Sub-categorisation verdict: India needs a reservation model solving the problem of caste, not perpetuating it
By Anand Teltumbde
Originally published in theLeaflet.in.
The recent verdict of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upholding the legality of the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for the purpose of reservations has already created an avalanche of reactions, both positive and negative, most groping like the proverbial blind man describing an elephant.
The positive reactions are coming from die-hard, self-proclaimed progressives who are enamoured with any phraseology that appears to favour the downtrodden, irrespective of the long-term impact of the decisions ensconced in that phraseology.
The negative reactions are coming from the populous constituents of SCs, who stand accused of grabbing a disproportionate share of reservations.
These populous constituents are mainly arguing that sub-classification is not constitutionally permitted. Though they are technically correct (despite the contrary opinion of the Supreme Court), it is a lame argument in relation to the issue at hand.
Both the verdict as well as the discussions betray a lack of understanding of caste and reservations and skirt around the issue.
Political nexus
Reservation, even in its earliest form when Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur instituted it in 1902, had a clear political motive.
He acknowledged that Brahmins not only dominated the social, religious and economic spheres but also tightly controlled the State administration through their strong nexus.
Shahu Maharaj understood that unless he took steps to dismantle this Brahmin hegemony, it would be difficult to implement the reforms he envisioned. This realisation led him to institute 50 percent reservations for non-Brahmins in his State. Similar motives can be observed in subsequent implementations of reservation policies.
The genesis of the current form of reservations lies in the demand by Dalits (SCs) for adequate representation in the colonial power structure during the British-led reforms aimed at devolving power to the natives.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who was a strong advocate for Dalit rights, pushed this demand during the Round Table Conferences and secured it through the Ramsay MacDonald’s Communal Award.
This award implicitly recognised the exceptional circumstances of the Untouchables and the need for exceptional measures such as separate electorates and reserved seats. It created an administrative category of ‘Scheduled Castes’ comprising those who suffered from Untouchability, based on a thorough survey conducted by the government.
Unbeknownst to the British, this category of ‘Scheduled Castes’, created for the purpose of implementing the reservations granted to the Untouchable castes in legislative bodies, could become an administrative caste, merging hundreds of castes with their ritualistic identities.
It took away the lowest strata from the religion-ordained Hindu caste system, which constituted its scaffolding, and thus potentially paved the way for the demolition of the caste system.
When the Constituent Assembly unanimously resolved to abolish Untouchability, it could very well abolish castes too, without affecting the reservations to the Dalits.
After all, Untouchability could not be abolished without the abolition of castes. But castes were left untouched with an alibi of reservations. The real intention was to preserve castes as potential weapons to manipulate the masses.
The hidden intention went unnoticed and remains so even today. Therefore, the changes that befell the ‘Scheduled Castes’ as well as the reservations in independent India also went unnoticed.
Without understanding these basics, one cannot understand whatever is happening today with castes or reservations.
Contemporary reservations
Initially, reservations were demanded and won for political representation in legislative bodies and later extended to the bureaucracy using the same logic of representation.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who played a key role in securing reservations for the ex-Untouchables, emphasised that they needed to occupy important positions in the bureaucracy to protect the interests of the Dalit masses.
He, therefore, exhorted them to pursue higher education so as to get into government service. Reservations were intended to counteract the social prejudice against Dalits prevalent among the entrenched classes (read castes) within the bureaucracy, who would otherwise be unlikely to recruit a Dalit without statutory compulsion.
Thus, reservation was conceived as a countervailing force by the State against societal prejudice.
Initially, reservation in public employment was implemented as a preferential system since there were not enough educated Dalits to justify a quota.
The colonial government agreed to prioritise the recruitment of qualified Dalits. However, when Ambedkar became a member of the viceroy’s executive council, he pushed for a quota system to replace the ad hoc preferential system, which led to the introduction of an 8.33 percent reservation quota for Dalits in 1943.
After Independence, the colonial reservation system was adopted and extended to STs through the creation of a similar Schedule.
