Tag: India reservations

Debunking Myths Around Reservations for Dalit Muslims and Christians

If Sikhs (and Buddhists) can avail of both minority rights as a religious community and quota benefits owing to caste location then why should the same logic not be employed for Muslim and Christian minorities?

A half-truth being peddled by a few Bahujan social media mercenaries with recent sympathies toward the Hindu Right is that Muslims are already availing four kinds of reservations – Backward Muslims in the OBC category, Adivasi Muslims in the ST category, Upper Caste (Ashraf) Muslims in EWS category, and government-funded Muslim minority institutions – and therefore including the Dalit Muslims (or Christians) in the SC category is wrong.

It is a half-truth because the same logic applies to other religious minorities. Statutorily, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jain, and Zoroastrians (Parsis) have been notified as minority communities under Section 2 (c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. According to Article 30 (1) of the Indian Constitution, “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice,” and Article 30 (2) states that “The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.”

So the religious minorities can establish and administer religious institutions and seek government aid. Let us take the case of the Sikhs. The Sikhs have historically established and administered educational institutions with government aid. For instance, the SGTB Khalsa College, affiliated with Delhi University, reserves 50% of the seats for the Sikh candidates. The College, being a Sikh Minority Institution, has no purview of reservation for SC/ST/OBC/EWS. In terms of the quota matrix, the upper caste Sikhs are accommodated in the EWS quota, the Backward Sikhs in the OBC quota, and the Dalit Sikhs in the SC quota, and if there are Adivasi Sikhs, they can, in principle, be included in the ST category.

If Sikhs (and Buddhists) can avail of both minority rights as a religious community and quota benefits owing to caste location then why should the same logic not be employed for Muslim and Christian minorities? Why should Muslims and Christians of Dalit origins be excluded from the SC category?

Khalid Anis Ansari is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Azim Premji University.

Mohan Bhagwat Says RSS Always Supported Reservations. But Is That True?

A list of four times different leaders of the RSS have expressed views contrary to what Bhagwat is now claiming they hold.

New Delhi: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat has called a video of him doing the rounds on social media, in which he can be seen arguing against the idea of reservations, fake. “A video being circulated on social media says that the Sangh is against reservation. The Sangh offers its full support to all forms of reservations offered by the Constitution. The Sangh reiterates that whoever has been given reservations should continue to have them, as long as societal inequality exists,” Bhagwat said on Sunday (April 29).

Without going into the provenance of the video Bhagwat claims in fake, was he right in saying that the Sangh parivar has never stood against reservations? Here’s a list of four times different leaders of the RSS have expressed views contrary to what Bhagwat is now claiming they hold. A user on X, Rahul, first pointed to these instances.

1. Manmohan Vidya, 2017: ‘Reservations should end’

In January 2017, RSS’s the publicity chief Manmohan Vaidya – and currently, according to his X bio, its joint general secretary – said that reservations were introduced in a “different context” and must have “a time limit”.

“Reservations for SC/ST was introduced in a different context. It was provided for in the Constitution to remedy the historical injustice done to them. It was our responsibility. So, reservation for them has been there since the inception (of the Constitution). But, even Ambedkar has said its continuance in perpetuity is not good. There should be a time limit to it,” he said at the Jaipur Literature Festival. “Its continuance forever will promote sectarianism.”

2. K.N. Govindacharya, 2016: ‘Constitution should not be confined to reservations’

In an interview to The Wire in 2016, RSS ideologue K.N. Govindacharya talked about wanting to create a new framework for the Constitution, specifically saying that while reservation may help to some extent and be important “emotionally”, “we must discuss what more can be done to help people”.

“Our constitution is so vague, non-specific and basically a continuation of western philosophies of Hobbes, Locke and Kant. It is individual-centric and focused on his physical wellbeing. Our civilisation goes back 4,000-5,000 years,” he said, to try and justify why he thinks a new Constitution is required.

3. M.G. Vaidya, 2015: ‘No need for reservations now’

Speaking to The Hindu in 2015, RSS ideologue M.G. Vaidya said that reservations should be abolished. “There is no need for caste-based reservation now, because no caste has remained backward. At the most, continue it [reservation] for the SCs and STs, but only for 10 years. Abolish it [caste-based reservation] completely after that,” he said.

He also said that caste-based reservation has “strengthened” caste divisions rather than eradicating them.

4. Mohan Bhagwat, 2015: ‘Reservation policy should be reviewed’

In 2015, Bhagwat himself claimed that the reservation policy was being used for political ends, and so should be reviewed.

“We believe, form a committee of people genuinely concerned for the interest of the whole nation and committed for social equality, including some representatives from society, they should decide which categories require reservation and for how long,” he said, according to The Hindu. “The non-political committee like autonomous commissions should be the implementation authority; political authorities should supervise them for honesty and integrity.”

In 2019, he did not outright state his own position but said that there should be conversation in a harmonious atmosphere between those in favour of reservation and those against it.

Congress Manifesto’s Commitment to Social Justice Will Put Other Parties on the Defensive

Rahul Gandhi has repositioned his party’s ideology even while facing resistance from within his own ranks.

Two competing national parties, the Congress and the Bhartiya Janata Party have released their 2024 election manifestos. Congress has taken a radical position on social justice issues by adding a Samajik Nyay (social justice) pillar as part of its five economic justice pillars. It has promised a nationwide caste census along with the removal of the 50% cap on reservation by amending the Constitution, if it comes to power.

The BJP, on the other hand, remained completely silent on caste census, though there is a nationwide demand for it. It, in fact, is confined to its classical issue of Uniform Civil Code and also the pro-monopoly capital vikas ideology.

Anti-caste social justice began with its adoption in the Constitution in 1950. The new Constitution recognised the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as social categories that needs to be provided reservations in education, employment and also in electoral bodies based on their caste numbers.

