Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REPORTS
Karnataka Backward ClassesP Radhakrishnan
Karnataka chief minister Veerendra Patil has repeatedly announcedhis government's commitment to implement the report ofKarnataka Third Backward Classes Commission. However, if thestirrings in some of the communities excluded from reservationbenefits, like the numerically strong and politically crucialLingayaths and Vokkaligas, and their demands for rejection of thereport are any indication it is unlikely that there will be anyearnestness in fulfilling this commitment, i
THE report of the Karnataka ThirdBackward Classes Commission, submittedby justice O Chinnappa Reddy in April 1990and placed before the Karnataka assemblyin June 1990, is probably the most eruditeand authentic document on who should betreated as belonging to the backward classes(BCs), how, and what should be done fortheir deliverance from rhetoric to reality. Theappointment of justice Reddy in March 1988and the constitution of the third commis-sion was in the wake of the state govern-ment's rejection of the report bf its secondcommission. The appointment of this com-mission in turn was the outcome of somewrit petitions challenging the validity of thetwo government orders on the report of thefirst commission.
HAVANUR COMMISSION
In its well researched and widely acclaim-ed report (in four bulky volumes) submit-ted in 1975, this commission, constituted in1972 by chief minister D Devaraj Urs withL G Havanur as chairman and six fithers asmembers, first identified the sociallybackward castes/communities by applyingmultiple tests such as economic, residential,and occupational. Among the communitiesso identified, for educational purposes(Article 15(4)) the commission treated thosewhose performance in the 1972 SSLCexamination was below the state average butabove 50 per cent of it as category 1 of 15'backward communities'; and those whoseperformance was below 50 per cent of thestate average as category 2 of 128 'backwardcastes', and category 3 of 62 'backwardtribes'. Category 2 also contained 13minuscule communities with a combinedpopulation of about 0.1 per cent though thecommission did not have adequate data ontheir backwardness.
After excluding six communities fromcategory 1 (Arasu, Balija, Devadiga, Ganiga,Rajput, and Satani) which the commissionfound were adequately represented in thepublic service, and the 13 communities fromcategory 2 on which it did not have enougndata, it retained the above three categoriesfor employment purposes (Article 16(4)) as
well. For an estimated population of about42 per cent to 45 per cent (19 per cent to 22per cent in category 1, 14.5 per cent incategory 2, and 8 per cent in category 3),the commission recommended an overallreservation of 32 per cent (16 per cent, 10per cent, and 6 per cent respectively for thethree categories) for purposes of both thearticles.
As the commission treated only onepopulous community, Vokkaligas, asbackward, but not the Lingayaths, Muslims,and Christians, while accepting its recom-mendations in general, for political expe-diency the Urs government included theMuslims as a whole in category 1, and the 'scheduled caste (SC) converts to Christianityupto the second generation in category 2 forpurposes of both the articles. To satisfy theBrahmins, Lingayaths, and other forwardcommunities excluded by the commission,the government contrived a 'special group'irrespective of caste/community consistingof actual cultivators, artisans, pettybusinessmen, persons holding 'inferior ap-pointments' (class IV or equivalent), andself-employed or those engaged in manuallabour. The government also increased thequantum of reservation to 40 per cent (20per cent for category 1, 10 per cent forcategory 2, and 5 per cent each for categories3 and 4), and. introduced an income limit,ostensibly for restricting the reservationbenefits to those whose annual familyincome did not exceed Rs 8,000 in the caseof the first three categories, and Rs 4,800 inthe case of category 4.
