Opinion Reservation in Maharashtra: Why an OBC community wants ST status

These demands, however, need not always be summarily dismissed, which is often the case, on the grounds that they are politically motivated and the communities do not fulfil the criteria. They call for a closer and more compassionate inquiry into the history of these communities, their mobilisation for such demands and an evaluation of the existing affirmative action policies. B R Ambedkar’s remarks in his resignation letter written at the time when he stepped down from the Nehru cabinet as a law minister on October 10, 1951, are apposite: “I was very sorry that the Constitution did not embody any safeguards for the Backward Classes. It was left to be done by the Executive Government on the basis of the recommendations of a Commission to be appointed by the President.” The Nehru government’s lack of concern for the non-SC, non-ST backward classes (the OBCs as we today call them) was one of the reasons for his resignation.

Who are the Dhangars?

The Dhangars are a large cluster of a diverse set of pastoral groups, unofficially estimated to range from 4 per cent to 12 per cent of the population of Maharashtra (in the absence of a caste census we have to rely on these unofficial estimates). The British identified 23 subgroups of the Dhangars, many specialising in breeding, selling meat, weaving, and dairy production involving sheep, horses, buffaloes, cattle and goats.

The British identified the Dhangars as a tribe perhaps because they were nomadic and their presence in the Maharashtrian caste society was peripheral. Though a large section had already settled as agriculturalists during the colonial period, certain groups within the cluster are nomadic. For instance, the Dange Dhangars herd buffaloes in high-rainfall forest tracts of the Western Ghats. They also practice subsistence agriculture and collect forest produce to supplement their income. Sociological literature on these subgroups gives us deeper insights into the life of the Dhangars. However, like other communities with large populations, there is a privileged section among the Dhangars. Some clans even have royal antecedents. Ahilyabai Holkar, the queen known for her political acumen and generosity who reigned the Malwa region in the 18th century was a Dhangar. But such examples are exceptions rather than the rule.

Why the demand for ST status?

When the demand for tribal status came up in 1955, there was no reservation for Dhangars either in the state or at the Centre. In 1967, the Maharashtra government offered 4 per cent reservation for all VJ/NT communities. Presently, in Maharashtra, 7 per cent of seats are reserved for STs (there are 45 tribes in Maharashtra), whereas for the Dhangars there is an exclusive quota of 3.5 per cent under a separate category called NT (C); yet they are demanding ST status. Critics doubt the credentials of the Dhangars to fulfil the criteria of a “tribe”. They believe that the latter want ST status to get easier access to education and government job opportunities as they will face very little competition from the other tribal communities of Maharashtra, most of whom live impoverished and precarious lives with very low educational attainment.

However, there is more to this than meets the eye. The SC and ST categories and the communities listed in them are enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution ensures various safeguards for SCs and STs. It has preventive and punitive measures in place against discrimination, or it gives proportional representation in assemblies and Parliament. When the 72nd and 73rd constitutional amendments brought the long overdue legislation of a pan-Indian Panchayati Raj system, the reservation for OBCs in it was left to the discretion of the respective state governments whereas the reservation for SCs and STs was an integral part of the amendment.

Because the Constitution recognised SCs and STs, the state needed to count their population. The census does a headcount and also collects information about education, employment, migration, housing, sex ratio, urbanisation, etc. Several government agencies such as NSSO provide segregated data for SCs and STs. Such data inform the welfare policies meant for these communities. The demand for collecting segregated data for OBCs, however, has fallen on deaf ears for several decades.

As Ambedkar has pointed out, in the case of OBCs, Article 340 only directed the President to constitute a commission to identify backward communities and make recommendations for their upliftment. The implementation of its recommendations was left to the discretion of the government. The first Backward Classes Commission submitted its report in 1955, but its recommendations were never implemented. The second Backward Classes Commission, the Mandal Commission, submitted its report in 1980 but its recommendations were implemented in 1990 and that too only partially. Thus, till 1990 there were practically no provisions made for the OBCs by the central government, Dhangars included. Ambedkar’s apprehensions were vindicated.

Moreover, several development schemes and programmes are in place for SCs and STs. Scheduling of ex-untouchable and tribal communities in the Constitution guarantees a solid and stable framework of welfare schemes and fund allocation for their upliftment and development both at the state and central levels. That is an important concern for many OBC communities demanding ST status. In 2019, in response to the demand of the Dhangars, the Maharashtra government announced the extension of several schemes of the tribal welfare department to them until the issue of ST status was resolved. However, many of these schemes are still awaiting approval from the Finance Department.

Lastly, according to the Mandal Commission, OBCs constitute 52 per cent of the total Indian population and according to NSSO between 40 per cent and 45 per cent. The present 27 per cent quota for OBCs is way below both estimates. Communities that constitute close to half the Indian population get only a little over half of their estimated share. It is no wonder that the OBC category appears highly inadequate and unattractive to many of its constituent communities, specifically to those who are highly stigmatised and lag far behind.

The demands for inclusion in the ST category, and in this specific instance by the Dhangars calls firstly, for a systematic and thorough inquiry into their history and socio-economic profile. Secondly, the affirmative action policies need to be comprehensively evaluated for their efficacy – especially those related to the OBCs. Thirdly, the rationale behind the 50 per cent cap on reservations needs to be revisited. Lastly, the urgency of a caste census cannot be overstated and should become a rallying point for everyone who is committed to inclusive development in India.

Thakur is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai