Quota in quota may set off political churn, from poll maths to alliances to women Bill

Thakur chose to fight on what has been the Opposition’s turf, given its demand for a national caste census. It showed that the BJP is worried about the perceived loss of its support among the OBC and Dalit communities in the recent Lok Sabha elections.

Sharpening his attack on Gandhi, Thakur said “those who do not know about their caste were talking about a (caste) census”. It was ostensibly meant to underline Rahul’s mixed ancestry with his grandmother Indira Gandhi a Brahmin, grandfather Feroze Gandhi a Parsi, mother Sonia of Italian origin – some would say a symbol of a plural India, but others like Thakur calling him an “accidental Hindu”.

Thakur also tried to put Rahul on the defensive, questioning the Congress’s OBC credentials, since Prime Ministers Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi had “opposed” affirmative action for the backward classes.

It is true that Nehru was not for reservation; he had set up the Kakasaheb Kalelkar commission to look into the conditions of the “socially and educationally backward classes”. The Kalelkar report, which made a case for anything between 25-40% as reservation for the OBCs in central government services, was not even tabled in Parliament. Finally, the central government left it to the states to take the decision. Some states like Karnataka opted for 50% quota, while a state like Punjab went in for only 5%.

The Mandal Commission, also known as the Second Backward Classes Commission, was set up in 1979, which submitted its report in late 1980 when Indira Gandhi was back in power. She too put it on the backburner —relying more on an upper caste-Dalit-Muslim constituency she had carved. The committee she set up to recommend what “action” should be taken on “Mandal” carried on for eight years — and outlived her! But she understood the value of the “backward card”, having won her 1978 by-election from Karnataka’s Chikmagalur thanks to the successful OBC-SC-ST-minority coalition the Congress had forged. And this win put her on the comeback trail in the wake of the post-Emergency debacle.

Rajiv Gandhi who wanted to take India into the 21st century, was dead against reservation as the way to do it: for two and half hours he spoke in Parliament against the Mandal report, fearing it would unleash caste wars.

It was Vishwanath Pratap Singh, who as the Prime Minister in 1990, implemented the Mandal recommendations, allotting 27 % reservation to the OBCs in government jobs, in a bid to save his beleaguered government.

While a party cannot fully delink itself from its past, it would be less than fair to hold its present leadership responsible for the decisions made in the past.

The BJP was known as the Brahmin-Bania party when it was led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, L K Advani and others. But Narendra Modi, an OBC leader himself, widened the party’s base to include the OBCs, particularly the extremely backward classes (EBCs) among them, and sections of Dalits.

Nor can Rahul Gandhi be blamed for wanting to increase the Congress’s catchment area by speaking for the “submerged” sections (SCs, STs, minorities and OBCs, who together account for up to 90% of India’s populace) just because his forebears did not do so.

Sitharaman, however, had a point when she returned the ball back at Gandhi, who had waved at her a picture of the “halwa” group of officials who had worked on the Budget while saying that it did not comprise any faces from the SCs or OBCs. How many SCs were there among the top nine at the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, Sitharman shot back. Charity, she said, begins “at home”.

It goes without saying that had Nehru, Indira or Rajiv provided reservations for the OBCs when they were in power, the story might have been different today. Rahul laments their abysmal presence in bureaucracy, corporates or media. But till it happens, and even as it is encouraged, the processes of governance cannot come to a halt.

A word on the political implications of the judgment of the seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, allowing sub-classification of the SCs and STs for the quota purposes.

Socially, this landmark verdict may bring the reservation benefits to the more deprived, albeit largely leaderless, of the SC/ST communities, thereby ensuring greater equity and justice.

But politically, it could open a Pandora’s box, and trigger a reaction from the dominant groups who have benefited from the quota policy so far now that a case has been made for excluding the “creamy layer” amongst the SCs/STs.

Can there be a renewed demand for a “quota within a quota” – now conceded by the apex court as a key principle – in the Women’s Reservation Bill (which provides for one-third reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies)? Can the judgment also lead to the sub-classification of the OBCs in the future? That has been pending since the Rohini Commission submitted its report last year.

It is not just the regional outfits but also major national parties which are eyeing the OBC vote today, with the Congress a more recent entrant to the game.

While the BJP may hope to gain from a division among the OBCs and SCs and win back, say, the support of the non-Yadav OBCs, especially of the EBCs, the Opposition INDIA bloc may prefer an overarching alliance as it did in UP with the creation of the PDA (Pichde, Dalits, Alpasankhyak). Either way, the OBCs are likely to emerge as the pivot of politics in the months to come – and caste will decide political alignments.

(Neerja Chowdhury, Contributing Editor, The Indian Express, has covered the last 11 Lok Sabha elections. She is the author of ‘How Prime Ministers Decide’)