In 1978 the two government orders (GOs)on Havanur's report, of February 22 andMarch 4, 1977, were challenged before theKarnataka High Court on many grounds byas many as 252 persons. In April 1979 thehigh court upheld the GOs in the main butstruck down in part: It upheld the division
- of the BCs into three categories, the crea-tion of the special group, and the inclusionof Muslims and SC converts to Christianity;but struck down from category 1 Arasu forpurposes of either Article 15(4) or Article16(4), and Balija, Devadiga, Ganiga, Rajput,Satani, and Nayinda (the last by some ap-
parent error) for the purpose of Article16(4), and from category 2 all the 13communities which the commission had in-cluded without any basis. The matter wasthen taken to the Supreme Court in theK C Vasanth Kumar case. In the course ofthe hearing of this case by a constitutionbench, in November 1982 the Karnatakagovernment gave an undertaking to theSupreme Court to appoint another commis-sion. It was following this undertaking thatthe government constituted the second com-mission in April 1983, with 15 members in-cluding its chairman T Venkataswamy, andmember-secretary.
VENKATASWAMY COMMISSION
As justice Reddy has rightly observed inhis report, the Venkataswamy Commissionmade one of the most comprehensive socio-economic and educational surveys everundertaken, covering about 91 per cent ofthe state's 3.6 crore population consisting ofabout 61 lakh households, by a door-to-doorenumeration; issued wideranging question-naires and elicited answers; interviewed largenumber of individuals and representativesof associations; and gathered statisticalinformation from all available sources. Fordetermining backwardness the commissionformulated as many as 17 socio-economic,educational, and employment indicators,covering in each caste/community thenumber of houseless/siteless families,families living in puk'ka/katcha houses,families with annual income of less thanRs 5,000, and more than Rs 20,000, familiesholding less than one standard acre of land,and more than 20 standard acres; and thepopulation of agricultural labourers, urbansettlers, illiterates, drop-outs below theseventh standard, SSLC students, employeesin each of the four classes (I to IV), andself-emp(oyed.
The commission first identified as sociallybackward all those communities whichscored nine or more indicators. Amongthem, like the Havanur Commission, ittreated as educationally backward thosewhose performance in the 1985 SSLCexamination was below the state average. Itfound the social and educational backward-ness as revealed by trie 17 indicators and theSSLC performance test respectively to becoincidental in all but 13 eases. In these casesit took the SSLC performance test as yetanother indicator and treated as educa-tionally backward those communities whichscored ten or more indicators. Of thecommunities so identified it treated 15whose SSLC performance was below th<state average but above 50 per cent of it asgroup A, and 20 whose performance was 50per cent below the state average as group B.
It applied similar tests for determiningemployment backwardness after taking intoconsideration the caste/community percen-tage and state average of employment in the
Economic and Political Weekly August 11, 1990 1749
public service, and treated 31 of the above35 communities as backward for employ-ment purposes, 12 in group A, and 19 ingroup B. While its first recommendation wasthus to treat as backward 35 castes/com-munities for educational purposes, and ofthem 31 for employment purposes, itssecond recommendation was for an overallreservation of 27 per cent for both purposes,14 per cent for group A (for about 18 percent population) and 13 per cent for groupB (for about 15 per cent population). It alsooffered a wide array of other recommenda-tions for the gradual upliftment of the BCs.Its recommendations directly related to theimplementation of the reservation provisionsincluded reservations in promotions as well;carry forward system for unfilled quotas; ex-clusion from the reservation benefits allthose with annual family income aboveRs 15,000, and all those whose grandparentsand parents had availed the benefits underboth articles; insistence on income cer-tificates for claiming the benefits; and aboli-tion of the hackneyed special group fromwhich only the forwards had benefitedmainly by entry into professional collegesand state services.
These recommendations, especially thedrastic cut in the BCs from about 200 namesto just 35 names and in the quantum ofreservations from about 50 per cent (withreservation for the special group increasedto 15 per cent in 1979) to 27 per cent, werein sharp contrast to the expectations of thevested interests. Predictably, its severe restric-tions and several exclusions, in particular ofthe dominant Lingayath and Vokkaliga com-munities, in addition to other advancedcastes such as the Brahmin, Vysya, Balija,Devanga, Nehgi, Ganiga, and Maratha, werequick to draw the ire of these communities;and the displeasure of a government whosevery survival depended on their support. Notsurprisingly, in the wake of mounting pro-:tests and agitations especially by the vocaland vociferous Vokkaligas, the report did notget the deal it deserved. Buckling underpressure from vested interests, the Janatagovernment headed by Ramakrishna Hegde,consigned the report to the dustbin. Hisexcuses for rejecting the report were the com-mission's failure to proceed by the SuprerheCourt guidelines, and its methodologicalinaccuracies.
