley’s effort, except curiosity.
Higher status
IT did result in ‘a livening up of the caste-spirit’ by beginning a campaign ‘of mutual recrimination’. MN Srinivas has also referred to the anxiety to achieve a higher status ever since caste entered the census records.
In course of its debates, the 299-member Constituent Assembly referred to caste only to check its perpetuation in independent India. After 1082 days of working, in his famous penultimate day speech on 25 November 1949, linking fraternity, equality and liberty Ambedkar wondered if “people divided into several thousands of castes would be a nation?” He was unambiguous on the point that “these castes are anti-national: in the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.”
The 1901 census triggered a competition among communities for Varna and an upgrade of the caste status across the country. The post-Mandal trend has led to another urge ~ to flock to the OBC category. No wonder there is no unanimity on a uniform pan-Indian list of castes for the OBC segment. Politics has marred the process in every state. Naturally, this makes implementation increasingly difficult as contemporary India is on the move ~ for education, employment and shelter. Even a suggestion to ask innocuously if a certain group can be categorised as OBC by the census enumerators could lead to political turmoil.
The Sachar Committee suggested a way out of the morass of quota politics. Specifically it was an index-based representation of the population in terms of education, employment and shelter through an Equal Opportunity Commission. The expert groups advanced their reports more than two years ago. A method to implement their recommendations needs to be devised instead of aggravating caste identities through their enumeration in the census, present or future.
When our Constitution gives equal status to all then why politics one caste and reservation? Is it not dividing the nation?
However, new issues such as caste enumeration in the census have sharpened the case for OBC reservation. The strategy is to compel the government to reserve jobs on the basis of caste rather than backwardness. In 1990, the Mandal report was viewed as a programme of social justice. In two decades, it has turned out to be a blatant and expedient use of caste by leaders and parties. They are doing this under the pretext of social justice and for their own political survival. Casteism has intensified with violent manifestations. This is a natural corollary of the trend. The other corollary, equally logical, is the demand for caste-based census.
Conflict of interests
THE consensus on the SC/ST quota was based on the historical victimisation of these two social groups. The demand to extend the quota to the backward castes in the 1950s was based on the discovery that the caste system had spawned several groups ~ between the SCs (untouchables) and the shudra category. The socio-economic disabilities were common. However, Jawaharlal Nehru was acutely aware of the possibility of friction within caste groups, and was anxious to avoid a conflict of interests. Hence “caste” became “class” in the Kaka Kalelkar Commission report, but the commission failed to address the issue of OBC reservation. Even the Mandal Commission attempted a balance between caste and class, and advocated a cautious approach. It avoided a blatant caste-based approach.
The sub-categorisation of the Dalits that has been viewed by some activists and scholars as a move to divide the community, the extension of the SC/ST quota to the converts and the expansion of the OBC quota to education as well as private sector employment, the demand for bringing in new caste categories in the web and universalisation of categories are some of the issues that have recently been raised. These developments will have to be factored in before firming up the decision on caste enumeration.
The debate on a caste-based census has resumed after eight decades. That form of enumeration was discontinued in order to do away with the backwardness of certain groups. Two factors need to be considered. First, between 1853 ~ when census operations were introduced in parts of British India ~ and 1871, when the pan-Indian census was commissioned, there has been a marked increase in the number of castes. This has added to the confusion. There is also a widely held view that HH Risley, the Census Commissioner in 1901, had politicised caste in relation to census in British India. He had also noted what he called the “perceptional problems” of enumeration, both at the individual level as well as that of the community. Let us not forget that the martial caste theory for appointments in the police and the army was part of this politicisation.
WR Cornish wrote in his report on the 1871 census in Madras Presidency: “The castes were entered in the order in which native authorities are pretty generally agreed on their relative importance.’ Hutton, Commissioner of the 1931 census, regretted that “all subsequent census officers in India must have cursed the day when it occurred to Sir Herbert Risley … to attempt to draw up a list of castes according to their rank in society.” He added, “An abandonment of the return of caste would be viewed with relief by census officers.” The distinguished anthropologist, Ghurye, saw no compelling reason behind Risley’s effort, except curiosity.
Higher status
IT did result in ‘a livening up of the caste-spirit’ by beginning a campaign ‘of mutual recrimination’. MN Srinivas has also referred to the anxiety to achieve a higher status ever since caste entered the census records.
In course of its debates, the 299-member Constituent Assembly referred to caste only to check its perpetuation in independent India. After 1082 days of working, in his famous penultimate day speech on 25 November 1949, linking fraternity, equality and liberty Ambedkar wondered if “people divided into several thousands of castes would be a nation?” He was unambiguous on the point that “these castes are anti-national: in the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste.”
The 1901 census triggered a competition among communities for Varna and an upgrade of the caste status across the country. The post-Mandal trend has led to another urge ~ to flock to the OBC category. No wonder there is no unanimity on a uniform pan-Indian list of castes for the OBC segment. Politics has marred the process in every state. Naturally, this makes implementation increasingly difficult as contemporary India is on the move ~ for education, employment and shelter. Even a suggestion to ask innocuously if a certain group can be categorised as OBC by the census enumerators could lead to political turmoil.
The Sachar Committee suggested a way out of the morass of quota politics. Specifically it was an index-based representation of the population in terms of education, employment and shelter through an Equal Opportunity Commission. The expert groups advanced their reports more than two years ago. A method to implement their recommendations needs to be devised instead of aggravating caste identities through their enumeration in the census, present or future.
When our Constitution gives equal status to all then why politics one caste and reservation? Is it not dividing the nation?
Comments