In present-day Bharat, discussing or writing about the caste-based reservation system is a delicate and controversial subject. It is fraught with danger, especially for the writer, if one chooses to confront the issue and propose rolling back the current reservation system. However, I address this precisely because the clamour for increasing reservations in an era of reducing government jobs has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This multi-part series on reservation and affirmative action in India will delve into the historical, sociological, anthropological, constitutional, and political underpinnings of this complex issue. It will examine relevant constitutional provisions and judicial pronouncements, analyse the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of existing policies, and explore the shortcomings of the system—particularly how a select few have disproportionately benefited. Finally, I will address the most contentious aspect: how the entire framework of affirmative action needs to be reimagined if India is to achieve its goal of becoming a developed nation by 2047.
In the Making for Decades
But first, why this piece? There are three precise reasons—one existential and historical, and the other two proximate. The proximate reasons are the most recent judgement by the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, pronounced on August 1, preceded by the political grandstanding and cacophony promising more and more reservation in the recent elections.
The existential reason is that this piece has been in the making for decades. The first case of individual manipulation of the reservation system I encountered was four decades ago. It was an open secret in the office that one of my early railway bosses had climbed the IR hierarchy by falsely claiming to be SC, which he was not. He was caught just before his retirement. I have not followed the case since then. The latest such case occurred in my home city, Pune. Puja Khedkar, a Pune resident, became an IAS officer by cheating her way through the nearly sacrosanct UPSC system, feigning disabilities and falsely claiming to be from the non-creamy layer category of OBC. She has been dismissed since then.
These may seem like isolated incidents, but they are not. Only God knows how many individuals have prospered—and continue to prosper—by exploiting the reservation system at various levels of governance.
Also, ever since Independence, caste groups, vested interests, and power brokers have jostled to corner the SC/ST/OBC reservation bandwagon by hook or by crook. If the governments of the day do not agree soon, it will lead to street protests, violent agitations, and fasts unto death. More often than not, governments succumb—whether to protect or enlarge their electoral fortunes is a matter of detail.
The most famous such case is that of a Rajasthan community that has virtually monopolised all ST jobs in the Government of India. A simple Google search will reveal who they are, whose genuine quota they have usurped, and why the fear of political backlash prevents political parties of all stripes from conducting impartial investigations and taking corrective or curative measures.
Moreover, even if it is a dangerous path to traverse, I have no compunction in stating that the 27 per cent reservation in educational institutions and jobs in the country—a legacy of the Morarji Desai-Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal-Vishwanath Pratap Singh trio—is not the solution Bharat needed. Most who have secured reservation benefits in this category are what I term “forwards among backwards”. The genuinely backward and downtrodden continue to suffer as their condition worsens daily. Thus, the OBC reservation, far from being the affirmative action it was intended to be, has become a game of political one-upmanship fuelled by the new brand of identity politics. I will return to this later in the piece.
Inopportune Time
The timing of this discourse to roll back reservation, as we know it, could not have been more inappropriate. In the recent election, the Opposition upped the ante by shifting the narrative in favour of more and more reservation. Election manifestos and speeches promised a pan-India caste census, the abolishment of the 50 per cent reservation ceiling imposed by the Supreme Court, reservation for minorities, and the inclusion of more castes within the reservation system.
This subject is so fraught that the mere shift in narrative by the Opposition—that a BJP return to power with 400 Lok Sabha seats would mean the scrapping of caste-based reservation—put the ruling dispensation on the defensive. This undoubtedly cost them votes and seats in the election.
Circumspect
The topic of reservations in education and government employment undoubtedly remains one of the most contentious issues within public discourse in India. It has frequently sparked large-scale protests and violence, a plethora of court cases, and multiple constitutional amendments. The burden on the judiciary, particularly the high courts and the Supreme Court, due to reservation policy matters, has been truly immense. Furthermore, the complexity and contentiousness of the subject have often led to a cautious and circumspect approach even within the higher judiciary, particularly when pronouncing judgements. This is evident in the latest ruling from the seven-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India.
The Case
In its latest pronouncement on August 1st, a six-to-one majority ruling by a seven-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud held that states have the power to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) categories. This ruling aims to provide wider protections – through fixed sub-quotas – to the most disadvantaged communities within these groups. This landmark judgement overturns the 2004 apex court ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which deemed the SC/ST list a “homogenous group” not subject to further division.