Justice Reddy has rightly termed the firstcharge as unjust and uncharitable, inasmuchas, though the Surpeme Court laid down theguidelines for the commission's benefit on-ly in May 1985, even at this late stage thecommission made all out efforts to take fullnotice of these guidelines, and elaboratelydwelt on each one of them with referenceto the data collected by it. As of the second,the three volumes of the commission'sreport, packed with meticulous details of itswork, and a wealth of information on thehistory and sociology of the BCs, shouldstrike even the naivest of the naive as elo-quent testimony of its thorough investiga-tion and the general authenticity andreliability of its methodology. The only
serious defect which justice Reddy has foundwith the report was what he has termed asits 'weightless marking method' of allottingone mark for each of the indicators. But ifthe government were in earnest it could haveeasily overcome this defect by a reconsidera-tion of the relative importance of the dif-ferent indicators for which the numerousstatistical presentations made by the com-mission gave ample scope, and, if necessary,by a revision of the BCs list drawn up by thecommission.
The 'interim arrangement' which thegovernment then made, pending the ap-pointment and report of yet another com-mission, brought back to the BCs' fold notonly the Lingayaths and Vokkaligas, but alsoquite a few other advanced and undeservingcommunities. The five groups into which itdivided the BCs, with an overall reservationof 50 per cent, together covered practicallyall Hindu castes (except Brahmins other thanPadartis and Staniks, and Vysyas), and otherreligious groups, and an estimated popula-tion of 92 per cent. There were as many as61 principal names in group A, 119 to 138in group B, 7 in group C, and 7 to 16 ingroup D. Group E was a numberless 'back-ward special' of occupational groups. It ispartly as a challenge to this arbitrary andunsavoury politics of backward classes andreservations, and partly as a vindication ofthe Venkataswamy Commission report thatjustice Reddy's report has to be seen.
REDDY COMMISSION
Beginning on page one and going non-stop till page 180,' without any contents listand chapterisation, the report in volume 1demonstrates in ample measure justiceReddy's sensitivity to the historical andsocio-cultural dimensions of the problem ofthe BCs in a society permeated by cumu-lative inequality" and a polity purtrefied bypower-hungry politicians.
Relevance of CasteIn view of the frequent attacks on and
agitations against the reservation policy,right at the outset justice Reddy has express-ed in unequivocal terms his abiding concernfor the continuation of this policy and theconstitutional mandates on it. Later, he hasalso arrived at the unambiguous conclusionthat social and educational backwardness isthe outcome of economic underdevelop-ment, educational unawareness, and castedegradation, that these three 'villains' notonly cause backwardness but also sustaineach other with remarkable mutuality, thatfor overcoming backwardness each of the'villains' has to be vanquished, that as casteis a burden acquired with birth, a sort of'original sin', the best way to fight it is tofight the other two evils from which it drawssustenance in abundance.
Yet in identifying backwardness, if not forovercoming it, he has projected caste as theprimary key. He has done this by calling at-tention to India's despairingly vast socio-economic inequalities, with the 'superior'
priestly, landlord, merchant, and such othercastes at one end of the spectrum, the SC/ST'outcasts' at the other end, and the numerousother castes in between, "who because of thelow gradation of the caste to which theybelong in the rural social hierarchy, becauseof the humble occupations which they pur-sue, or because of their poverty andignorance are also condemned to backward-ness, social and educational" (p 3).