However, the Congress party never made social justice ideology a part of its election manifesto. The Congress was not only the party that led the freedom struggle, but it was also the party that established the procedure for conducting elections in the country. Releasing a well-coded manifesto for each election was also introduced by the Congress. Till the BJP emerged as a national party after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the Congress was the only national party that declared impactful manifestos nationwide with some welfare policies. The communists and socialists were not a major electoral force, nor were they faithful to the Constitution as they saw it as a bourgeoisie document. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its political arm, the Jan Sangh, also had no faith in the Constitution as they saw it as Western and anti-Hindutva. Therefore elections for them were a tactical method to defame the Congress and the communists.

Also read: What I Told Rahul Gandhi As I Walked With Him in the Bharat Jodo Yatra

Indian democracy, till the BJP emerged as a national alternative to the Congress in the 1990s, was a one-party show. Yet they were putting their manifestos before the nation in each election. In 1990, the Mandal movement and the Shudra/OBC reservations changed the Congress’s fortunes. Even then, the Congress refused to recognise caste as a category of electoral mobilisation.

Their identity politics remained confined to the Muslim minority and also to some extent to the SC/STs as a reservation force. But they did not touch the caste system or formulate ideas and policies for weakening the control of Dwija communities like the Brahmins, Baniyas, Kayasthas, Khatris and Kshatriyas on the party and the nation. The Congress was totally under the grip of so-called secular Dwijas.

The Nehru family played a key role in shaping that secular Brahminism. Nehru opposed the implementation of the Kaka Kalelkar Report and Indira Gandhi opposed implementing the Mandal Commission Report with a view that once the Shudra/OBCs are brought under the national reservation policy the history of India would change. The Indian state refused to recognise the Shudras as an oppressed fourth varna in the Indian social system.

Most if not all the Congress leaders, perhaps except Nehru, considered themselves spiritually Hindu. They refused to recognise that the Hindu spiritual system looked at the Shudra agrarian masses as un-equals and oppressed even after the Constitutional republic was established.

When the Congress was the monopoly ruling party, it did not want to create a crisis within the ruling Dwija forces. But when the crisis was forced from outside it should have responded in a social reformist way. Rajiv Gandhi and Dwija forces around him in 1990 failed to respond in a creative, reformist way in the wake of implementation of the Mandal Report by the V.P.Singh government in 1990.

That misjudgment of the Congress in 1990 pushed the nation into the hands of Shudra regional parties and gradually into the hands of the BJP with a diabolical identity politics that the RSS/BJP adopted by bringing in Narendra Modi with an OBC certificate in his hands, as an agent of the Gujarati-Mumbai corporate capital. It is this Baniya-led capital craving for monopoly control over the Indian political system that created a deeper crisis for the Congress. It became a party of no resources and no capital support. Now, ten years of that monopoly control of the Gujarati-Mumbai-Baniya capital with Modi as its agent has weakened the Congress to a point that it could disappear from the national scene if it did not take a radical step by repositioning itself with a strong social justice agenda. Without such an agenda, regional parties that came into existence with social justice and caste identity politics as their main planks would not join hands with the Congress.

The RSS/BJP reached the monopoly political place where it is today with the full support of monopoly capital and half-hearted social justice plank, with a game plan of manoeuvring the consciousness of people with Mandir talk, money and strategic mass mobilisation.

Finally Rahul Gandhi, who comes from the same Nehru family, realised the need for repositioning the party’s ideological agenda, though there was opposition in his own party. He took a major step  by adopting social justice as one of the main five pillars of the Congress’s 2024 manifesto. The declaration that once the Congress comes to power in Delhi nationwide a caste census will be taken up and the Constitution will be amended to overcome the 50% reservation cap imposed by the Supreme Court was included in the manifesto.

After such a major repositioning of the Congress’s electoral ideology, Rahul and the party are facing internal opposition. A senior leader of the party, Anand Sharma, has already written a letter to the party’s president that such a move into identity politics is against the party’s heritage. Some other leaders that come from a Dwija family background have already left the party, though citing other reasons. But actually they do not want to go with Rahul on the question of social justice.

But Rahul had no way but to take a radical step, like Indira Gandhi took against the wishes of senior leaders in the context of her electoral agenda of Garibi Hatao, bank nationalisation and abolition of privy purses in the early 1970s. She rebuilt her party with new faces.

Also read: 2024 Lok Sabha Elections Are a Fight to Win Back the Nation’s Soul

A party like the Congress accepting such a Shudra/OBC demand for nationwide caste census will have huge implications for all parties. The BJP cannot escape the heat of this Samajik Nyay pillar in the Congress manifesto. However the BJP tries to belittle Rahul, they cannot ignore the social justice pillar of the Congress. The regional parties find no way to distinguish between the Congress and themselves once this manifesto goes to the masses across the country. The RSS/BJP, which managed the Shudra/OBC votes by giving a share in electoral power to castes that had no representation in different states and of course with Modi as an OBC face, will not be able to ignore the Congress manifesto.

Rahul, after V.P. Singh, will be seen as the leader having come from the Dwija (Brahmin) family background who changed the ideology of the grand old party that brought independence to India. After Mahatma Gandhi, he will be seen as a socio-political reform leader in the country. No amount of organised dismissal campaigns against him will work hereafter.

His stature as a socio-political reformist leader will not be confined to just electoral politics. The Shudra/OBCs see him as their man more than Modi now.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book is The Clash of Cultures (Productive Masses Vs Hindutva-Mullah Conflicting Ethics).

Karnataka: Muslims Excluded But Jains, Christians Eligible for Backward Classes Quota

While Muslims were removed from the 2B Backward Class category (which they had been made a part of in 1994) through the March 27 order, Christians and Jains are classified under the 2D category.

