The recent Supreme Court judgement on the sub-classification of reservations is a turning point for the provisions meant for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The judgement seeks to address the long-standing demand of those SCs who have been left behind or benefitted less from the reservation in higher education and public employment. As expected, SCs who have benefitted less have welcomed the decision. However, it is important to note that several anti-reservationists have also enthusiastically supported the judgement on social media, arguing that ‘real’ SCs should benefit from the reservation policies and those who have benefitted for several generations should be excluded. This perspective fails to consider the historical context that led to the current situation.
It may be true that certain SCs have benefitted more, but there are several problems with the usage of words such as appropriation or cornering the benefits. The central problem, in my view, is that such characterisation criminalises those SCs who, despite various odds, managed to obtain visible benefits of reservation in government employment and higher education. It creates massive hatred towards them for utilising the reservation provisions. It is important to remember that those SCs who have benefitted slightly more are also victims of caste discrimination, including the practices of untouchability. Despite the economic mobility of a tiny section of SCs, they continue to experience caste-based discrimination.
The first problem with usage such as appropriation and cornering of reservation by certain SCs is that it overlooks the role of political parties in power, bureaucrats, and officials responsible for implementing the reservation policies. Regardless of ideology, political parties in power have been extremely hostile towards caste-based reservations. Government officials and those controlling government-funded institutions actively subverted reservation in employment and higher education. This is not just a minor problem, it is a systemic issue that has been widely documented. Strong political mobilisation by Dalit organisations compelled governments to implement reservation policies. For instance, the powerful mobilisations by the Dalit Panthers in Maharashtra in the 1970s and 1980s. The arrival of political parties with a Dalit mass base in the 1990s, especially with the entry of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) on the national scene, has increased the pressure on the governing classes to implement the reservation policy.
The SCs who benefitted slightly more are the ones who remained at the forefront of Dalit politics and struggled for effective implementation of the reservation policy. Despite their mobilisation, thousands of job vacancies for SCs and STs still remain vacant in government offices. It is often noticed that the selection committees overtly reject the most qualified SC person by stating that the candidate is ‘Not Found Suitable’ (NFS). Even after 75 years of Independence, the castes who have benefitted from reservation have not managed to obtain jobs as faculty members at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) and the Indian Institute of Management (IIM). The Times of India reported in March 2019 that of the total faculty members in the IITs, the proportion of SCs is 2.23% and STs merely 0.31%. Similarly, of the total faculty members in IIMs, the proportion of SCs is 0.8% and STs is 0.2%. In both the cases, as per the reservation policies, the expected proportion of SCs should have been 15% and STs should have been 7.5%. The situation is no different in several universities and research institutions. The judiciary does not follow caste-based reservation, and other government offices have kept SC and ST seats vacant for a long time.
It is clear that varied mechanisms have been deployed by those at the helm of decision-making to subvert the mandate of reservation policies. The judiciary has never taken suo motu cognisance to intervene in the violations of reservation provisions for SCs and STs. In the current judgement, the Supreme Court expressed its concerns about the SCs who are left behind while introducing sub-classification. This is contradictory to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation for the General Category. It never took into account that some caste and religious groups benefitted most from the General Category than others. In the General Category, it is visibly evident that the Brahmin caste has a significant over-representation in higher education and public employment. However, the Supreme Court treated ‘poor’ as a homogenous category for the General Category people. It never ventured into the variations among caste and religious groups that benefitted least from the General Category.
The second problem with appropriation and cornering is that it suggests that SCs who benefitted slightly more, especially the Neo-Buddhist Mahars in Maharashtra or the Jatavs in Uttar Pradesh, are the groups that have actively blocked opportunities for the ones left behind. There is no concrete evidence that those SCs who have utilised the reservation policy have placed obstacles and denied other SCs access to the benefits offered by the state. Instead, it is equally evident that the beneficiaries of the social justice policies had to experience extremely hostile situations at the workplace, including traumatic situations leading to depression and suicide attempts.
As for higher education, there is a long history to showcase how higher educational institutions have subverted reservation policies. Those Dalit students who enter higher educational institutions perpetually experience caste discrimination from teachers, non-teaching staff, and fellow students. In several cases, this has forced Dalit students to die by suicide in India’s elite institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
The third problem with terming it appropriation and cornering of reservation benefits by certain SCs is that it overlooks the changes in political economy that directly impact the availability of government jobs and higher education opportunities. Since the economic liberalisation, jobs have shrunk in the public sector. Of the total secured jobs nationwide, merely 3.5% are in the public sector. Even within these public sector jobs, a large proportion are contractualised. For instance, contractual government jobs increased from 0.7 million in 2004-05 to 15.9 million in 2017-18. Data from the Public Enterprises Survey from 2012-2013 to 2021-22 shows a reduction in 2.7 lakh jobs in Central public sector enterprises (CPSEs) in India. As of March 2022, 42.5% of the jobs in Public Sector Undertakings were classified under the ‘contractual or casual workers’ category. These employees have no access to job security and the wide-ranging social security provisions that come along with it.
As for education, since the fiscal crisis of the 1980s, several public institutions have diversified their sources of funding. As a result, there has been a massive increase in self-financed public and private institutions. Overall, seats in government institutions have decreased and seats in private ones have increased. As of 2019, of the total colleges, 64.3% are private and unaided, 13.5% are private and aided, and merely 22.2% are managed and run by the government. Except for the institutions managed by the government, the fees in private institutions are comparatively higher. Furthermore, there is no reservation in the ‘minority’ institutions, defined in terms of religion, language and region. During the last decade and a half, there has been a massive expansion of private higher educational institutions that also do not follow caste-based reservation.
In private institutions, as the Yashpal Committee noted, fees are exorbitant and they have illegal capitation fees that range from Rs 1-10 million for engineering courses, Rs 20-40 million for MBBS courses, Rs 5-12 million for dental courses, and about Rs 30,000-50,000 for courses in arts and science colleges. Given the fact that the majority of SCs and STs have lower income levels, they cannot access private educational institutions. Thus, the changes in the higher education sector and in public sector employment have directly impacted the reservation provisions. Therefore, in addition to reservation of seats, there is a need to focus on financial support from the government to access private educational institutions.
For the factors mentioned above, it is important that SCs who have benefitted slightly more are not criminalised. This is a necessary step towards a healthy dialogue among the SCs who have benefitted slightly more and those who are left behind. The discussions between the SCs are important as the share of higher educational institutions and public employment has shrunk considerably. Therefore, the focus of the SCs and STs should be on pressuring the government to expand the opportunities in higher education and discontinue the contractualisation of jobs. At the same time, the government must ensure that SCs and STs are given business contracts so that they can be part of the private sector as owners of capital.
Furthermore, the government can incentivise private companies who have caste-based diversity in their workforce. Similarly, to gain access to private higher educational institutions, there is an urgent need to provide a large number of scholarships for SCs and STs. It is through dialogues in the changed political-economic context that hard-fought reservations for SCs and STs can be protected. Otherwise, the sub-classification of SCs might become a tool in the hands of political parties, bureaucrats, and those heading various institutions to subvert reservation policies.
Sumeet Mhaskar is Professor of Sociology at OP Jindal Global University. His X handle is @sumeetmhaskar. Views expressed are the author’s own.