This reiteration of the need for reserva-tions in the context of the glaring caste-basedinequalities itself brings to the fore therelevance of caste as an inevitable identifica-tion unit for any BCs commission (and ob-viously also for any administrator dealingwith the BCs programmes), and as an im-portant criterion for testing the claims ofmembers of such units, for the benefits ofthe policy by taking into consideration theirtraditional caste-based socio-economic,educational and occupational conditionsand the changes which such conditionsmight have undergone over the years.
It is precisely this great relevance of thecaste factor which has prompted justiceReddy to probe into the social gradation ofthe castes in south India, proceeding roughly"on the precedence given in rural society tolearning over land, to land over trade, totrade over crafts, to crafts over manuallabour and manual labour over labourengaged in obnoxious work" (p 42). Makinggood use of the rich data collected from awide array of sources such as evidence byindividuals and associations representingvarious castes/communities, interviews,tours of villages in the several districts,specially commissioned surveys, andstatistics on education and employment forthe entire state collected from an apatheticbureaucracy after frustrating interactions, hehas examined how this social gradation isnow reflected in the political, economic,educational, and occupational attainmentsof the various castes, or communities withcorresponding gradations.
In doing this justice Reddy has firstpresented the population estimates for 1988for the different castes/communities.2 Hehas then examined their relative positionwith reference to political power, land owner-ship, economic prosperity, poverty,landlessness, literacy, education, andemployment; and re-examined this positionwith reference to their traditional 'socialstatus gradation and hierarchy'. In makinga general assessment of each caste/com-munity justice Reddy's main considerationshave been its traditional social status, literacyrate with reference to the state average, per-formance in the SSLC examination withreference to parents' income and occupation,and share in the total admissions to thevarious professional and post-graduatfcourses and in the total employment inuniversities, public enterprises and .in thestate government.
Anticipating that some factors which ap-pear to loom large in the case of one com-munity may appear to be 'dwarfed' by otherfactorsin the case of another community,
1750 Economic and Political Weekly August 11, 1990
it is the overall effect, or effect of all fac-tors taken together that justice Reddy hasconsidered for determining caste backward-ness. On the basis of his overall assessmentof the different castes/communities he hasdrawn up two provisional lists, one of thebackwards with 67 names, and another ofthe forwards with 32 names.
Economic Criterion
Justice Reddy has then subjected hisassessment of the castes/communities inthese lists to the economic criterion. The pat-tern which has emerged from his earlieranalysis of the data on the 1988 SSLC ex-amination for the state as a whole is thatchildren of the lowest income group faredbadly while those of the highest incomegroup fared best, and that the performancewas distinctly linked to income, improvingas the income level went up. As this itselfis enough evidence of the crucial role ofeconomic background and the importanceof the economic criterion in locating social
. and educational backwardness, his maintask has been to consider the extent ofrelevance of this criterion. On this, he hasfirst offered two very powerful arguments.First, if economic criterion is to be the soletest and if socially and educationallybackward classes are to be equated with theeconomically backward, the Constitutionwould have used the expression 'econo-mically backward' and not the expression'socially and educationally backward'.Second, Article 15(4) is obviously not partof a poverty eradication programme thoughpoverty eradication may also necessarily beinvolved in any socio-educational pro-gramme aimed at the removal of backward-ness (p 148). By numerous illustrations hehas then exposed the 'hollowness', the 'im-practicability', and the 'undesirability' ofadopting an income criterion as the solebasis; more so because of the difficult inascertaining the actual income, the. ar-bitrariness involved in fixing and computingsuch income, and the greatest possible abuseof the income certificates.