Illustrating the complexity of reservation policies, even this recent judgement features six different opinions. The Chief Justice wrote for himself and Justice Manoj Misra. Justices B.R. Gavai and Pankaj Mithal authored separate, concurring opinions. Justices Vikram Nath and S.C. Sharma wrote in agreement with the Chief Justice and Justice Gavai, respectively. Justice Bela Banerjee stood as the sole dissenter.
A Bridge Too Far
Four of the seven judges on the bench also individually stated that the government should extend the “creamy layer principle” to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as was done with the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. Their logic was that the time had come to exclude affluent individuals and families from the benefits of reservation, thus making space for the truly underprivileged within these groups. However, scrutiny of the judgement reveals that the “creamy layer” aspect is presented more as advice or suggestion to the government than a directive. This “affirmative action within affirmative action” seems, for now, to remain a bridge too far.
Judges’ views
Delving into the specifics of each judge’s stance is beyond the scope of even this multi-part series. Nonetheless, I will briefly address the views of two justices: Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, the sole Dalit judge on the seven-member bench and next in line to become Chief Justice of India (only the second Dalit to hold the position, after K.G. Balakrishnan), and Justice Pankaj Mithal, whose perspective strikes at the very root of caste-based reservation.
It is beyond the scope of this piece to fully unpack Justice Gavai’s entire judgement. Nonetheless, I will present a few extracts:
Justice Gavai says, “The State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer, even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, so as to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action,” He asserts. “In my view, only this, and this alone, can achieve true equality as enshrined under the Constitution… The question that must be posed is whether equal treatment to unequals within the category of Scheduled Castes would advance the constitutional objective of equality, or would it thwart it? Can a child of an IAS, IPS, or Civil Service officer be equated with a child of a disadvantaged member belonging to the Scheduled Castes studying in a gram panchayat or zilla parishad school in a village?”
He further laments: “It is also widely known that disparities and social discrimination, highly prevalent in rural areas, begin to diminish as one moves to urban and metropolitan areas. I have no hesitation in holding that placing a child studying in St. Paul’s High School and St. Stephen’s College and a child studying in a small village in a backward and remote area of the country in the same bracket would obliterate the equality principle enshrined in the Constitution.”
While Justice Gavai is unequivocal about the need to identify and exclude creamy layers within SC/ST communities from reservation benefits, he stops short of providing a concrete way forward. He acknowledges that the criteria for SCs and STs “ought to be different” from that for OBCs but doesn’t delve into the critical question of what those specific criteria should be.
As for Justice Mithal, he is upfront in his assertion that the reservation policy has become a swollen balloon, and a trap that has created vested interests, demanding urgent re-evaluation. In saying so he has delivered a real punch, striking at the root of what ails the caste-based reservation system in India as prevalent today.
Describing the existing system as a “trap” that, instead of fostering genuine equality, perpetuates division and dependency, Justice Mithal is categorical in stating that only children from affluent or urbanised castes can access higher education and capitalise on reservation benefits, highlighting a persistent inequality. He also makes it abundantly clear that any reservation, if implemented, must be restricted to the first generation of the family to prevent the creation of vested interests in reservation.
To the best of my understanding, Justice Mithal’s opinion posits that caste should not be the basis for reservation. Instead, other criteria – namely, economic conditions, living standards, and vocations – should be considered.
However, considering the opinions of both Justice Gavai and Justice Mithal, a fundamental question arises in my troubled mind: “What good are judicial advice and opinions?” This is especially pertinent given the vested interests in not only expanding reservation percentages but also widening the net of castes eligible for reservation. Make no mistake, the entire issue of reservation, like Frankenstein’s monster or a runaway train, has spiralled beyond its creators’ control.
Haunting Images
Trust me, writing about reservation sends chills down my spine. It conjures haunting images, two of which are described below:
One, Rohith Vemula: The first image that surfaces is that of 26-year-old budding scholar Rohith Vemula’s tragic suicide. He aspired to be a science writer like Carl Sagan, yet his life was cut short. “My birth is my fatal accident,” he wrote in his suicide note. Rohith died unsung.
Two, Rajeev Goswami: This name holds little meaning for young Bharatiyas today. Even those who lived through that era may have forgotten him. But on September 19, 1990, this young commerce student from Delhi’s Deshbandhu College attempted self-immolation. He survived but succumbed to complications arising from the attempt at the young age of 32, in 2004. More importantly, Goswami’s act sparked a wave of violent protests and self-immolations across the country, claiming the lives of over 100 students, according to some estimates. Historian Ram Guha places the figure closer to 200.
These youngsters died for what? They were protesting against the implementation of the recommendations of the Second Backward Classes Commission (also known as the Mandal Commission) by Prime Minister VP Singh. With a single stroke of the pen, 27 per cent of seats in government employment and educational institutions were reserved for candidates from Other Backward Classes (OBC). The Mandal Commission, headed by Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal, the former Chief Minister of Bihar, was established by Prime Minister Morarji Desai.
The Collateral Damage
Whenever I reflect on the history, sociology, anthropology, and politics of caste-based reservation in the country, the faces of Rohith Vemula and Rajeev Goswami haunt me. Their messages are contrasting, yet both have inflicted undeniable collateral damage on the basic fabric of the nation, undermining the dreams of millions.
The central message of Rohith Vemula’s death by suicide is a sombre commentary on the state of the nation. It reveals that the true downtrodden have failed to rise above their station of birth. For meaningful change, Bharat needs a holistic reimagining of affirmative action policies.
I acknowledge that reservation has benefited many, but a significant number still remain deprived.
The central message arising from the tragic self-immolations of over 100 students is even more disastrous for the nation, primarily because political factions of all kinds continue to compete to expand the ever-increasing reservation base and percentage.
I humbly posit that the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs was driven more by political grandstanding and one-upmanship than by any real or perceived neglect of backward castes. The implementation of the Mandal Commission report has fostered a unique brand of identity politics that threatens to tear the nation apart.
The situation in 2024 is far more volatile than it was in 1990, and the simmering discontent among youth -with fast-growing unemployment in the country- over perceived or real discrimination could ignite at any moment. If proof of my assertion is needed, one need only look east to observe what is unfolding in Bangladesh.
Whither Bharat
From the outset, let me be clear: I am not opposed to a well-crafted, reimagined affirmative action policy that uplifts the downtrodden and the needy. I firmly believe that certain existential conditions necessitate the continuation of affirmative action for specific segments of the Indian population.
However, I must emphasise that affirmative action becomes meaningless if extended to the majority of the population, as is the current tendency across the political spectrum.
Sadly, it is the truly disadvantaged and needy—those for whom these policies were designed—who are being denied the real benefits of reservation. India today must fundamentally rethink its approach to affirmative action. We must restrict it to those in genuine need and diligently weed out the undeserving. It’s also time to acknowledge that reservation is not a panacea. The real need is to address the root causes of why certain groups or individuals require affirmative action.
India needs a targeted, tailored approach. One size does not fit all.
The Problem Definition
When granting the judicial stamp of approval to the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs, a nine-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India established a golden rule: reservations in educational institutions and jobs shall not exceed 50 per cent. However, in November 2022, a three-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court extended this limit to 60 per cent. This occurred when the court upheld the constitutional amendment granting an additional 10 per cent EWS quota to the “poorest of the poor” among forward castes.
Where does Bharat stand today?
Since the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgement of the Supreme Court, numerous states—including Bihar and Maharashtra (most recently), Haryana, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh—have passed laws exceeding the 50 per cent limit. Others are waiting in the wings. If states haven’t yet succeeded in reserving 100 per cent or near 100 per cent of seats based on real or perceived reasons of backwardness or historical injustice, it is solely due to judicial intervention.
The foremost question on my mind is whether the framers of the Constitution of India envisioned Bharat as it exists today. And can this Bharat truly achieve viksit status by 2047? To answer these questions and grapple with the many others swirling in my mind, Part II will delve deeper into the history and sociology of reservation in India, examining the debates of the Constituent Assembly, constitutional provisions, and judicial pronouncements. I will also explore why everyone in the country seems unwilling to take the bull by the horns.
The author is Multidisciplinary Thought Leader with Action Bias, India Based International Impact Consultant, and keen watcher of changing national and international scenario. He works as President Advisory Services of Consulting Company BARSYL. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment