Why Sub-Classification of SC Reservation

TNM

The observations by several members of the SC’s Constitution bench lack empirical evidence and overpower the constitutional arrangements in this case, where any changes in SC/ST reservation should be the prerogative of Parliament, not the judiciary.

Why are the majority of Dalits landless? Why do only 9% of Dalits operate on agricultural land (Agricultural Census, 2015-2016)? Why do only 4% of SC and ST families have a member in government jobs (The Socio-Economic and Caste Census 2011)? Why does the Brahmin community alone monopolise 48% of the national income and other upper-caste communities 45% above the national average income (The Wealth Inequality, Class, and Caste in India report for 1961-2012)? Why has the number of unfilled posts in the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes reserved category in central ministries increased substantially over the years?

Why are more than 50% of posts in the SC/ST category lying vacant (Department of Personnel & Training, 2019); why more than 65% of corporate board members are from a single upper caste group? (Study conducted by D Ajit, Han Donker and Ravi Saxena titled ‘ Corporate Boards in India: Blocked by Caste? in 2012 found that “caste diversity is non-existent in the Indian corporate sector and nearly 65% of the Indian corporate board members are from one caste group – the forward caste – indicating that it is a small and closed world”). Why are SC/ST communities over-represented in low-paying jobs and under-represented in high-paying ones in private sector employment (AzimPremji University in 2019)?

Instead of seeking answers to these questions, the Supreme Court has given a verdict based on some hypothetically leading/dominant SC communities which do not exist on any paper or official document.

Moreover, it is important to ask: while striking down the Maratha Reservation, the Supreme Court said that it could find no credible data to suggest that the Maratha community is in any way socially or educationally backward. What evidence then did the Supreme Court have to identify which communities within SCs are leading and which communities have been left behind? Can such a crucial decision regarding historically marginalised communities be taken in the absence of any authentic evidence based on data or studies? The present judgment exhibits a striking resemblance to the popular narrative of the upper caste against the SC/ST reservation. Often these narratives lack evidence and are shaped instead by the contempt and manufactured anxieties of the upper castes toward the communities they oppress and exploit.

In addition, the narrative around the sub-categorisation of SC reservation is also part of the vote bank politics of upper caste-led political parties, which aim to corner the politically conscious SC communities who historically have been challenging the supremacy of the upper castes. As a result, sub-categorisation without a targeted approach or policy of providing basic necessities to the most backward communities among SCs remains mostly bad-faith politics. This is aimed at weakening the ‘Scheduled Caste’ as a potent political-class category and punishing those SC communities who stand against casteist and communal agendas of ruling upper caste politics. The present judgment of sub-categorisation should be seen against the backdrop of such divisive politics of the upper caste/dominant caste. The court also doesn’t question how far sub-categorisation helped those most backward Dalits where such measures were implemented, for instance in Punjab and Bihar.

What is even more surprising in the present judgment is Justice BR Gavai’s comment that “the State must come up with a policy to identify the creamy layer among SC communities and take them out of the fold of affirmative action,” which echoes the popular contempt of the upper caste against SC/ST/OBC reservations and was welcomed by the other judges. However, no judge asked what the percentage of the creamy layer within SCs is and if economically mobile SCs face caste discrimination in job appointments or university admissions. Existing studies on caste and caste-based discrimination in jobs, education, and even politics states that irrespective of economic position, SCs face discrimination by the upper caste.

If one studies the cases of caste discrimination in promotions and the suicides of SC students in university spaces like IITs, it becomes clear that it is not economic but caste identity that still matters in so-called modern institutions. It would have been much appreciated if Justice BR Gavai had commented on the demand for land distribution to landless SC communities. But sadly, such demands do not satisfy the ‘collective consciousness’ of the upper castes.

Lastly, the most important question one would like to ask the seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud is in which sphere do they want to ensure the so-called ‘true equality’ they talked about? As reserved government jobs are reduced to only about 3% due to rapid privatisation and the commercialisation of education becoming the new reality of India, will the Supreme Court ever go against the upper caste collective consciousness and stand in support of reservation in the private sector for poor SC-ST communities? In Justice BR Gavai’s words, will the Supreme Court ever ensure ‘true equality’ in India’s private sector, which has been monopolised by the upper caste?

Back to Home Page

Frontier
Vol 57, No. 8, Aug 18 - 24, 2024