Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Caste is being used as the sole criterion in public policy oriented towards positive discrimination. Categories like OBCs and SCs are being treated as essentially homogeneous groups. Almost the entire population of each of these categories, it is alleged, suffers from a uniformly high degree of deprivation. But what is the evidence? The link between caste and deprivation should be examined at the macro-level; small sample studies do not suffice in a large diverse country.
The only information at the macro-level was collected during British rule. If caste is a good indicator of deprivation now, it should have been better in the past. And a more backward region should show a closer link between caste and deprivation than an advanced region. Consider Uttar Pradesh, one of India8217;s most backward regions. In the UP census of 1911, information on the social, material and educational conditions is available for eight 8220;high8221; castes, 27 8220;intermediate8221; castes, now considered OBCs, and seven 8220;low8221; castes, later designated SCs.
Such aggregate statistics are usually provided in support of caste-based public policy. However, these averages actually conceal the enormous heterogeneity within the OBCs and the SCs. The literacy rates for the OBCs vary between 8 and 0.14 per cent. In the literacy rankings, three of the OBCs 8212; Sonar, Halwai and Kalwar 8212; are placed among the top seven castes while two of these 8212; Kewat and Bhar 8212; figure among the bottom seven. The literacy rates for the SCs are within a much smaller range, between 0.11 to 0.48 per cent. The situation is more acute with respect to the economic condition. The WPR for the OBCs varies between 40 and 67 per cent. Four of the OBCs Sonar, Jat, Gujar and Kisan figure in the top eight places in the scale of economic status, while five OBCs Luniya, Barai, Bhar, Koeri and Kewat figure among the bottom seven places. The three poorest castes Bhar, Koeri and Kewat belong to the OBCs. Likewise, the economic status of the seven SCs varies a great deal; the WPR ranges between 44 for Khatik and 64 for Dusadh.
Protagonists of caste politics plead that the problem of heterogeneity can be tackled if the OBCs or SCs are arranged according to the degree of backwardness and split into sub-groups such as 8220;more-backward8221; and 8220;most-backward8221; and sub-quotas are created within the total quota. However, the economic status of households varies a great deal within each caste. The census tables on 8220;occupational distribution of castes8221; show that each caste contained landless labourers, cultivators as well as landlords. Some castes were very sharply split over occupations 8212; for example Chamar, the largest caste of UP. While this caste is believed to be traditionally landless, actually its workers were equally reported as labourers and cultivators 8212; between 35 to 40 per cent in each. On the other hand, more than 75 per cent of workers belonging to the caste of Bhangi Balmiki, were scavengers. The 1888 8216;Dufferin Enquiries8217; showed that in eastern UP, the castes of Brahman, Bhumihar and Rajput contained sections which, though not landless, were no better off than day labourers; were in debt and suffered from insufficiency of food and clothing in normal times. The report also showed that in western UP, some Chamar families had landholdings of 10 acres or more in size.
The cultivators, the single largest occupational group in most castes, were highly differentiated in terms of size and economic status. A large sample of agricultural holdings, distributed over size of holding and caste in Bahraich district in 1939 showed that about one-third of the holdings belonging to the upper castes were of 2.5 acres or less in size. The same was the case with the caste of Kurmi OBC. Such holdings accounted for half of the holdings in case of Kachi, Murao and all other agriculturist castes OBCs. The holdings of size 2.5 to 5 acres comprised one-fourth of all holdings in case of upper castes as well as Kurmi, but about 30 per cent in case of the rest of the castes. Thus, the size distributions were similar for the upper castes and Kurmi. In each of these castes, six to eight per cent of holdings were more than 20 acres in size. Two per cent of upper caste holdings and 1 per cent of Kurmi holdings were more than 50 acres in size. Remarkably, small and marginal peasants formed a majority of households in each caste. On the other hand, the higher as well as the lower castes contained many rich peasants.
When confronted with the heterogeneity within a caste the champions of caste politics argue that it is not economic but social backwardness from which these castes have historically suffered that warrants reservations. Did the whole population of the lower castes suffer from an equal degree of ritual handicap? In fact, there was an elaborate gradation and hierarchy among the shudra and even the untouchable castes, which governed interaction between them and kept inter-caste socialisation to the minimum. Historically, the rich in each caste tried to emulate the customs and rituals of the upper castes, such as child marriage, payment of dowry and prevention of widow remarriage. Sometimes, well-off sections of castes broke away, formed new castes and claimed higher ritual status, for example, Sainthwar from Kurmi and Jatav from Chamar during early 20th century.
Thus, the use of caste as a criterion in public policy is not justified by the available evidence.
The writer is professor of economics, Jawaharlal Nehru Universitypradiptamail.jnu.ac.in
