Premium
This is an archive article published on September 13, 2010
Premium

Opinion Not caste in stone

Caste groupings like SCs or OBCs aren’t uniform monoliths,and policy should reflect that

Sunil Jain

September 13, 2010 03:04 AM IST First published on: Sep 13, 2010 at 03:04 AM IST

While readying for the deluge of data on various caste groups,now that the cabinet has cleared the census of caste groups from next year,we need to demolish some dominant caste myths.

The most important one,of course,is that caste groups are uniform monoliths. Look at the data and there is no doubt that,at the all-India level,upper castes will have higher incomes than other backward castes — who,in turn,have higher incomes than Scheduled Castes who earn more than Scheduled Tribes. At an all-India level,upper caste households earn an average of Rs 86,690 per annum,OBCs earn Rs 59,741,SCs Rs 45,889 and STs Rs 40,753. This data is from the NCAER’s annual household survey of income,since the government’s National Sample Survey captures only data on expenditure and,on average,it is unable to capture more than half the total consumption in the country. These numbers are from 2004-05,but the relative differences across caste groups are valid even today.

Advertisement

The averages,like all averages,miss out on the important differences. So,an analysis of the NCAER data (in the book Caste in a Different Mould,of which I am a co-author) shows that while SC households in Uttar Pradesh earn Rs 39,655 per annum,those in Punjab earn Rs 63,055; OBCs in Bihar earn Rs 40,839 as against Rs 73,223 in Maharashtra. Similar differences hold true for all caste groups. The short point is incomes across caste groups differ widely across various states,which means the overall level of development of the state is more important than the caste of an individual when it comes to determining income levels. So ST households in Karnataka earn Rs 62,238 per annum,more than upper-caste ones in Bihar (Rs 51,187).

The second myth,related to the first,is that differences in income automatically imply discrimination,and therefore suggest affirmative action is called for. Apart from the impact the “state” of development,as it were,has on income levels,the differences are largely explained by education,by the industry/service you are employed in,by whether an individual is situated in a rural area or a small town or a big metro,and the list can go on. Even where groups are classified as ‘graduate and above’,if the group has more post-graduates,income levels are certain to be higher.

So,for instance,OBC households in villages (73 per cent of OBCs are to be found in villages) have an average annual income of Rs 51,740 but this goes up to Rs 72,288 in small towns,Rs 81,745 in mid-sized towns (5-10 lakh population) and to Rs 95,999 in towns with more than a million people. Some of this is just the location factor. A driver in a village is going to get next to nothing while a driver in a metro probably earns Rs 7,000,on average,a month.

Advertisement

There’s education as well. So,a large part of the higher income levels in urban settings are probably also a reflection of higher education,not just location — but because it needs sophisticated econometrics,and even that can go wrong,this is often ignored. An OBC household that has is headed by an illiterate earns Rs 24,363 per year,and this rises to Rs 32,169 in case the head of the household has studied till class V,Rs 67,371 in case s/he has studied till class XII,and to Rs 105,285 in case the head of the household is a graduate. Just 20 per cent of OBC households have graduates as compared to 35 per cent for upper castes.

A recent study of Dalit villages in Uttar Pradesh by Devesh Kapur,Chandra Bhan Prasad,Lant Pritchett and D. Shyam Babu confirms the role urbanisation plays. In Azamgarh district,for instance,the study found just 18.1 per cent of Dalit households lived in pucca houses in 1990,and this rose to 66.4 per cent in 2007. For Bulandshahr district in western UP,the figures were 38.4 and 94.6 per cent respectively. Ownership of television sets rose from 0.9 per cent to 22.2 per cent in Azamgarh,and from 0.7 to 45 per cent in Bulandshahr. They found similar changes for mobile phones,simple chairs in homes,fans and even the use of shampoo,toothpaste and bottled hair oil. There are,the authors say,several reasons for the change: the rise of Mayawati could be one,as could economic reforms which led to greater marketisation of the economy. One of the powerful reasons,the authors conclude,is migration. While the eastern district of Azamgarh saw dependence on family members who had migrated to urban areas rise from 14.5 per cent in 1990 to 50.5 per cent in 2007,Bulandshahr district saw a much smaller rise. Compare this with the proportion of family members living in the village,and this suggests that in Bulandshahr,villagers were probably travelling out of the village for work in the morning and returning the same day.

All of which would suggest the solution cannot be a uniform one. It has to be education in some cases,urbanisation in some and industrialisation in others. With over 75 per cent of ST households having studied only till class X (38 per cent till just class V) reservations in colleges are unlikely to be a solution,to cite one instance. Affirmative action also poses a problem in terms of implementation since 90 per cent of all ST households are in rural areas.

In the case of Muslims,where the government hopes to fix things through an Equal Opportunities Commission,it’s worth keeping in mind that nearly 90 per cent live in rural areas (64 per cent) and small towns; Muslims have the highest proportion of households who are self-employed in non-agricultural occupations (25.7 per cent versus 16.2 for Hindus) and the least who are salaried (13.1 per cent versus 18.8 per cent for all Hindus).

The moral of the story is that it’s not so much about affirmative action as it is about urbanisation,industrialisation and education. Not that this is easy either. The agitation against land acquisition in Uttar Pradesh shows the limits to the pace of urbanisation,Niyamgiri and Singur does the same for industrialisation,and the Right to Education Act,though wonderful in spirit,will end up slowing the development of low-cost unrecognised private schools.

The writer is Opinion Editor, ‘The Financial Express’ sunil.jain@expressindia.com