The recent 6-1 ruling by the seven-member constitutional bench in the Supreme Court in favour of enabling the states to sub-classify Scheduled Caste Lists has opened up a heated debate that was not unexpected given the long and conflicting history of reservation in the public discourse in India. The ruling, however, asks the states to undertake internal reservation only based on empirical data and not without any political expediency.
But, given the history of caste-based social engineering in electoral politics, it is much more likely that further processes of internal sub-classification by ruling state governments will be undertaken with political considerations.
Nevertheless, considering these possibilities, how does one understand the contesting and variegated reactions to the ruling by different sections of SC communities?
For a section of them, most notably among the politically vocal actors among Madigas, Arunthathiyars and Valmikis, the sub-classification has come to mean a recognition of their long-drawn struggle demanding internal reservation, which they feel would better their chances of accessing government jobs.
On the other hand, a section of politically assertive actors among Mahars, Malas and Chamars have criticised this decision as a ploy to divide the Dalits further and tamper with the hard-fought reservation rights steered by Dr BR Ambedkar.
While leaders like Thirumavalavan, Manda Krishna Madiga and Jiten Ram Manjhi have welcomed the verdict, Prakash Ambedkar, Chirag Paswan and Mayawati have opposed the ruling. Is it then a panacea or predicament? Beyond this simplistic dichotomy, we need to have a nuanced understanding of these perceptions by placing them historically in light of the existing political climate, economy, and opportunities.
In terms of administrative intervention, one can trace this to the 1975 decision by Punjab Government to divide the 25 percent SC reservation into two segments, one constituting the Valmikis and Mazhabis while the other constituting Ad Dharmis, Chamars, Ravidasias and Ramdasias. It was brought in with the claims that the latter segment got considerably larger government jobs than the former. Later, in 1994, the Haryana Government divided the SC category into two blocks.
However, the sub-classification debate acquired political visibility only after the massive mobilisation led by the Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti (MRPS) in Andhra and Telangana, starting in 1995, leading to the formation of the Ramchandra Raju Commission. Subsequently, based on its findings, the SC reservation was divided into four categories in Andhra in 1997.
But the courts quashed these orders and notifications, arguing that the SCs constituted a homogenous class and violated Article 341, which enables the President to be the sole authority in preparing the SC list. Later, a national commission under Justice Usha Mehra was constituted to examine the sub-classification of SCs in Andhra.
In the report submitted in 2008, the commission stated that while the Malas were 51.39 lakhs in population, they had a 61.8 percent share in the State Public undertaking opportunities, while the Madigas, with 60.74 lakhs in population, had a 31 percent share.
There are thus two sets of stakeholders in this debate among the SCs, and it is crucial to understand their claims. The ones who oppose the sub-classification claim that it is a politically motivated decision to weaken the Dalit movement, especially the regionally visible Dalit castes like the Mahars of Maharashtra, Chamars of Uttar Pradesh, Malas of Andhra Pradesh etc — the communities who have long fought in several mobilisations and posed threats to extremist and Upper Caste dominance.
However, reducing it to only the external political actors would mean not recognising the agency, long-drawn struggles, and claims of relative deprivation by Arunthathiyars, Madigas, and Valmikis. Such arguments were made even during the Punjab sub-classification that it was done to get the Valmikis and Mazhabis on the side of the Akalis and that Chandra Babu Naidu propped up MRPS in Andhra. While external electoral motives cannot be overlooked, it should not be reduced to that.
On the other hand, claims by a section of Arunthatiyars, Madigas and Valmikis that other relatively better-placed Dalit groups have been the primary cause of their immobility and lack of opportunities too is misconstrued. In a society of graded inequality, it would be dishonest to say that the lower in the hierarchy would not discriminate against the lowest. A section of Malas and Parayars have vociferously argued against the demands of Madigas and Arunthatiyars during the heights of mobilisations.
But to deflect from the magnitude of appropriation of resources, land, business, higher education and assets by the upper castes and dominant castes and squarely blame it on the relatively better-placed Dalit groups would be a sociological fallacy.