However, unlike the static Schedule for SCs during the colonial period, which had no provision for alteration, the new Schedules allowed the President to add or delete castes and tribes from their respective lists. This change opened a political space for manipulation, marking a shift towards preserving caste and tribal identities under the guise of social justice.
The extension of reservation to STs was fraught with challenges because, unlike the clear criterion of Untouchability for the SCs, there was no definitive criterion to identify tribes for inclusion or exclusion.
The ambiguity in the criteria to include or exclude a member of the STs from reservation eventually diluted the original concept of reservation.
While State support for these socially excluded groups was necessary, reservation was not the only means to provide it. The extension of reservation to STs, similar to SCs, likely served a strategic purpose— to undermine the concept of reservations as an exceptional policy for exceptional people.
If the goal of extending reservation to tribal people was to address social prejudice, they could have been integrated into the same Schedule as SCs with a corresponding increase in the quota. This approach would have diluted the caste stigma associated with SCs, as STs were not Untouchables.
After all, these Schedules were created on the basic recognition of exclusion. The arguments against a unified Schedule based on differences in educational and social status between SCs and STs apply equally to both groups. Neither the SC nor the ST Schedule is homogeneous in any respect other than social exclusion.
It is crucial to note that the sole criterion for reservation for these categories was their social identity as ex-Untouchables or tribes, which excluded them from the mainstream.
The only implicit condition to end these reservations was reasonable evidence that they no longer suffered from social prejudice due to their identities or that these identities had lost their social salience.
The further extension of reservation to Backward Classes, to be read as castes according to Dr Ambedkar, marked the ultimate step toward the casteisation, politicisation, and weaponisation of reservation.
The criterion of ‘social and educational backwardness’ used to identify these castes was flawed in the context of the hierarchical caste system and the overall educational backwardness of the country.
This caste-centric approach to backwardness inevitably led to competitive claims by all communities, resulting in the casteisation of society— a situation we face today.
While I am not against State support for weaker communities or denying that the Backward Classes deserve assistance, backwardness cannot justify exceptional measures such as reservation.
Reservation is a complex, multi-edged tool that requires extreme caution in its application. It was never the only means to achieve social justice. Meaningful social justice can only exist in an environment of broader justice, which could be created by universalising key elements of empowerment: healthcare, education and land reforms— areas that successive governments have neglected all these years.
Only after achieving universal access to these essentials should additional measures of social justice be considered to address specific obstacles to empowerment.
Had the government sincerely pursued the universalisation of these basic needs, the necessity for reservations, even for SCs, might have been eliminated. All advanced countries have progressed by empowering their populations through land reforms, robust public healthcare systems, and free, high-quality universal education.
Instead of following this proven path, the governments have deliberately chosen methods that preserve caste and communal identities, pitting them against each other under the guise of social justice.
Reservations are a countervailing measure by the State against society’s disability to grant the SCs their dues. This measure would cease once society overcame its disability.
Such a clear premise would have shifted the focus from the SCs to society’s disability, which was rooted in its caste consciousness. This approach would have rightly placed the responsibility of eradicating caste-based discrimination on society, turning the prevailing notion of reservation on its head.
In the absence of such a clear premise to end reservations once society grants SCs their dues, the SCs are perceived as recipients of undeserving largesse from society’s resources. Reservation has thus added to the woes of Dalits who, in addition to suffering caste discrimination, have to suffer societal resentment.
Had the policy been properly formulated and effectively communicated, this societal resentment against SCs would have become an acknowledgment of societal disability— a source of embarrassment rather than grievance.
In contrast, the current policy portrays SCs as sufferers of some disability that needed the helping hand of the State to bring them into the mainstream. It induces a sense of inferiority in them, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy where they underperform, thus perpetuating the need for reservations.
A more thoughtfully designed policy could have avoided this psychological burden on the SCs and motivated them to surpass the limitations imposed by reservations by becoming part of the mainstream.
Such a policy was very much possible which could have avoided the adversarial relationship between the SCs and the larger society, and motivated them to work towards the annihilation of caste prejudices, if not castes themselves, and thereby do away with the need for reservations at the earliest.
