Opinion Supreme Court’s EWS verdict: Why diluting caste-based reservations is a counterproductive move
It is the wrong move because the reasons caste-based reservations were put in place persist. That said, a debate on reservation policies is needed.
A debate on reservation policies is needed. 
-
Share -
-
-
The government’s EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) quota policy has got the seal of constitutionality from the apex court. Two of the five justices — part of the majority decision in the 3:2 split verdict — said that they were in favour of “revisiting” the caste-based reservation regime. This proposition suggests that 30 years after the Mandal verdict, caste is not responsible for the kind of social inequalities that, according to the Supreme Court in 1992, justified the positive discrimination policies in place in India since Independence — even before. As the remarks of the two judges have generated much debate, it is pertinent to scrutinise them in light of available evidence.
Justice J B Pardiwala argued that the gaps between groups that existed when the country attained independence have been bridged: “As larger percentages of backward class members attain acceptable standards of education and employment, they should be removed from the backward categories so that attention can be paid toward those classes which genuinely need help.” This opinion is not supported by any empirical evidence. In fact, all available data show that, though the gap between upper castes and lower castes is not as large as it was immediately after Independence, caste-based inequalities have persisted. According to the 2018 NSSO Periodic Labour Force Survey, the percentage of graduates amongst Scheduled Castes (18 per cent) was less than 50 per cent of what it was among upper castes (37 per cent). Similarly, SCs represented 33 per cent of the casual workers (while they form only 16 per cent of the population), while the upper castes represented 15 per cent of the total of casual workers. These proportions have not changed since 1999.
One could argue that pan-Indian aggregates are irrelevant because castes are regional realities. Fair enough. Let’s look at some of the state-level data generated by the India Human Development Survey: In 2011-12, the per capita mean income of SCs of Maharashtra was almost 50 per cent lower than that of the Brahmins (Rs 26,172 against 44,638). One may then argue that since Dalits are at the bottom of the social pyramid, data related to other beneficiaries of reservation, OBCs, should be factored in the equation. But then the Brahmins are not the richest everywhere. Let’s look at the Gujarat figures from a different perspective: The OBCs’ annual per capita income was about 50 per cent lower than the Patels’ (Rs 23, 692 against Rs 51,045). In Haryana, Jats earned Rs 63,679 , OBCs Rs 31,027 and SCs Rs 20,566. In Andhra Pradesh, the Kammas had an annual per capita mean income of Rs. 38,232 while the OBCs earned Rs 21,172 and Rs 18,345.
This confirms the finding of the Sinho Commission Report — recognised by the dissenting judges — that 82 per cent of the poor belong to SC, ST or OBC communities. While there have been improvements in the absolute attainments of the marginalised sections, the reparative role of positive discrimination programmes has not been fulfilled. Caste stigma remains a major handicap for Dalits, as evident from scientific surveys, including those conducted by Sukhdeo Thorat: When the same CV with a Brahmin name and a Dalit name is sent to potential employers, the latter will call the Brahmin for an interview much more often than the Dalit. Narendra Jadhav, the son of an Ambedkarite and an economist, who worked for 31 years at the RBI, notes in his autobiography that he remained a Mahar in the eyes of his colleagues. Caste-based reservation is necessary to overcome this stigma — a prejudice that affects even the middle class Dalits.
Those who have remained poor suffer the same stigma in a different, more violent way. Discussing the latest statistics of crimes against SCs, and STs, the dissenting judgment records that as per the ‘Crime in India’ report released by the NCRB, Scheduled Castes were victims of 45,961 crimes in 2019, 50,291 in 2020, and 50,900 in 2021.
Justice Bela Trivedi, in the verdict under review, suggests that caste quotas should be phased out to create a casteless society. This argument has a long lineage. Kaka Kalelkar, the chairperson of the First Backward Class Commission, had raised alarms about the spread of casteism. But reservation has not invented caste and concealing caste is unlikely to diminish caste-based inequalities or conflicts. On the contrary, positive discrimination has promoted upward social mobility in India. This emancipatory achievement has contributed to the development of the country not only in social but also in economic terms. Elite groups who fear the rise of backward communities are trying hard to preserve their domination. The Hindu nationalist movement, which once looked at the Mandal moment as “a Shudra revolution”, is the instrument of a counter-revolution today. If caste politics is the main rival of this movement, a frontal opposition to it could revive the “Mandal spirit”. Therefore, the party claims that the real enemy of the lower castes are not the upper castes but the Muslims. Diluting reservation is its second strategy.
That said, a debate on reservation policies is needed. Certain reforms — sub-classification of beneficiaries, for instance — are necessary to enhance equal access to quotas which have been cornered by certain jatis for generations. Secondly, if class, and not caste — as the anti-reservationists argue – can be the basis of determining beneficiaries, why not religion? In the face of overwhelming evidence of religious discrimination, prejudice and disadvantage against deprived minorities like Muslims, this question deserves urgent attention.
Dhawan is a New Delhi-based legal researcher; Jaffrelot is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King’s India Institute, London, and non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Kalaiyarasan is assistant professor, MIDS, Chennai
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