Sections of different Dalit groups were historically better placed than others to access the limited job opportunities from the public sector that helped them form a middle class and acquire political visibility. This positioning can be attributed to urban migration, social movements, early missionary education, the nature of traditional occupations, social geographies, military recruitment, leather trade, etc, since the early 20th century. At the same time, these different conditions eventually came to play a role in the differential accessibility of government jobs among Dalits.
While this ruling recognises the long struggle by sections of SCs, particularly the Madigas and Arunthathiyars, one needs to ask how effectively the SC reservation will be implemented after the sub-classification to ensure the accessibility of the extremely deprived sections. Because the SC reservation in the public sector has been far from practical implementation, the Grade C jobs, including the sweepers, are where the SCs could be more populated. One also needs to remember that the organised sector is less than five percent of the Indian economy, and the public sector constitutes even a smaller share where reservation is applicable.
Without enabling conditions for primary and higher secondary education, scholarships, quality infrastructure and hostel facilities, most Dalit Children from underrepresented groups cannot reach a place of college or university even to avail of a reservation. The Musahars in Bihar are an essential example since they were added to the Maha Dalit category in 2007 by Nitish Kumar as one of the most deprived Dalit groups.
However, the ineffective implementation of schemes meant for them has added little to redistribution, although politically, they have become a recognised constituency over the years. Furthermore, the rapid privatisation of colleges and universities worsens higher education prospects for most Dalits.
The recent diversion and underutilisation of funds from SC/ST sub plans, the contract and outsourcing of jobs, and the non-filling of backlog vacancies in various states are other pertinent issues that must be addressed. Since the last decade, the public sector has been shrinking immensely, and the majority of Dalits across caste groups are stacked into low-paying, harsh jobs in the informal economy. These millions of individuals are beyond the scope of reservations in the public sector, even if it were to be implemented fully.
This situation echoes what Professor Neerja Gopal Jayal has argued. With the shift of upper castes from the public to the better-paying private sector and the downsizing of the public sector, reservation is an expedient and politically inexpensive resolution for the governments. Even schemes like MGNREGS, which was supposed to provide a guaranteed number of non-farm manual work for wages in rural India, have been fraught with delayed payments, fewer working days, Aadhar-related issues and cuts in the budget allocation.
Political mobilisations and public discourse of and within Scheduled Castes, whether united or fragmented, need to go beyond reservation in the public sector and protests after caste violence in assertively demanding land ownership, reservation in the private sector, expanding the 50 percent cap in reservation, caste census, maximum utilisation of SC sub plans, stringent implementation of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and labour laws and to address the specific needs of various sections among SCs.
The politics of recognition has, to a significant extent, been won, and leaders, symbols, and icons from SC communities are publicly revered by the dominant political actors regardless of their motives. Simultaneously, descriptive (passive) representation of SC individuals in the highest executive positions is being advertised but without substantial power and authority to act on behalf of the welfare of their communities.
This, unfortunately, is also being used against the SC Communities through the rhetoric of ‘Creamy Layer’, which was so ferociously brought up in the recent ruling despite it not being a matter of discussion. One also needs to be wary of such arguments which go against the very nature and foundation of the SC category, which was based on the demarcation of Dalits as a whole based on their shared untouchable status, regardless of their economic class.
The upper and dominant castes do not see the different kinds of Dalits when it comes to discrimination and violence, although the degree and manifestation might vary. This is a crucial juncture to recognise the achievement of the long-drawn struggle by a section of highly deprived sections among SCs for enhancing access to job opportunities.
At the same time, it is also important to understand that this is not a mere struggle for access to job opportunities but a movement for cultural dignity and self-assertion. Especially, in the MRPS mobilisation, the reclaiming of Dappu and the Madiga surnames was a powerful attempt at inscribing positive value to a culture that was denigrated. In a quest for self-respect, a validation of inequity is often the first step and self-respect in diverse, nuanced and complex forms. And the fight for sub-classification has relied on validating historically existing inequity.
At the same time, this should also be combined with the collective rights of SCs as a whole without allowing any mischief with the SC category, either based on economic class or second generation, because it is only an attempt to derecognise caste gradually and resent those SC individuals with some degree of mobility.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)