New Delhi: In an order dated March 27, the Bharatiya Janata Party government in Karnataka has reclassified the definition of ‘backward classes’ for reservations, excluding Muslims from eligibility. However, Jains (Digamabaras) and Christians remain eligible for the reservations.

As The Wire has reported, the BJP government removed the 4% reservation that the Muslims had so far accessed and added the same equally between the state’s powerful caste groups – Lingayats and Vokkaligas – taking their quota to 5% and 7%, respectively. The Muslims have been moved to the EWS (economically weaker sections) category which has a total of 10%; they have to share the same with a few groups like the Jains and Brahmins.

While Muslims were removed from the 2B Backward Class category (which they had been made a part of in 1994) through the March 27 order, Christians and Jains are classified under the 2D category, the Indian Express reported.

On March 26, Union home minister Amit Shah congratulated state chief minister Basavaraj Bommai on the “bold decision”. Shah said that giving quotas based on religion was against the constitution.

On March 24, Bommai had said, “There is no provision under the Constitution for reservation to religious minorities … It was struck down by the court in Andhra Pradesh. Even Dr B R Ambedkar had said that reservation was for castes.”

Opposition parties have criticised the new reservation policy, arguing that many different studies have classified Muslims as socially and economically backward. Muslim groups too have held protests in some parts of the state.

The Karnataka assembly elections will be held on May 10, and counting of votes on May 13.

EWS Quota: Why Poverty Alone Can’t Be a Basis for Reservation

Affirmative action to improve educational and economic opportunities for the under-represented is justified. But analysis shows that the poor among the different socio-religious groups are not similar.

The Supreme Court has upheld the 10% quota for the economically weaker sections (EWS) of society, which was implemented in 2019 by the Narendra Modi government. The quota is exclusive for people from the general category and excludes the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and the socially and educationally backward classes. It applies to all government jobs, private and state-funded educational institutions. However, educational institutions run by minority groups have been excluded.

The EWS quota judgment has been opposed on the ground that reservations are a means to compensate for past injustices. So, they cannot be solely based on economic criteria. Further, the exclusion of SCs, STs, and socially and educationally backward classes is discriminatory.

It is argued that the EWS quota breaches the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling that reservation could not exceed 50% of the seats available.

The judgment was defended saying that reservations were intended to reduce inequality in society and that disadvantages could arise solely out of poverty. This argument, however, is misplaced.

Reservations were never meant to reduce inequality. One must understand the difference between affirmative action and quota to identify the remedy for socio-economic backwardness.

Affirmative action is an effort by institutions to improve educational and economic opportunities for under-represented groups and communities. Quotas attempt to bring diversity to the different institutions of the state.

To address the issue of socio-economic backwardness, affirmative action to improve educational and economic opportunities for the under-represented is justified. However, such policies might not address the problem adequately if these communities face discrimination.

Being equally meritorious does not ensure equal participation for these communities. In such a scenario, reservation becomes inevitable.

The most debatable issue concerning reservations has always been who should be provided with this benefit. The question on this issue is whether the poor are ‘homogenous’. The available empirical evidence does not support the claim of homogeneity among the poor.

The indicators related to education and employment may be used to highlight the unequal status of the poor belonging to different social and religious groups.

For education, the population may be divided into five equal groups, each comprising 20% of the population, with a monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) in increasing order, known as the ‘quintile’. This method aims to study the performance of the population with regard to education and employment opportunities across different economic backgrounds.

Also read: EWS Quota a Stupefying Inversion of the Idea of Equality

Higher education

The percentage of the population with a higher education degree may be used as an indicator to compare the status of different groups among different quintiles.

At an all-India level, 8% of the population has a higher education degree. This figure stands at 2.5% for the bottom 20% of the population and 27% for the top 20%.

Data shows the number of people with a higher education degree is highest among the Hindu high castes (HHCs) in every income group. At the same time, SCs, STs, and Muslims lie at the bottom for every income group.

Even among the bottom income groups, which signify the MPCE in the range of Rs. 83.3 and Rs. 1,250, only 0.92% of the population among the STs, 1.9% among the SCs, 1.3% among Muslims, and 2.8% among the Hindu other backward classes (HOBCs) have a higher education degree.

However, nearly 7% of the population is a higher education graduate among the HHCs. This pattern does not shift substantially for the bottom three income quintiles, but it jumps in the fourth and fifth quintiles without affecting the group-based hierarchy.

Table 1: Percentage of population with higher education degree

Consumption expenditure

range (in Rs.)

 83.3-1250 1250-1692 1692.5-22 2276-3333 3333.4-80 Total
ST 0.92 2.5 3.3 8.2 27.0 3.7
SC 1.9 3.0 4.3 7.7 19.7 4.7
HOBC 2.8 3.8 5.8 9.8 23.8 7.1
HHC 6.8 7.0 9.9 16.3 34.4 17.4
Muslims 1.3 2.0 2.8 6.4 15.4 4.0
Total 2.5 3.7 5.7 10.5 27.0 8.0

Source: 75th round National Sample Survey, 2017-18

A similar pattern is observed if one looks at the gross attendance ratio (GAR), which is measured as the percentage of the 18-23 years population currently attending higher education.

The STs and Muslims are at the bottom, and the SCs are slightly better than them. The only exception is the top income groups, where the GAR among STs is higher than HHCs and that among SCs and HOBCs is similar.

However, Muslims lag behind all the other groups in this category as well.

The conventional hierarchy exists in the bottom 80% of the population, with SCs, STs, and Muslims lying at the bottom.

Table 2: Gross attendance ratio in higher education

Consumption expenditure range (in Rs.) 83.3-1250 1250-1692 1692.5-2275 2276-3333.3 3333.4-80200 Total
ST 7.0 12.8 16.9 24.6 63.4 15.8
SC 12.3 17.3 22.7 32.3 50.2 21.1
HOBC 16.9 20.7 29.4 38.3 50.0 28.2
HHC 24.6 30.0 34.3 40.0 59.1 40.7
Muslim 7.3 11.0 15.9 27.0 38.7 16.4
Rest 16.6 40.4 28.1 39.5 57.2 43.3
Total 13.4 18.8 25.7 35.3 53.1 26.3

Source: Author’s calculation based on the periodic labour force survey data, 2019-20

Quality of jobs

The percentage of regular workers out of the total population of workers may be used as an indicator to measure the access to quality jobs among different groups.

The pattern across socio-religious groups is also observed in the share of regular workers.

At the national level, nearly 23% of the workers are regular employees. This figure varies from 8.5% in the bottom 20% to 46.9% among the top 20%. The share of regular workers is higher among the HHCs across socio-religious groups.

In the bottom 20% of the population, 6% of the STs, 8% of the SCs and OBCs, and 11% of the Muslims are regular employees. However, nearly 13% of the workers among the HHCs are regular employees.

This gap with the HHCs continues to exist in all income groups. The gap between the Muslims and the HHCs widens in the upper quintile.

Table 3: Share of regular employees out of the total number of workers, 2019-20

Consumption expenditure

range (in Rs.)

 0-1160 1160-1500 1500-2000 2000-2850 2850-1050 Total
ST 5.7 8.0 14.5 24.8 44.5 13.4
SC 8.0 11.9 19.3 28.8 48.0 20.5
HOBC 8.2 10.2 17.0 22.9 43.4 20.2
HHC 13.4 17.3 25.4 32.2 52.3 34.9
Muslims 10.9 14.3 20.3 24.8 41.6 21.5
All India 8.5 11.8 19.3 26.6 46.9 22.9

Source: Author’s calculation based on the periodic labour force survey data, 2019-20

The empirical evidence suggests that SCs and STs are mostly concentrated in low-quality jobs. Further, they mainly engage in jobs on a contractual basis.

The share of SCs and STs in government jobs is above their population share in the bottom 20% population. However, their share in government jobs falls short of their population share in the top 20% of the population.

This shows that the SCs and STs are highly concentrated in low-quality government jobs while their representation in the top positions is not sufficiently high.

Nearly 73% of the ST government workers and 77% of the SC and OBC government workers in the bottom 20% population do not have any written contract of one year or above.

For the HHCs, the figure stands at 64%. For the OBCs, this figure is similar at both extremes.

Muslims, however, are severely under-represented in both types of jobs. Their share in government jobs is less than half of their population in both quintiles.

On the other extreme, the share of HHCs is almost three times higher in the top quintile than that of the bottom quintile, which shows their high presence in the top-quality jobs. Even in low-quality jobs, their share of contractual jobs (approximately 65%) is lower than the SCs, STs and HOBCs.

Table 4: Share of regular employees out of total workers in the government sector, 2019-20

Consumption expenditure range (in Rs.) ST SC HOBC HHC Muslim Rest Total
0-1160 18.0 31.6 30.3 13.6 6.0 0.41 100
2850-1050 6.7 15.7 30.4 37.4 5.3 4.57 100

Source: Author’s calculation based on periodic labour force survey data, 2019-20

Also read: EWS Quota: Newspaper Editorials Question Exclusions, Believe Concerns Will Remain

It is clearly evident that the poor among the different socio-religious groups are not similar. Whatever income level is used as a measure of poverty, the SCs, STs, and Muslims emerge as the most vulnerable groups in terms of education and employment.

Given that the HHCs are doing better than these underprivileged groups, any type of discriminatory reservation policy is highly likely to accentuate inequality instead of reducing it. The evidence also shows that if any group needs quotas at this juncture, it is Muslims, who are severely under-represented in terms access to educational and employment opportunities.

There is also evidence of religion-based discrimination faced by Muslims in accessing employment and education opportunities, though only a few scientific studies have been done on it so far.

In one of the studies sponsored by Oxfam India, namely the India Discrimination Report 2022, the author (with professor Amitabh Kundu) has highlighted the identity-based discrimination faced by the SCs, STs, Muslims, and women in accessing employment, using an indirect method based on secondary data.

Another study on education using indirect data based on secondary data also highlights that merely improving the educational and economic background of the family is unlikely to remove the existing caste, ethnic, and religion-based inequality in society. This is to note that the EWS reservation availed to the Muslim community would hardly reach the poor among them due to their far more vulnerable condition than the economically weaker sections of other communities.

Thus, any intervention should adequately take note of the socio-religious identity of an individual. Poverty can’t be a basis for reservation, though it may be so for affirmative action, as the poor in different communities do not perform similarly.

The poor from privileged backgrounds are in a better position than those from underprivileged backgrounds.

The exclusion of SCs and STs is not justified based on empirical evidence. The inclusion of Muslims is unlikely to address their problem due to their far more vulnerable condition than those of the Hindu high castes. The EWS reservation is likely to amplify rather than reduce inequality.

Khalid Khan is an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, and has a PhD from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Indiscriminate Extension of Reservations Is a Lazy Form of Politics. What We Need Is Redistribution

Extending reservations to the ‘upper castes’ who are poor or singly disadvantaged delegitimises the concept of double disadvantage: social marginalisation and economic ill-being.

The state of politics in our country has thrown up an issue of great importance: the enormous need to incorporate into university academic syllabi a course on political concepts used in everyday political vocabularies. This will allow university students, whatever be their academic passion or professional ambition, to understand that all political concepts are, in the celebrated words of W.B. Gallie, ‘contested’.

It is alarming to discover that the most learned of political commentators use concepts such as egalitarianism, equal opportunity, democracy, justice, and particularly, social justice, as if each of these is self-explanatory. They are not.

Plato in ancient Athens set about conceptualising the idea of justice. We are still debating the virtue of procedural justice versus substantive justice, egalitarianism versus equalitarianism, and freedom versus equality. We cannot use political concepts unthinkingly. For in the process we scar and diminish them.

Take the concept of democracy which has been reduced to a pathetic common denominator: elections and majoritarianism. The majority principle is merely workable, it is not morally justifiable. And elections have catapulted into power people with criminal records. How can these two principles add up to democracy?

Today there is concern about the way the policy pronouncement on 10% reservations in education and public jobs for the poor of any caste, except those who are already the beneficiary of reservations, is justified. Normative political theorists assume that policies that adversely or positively affect our fellow citizens have been announced after considerable reflection on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed policy, consideration on what they portend for the future of the country, and how policies enhance democracy.

Also read: EWS Quota a Stupefying Inversion of the Idea of Equality

We are naïve. Today policies are announced, notably on the eve of elections. And everyone who is in a position to command a modicum of attention in the public domain rushes to justify them ex post facto. Hitherto independent institutions have been reduced to public relations firms, upholding executive decisions that are ill-thought out and dangerous.

This is not to suggest that poverty is not a bad or an ‘ugh’ word in political theory. No society that prides itself on its democratic credentials should be able to tolerate the spectacle of poor people, our fellow-citizens, huddled on pavements on cold winter nights. There are ways of dealing with poverty that are a precondition of reservations, i.e., redistribution.

Reservations alone are a soft option; a prime form of lazy politics and lazier political thinking. The appropriate concept to tackle poverty is redistribution. Democratic governments should take redistribution seriously to ensure that every citizen is in a position to compete for educational and employment opportunities from a position of rough equality. This is but fair.

Logically, if the economic ordering of society is responsible for poverty, and for the ill-being that accompanies poverty, then society is obliged to remedy the wrongs that it has visited upon the heads of the poor. This constitutes a basic code of justice.

If I, while driving on the highway, suddenly halt my car and cause an accident, I am solely to blame, and have to compensate the driver whose car has been damaged. But if another driver bangs into my car, which is stationary at a red light, the said driver is at fault, and for that reason obliged to compensate me. Matters are not so neat when it comes to monopoly capitalism.

The concept of redistribution warns us that resources of a country have been unjustly monopolised by a small minority through unfair means, such as proximity to political power. The rest are left out in the cold because they are the unseen and the unheard. This is unjust because every citizen, by virtue of being born into a society, has rights over some portion of resources that enable her to live a life of dignity.

Also read: What Does the Caste Wealth Gap Look Like in India?

Redistribution implies that resources have to be extricated from the grasping hands of capitalists and distributed fairly: from the creation of employment, fair wages, limits on land holdings, progressive taxation, and wealth tax. Those who benefit from a society and its unfair hierarchies have a putative obligation to those who lose out for no reason except that they have been born into a family that lives in want, and that survives on personalised doles by politicians.

Redistribution goes hand in hand with democracy and its principles of freedom and equality. All that egalitarians ask for is that all citizens should be given an equal chance to access opportunities that enable them to hone their skills and their talents, so that they can also benefit from social and economic transactions. All that egalitarians ask for is the recognition that social, political, and economic institutions systematically disadvantage many persons and deny them access to structures of opportunity.

To be poor in a society that worships wealth, to be born into a lower caste family in a casteist society, to belong to a religious minority in a communal society, or to be born into a race that is discriminated against in a racist society, is a curse. This has to be rectified. The redistribution of resources via, say, progressive taxation, can be justified in terms of the putative obligations we owe our fellow citizens only when the concept of redistribution is grounded in the basic precept of democracy, i.e., equality.

We don’t need reservations for this, we need redistribution. Background inequalities seriously compromise democracy, they have to be eradicated through redistribution of resources.

Notably, however, the causes of poverty in the country are not merely economic. A major proportion of the poor belong to the Scheduled Castes, while some groups of the ‘backward’ castes and the Scheduled Tribes have historically been outside the caste system. Members of the so-called ‘lower’ castes are poor not only because they lack skills and resources. They lack skills and resources because they belong to a caste that has been wilfully denied such access in the past.

Though in the post-independence period, the government has institutionalised policies that ban caste discrimination and introduced affirmative action or protective discrimination in education and in public employment, the legacies of history are not so easily neutralised. Economic marginality in this specific case is the outcome of discriminatory social practices.

It flows from social marginality. In this case, we need both redistribution and representation through reservations. Reservations are meant for the double disadvantaged through a two-pronged policy redistribution as well as representation.

Extending reservations to the ‘upper’ castes who are poor or singly disadvantaged delegitimises the concept of double disadvantage: social marginalisation and economic ill-being. Reservations cannot be a substitute for redistribution.

The first step towards redistribution is that all citizens have the right to basic goods on non-market principles (assurance of income, free education, subsidised or free food, free healthcare, accommodation, and political and civil rights). These can help emancipate them from poverty.

The second step is reservations for the doubly disadvantaged. Reservations have to be taken seriously and employed sparingly. They have to be invoked only for the doubly disadvantaged. To substitute reservations for redistribution is to engage in, as suggested above, a lazy form of politics.

Poverty is unacceptable because it massively violates our basic convictions that no one should be compelled to lead a life that is distinctively inhuman. But, more importantly, poverty is a violation of the fundamental axiom that human beings possess equal moral worth. This proposition generates a principle of distributive justice that concentrates on giving to the disadvantaged what they have a right to.

It also generates a principle of representation for those who have been left out of the social order of caste hierarchy. Let us not mix up concepts only to justify ill-thought out policies.

Neera Chandhoke was a professor of political science at Delhi University.

Full Support or Silence – Why the Opposition Reacted to EWS Quota Judgment the Way It Did

Political parties have been apprehensive about opposing such a move despite the fact that it upends the principal motives of reservation.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s majority judgment approving the economically weaker sections quota for the poor belonging to caste groups other than Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes was met with either full support from some of the biggest opposition parties or silence that only went on to indicate the tricky nature of the newly introduced quota in India’s affirmative action provisions.

Exclusion of historically marginalised groups from the EWS quota would effectively ensure that only the upper caste groups or dominant communities end up as the primary beneficiaries of the new provision in the reservation system. Dalit groups have been opposing such a system as they believe that the reservation system was introduced not as a poverty-alleviation scheme but to give proportionate representation in jobs and education to SC/ST/OBC groups who bore the brunt of social exclusion in the Hindu caste ladder. Caste-based reservation, thus, was believed to give some sort of a level-playing field to these groups at least in government jobs and public-funded education institutions.

However, political parties have been apprehensive about opposing such a move despite the fact that it upends the principal motives of reservation as espoused by the founding fathers of India. Ever since the 10% EWS quota was introduced by the Union government through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, opposition parties have either hesitated, or been careful, in their opposition to the move in fear of alienating the both socially and politically-influential upper caste groups across India.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday has further cemented such an apprehension among different political parties. Only the Tamil Nadu’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) unequivocally opposed the decision, even as it made clear that it would launch state-wide agitations against any quota for the upper caste groups.

The principal opposition party Congress rushed to support the decision, and attempted to take the steam away from the BJP-led Union government that has been relentless in taking credit for implementing the EWS quota. In doing so, the grand-old party credited itself for making the first moves during the UPA government for introducing reservation for the poor among upper castes.

Also read: EWS Quota a Stupefying Inversion of the Idea of Equality

Welcoming the Supreme Court decision, the chief spokesperson for the party Jairam Ramesh said, “The amendment itself was the result of a process initiated by Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government in 2005-06 with the appointment of the Sinho Commission that submitted its report in July 2010. Thereafter, widespread consultations were held and the Bill was ready by 2014.”

“It took the Modi Sarkar five years to get the Bill enacted. It also bears mention here that the Socio Economic and Caste Census was completed by 2012, when I myself was the Union Rural Development Minister. The Modi Sarkar has yet to clarify its position on an updated Caste Census, something that the Congress party supports and demands,” he added.

In a similar vein, Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot said, “This will help the poor get justice. Our spirit should be that a poor person, irrespective of which community he belongs to, gets justice.”

Similarly, the Trinamool Congress also supported the judgment. Member of Parliament and TMC leader Saugata Roy termed it as a “historic judgment” and said that the decision is “a big step towards achieving economic equality in the country”.

TMC MP Derek O’ Brien, a fervent critic of the Narendra Modi government, supported the EWS quota but not without a degree of hesitation. On Monday when the SC decision came, Brien shared an opinion article that he wrote earlier outlining his reservation for the exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs from the quota for the economically disadvantaged groups.

Socialist parties which built themselves on the principles of Bahujan politics advocating greater affirmative action for the SC/ST/OBC were more hesitant but nonetheless stayed clear of opposing the SC’s stamp on the current system of EWS quota.

The Teajshwi Yadav-led Rashtriya Janata Dal took the opportunity to renew his demand for a caste-census purported to delineate the different degrees of economic deprivation among various sub-castes among marginalised groups. RJD was among the three parties other than DMK and Asaduddin Owaisi-led AIMIM which had opposed the EWS bill in the Parliament in 2019.

Manoj Jha, RJD MP, said that the RJD had raised important concerns about the 103rd amendment in the Parliament but did not oppose the move in principle. He demanded that the EWS quota should be implemented only after the government collects scientific data on economic disadvantages of different groups. He urged the government to keep in mind the spirit of the constituent assembly debates while implementing the EWS quota and went on to demand proportional representation for every group.

Proportional representation will effectively mean greater representation for non-upper caste groups who are much fewer in numbers but disproportionately occupy important government positions.  However, many observers believe that proportional representation will also defeat the very purpose of the reservation system that was meant to uplift SC/ST/OBC from their socially and economically disadvantaged positions.

Both the Bahujan Samaj Party and Samajwadi Party chose to remain conspicuously silent on the decision, even as most others supported or remained unclear about their stance. Earlier in 2019, when the decision was taken by the Union government, Mayawati had supported the EWS quota although she had said that it was an “election stunt” by the BJP that will mean no substantive gains for the poor.

In the South with a militant history of social justice movements, the Dravidian parties were much more critical and categorical. Tamil Nadu chief minister and DMK supremo M.K. Stalin said that the Supreme Court decision was a “setback to the century-long social justice struggles”. “From the land of Tamil Nadu, which made the first constitutional amendment to protect social justice, I request like-minded organisations to unite to make the voice of social justice resound throughout the country,” Stalin said, adding that the party will take the next step to agitate against the move after studying all legal aspects of the SC judgment.

Also read: ‘Exclusionary, Strikes Death Knell to Equality’: Key Quotes from Justice Bhat’s Dissenting Opinion

Tamil Nadu-based Ambedkarite organisation Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) chief Thol. Thirumavalavan said that the EWS quota will only benefit the upper castes and it was a mistake to think of it as a reservation system based on economic criteria. “The judgment is against the principles of social justice. This is gross injustice,” he said.

AIMIM also stayed away from commenting on the apex court’s judgement but it had opposed the executive decision in 2019 based on the criticisms that most Dalit groups had against the exclusion of socially-disadvantaged groups from the EWS quota.

