Need to look beyond identities to remove inequalities

THE Supreme Court judgment validating the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservation has touched upon many contentious issues. Besides creating a ground for significant shifts in the reservation policy, it raises questions about the changing nature of caste and how the state policy should deal with it. As expected, the judgment has divided Dalit activists and political parties. The relatively more vocal and visible sections among the SCs have come out in opposition to the judgment. Those from smaller and more marginalised sections, who have been seeking sub-classification, have been less visible in the media space.

The judgment has come at a time when a section of the mainstream political class is aggressively campaigning for the need to enumerate the caste-wise socio-economic status of the Indian population. This, they are arguing, would help the country generate data on the levels of ‘backwardness’ among the less privileged social groups/castes. If the data shows that large sections of the people (read caste communities) are not represented in the political system, or institutions such as the bureaucracy and the media, policies could be made to make the country a more equal and representative society.

While the enumeration narrative mostly targets the OBCs (other backward classes), the apex court judgment raises questions about the category of SCs, the need to recognise internal differences among them and classify them into sub-categories for a more just distribution of the existing quotas for them. The judgment has also underlined the critical need for empirically verifiable data on the current nature of the socio-economic status of communities within the SC category. It is only after ascertaining such facts through hard data that the states can introduce quotas within quotas.

Interestingly, many of those who oppose the SC sub-classification judgment have been supporters of a caste-based census for ascertaining the status of OBCs. The case of SC reservations, they would argue, is different from that of OBCs. The OBCs have not been victims of untouchability and absolute exclusion. The economically well-off among them do not experience the kind of prejudice that a mobile SC is likely to encounter even after achieving a significant degree of economic success. The SCs, they would argue, were put together and classified as such because of their shared experience of having been treated as untouchables by mainstream Hindu society. Their inclusion in the SC list thus makes them a ‘homogeneous class’. Such a position has also been ascertained by earlier court judgments on sub-classification.

The history of SC enumeration and the provision for earmarking quotas for them goes back to the early years of the 20th century. The introduction of a population census by the British rulers in the latter half of the 19th century was an important turning point in the history of the Indian caste system. It changed the way caste had been imagined. From a local system of jaatis and their sub-units, it became possible to speak of caste communities at the pan-Indian level. This also paved a way for the identification of the most marginalised among them and their classification into a separate category of ‘depressed classes’. Being classified so also made a case for giving them special attention.

Some native rulers, too, played an active role in these welfare policies. The reservation policy was introduced by Shahu Maharaj, the ruler of Kolhapur, in 1902. The process continued to gain momentum and by the time India achieved Independence, there was a near consensus that the country needed to make special provisions for the uplift of those who had suffered untouchability and exclusion for centuries. BR Ambedkar’s presence in the Constituent Assembly as the Chair of the drafting committee ensured that they got a fair deal in the form of reservations.

India’s reservation policy has been one of the most successful state programmes of affirmative action in the modern world. It enabled the ex-untouchables to go to schools, colleges and universities for education and get employed in the state sector at all levels. It also made it possible for them to get members of their caste elected to state assemblies and Parliament. Over the years, it also produced a Dalit middle class, which articulates their anxieties and aspirations, from within.

Being together in the SC list, they also gained in numerical strength. As SCs they made up for a substantial proportion; in some states even more than a quarter of the total population. Numbers matter a great deal in electoral democracy. Leaders like Kanshi Ram were successful only because they were able to make their constituencies realise the value of their working together as a political bloc. However, their being together in the SC list has not resulted in a melting of their jaati identities. Categories like Dalit have acquired a national-level resonance, but in their everyday life, they remain divided. Their kinships are strictly limited to their jaat-biradari.

Every state of the Indian Union has a separate set of communities listed as SCs. It is likely that their sub-classification into separate blocks could weaken their political strength and ability to lobby with the state in support of the reservation action. It is also true that the mobility experienced by an individual from an SC caste through the quota system does not end social prejudice against the community of the beneficiary. It is in this context that it makes no sense to invoke the idea of a ‘creamy layer’ in the case of the SCs, and should not be considered for state policy.

However, we must also recognise that the demand for sub-classification has been raised from within, by those sections of the SC communities who have not been fairly represented in the quota jobs. There is a good amount of empirical evidence to support such a claim, making their demand appear legitimate.

Though a part of the Constitution, the SCs have not been a fixed or closed category. Many communities have been added to the list over the years. For example, in 1951, Punjab had 27 castes listed as SCs. Currently, their number is 39. The same is the case with many other states, and even with the lists of Scheduled Tribes.

If justice and hissedari/bhagidari are the objectives of the reservation system, the sub-classification proposal cannot be denied. If the objective is to make citizens out of those caught in entrenched inequalities, the policies of a democratic/welfare state ought to be driven by data and evidence, and not by identities alone.