A New Deal for Dalits

IN HIS MAGISTERIAL REVIEW OF India’s social mix Caste and Race in India, first published in 1932, GS Ghurye rejected the colonial stratification of caste identity and based on an authoritative study of the historical roots of Indian society, argued that concepts of caste emerged from the works of classical writers and their discussion of the varna system. Aided by his facility with Sanskrit, Ghurye brought forward a more nuanced picture of caste where intercultural exchanges, social and physical mobility, change in religious identity and intermixing of blood­lines between ethnic groups led to a profusion of castes and sub-castes that challenged the validity of endogamous groups. The mix­ing and dilution, he pointed out, led to a re-emphasis of hierarchy and purity but the efforts were met with limited success as myriad sub-groups emerged as a result of cross-pollination and blurring of endogamous identity. Though caste was viewed within the confines of the fourfold Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra frame, Ghurye understood legal and religious commentaries were often an attempt to restore order to a diversified social landscape that did not offer an unchanging view of society.

An informed and perceptive review of Ghurye’s book pub­lished in the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) in 2011 notes that the process of intermixing “…eventually strewed the landscape with castes (jati) and sub-castes that so confused the British census enumerators in the late 19th century, when they decided to freeze-photograph the system and then interpret that snapshot within their new ‘theory of everything’—evolution.” The author of the re­view went by the pseudonymous name of Barbara Celarent whose writings were published by AJS between 2009 and 2015. The anony­mous author presented herself as a “professor of particularity at the University of Atlantis” in the mid-21st century. The intriguing suggestion of time travel apart, the author’s essays on older works of social science are widely regarded as valuable engagements on social science thought. Scholars who followed Ghurye sometimes tended to take classical writings at face value and missed the chang­ing contexts of caste, favouring instead a more stratified viewpoint.

As Celarent’s essay points out, the British were only the latest in a train of analysts who attempted to rationalise caste. It was much later, after modern scholars revised their view of caste, did it become apparent that the British-era caste census of 1931, the last to be so conducted, suffered from infirmities in its findings as did interpre­tations of social hierarchy and categorisation based on the survey.

The challenge of categorising caste was recognised by the more observant of British census officials who noted a reluctance on the part of respondents to state their affiliations. The testimo­nies of such officials led to scholars recognising the role of the Raj in promoting and making the caste system more rigid by incorporating it into the administration. “[Occupational castes] have been largely manufactured and almost entirely preserved as separate castes by the British Government… Government’s passion for labels and pigeon-holes has led to a crystallization of the caste system, which, except amongst the aristocratic castes, was really very fluid under indigenous rule,” Celarent’s analysis quotes a census official mentioned in Ghurye’s work. It is no small irony that the hurdles British census officials faced—with castes differently identifying themselves from state to state and lack of consistent criteria—returned to haunt the ‘Socio Economic and Caste Census’ (SECC) conducted by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government 80 years later in 2011. Based on respondent response, it was riddled with inaccuracies and the Centre’s affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court during its hearing on Maharashtra’s reservation policies said it was unusable. The SECC was criticised even by academics and activists supportive of a caste census for “under-counting” the poor while those sceptical of the exercise pointed to its unreliability. The 2023 Bihar caste census is revealing when compared to the 1931 exercise, showing a decline in population of upper castes and a rise in numbers of Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs) and the Scheduled Castes (SCs). These changes are not totally unanticipated though factors that need to be considered include the greater ability of the upper castes to migrate to other states in search of livelihoods. There are smaller changes in Hindu and Muslim populations, with the latter’s percentage rising to 17.7 from around 15 per cent in the 1931 Census. The caste component of the SECC survey has been thoroughly discredited by design flaws and delays in data collection. There were literally thousands of reported castes, sub-castes, gotras and clans that defy categorisation, let alone be the basis of government policy.

In his influential essay ‘Annihilation of Caste’, BR Ambedkar powerfully argues that the varna system is the most degrading form of social organisation that diminishes Hindu society and has a deplorable impact on its ethics. As Ghurye did, Ambedkar rub­bished the myth of purity of bloodlines in light of historical migra­tions as also mixing between indigenous populations. He under­stood the error of conflating caste with race and the dangers this poses to Dalits. He said racial distinctions cannot be equated with caste, pointing out that Dalits in Uttar Pradesh (UP) were likely to be ethnically closer to their neighbours than their counterparts in Tamil Nadu, underlining the incongruity of the racial theory. The voice Ambedkar provided to Dalits and the extraordinary personal example he set through his success in escaping the boundaries of his caste laid the foundation of political and social mobilisation of SCs. His participation in the Constituent Assembly (CA) and the courage to offer unpopular views on communal issues that were a critique of Nehruvian secularism set him apart from others. In more recent times, the rise of leaders like Kanshi Ram and Mayawati made Dalits direct participants in power on equal terms. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) revolution lost some of its steam with the return of a re-energised Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to the centrestage in UP but Dalits continue to be key factors influencing political fortunes. The Hindutva-plus development model that has made inroads into the OBC and Dalit communities faltered with a decisive shift in SC votes in UP in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. As all communities seek outcomes they feel will benefit them the most, Dalits are well aware of their political rights and the value of their vote.

The rise of leaders like Kanshi Ram and Mayawati made Dalits direct participants in power on equal terms. The BSP revolution lost some of its steam with the return of BJP to the centrestage in UP but Dalits continue to be a key political factor

Share this on

The Dalit debate took a fresh turn with the August 1 ruling of the Supreme Court overturning a previous judgment and hold­ing sub-categorisation—or differential access to reservation for Dalits—as valid, discarding the view that SCs are homogenous and not amenable to further classification. In the Chinnaiah rul­ing of 2005, the apex court held the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 was not in conso­nance with constitutional provisions. A commission tasked with examining access of certain groups among Dalits in the states to benefits like college admissions and state public services reported inequalities within the community. The court did not uphold the redistribution of reservations as it felt it amounted to tinkering with the presidential list identifying SCs. Recalling the gist of the 2005 ruling, the current ruling of the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud says: “The Constitu­tion creates a legal fiction in terms of which the Scheduled Castes constitute a ‘class as a whole’. The States cannot sub-divide them. Such a sub-classification would tinker with the Presidential list and violate Article 14. If the benefits of reservation are not being distrib­uted equitably, they can be supplemented by additional measures such as training, which would not be contrary to Articles 14 and 15. A further sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes would not be reasonable and a uniform yardstick must be adopted to give benefits to the Scheduled Castes.” The court revisited the constitu­tional argument and concluded SCs are not a homogenous class and preferential treatment can be given to the most downtrod­den, who are not adequately represented. Such a provision aims to provide equality of opportunity. Petitioner Madiga Reservation Po­rata Samithi (MRPS) represented by senior counsel KK Venugopal submitted that “Article 14 does not only mandate equal treatment to all but also bars discrimination by equal treatment of unequals. Article 38(2) entitles those who are unequal in status to special treatment to bring them on the same plane. Article 341 (which gives the President the power to specify scheduled castes) has to be read along with Article 38(2) (which says the state must strive to minimise inequalities).”

In its review of the Supreme Court’s view of Dalit reservations, the Bench said in its early days the court saw affirmative action as antithetical to the equality principle. The court progressively leaned towards the classification principle embedded in Article 14 (right to equality before law) and agreed equal participation and fair rep­resentation were valid criteria for framing policies on reservation.