The BJP, on the other hand, moved swiftly to take credit for the judgement and project the EWS quota as a Modi government’s measure to ensure “social justice for all”, meaning that even the poor among upper caste groups should not be excluded from India’s affirmative action.  The Sangh parivar has historically believed that reservation system should be premised on economic criteria instead of a social criteria – a belief that RSS sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat also repeated in 2019. The RSS that was primarily dominated by an upper caste leadership has in fact been advancing similar thoughts ever since the reservation system was implemented after independence. It has equated the extension of the reservation system based on social marginalisation with ruling parties’ politics of appeasement, or what is often termed as “vote-bank politics”.

Keeping in view such an understanding, senior BJP leaders attacked the opposition parties for being anti-upper caste groups, even when they raised the slightest opposition to the EWS quota. Former deputy chief minister of Bihar and senior BJP leader Sushil Modi said that the RJD did not have the right to ask the upper caste groups for votes as it opposed the EWS quota system. He qualified that opposition to the EWS quota shows RJD’s “anti-upper caste mentality”, in a comment that many observers believe only goes on to reflect that the 10% quota for the poor was only meant to accommodate upper caste groups in the reservation system.

EWS Quota a Stupefying Inversion of the Idea of Equality

The majority rulings have sanctioned a forward-caste only quota, endorsing the reactionary idea that the extending of reservations to SCs/STs and OBCs have somehow resulted in injustice to forward castes who may not be equally well off.

On Monday, by a 3:2 majority, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment to the Constitution. It enabled state and Central governments to reserve up to 10% of college seats and public employment posts for economically weaker sections (EWS) of society who do not belong to categories for whom reservation is already provided for. In other words, this 10% quota is exclusively provided for upper castes and the creamy layer among the backward classes, if they fall under a specified income threshold.

Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and J.B. Paridiwala through their separate but concurring opinions upheld the amendment. Justice Ravindra Bhat found against the amendment in his dissenting opinion, with which outgoing Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit concurred.

The EWS quota law was challenged chiefly on the following grounds. Firstly, that economic criteria can never be used for creating reservations, even as other forms of affirmative action based on economic and income criteria cannot be ruled out. It was argued that reservations, as a tool of affirmative action, are not merely tools for correcting historic injustice, but also recognise the need for representation and empowerment among groups that historically did not enjoy power.

Secondly, the exclusion of SCs/STs and OBCs, who are recognised to be historically disadvantaged from the EWS quota, thereby reducing the general pool seats or positions available to them by 20%, represents an unconscionable infraction of the right to equality. It was argued that the characterisation of existing reservations for SCs/STs and OBCs as a dole is contrary to the idea of reservations as a tool for reparative justice, the basis of all reservation jurisprudence.

Thirdly, some of the petitions argued that the additional 10% for EWS breaches the 50% reservation limit set by earlier precedents of the court, since the nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).

Even as there are nuanced disagreements on other questions, it is in the treatment of the second point that the minority records a powerful dissent from the majority rulings. The minority reasons:

“The equality code in its majestic formulation promotes inclusiveness. Even provisions enabling reservations foster social justice and equality, to ensure inclusiveness and participation of all sections of society. These provisions assure representation, diversity and empowerment. Conversely, exclusion, with all its negative connotations – is not a constitutional principle and finds no place in our constitutional ethos. Therefore, to admit now, that exclusion of people based on their backwardness, rooted in social practice, is permissible, destroys the constitutional ethos of fraternity, non-discrimination, and non-exclusion.”

The majority rulings, however, appear to proceed on the incorrect assumption that the existing reserved categories do not compete for the quota or the pool in the general category and carving out a 10% from the general pool to make the existing reserved categories ineligible to access that, does not deplete what is available to such categories. It is on this flawed assumption that the exclusion is upheld.

The majority rulings have sanctioned a forward-caste only quota, endorsing the reactionary idea that the extending of reservations to SCs/STs and OBCs have somehow resulted in injustice to forward castes who may not be equally well off. This is a stupefying inversion of the idea of equality our constitution has thus far known.

Prasanna S. is a Delhi-based lawyer and an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court. He assisted some of the petitioners in their challenge to the 103rd Amendment.

This article was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

Does Haryana’s New OBC ‘Creamy Layer’ Notification Pass the Legal Test?

The state Congress president has said that it only attempts to re-publish notifications cancelled by Supreme Court.

New Delhi: The Haryana government’s decision to exclude an alleged ‘creamy layer’ while providing for reservation under the Other Backward Classes category has come in for severe criticism from opposition leaders and legal experts who feel that the move flouts Supreme Court guidelines and follows an agenda of destroying the quota policy.

The Haryana government has announced that it will revert to its 1995 notification of excluding children of parents holding constitutional posts and class-1 jobs (i.e. who are direct recruits) from reservations in the OBC category.

The new notification has come after the Supreme Court in August 2021 quashed the 2016 Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act which gave quota preference within the OBC to persons with an annual income of up to Rs 6 lakh.

The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose had held that that states cannot make annual income the sole yardstick to determine this allegedly “creamy layer”’ within a backward class and exclude them from benefits of reservation. It had stated that apart from economic criteria, social, educational and other factors should also be taken into account before defining a “creamy layer” among the backward classes.

The court had also ordered the Haryana government to come out with a new notification to determine “creamy layer” among OBCs within three months.

Importance of Indra Sawhney judgment

In its order, the bench had stressed that the SC’s judgment in the Indra Sawhney case (also known as the ‘Mandal Commission’ case) in 1992 clearly laid down that social, economic and other factors have to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the “creamy layer” within a backward class and then excluding it from quota benefits.

“Strangely, by the notification dated August 17, 2016, the identification of ‘creamy layer’ amongst backward classes was restricted only to the basis of economic criterion. In clear terms, this court held in Indra Sawhney (case) that the basis of exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ cannot be merely economic,” the court held.

