|
Spotlight
New
Delhi, 1 September 2017
OBC Categorisation
ANOTHER
PANDORA’S BOX
By Dr.S.Saraswathi
(Former
Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
The Union Government has decided to set up a Commission
to undertake sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBC). The
announcement has come as a rather late response to several demands from various
castes from time to time for inclusion in the list of OBC and pressures to trim
the list for better distribution of the benefits.
The terms of reference to the Commission
include examination of the degree of “inequitable distribution of benefits of
reservation” among the OBC; devising a mechanism, criteria, and parameters for
sub-categorisation of OBC; and revision of the Central list of OBC. On the face
of it, it is a tricky job by anybody’s assessment. The exercise is likely to open another
Pandora’s Box releasing more and more answerless questions, clueless
complications, and fresh demands.
Three categories of OBC have been suggested
by the National Commission for Backward Classes --– Other Backward Class, Most
Backward Class, and Extremely Backward Class.
It confirms that in official
thinking, no exit door is contemplated for any
caste as a group in the OBC list, but only special
doors to be opened for sections within a BC like VIP entrances in temples. Degrees of backwardness will be the criterion
for sub-categorization.
BJP President says that, “The sub-categorisation
will ensure that priority can be given to communities among the OBC which
because of their economic backwardness are in greater need of reservation and
other benefits”. The observation admits
the impact of economic standard in determining backwardness – a factor
ignored all along by associating backwardness exclusively with over-all social
and educational status of a caste which has directly strengthened caste bonds
of the forward within backward.
No doubt, special concessions and
preferential treatment in any matter cannot reach everybody in the targeted
category in equal measure. On the contrary, they produce further divisions and introduce new inequalities. A community
once homogeneous by social and educational status, may also develop
vertical layers as a consequence
of uneven utilisation of the benefits of
government policy due to personal
and circumstantial causes. This
necessitates removal of the “creamy layer” within the OBC. Our problem today is to reach all and uplift
the entire society. Any special
assistance is intended to help the weaker sections in competitive situations.
The label “Backward Classes” originated in
the last decade of the 19th century.
The Madras Government in 1895
offered small stipends to pupils coming from ‘illiterate” and “indigent castes”
and labeled them the “backward classes”.
At one stage, in the old Mysore Princely State a committee declared that
all castes other than the Brahmin were
“backward” deserving special concessions.
Look back.
The OBC itself was born as a sub-category of the preponderant numerical
majority of the political category “Non-Brahmin” in the old Madras Presidency
in the 1930s and formed the Backward Classes League in 1933. Pleading that only
forward Non-Brahmin castes were benefiting under the category “Non-Brahmin”
recognised in the Communal G.O. of 1922 governing appointments in State services,
it demanded separate turns for the backward. As a result of persistent efforts, it
succeeded in getting official recognition for job reservation in 1947 as a gift
of Independence.
A list of Backward Classes, then equated with
castes, was also drawn up and published in the gazette. Another list of Most
Backward Classes among the BC was approved by the Government of Madras in 1957
for the purpose of granting educational concessions.
In 1989, the Government of Tamil Nadu, forced
by violent protests, recognised Most
Backward Classes for separate
reservation in State services and
prepared a list of MBC.
Exclusive 20 per cent reservation
was provided for them. There are
presently about 40 castes listed as MBC in Tamil Nadu.
The question of reservation – particularly
the task of listing of castes which needs definite criteria and identification – has always been
a contentious issue. For, the number of
castes run into several hundreds and of sub-castes into thousands known by
different names in different places. The
task of fresh listing is bound to raise more questions than answers and
preparation of a satisfactory all-India list is almost impossible.
The undivided Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and
Tamil Nadu have gone much ahead of other States in this exercise having
examined them in depth through special commissions. Both academics and
administrators have been involved in this exercise. Central Government’s
proposal for sub-categorisation may raise discontent if its details are not in
conformity with prevailing State orders and rules.
Two-way reservation is in force in a number
of States -- Social Reservation which is vertical and Special Reservation which
is horizontal. Reservation for
physically handicapped, ex-servicemen, dependents of freedom fighters, and
women are horizontal reservation and it may cut across vertical reservation.
The practice of sub-categorisation of OBC has
been in vogue in many States in different forms. Such classification made in
Karnataka in 1955 was upheld by the Supreme Court also. Presently, in West Bengal, there are two categories –
Backward and More Backward. Haryana
recognizes three categories as Backward, Backward Classes A, and Backward
Classes B besides Scheduled Castes.
Haryana government even tried to carve out a new category labeled BC (C)
made up of five communities including Jats by a legislation unanimously passed
by the Assembly in 2016. It was stayed
by the High Court.
The Government of Maharashtra recognizes two
categories -- OBC and Special OBC comprising 346 and 7 castes respectively. They are granted 19 per cent and 2 per cent
job reservation in government service. Andhra Pradesh has five grades of OBC –
A, B, C, D, and E and has set up a Corporation for MBC a year ago. Bihar has two categories – I and II. Tamil Nadu government introduced
“compartmental reservation” within Scheduled Castes also in 2009 for
Arunthathiyars for job reservation. Thus, the trend has been to split
categories by degree of backwardness and increase their number. It has been
done by devising a yardstick for measurement technically called indicators.
It is true that reservation in jobs and
educational institutions has not brought intended benefits to all eligible
communities, but has produced inequalities among the backward classes.
Reservation Policy has allowed cornering of chances by the forward among the
backward which has brought about this dire need for sub-categorisation.
Politically, the move will have the effect of
ending or weakening domination of top layers of the OBC to the exclusion of
those down below – an effect that will produce immense political impact in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. The present tendency to cling to the idea
that “once backward is always backward” will get a break. However, the concept
of sub-categorisation, logically cannot be restricted to the OBC, nor the
application of economic standard stop with the “creamy layer” of the OBC.
Under the Reservation Policy, only SC, ST,
and categories of OBC are listed and not others. They are supposed to be “forward” or in
official parlance “non- backward”.
Considered realistically, this group is also not homogeneous in social,
educational, or economic standard.
When drastic sub-categorisation is in process,
the backward among the technically non-backward may also legitimately expect
some relief. There is no end to compartmental thinking. It is time to make a wholesale change and
give up divisive policies. Our mindset has to change.---INFA
(Copyright, India New
& Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
