by Maguni Charan Behera
Most of us have heard the proverb that haathi ke daant khaane ke aur dekhaane ke aur. In simple English, an elephant has a set of teeth for eating and another for chewing. It is a very simple literal meaning with deep connotation. The context in which it is used provides deep insight to understand human behaviour involving in double dealings. This saying stands true in politicians’ concern for the development of people. They show the dream, but not the skeletons preserved in their cupboard. Their actions do not match their words. The above statements are in the context of reservation of SCs and STs.
There is a genuine concern for the development of the SCs and STs through reservation as provided for in the Constitution. The basis of this concern to bring the SCs and STs at par the advanced communities of the nation through affirmative action and positive discrimination has been subject to interpretations. Positive discrimination is to ensure that the constitutional provision of equal treatment is not violated. But who are advanced communities is not specified except that they are not SCs, STs and OBCs. Again these communities were not listed objectively; there is status transaction between communities. OBC becomes SC or ST and those who were not in these reserved categories at the time of Independence came to be listed in one or the other category subsequently following recommendations and regulations. The fluidity in categorisation has several implications and emerging problems like demand for caste-based census, sponsorship of caste politics, and demand for inclusion in reserved categories, and so on. It implies that the basis of listing reservation categories, the approach to develop them through reservation, or both the basis and approach have been wrongly perceived. It is evident from social and political unrest around the basis of reservation – the caste and community criteria and the assumption of homogeneity of the generic category.
What were the problems of these communities which attracted the attention of the Constituent Assembly for the provisions of reservation? These communities were considered untouchables; they had less or no access to education, social amenities, economic resources, and political participation. It was considered as general backwardness. The idea of political participation, however, is post-independence issue in India. Pre-colonial system of governance was characterised by participation of royal families, not the masses like in democracy. So, reservation promoted political participation in post-colonial India. The question is: does the provision ensure equal participation of all reserved communities and people. In other words, does it raise social, economic, etc, status of all members of reserved communities? Does access to education, health, state resources, and job through reservation help equally all members of the designated communities? Perhaps it does not. That is why PVTGs were carved out from ST category and in some states like Andhra Pradesh sub-categories have been created within the SCs. That is why the ruling of the Supreme Court of India on 01 August, 2024 for quota within quota and exclusion of creamy layers. Current reservation policy certainly could not achieve what it was expected to do.
After the SC ruling there is a debate on the interpretation of reservation objectives. The SC’s ruling has apparently and in fact economic primacy. But the oppositions argue that the objective of reservation was to correct centuries’ old historical injustice meted to the Dalits. The argument is appealing. But the meaning is ambiguous. What is historical injustice Dalits suffered from for centuries? Is there any study to understand this suffering during pre-colonial period? The sufferings are mentioned happenning during colonial period where all the castes were subject to the colonial ‘divide and rule’. The idea of centuries’ old historical injustice needs to be corroborated objectively. But there is no denying to the fact that untouchability existed since long as is evident in scriptures. Resources were free. The Dalits were constrained to access resources due to their occupational obligations. Even though resources were free still many non-Dalit communities and families, including tribes did not accumulate resources. The issue of deprivation in pre-colonial period needs to be examined in the context.
Is not economic deprivation a part of social injustice? Chirag Paswan maintains that reservation is an affirmative action included in the constitution because the Dalits for centuries have suffered social exclusion in the form of untouchability. Is there any grand all India society where present Dalits were excluded? Untouchability was not an issue of bipolar social division. In some areas some communities were untouchable while they were not in other states. Besides, every community practised untouchability to certain degrees. A dhobi or barber is not untouchable in ritualistic platform, but is considered so in village feast or in marriage sphere or in public place. A carpenter or a blacksmith may not follow physical untouchability in public space, but they do not dine together or marry one another. Untouchability against some castes was institutionalised, but they were not socially excluded as far as people depended on their services. Several castes depended on them and they also depended on different castes through jajmani system. However, they were denied accessing common village amenities. Untouchability exists among the Dalit communities also. In Andhra Pradesh, the Mala and Madiga communities live in separate hamlets; the Dakais live away from the Madiga and are not allowed to enter the living quarters of the latter. Binary understanding of untouchability between Dalits and non-Dalits is an over simplified generalisation, but the practice wherever it exists is inhuman.
This evil practice still continues in the society in some areas. Chirag Paswan states that Dalit youth are not allowed to ride horses in wedding processions and temples are purified after the visits of well known Dalit leaders. Why leaders, why not commoners allowed to visit? This practice is reflection of ignorance and ego of some people, not all in all parts of the country. There is no rationality. But it is ego; and Indian tradition warns against ego. Those who nourish it are against Indian tradition. The priests allow Rahul to temples but purify when a Dalit, who is a Hindu, enters the temple! Hindu religion teaches that all are the children of one Supreme Being. The violators are ignorant and irrational Hindus. They do not practise untouchability in trains or buses or in unknown places, but unfortunately in their social sphere. There is double-standard in dealings!
It is an entirely different problem and reservation has nothing to do to abolish it. Even education, job, and wealth of the SCs could not raise their status against untouchability. Existence of this practice is against humanity and cannot be changed unless humans develop the sense of humanity. It is a social problem and the society shall find ways to address it, because reservation and constitutional provisions have not been able to abolish this practice so far.
When untouchability is a suffering; and when political position, job, wealth, etc. could not alleviate it, there is no logic to link its abolition with economic progress. Chirag Paswan and others also admit it, but seem confused by stating that creamy layers are determined by their educational and financial position and that exclusion ruling of the SC is flawed.
As there are laws to deal with untouchability and social equality, the SC ruling has economic significance. Whether one admits or not, reservation has created economic inequality and formed classes. That is why PVTGS were created from among the STs. Empirical observation shows state, area, and community wise discrepancies among SCs with regard to accessing reservation benefits. It is preposterous to deny such discrepancies and denounce sub-categories. The objection, as can be understood, is not the concern for the development of SCs and STs in general, but for political gain.
Mr. Rajkumar Roat, the founder of Bharat Adivasi Party states that creation of sub-categories will break the unity among SCs and STs. He argues that if there is inequality among STs then people, social organisations, MPs, MLAs can sit together, decide and submit a proposal to the government on what needs to be done. The plea is appealing but ludicrous. He, being the people’s representative, does not know whether there are inequalities or not. So, he uses the probability ‘if’. Why did not they act as they claim now to do only to stop sub-division? If sub-division would break unity among the SCs and STs, and create hatred between one sub-group against others then does not it cause the same between tribes and non-tribes, SCs and STs, Dalits and non-Dalits? Certain things are not what they appear in reality. The objective of the politicians is not development, but to keep their vote bank intact. A large group can yield greater pressure. That is why Mr. Hemanta Soren stresses on tribal religion, and political parties like BJP, Congress, are undecided to comment. RJD and some INDIA group of political parties demand caste-based census apparently for the development of backward castes, but do not accept the strategy of sub-categorisation. Reservation serves the purpose of politicians rather than the development needs of the people. Politicians do not want to abolish reservation in the name of development when they know that it has failed in achieving so.
Low representation of the SCs and STs in jobs, higher posts, management, etc. is attributed to caste dominance. But has any leader thought that it could be due to backwardness of a large part of the reserved communities as they have not been benefitted from reservation? Does not it mean that sub-categories strategy can make more people eligible for different placements?
If sub-categorisation is not acceptable, then the prudency demands re-looking reservation criteria afresh. Unfortunately, the politicians have elephant’s teeth!
(The author is Formerly Professor at Rajiv Gandhi University and Dean of Cultural Studies at Central University of Jharkhand; views are his own)