The omission of drafting a reservation policy that would alleviate the social injustice of SCs was not accidental but a deliberate strategy of the ruling classes to perpetuate caste as a potent tool to manipulate the masses.
Understanding caste
Let us turn our attention to castes. Castes have evolved over a long period, and despite official attempts to enumerate them, they could not be reduced to a definite number. The complexity lies in the existence of castes, sub-castes, and even sub-sub-castes, all of which surface dynamically depending on context.
Regarding the SCs, which are the focus of the verdict, its constituent castes have been definitively enumerated, but not in their entirety. For instance, each caste has several subcastes, which are socially as salient as the caste themselves.
The Supreme Court’s verdict is based on the observation that the SC category is not homogeneous. The question is, homogeneous in what? The castes were grouped together under the SC category based on the sole criterion of Untouchability.
The court’s observation seems to introduce extraneous factors such as educational and economic development, with some judges even suggesting the exclusion of the ‘creamy layer’ for consideration of reservation. This approach is logically flawed because it imposes criteria that were never intended to define the category.
The SCs were meant to be homogeneous only on the criterion of Untouchability. During the initial enumeration, the surveyors did encounter challenges, especially in the East and South.
In the East, Untouchability did not manifest in the form as it did elsewhere in the country. On the contrary, in the South, over 70 percent of the population was considered Untouchable, with varying intensity of Untouchability.
These issues were resolved by applying additional criteria to normalise the population of the SCs in every region. The question of homogeneity, therefore, was addressed solely in the context of Untouchability and any further assumptions as reflected in the verdict are misguided.
It may be axiomatic to say that no caste is homogenous across all parameters. If this is the case, then it raises the question of how a combination of these castes could achieve homogeneity.
The concept of homogeneity applies more accurately to class rather than caste. When the Schedule for Untouchable castes was initially prepared, these castes might have been broadly homogenous in terms of their educational, social and economic standing.
However, over the years, due to factors such as reservations and electoral politics, distinct classes have emerged within each caste. Sub-classification might make sense when viewed through the lens of class, but here we are talking about caste!
It is often argued that certain castes within the SC category have disproportionately benefited from reservations, leading to the exclusion of others. This argument holds merit, as it is typically the most populous and historically more enterprising castes within the SC category that have made greater strides.
For the same reasons, most leaders of the anti-caste movement emerged from these castes, inspiring their communities to progress. Dr Ambedkar, who became a pan-Indian icon for Dalits, had encouraged them to pursue education. But it is only the populous castes that identified with him and followed him, leading to their preponderance in government services and other fields.
While this is an undeniable fact at the caste level, it may not hold true at the sub-caste or family levels. The current policy overlooks the fallacy that while reservations are counted for a caste, they are actually granted to individuals.
No combination of castes can fully address the uneven distribution of reservation benefits within a caste. The crucial difference often lies in the initial advantage. It is akin to a race where one participant is allowed a headstart; the one behind is inevitably handicapped.
The more populous castes appear to have benefitted disproportionately from reservations because they were already concentrated in towns and cities, with better access to amenities, awareness and motivation.
The current reservation policy is blind to the fact that the family of the beneficiary of the reservation gains a competitive edge over that of a non-beneficiary. This creates a situation of double jeopardy for others.
Populous SCs initially had the advantage of accessing reservations when competition was limited. Subsequently, their offspring are positioned more advantageously due to better amenities, awareness and motivation, allowing them to continue to outperform others and grab a higher share of reservations.
This process itself implies that it is not the entire caste but only some families that benefit from reservations within the caste. Moreover, this process leads to increasingly narrowing the population of beneficiaries instead of broadening it.
Discussing benefits at the level of caste is thus misleading because it overlooks the statistical variance of benefits within the caste. A disproportionate beneficiary caste does not mean that all individuals or families within it have benefited equally.
At the level of caste, the mean of benefit may be higher in the case of a populous SC but if one considers variance, one may find that it is not evenly distributed.
