A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court said states can create sub-classifications within the reserved categories for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). After this decision, along with the masses and political parties, elite universities and public institutions have become the battleground for discussing sub-classification and creamy layer issues. It is evident that there are two views on sub-classification: one in its favour, the other in its opposition.
However, both are critical of introducing the creamy-layer clause in SC categorisation. The Cabinet too has clarified that there is no plan to implement the creamy layer exclusion for SC and ST quota. This consensus stems from the shared notion that SCs and STs are historically humiliated communities and that reservation, in this case, is an attempt to redress generational social exclusion. Thus, creamy-layer sub-categorisation that excludes economically secure members of the SC/ST community cannot be used as a form of differentiation for the latter to continue to face discrimination.
While there is broad agreement among stakeholders on the introduction of creamy-layer status within SC/ST reservation, sub-classification based on caste has received mixed responses. Critics argue that it will fragment the pan-Dalit identity, and that privileged sections of the SC/ST communities are assertive and visible because they embraced the process of Ambedkarisation. Finally, they highlight the limited character of social change achieved by reservation and demand its effective implementation.
However, this ‘pan-Dalit identity’ is projected by the meta-narrative created by SCs visible in the public sphere, who not only participated in the Ambedkarite movement but also achieved a middle-class status thanks to reservation in education and employment early on.
Moreover, the visibility of communities including the neo-Buddhists (Maharashtra), Malas and Adi-Andhras (Telangana and AP), Holeyas (Karnataka), Pallans and Paraiyars (TN), Pulayas (Kerala), and Jatavs and Chamars in (north India) can also be attributed to their sizable population. However, communities including the Mangs (Maharashtra), Madigas (Telangana), Arunthathiyars (TN), and Valmikis and Mazhabis (north India) are ‘late entrants’ in the anti-caste movement.
The procedural history of sub-classification can be traced to the B N Lokur Committee constituted in 1965. It observed that the welfare benefits were concentrated in “numerically large and politically well-organised communities”. Ten years later, Punjab issued a notification giving preference to Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikh castes, identified as most backward, in SC quota. In the 1990s, the Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi emerged as a strong voice, demanding sub-classification in AP. In response, the state formed the R Raju Committee. Based on its recommendation, AP created sub-classification within SC reservation that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2004.
However, the demand for sub-classification in SC reservation by state and non-state actors was not an isolated case. We have seen the formation of commissions across India recommending categorisation and sub-classification of the SC reservation based on their findings: Hukum Singh Commission (UP, 2001), Lahuji Salve Commission (Maharashtra, 2003), Sadashiva Commission (Karnataka, 2005), Usha Mehra Commission (Centre, 2007) and the Janarthanam Commission (TN, 2008).
I argue for extending the social justice principle underlying the SC/ST reservation to castes that have not been able to access welfare resources. If reservation was introduced to redress the enormous socio-economic inequality among historically disadvantaged castes through proportional representation, then why not use the same principle for backward castes within the SC category? In the same context, the Supreme Court’s 2024 verdict takes note of the data and rationalises the necessity of sub-classification for the most disadvantaged and marginalised groups that have failed to access the benefits of reservation.
Thus, instead of penalising or silencing the internal contradiction within the Dalit community, it is pertinent that those upholding the cause acknowledge the vast disparity in socio-economic status, education and employment in the community. In fact, recognising internal disparity is an opportunity to both cultivate spontaneous solidarities among Dalit castes and actualise the constitution of a genuinely unified Dalit category and politics.
Milind E Awad teaches at JNU and is a Dalit rights activist
Suraj Yengde, author of ‘Caste Matters’, curates Dalitality, and has returned to Harvard University
