Sep 18, 2024 09:17 PM IST
Any change in policy which involves a question of life and death for Scheduled Castes should be determined by hard facts and not by unfounded assumptions.
The Supreme Court last month upheld sub-classification in the quota for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). However, some judges further recommended adding creamy layer exclusions, restricting reservations to only one generation or once, making it time-bound, and adding economic criteria. The government has said that it will not implement the creamy layer exclusion. But clearly, these suggestions amount to a full-fledged assault on the concept of untouchability-based reservation. An assessment of the assumptions behind the suggestions is needed.
Let’s look at the arguments. Justice BR Gavai argued “unequal treatment to unequal classes” is justified if few members are far too advanced and added that only this can achieve real equality as enshrined under the Constitution. Justice Pankaj Mithal said, “The better of the class amongst the backwards eats up most of the vacancies/seats reserved leaving the most backward with nothing in their hands.” Are these statements based on real data?
Official data shows SC reservation benefits the economically weak and less educated people. This can be measured by two criteria — share in jobs and level of education. In 2022, about 89% of SC employees in the central government were in the C and D categories of jobs, and only 11% in A and B. In the same year, about 68% SC employees held degrees below secondary and higher secondary levels. More direct evidence came from the National Sample Survey on Employment 2022-23. About 78% of government employees were from lower income groups and 22% from top income households. The share of lowest, middle and highest income households was 41.4%, 36.5% and 22%, respectively. The share of these SC employees with education below secondary or higher secondary levels is 60%.
Clearly, there are substantial benefits of reservation to economically weaker SCs, though their representation is confined to low-level jobs. Hence, the view that better-off Dalits eat up more seats or vacancies is misleading. A second suggestion was about using economic criteria as the rationale behind reservation. This view holds that better economic standing is good enough for discrimination-free mobility. But this is not justified either by theory or empirical facts. The theory of economic discrimination tells us that group discrimination is based on group identity, such as race, colour, religion, ethnicity, caste or gender. In identity-based exclusion, such as untouchability, the untouchable group as a whole faces discrimination, irrespective of the economic status of an individual.
Empirical evidence also supports this assumption. A study by ActionAid in 2000 on social and economic discrimination in 11 states and another 2013 study of government institutions in eight states revealed discrimination in access to public amenities, in employment, in purchase of inputs and sale of output by farmers, and in purchases from SC-owned businesses in the transport, eateries and grocery sector.Another study of 90 SC businesses by scholar Asim Prakash revealed discrimination, Vinod Mishra’s study revealed discrimination against SCs in renting of houses in urban areas. In urban areas, higher-ranked officers faced more discrimination in the private sector. Internal surveys in IIT Bombay revealed caste humiliation of SC students. Thus, caste discrimination is a ubiquitous phenomenon experienced by Dalit individuals irrespective of their economic background, with some variations. The studies also showed that many SC students, government employees, and entrepreneurs who faced discrimination were second-generation beneficiaries of reservation. The view that limiting reservations to one generation will make SCs free of bias is unfounded.
Similar is the argument on the time limit of reservation. If untouchability persists 70 years after abolishing it and the gap between SCs and the higher castes on human development indicators is significant, reservation will continue to be necessary. The problem SCs face is complex because they battle not only discrimination but also isolation, antagonism, and humiliation.
If at all there needs to be any reform, it can’t be in the form of a creamy layer. It would be fair to exclude economically better sections of SCs from caste-based subsidised financial and other assistance. However, this can’t be extended to exclusion from reservation.
Data from 2022 found only 5% of SC workers are in government jobs. Although the share is low, it has brought some mobility. Individual mobility also induces group mobility because well-off people extend a helping hand to those who lag behind. I feel this spread effect of reservation is likely to be harmed by sub-categorisation and creamy layer. Therefore, any change in policy which involves a question of life and death for SCs should be determined by hard facts and not by unfounded assumptions.
Sukhadeo Thorat is former chairman, UGC.The views expressed are personal
Get Current Updates on…
See more
