The Fight for Backwardness - Elucidating Casteism and Reservation in India
THE FIGHT FOR BACKWARDNESS - ELUCIDATING CASTEISM AND RESERVATION IN INDIA
- Mahek Shivnani, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
While there is some sort of characterization and differentiation that exists in all human societies, a predicament occurs when this differentiation leading to a systemic social ranking turns into the sole determiner of resource distribution and of the behavioral action towards a certain class. This iniquitous differentiation has been brought out in the form of the caste system in India. The caste system can be traced back to its mention in early Vedic texts which classify Hindus into four occupational varnas- the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishayas and Shudras. While the first three tiers were considered the higher castes, the latter one was the lower class. Further mentioned are the Dalits or the untouchables who were the avarna. Even though there was a significant change in these rigid occupational pursuits and social interaction among the middle and upper classes post independence, the lower strata of the caste system was still subject to prejudice, neglect and were not provided with the same opportunities. Where there existed such a class of people who were actively discriminated against and were socially and economically oppressed, one can see why there subsists a need for reservation to uplift these classes.
HISTORY OF CASTE-BASED RESERVATION IN INDIA
The current intricate system of reservation is not a new one. The recognition of the need to increase the involvement of the backward classes in administration can be traced back to 1902 when the Maharaja of Kolhapur took the first organized step towards providing reservations to the backward castes.
Following his lead, the leaders of the country recognized the caste based system as a red flag to the development of India. One of the most significant events for the upliftment of the oppressed classes pre-independence is the Poona pact which assured a fair representation of the depressed classes in the public services while earmarking a portion of the educational grant for their uplift. This pact was an acknowledgement by the upper castes that steps needed to be taken to uplift backward castes and provide them with opportunities which would not befall them otherwise.
The British introduced reservation in furtherance of the divide and rule policy introducing religion and caste based politics. For example the Indian Councils Act of 1909, The Government of India Act 1919 and The Government of India Act 1935 all contained provisions for reservations. While the motive of the British might have been ulterior, the Indian leaders recognized the need for the removal of discrimination and the upliftment of the backward classes. The acts enacted by the British laid the framework for the current reservation system. Article 16(4) of the constitution allows the State to make ‘any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens’ which is not adequately represented; Article 46 directs the State to ‘promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people’ and ‘protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. ’ Article 340 gives the President the power to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes and make recommendations to remove the difficulties they face. Articles 341 and 342 lay down the procedure to establish which castes and tribes must be considered as SCs or STs.
POST CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
While the constitution, at the time of its enactment, had provisions barring discrimination, there were no provisions enabling positive discrimination for the backward classes. Article 15 (1) would have come in way of any favorable provision made- and it did. A seven judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madras v. Champkam Dorairajan struck down the Madras government’s order reserving seats in State colleges on the basis of caste. Further, in the case of Jagwant Kaur v. State of Maharashtra the court quashed a government order requisitioning land for construction of a colony for a certain community.
To tide over the difficulties created by such decisions, the government, by way of the first amendment in the year 1951, inserted Article 15(4) into the constitution. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in the Article or in Article 29 barred the State from ‘making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. ’ It is important to note that this insertion is merely an enabling provision which does not create any Constitutional duty or obligation. While this provision paved a path for development of the neglected strata, it is silent on the criteria for determining these ‘socially and educationally backward’ classes or the quantum of reservation.
The Constitution defines SCs and STs under Article 366 clause 24 and 25, but does not define backward classes. This has been an issue of contention for the Courts with no universally accepted definition. In M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore it was held that caste cannot be the sole or even predominant factor to ascertain the backwardness of a class. In Janki Prasad v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the court held that poverty cannot be made sole criteria since the purpose of the provision of reservation was to help the historically backward classes, and if poverty becomes the sole determining factor majority of the population of India would demand reservations. In R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, the government of Mysore laid down two parameters for classification- economic conditions and occupation leaving out caste altogether. The Court upheld this classification making caste not necessary criteria to determine backwardness. Further in P. Rajendra v. State of Madras, the court held that caste can be the sole determinator since it also constitutes a class which could, as a whole, be socially and educationally backward. In the case of Indra Sawhney v. UOI, also known as the Mandal Commission Case, the Supreme Court held that while caste may be used as a criterion to identify the socially and educationally backward classes because caste is often a social class in India, it cannot be the sole criterion. It left the task of actually identifying the backward classes to a commission appointed by the government. Another important recommendation made in this case was that the ‘creamy layer’ should be excluded from the scope of reservation. Commenting about the quantum of reservation, the court stressed that Article 16(4) talks about adequate representation not proportional representation and laid down that the quantum of reservation must not exceed 50% in one year.
RESERVATIONS BASED ON CASTE- A REDUNDANT BUT PROFITABLE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY?
There is wide public discourse and debate between the social transformation and the meritocracy campaign. The opinion held by the people with regard to the government’s reservation policies for people belonging to different castes is often lopsided, vague and deeply polarized. While the system of reservation was initially implemented to alleviate the historically oppressed classes, with time we see more and more of the sections of society demanding to be classified as backward. Does the thought behind the current reservation policy of Indian state really reflect an interest in social alleviation? Is India being controlled by division in caste identities solidified by caste based reservations? The politics of social division and the play for power using the reservation system is now the staple diet for the casteist and communalist leaders of today. The cat was officially out of the bag when Ram Vilas, in 2004, announced that the winning formula for the elections was a Muslin-Dalit coalition.
The massive public discourse upon the topic of reservation hinges on not whether this doctrine of affirmative action should exist but who should benefit from it. While policy makers can try to shield away, they must, at some point confront the impending question of how and when this initially ‘transient’ but later imbedded system can be uprooted and phased out. Reservation is tilting the scale unfairly departing from the original intended equality of opportunity.
REFERENCES
1.Manali Deshpande, ‘History of the Indian Caste System and its impact on India today’ (2010) SOCS 461,462 < https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=socssp> accessed 9 April 2020
2. Mehbubul Hassan Laskar, ‘Rethinking reservation in Higher Education in India’ ILI Law Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (2010) 25
3. Uday Balakrishnan, ‘Ambedkar and the Poona Pact’ The Hindu, (14 April 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/ambedkar-and-the-poona-pact/article31333684.ece> accessed 14 April 2020
4. Constitution of India 1949, art. 16
5. Constitution of India 1949, art. 46
6. Constitution of India 1949, art. 340
7. Constitution of India 1949, art. 341; Constitution of India 1949, art. 342
8. AIR 1951 SC 226.
9. AIR 1952 Bom. 461.
10. Constitution of India 1949, art. 15
11. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th edn, Lexis Nexis 2018) 978
12. Constitution of India 1949, art. 366
13. AIR 1963 SC 649.
14. AIR 1964 SC 1823.
15. AIR 1968 SC 1012.
16. 1992 Supp(3) SCC 217.
17. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India 101 (13th edn, Eastern Book Company 2018)
18. Bhambhri, C. P. “Reservations and Casteism.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 40, no. 9, 2005, 806, 808. <JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4416260> accessed 7 Apr. 2020
