The government has planned a surgical strike on the political space by accepting the opposition’s demand of caste census in the country. It was not expected that inheritors of the legacy of M.S. Golwalkar and K.B. Hegdewar would go ahead with an idea not in keeping with the ‘Sanatana Dharma’. It is also opposed to “Ek rahange to safe ranhenge” The very idea of elimination of caste is a progressive belief foreign to the parampara espoused by the RSS.
It is also interesting that Rahul Gandhi’s stand is inconsistent with that of his great grandfather, grandmother, and his father all of whom skirted the caste census, when in power. Rahul’s left turn in politics places him in on the same side as Ram Manohar Lohia and Ambedkar, both of whom had very little in common with Congress. Full marks to BJP politically. They have seized the moment and accepted the atmosphere of inevitability created by Rahul Gandhi, something even Pandit Nehru was not open to. I believe that if there is one thing common between RSS and Nehru, it was avoiding caste census.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Caste based reservation has always had polarizing tendency. Kaka Kalelkar who headed the First Backward classes commission himself opposed the provision for reservations, leading to his report being shelved. The circumstances under which the Mandal commission report was implemented by VP Singh are all known to all. That it led to OBC domination and change of political discourse in the Hindi heartland is a different matter altogether.
The problem with the caste census is the linkage with caste-based reservation. Backward classes have suffered discrimination and that is sought to be undone through reservations as the only ladder of upward mobility. Census will provide data on economic, social, educational, and political issues of the backward castes. Some may require educational support, some may have to be supported economically. Some may require reservations and some may not. Looking at census only through the prism of reservations is weaponising the data. The robust data must be used for changing the stagnant system by reasonable policy. That’s the challenge Reservation must bring in social change not further entrench the caste system. Caste Census in Bihar, Karnataka and Telangana did not bring in conflict but the implementation of Mandal commission recommendations ignited revolts and riots as the forwards felt they would have to share the cake with those who they felt were not their equals.
Rahul Gandhi’s claim “we will X-ray the country through caste census and ensure equitable share for every section is in line with the thoughts of foremost Congress critic Ram Manohar Lohia. Lohia believed that merit comes from opportunity, not ‘deceptive foundation of merit and qualification’
Anand Teltumbde grandson in law of Babasaheb is clearly opposed to caste census and resultant increase in the reservation a rhetorical flourish rather than a workable policy principle. He states that the moment castes are ranked for proportional benefits, the politics of competitive victimhood and sub quota agitations shall play out.
There has been little dispute over reservation as a ladder for upward mobility, the question has always been over the quantum. Ambedkar himself never called for proportional reservation. He demanded adequate representation. Babasaheb told the constituent assembly “Supposing, for instance, reservation were made for a community or a collection of communities, the total of which come to something like 70% of the total posts and only 30% are retained as the unreserved. Could anybody say that the reservation of 30% as open to general competition would be satisfactory from the point of view of giving effect to the first principle, namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity? It cannot be in my judgment. Therefore, if seats are to be reserved, it must be confined to a minority of seats.”
The interest of the community at large and advancement of backward classes was balanced by the 50% cap by the Supreme Court. ‘Speaking generally and in abroad way, a special provision should be less than 50%’ said the apex court in 1968 (M.R.Balaji). In 1992, a nine judge bench accepted the 50 % cap in the Mandal judgement with a rider that the rule could be breached in certain extraordinary situations. This laid a clear foundation for the principle of ‘equality of opportunity’ and protection of backwards. The highest court brought in the ‘creamy layer’ to ward off fostering of caste system. A 2006 case required the quantifiable data on backwardness of communities and overall impact (Nagaraj). For nearly forty-five years, the interests of the society were protected through the reasonableness of 50% ceiling. The ceiling also applied to political reservations also except in scheduled areas where special considerations are required for tribal rights like the North Eastern states.
Many states failed to breach the reasonable line. Chattisgarh law reserving 58% failed the test before the High Court. Marathas could not cross the line without empirical data. Telangana has 67% reservation structure. Tamil Nadu has crossed the line to 69%. The highest court is yet to take a call on that since 2012. Is the ceiling a facilitation to the progress of the country or an impediment in the progress of the backward castes. Now that the caste census is announced, demands of politics shall create a flashpoint to breach the ceiling. All political parties favour increase of OBC reservations and addition of dominant groups within the OBC net. No government at Centre or state had the gumption to bring in a proper creamy layer so that those who benefited from quota are warded off. Both Congress and BJP will compete to present higher quotas like they did on ‘revdis’. Reasonability and equality may be causality with the unelected getting the opportunity to have the last word!
(The writer is a political thinker who taught constitutional laws for over
three decades)