One may hazard a guess that this variance may not be significantly different from the variance obtained in the non-beneficiary SCs. It is not unimaginable that within populous SCs, there are significant differences based on factors such as urban versus rural location, land ownership and regional disparities, which also applies to others.
A caste might seem better off on average, but this does not account for the internal inequalities.
For instance, while the Mahars of Maharashtra may have benefitted more than the Mangs or Chambhars, this does not mean that reservation benefits are equally distributed among all Mahars.
If the objective is to evenly distribute reservation benefits, the Supreme Court’s verdict and much of the commentary on the issue may be missing the point. In every caste, a small number of families often have an advantage over others, which naturally leads them to secure a disproportionate share of the benefits available to their group.
If sub-classification within castes were implemented, the same problem of unequal benefit distribution would arise within each sub-group, potentially exacerbating the issue rather than solving it.
The key to addressing the uneven distribution of reservation benefits lies in recognising that it is not the caste but rather the individual beneficiary’s family that gains from reservations. Therefore, any policy amendments should focus on the family sans caste rather than playing up with castes.
The solution
The sub-classification demand first cropped up from the Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi, popularly known as the Madiga Dandora Movement in the then Andhra Pradesh in the mid-1990s.
The Madigas had accused the Malas, the populous SCs in Andhra Pradesh of disproportionately grabbing reservation benefits.
I had put a simple counter-question to the proponents: if they are given their share of the reservation, how will they ensure it is evenly distributed among all sub-castes of the Madigas. None of them could give me an answer.
Likewise, they did not have an answer to my next question, whether all Mala sub-castes or the same sub-caste across all regions of Andhra Pradesh had gained equitable benefits of reservation. The problem was not unreal but the solution proposed smacked of ignorance of reality.
The solution to this problem, which should have occurred to the formulators of the policy if they had been diligent, has to be based on the reality that the real beneficiary of the reservation was the family of the beneficiary and not the caste.
And in order that reservation benefits accrue to all people equitably, the families that availed of reservation should suffer proportionate (to the received benefit) suppression of their chances next time they try to get reservation.
It is only with such a formula that one could ensure that reservation benefits would accrue to all people. It avoids a simplistic binary solution of exclusion and inclusion, suggested by the term ‘creamy layer’, which often causes more harm than good.
Instead, this formula emphasises proportionality: the suppression of chances should be proportionate to the benefits gained previously, which can be measured by assigning values to various reservations.
Since the solution is not as complex as it might seem. The family, which is the basic unit in this model, is simply defined as comprising a father, mother and children until the children marry and establish their own families.
An individual seeking reservation benefits directly from their own accomplishments and those of their parents, but to a lesser extent from the achievements of their siblings.
In the model, this is represented as 100 percent and 50 percent. The inputs can be easily gathered from an application form that should seek a history of availing reservations.
Reservation benefits are tracked across key areas such as education and employment and the objective is to minimise the chances of a beneficiary receiving multiple benefits at the expense of others.
To illustrate, a scheme of points could be established based on the level of benefits received. For example, within the educational sphere, different points could be assigned to reservation benefits received at the graduation and post-graduation levels, reflecting the different potential values these levels provide to beneficiaries. (…) Similarly, a simple assignment schema is proposed for employment reservations:
The merit of this system shall be:
- It does not exclude the beneficiaries summarily but decreases their chances in accordance with reservation benefits they already earned.
- It is simple enough for collection of data as well as computation.
- It ensures a just distribution of reservation benefits irrespective of castes and communities.
Postscript
I have been offering this solution since the 1990s when the demand for sub-categorisation first emerged in Andhra Pradesh.
For reservation benefits to accrue to all people equitably, the families that availed of reservation should suffer proportionate (to the received benefit) suppression of their chances the next time they try to get reservation.
It was presented in conceptual terms but not difficult to understand if there was a genuine willingness to address the issue. But obviously, some people do not want problems to be solved; they have vested interests in amplifying and perpetuating them, something that the ruling classes seem to revel in.
That said, the core issue remains: when the space for reservations continues to be diminished due to the onslaught of neoliberal policies and initiatives such as lateral entry, what value do these solutions hold?