THE RECENT SUPREME COURT ORDER TAKES into account the ruling in the Indra Sawhney case in the contest of OBC quotas that “[s]ub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substan­tive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sec­tions of a class”, and holds there are grounds to extend this rationale to Dalit castes. In relation to the president’s power to specify SCs, Ambedkar said any further elimination or addition could be done only by Parliament in order to curb political manipulation. “The only limitation that has been imposed is this: that once a no­tification has been issued by the President, which, undoubtedly, he will be issuing in consultation with and on the advice of the government of each State, thereafter, if any elimination was to be made from the list so notified or any addition was to be made, that must be made by Parliament and not by the President. The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President,” the ruling quotes Ambedkar. During the discussions of the CA, Ambedkar proposed the phrase be included in a clause to Article 16 that “Nothing herein contained shall prevent the State from making provisions for reservation in public services in favour of classes as may be prescribed by the State.” The use of ‘class’ rather than ‘mi­nority’ was preferred, with Ambedkar noting religious affiliation as a determining factor for constitutional safeguards can overlook the possibility that religious affiliation can be accompanied by an “intense degree of social separation and discrimination.”

Though caste was viewed within the confines of the fourfold Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra frame, GS Ghurye understood legal and religious commentaries were often an attempt to restore order to a diversified social landscape that did not offer an unchanging view of society

Share this on

When Ambedkar held that “[w]ithout equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many,” he spoke of Dalit rights and is unlikely to have considered sub-categorisation but the court has picked on the words and called for states to identify the “creamy layer” among SCs, igniting a fierce political debate. Not surprisingly, BSP chief Mayawati has opposed the ruling, calling on Parliament to overturn the order, arguing that the court’s order will encourage vote-bank politics, with parties pre­ferring castes supporting them or those they want to woo. Major political parties including BJP have not offered a view although Prime Minister Narendra Modi embraced the Madiga demand during the recent Lok Sabha elections. As of now, the Centre need not act on the ruling which mainly pertains to states. Those like Andhra Pradesh that have supported the plea welcomed the rul­ing, which is sure to play out differently in the states. BSP’s elec­toral appeal rests on the Jatav vote, which is significant in UP and is spread across the country. Any move to promote the interests of less well-off Dalit groups can be a fraught affair for the BJP govern­ment in UP as it needs to weigh if this will deepen the alienation of Jatavs while delivering uncertain benefits. It is inevitable that political considerations can influence sub-categorisation but this does not obscure the debate on whether the fact that some Dalit groups are worse off can be now accepted as a criterion for framing reservations. There is no doubt that Dalits continue to be socially and economically disadvantaged in comparison to forward castes despite significant empowerment. Reservation and political rep­resentation have helped reduce the gap but it is equally true that some Dalit groups remain more severely disadvantaged. Some manner of objective criteria will however be required to prevent redistribution of quotas from becoming a political exercise al­though governments are aware that patently coloured initiatives run the risk of being struck down by the courts.

The evidence from the 1931 Census to the more recent exercises outline the perils of caste counts. The Bihar exercise led to almost no caste groups being happy about its reported representation, insisting that they number more than what the survey states. If a caste census is intended to provide rights, the opposite is more like­ly to ensue with an intensification of caste sentiment and divisions. Given its dubious validity, the call for a caste census by Congress and other members of the I.N.D.I.A. bloc comes across more as a political device to counter BJP than a commitment to the less well-off. In November 2023, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said BJP is not opposed to a caste census but would take a decision after careful deliberations. “BJP does not want to do vote politics,” he said. Such is the sensitivity of caste, which can be a banana peel in the political arena, that no party will outright oppose a caste census. In truth, sub-categorisation of SCs, if conducted with honest intent, is a more promising path to social uplift. A caste census that only aggravates differences is unlikely to help OBCs—a central consideration in the demand—and Dalits even less so. The caste enumerations car­ried out by the British had a predictable fallout—a proliferation of caste organisations with some seeking recognition as Hindus, others challenging the enumeration, and hundreds of caste claims impossible to reconcile. The case for Maratha reservations generat­ing heat in Maharashtra reveals how even politically influential communities seek quota benefits. The descriptions Maratha and Kunbi have been used interchangeably and a distinction between the more agrarian groups and rural land-owning elites is crucial to settling the quota demand. Sub-categorisation can be seen as exclusion by those who have benefitted the most from reservation. Ensuring others get their due is the new Dalit project, perhaps one that could be truly assimilative and a fair settlement.

About The Author

Rajeev Deshpande

•