Also read: ‘Creamy Layer’ Classification Can’t Be Based Only on Economic Criterion: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court also held that Haryana government was wrong to club income from salaries and agricultural land in determining the gross annual income for the purpose of defining the creamy layer. It said such a practice was at variance with the 1993 memorandum issued by the Union government on revision of income criteria to exclude socially advanced sections or creamy layer  from the purview of reservation for OBCs.

It was also pointed out that while the current annual income limit for “creamy layer” under the Union government rules was Rs 8 lakh, the Haryana government had reduced it to Rs 6 lakh.

The petitioner, Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha, had also charged that the 2016 notification was discriminatory as it created a sub-classification within the same class. That notification had provided that children of people having gross annual income up to Rs 3 lakh shall first get the benefit of reservation in services and admission in educational institutions and then the remaining quota shall go to backward classes citizens who earn between Rs 3 lakh and Rs 6 lakh per annum.

The Haryana government had argued that the sub-classification was done to provide the maximum benefits to people with lower income.

What the new notification says

Following the SC ruling, the Haryana government came out with a new notification. While excluding children of parents holding constitutional posts and Class-1 jobs (direct recruits) from reservation under the OBC category, it had categorises constitutional posts as those of President of India, Vice-President of India, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, chairman and members of the Union Public Service Commission, state public services commission, Chief Election Commissioner, and Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

The new notification puts children of parents, both of whom are Class-1 officers, or parents, either of whom is a Class-1 officer, in the exclusion category. It adds that a woman belonging to the OBC category who has been married to a Class-1 officer and is applying for a job will also be excluded.

Further, children of parents, both of whom are Class-II officers (direct recruits), are excluded, as are those with parents of whom only the husband is a Class-II officer who he gets into Class-I at the age of 40 or earlier.

Also in the exclusion list are the children of parents either or both of whom are in the rank of Colonel or above in the Army or Air Force or Navy and paramilitary forces.

Apart from this, families owning more than permissible land under the Ceiling Act of Haryana have also been put in the creamy layer.

Who all are not in exclusion list

The notification lays down that creamy layer will not apply to the children of parents, both of whom are Class-II officers and one of them has died or has suffered permanent incapacitation, and also for children of parents who are Class II officers and both of have died or suffered permanent incapacitation.

Also read: Creamy Layer Judgment Ignores the Reality of Workplace Caste Discrimination

It adds that this rule of exclusion will also apply to the Class-I and Class-II officers in public sector undertakings.

Opposition slams new notification as anti-quota

The new notification has been questioned by the opposition on grounds of both legality and intent. Haryana Congress president Kumari Selja said the notification was against the law and termed the changes an “attempt to re-publish the notifications cancelled by the Supreme Court”. She also claimed that the new notification only displayed the “anti-reservation” mindset of the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

Selja charged that it would deprive the children of Group ‘D’ government employees, farmers and skilled workers from reservation benefits as it has fixed the annual income limit from all sources at Rs 6 lakh. She also questioned the difference in income criteria adopted by the Union and Haryana government.

She said the new notification would also deprive children of existing A and B category officers from the right of reservation, while as the Union government notification said that only directly-appointed A-category officers or officers promoted before the age of 40 years are considered to be in the creamy layer.

New notification in violation of SC’s 1992 ruling

Meanwhile, legal experts have also claimed that the new notification flouts the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in which it had denied OBC reservation benefits to a “creamy layer” and said that income from salary and agriculture cannot be considered for creamy layer identification.

It was following that apex court ruling that the Centre had issued an order in 1993, including those holding constitutional or Class A posts, and those promoted to Class A posts before turning 40, in the creamy layer.

A Supreme Court advocate, Shashank Ratnoo, was quoted by The Telegraph as saying, that the new notification would be “open to contempt petitions” since “(virtually) the same notification uprooted by the Supreme Court has been restored now. Inclusion of salary under the annual income is against the specific direction of the apex court in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, 1992”.

‘Creamy Layer’ Classification Can’t Be Based Only on Economic Criterion: Supreme Court

The bench set aside a notification issued by the Haryana state government.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that identifying a ‘creamy layer’ of backward classes cannot be based purely on economic reasoning.

“..the State of Haryana has sought to determine ‘creamy layer’ from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion and has committed a grave error in doing so. On this ground alone, the notification dated 17.08.2016 requires to be set aside,” the Supreme Court said, according to LiveLaw.

In the order, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose quashed a Haryana government notification on how to identify a ‘creamy layer’ that would be excluded from OBC reservations.

“We quash the notification dated 17.08.2016, giving liberty to the State Government to issue a fresh notification within a period of 3 months from today after taking into account the principles laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney-I and the criteria mentioned in Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act for determining ‘creamy layer’,” the bench said.

The notification in question said that that children whose parents earn up to Rs 3 lakh per annum can benefit from all affirmative action policies and reservations. Children whose parents earn between Rs 3 lakh and Rs 6 lakh per annum will be eligible for the reserved seats that remain. Those from OBC communities whose parents earn more than Rs 6 lakh per year will be designated as the ‘creamy layer’, and excluded from the benefits.

This notification, the Supreme Court has now ruled, is a “flagrant violation” of the Indira Sawhney-I judgment. Even Section 5(2) of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 noted that ‘creamy layer’ has to be identified on the basis of social, economic and other relevant factors.

The court, however, clarified that admissions already made using this notification will not be disturbed.

The Punjab and Haryana high court too had earlier said that the notification’s sub-classification – of under Rs 3 lakh and between Rs 3 lakh and Rs 6 lakh per annum – was unconstitutional. There was no data to support such sub-classification within the non-creamy-layer, the court had held.