As the economic factor is closely linkedto the caste factor and the caste factor hasgreater links with social backwardness,justice Reddy has been only too right in sug-gesting that with some caution and care thesocially and educationally backward classesmay be identified with reference to a com-bination of the caste and economic factors,without necessarily recognising the econo-mic factor through income certificates. Thisis precisely what he has already done in hisconsideration Of the various factors undercaste backwardness. However, by arguingthat the occupational factor is closely linkedwith the caste and economic factors, and asa further measure of caution, he has againlooked at the representation of the differentcastes/communities in the public service, thistime by treating women as a separatecategory within each caste/community forthe state civil services for which he could ob-tain the relevant data. He has also introduc-ed the economic factor for restricting thereservation benefits to the really backward
by excluding from benefits persons who areseemingly forward as revealed by theirparents' educational, occupational, andeconomic background. As this issue is partof his recommendations, more of this later.
After all his systematic, stage by stage,disaggregated and aggregated analysis of thelatent and manifest evidences of social andeducational advancement or backwardness,justice Reddy has confirmed the two provi-sional lists prepared by him. He has dividedthe list of the backwards into threecategories, with 52 names in category 1, 14names in category 2, and numberless oc-cupational groups as category 3. The divi-sion into categories 1 and 2 is on the basisof the comparative backwardness of thecastes/communities as well as their size,bearing in mind that "some of [them] areeither s,o extremely backward socially andeducationally [or] are so small in numberthat they cannot possibly hope to competewith the larger groups or those who thoughsocially and educationally backward, aremore advanced than themselves" (p 170).Incidentally, the first two categories also in-clude 34 of the 35 castes/communities iden-tified as backward by the VenkataswamyCommission.3
Keeping in mind the uniform and consis-tent patterns which have emerged from thedata on various factors of social and educa-tional backwardness, justice Reddy hastreated the three categories as common forpurposes of Articles 15(4) and 16(4). Theoverall reservation recommended by himis 38 per cent (11 per cent more thanVenkataswamy Commission's recommenda-tion)—5 per cent for category 1, 28 per centfor category 2, and 5 per cent for category3 consisting of landless or land-pooragricultural labourers, handloom weaversnot owning more than two looms and work-ing for wages or on piece rate basis, con-struction workers, and so on. The popula-tion coming under the first two categoriesis about 8 per cent and 33 per cent respec-tively (including the Lingayath subgroups)while that of the third category is unknown.
INEQUALITIES IN OPPORTUNITYSTRUCTURE
Before proceeding further with justiceReddy's other recommendations, it will beuseful to know the overall pattern that hasemerged from his consideration of thevarious factors in identifying the BCs.Table 1 is an attempt to capture this pattern.As employment in the public service and ad-mission to higher educational institutionsare the main attractions of the present reser-vation policy, the ratio of the percentage ofeach caste/community in higher employ-ment (A and B grades)4 and higher educa-tion (professional and post-graduate courses)to its percentage in total population, shouldgive a general idea of the relative access ofthe different groups to these higher echelonbenefits of reservations. Accordingly, theratios of the percentage of each caste/com-munity in columns 4 and 7 to the percen-tage in column 3 are presented in the table
Economic and Political Weekly August 11, 1990
as a simple access index (columns 9 and 10).Since a pass in the SSLC examination is theleast qualification with which one couldaspire for getting a foothold even into thebottom of either the public service or thehigher education, the ratio of the percentageof SSLC passes in the population of eachcaste/community to the percentage of SSLCpasses in the total population (column 8) ispresented in column 11. Taking the averageof the ratios of higher employment andhigher education (column 12) so as to fullycapture both these aspects of relative access,the castes/communities are arranged intothree categories. Since the SCs and STs arenot part of the reservation policy underdiscussion, they are included in the fourthcategory. Justice Reddy's final recommen-dation on the status of the castes/com-munities is mentioned in the last column.
The table reveals an amazing consistencyin the patterns in the relative access of thedifferent castes/communities to the principaldimensions of the opportunity structure, anda broad caste-class correspondence asrevealed by their traditional occupationswhich are still pursued in varying degrees.Thus, to-confine to the groups with 0.1 percent or more population which alone arelisted in the table:5
(1) The access of the castes/communities incategory 1 to the opportunity structure isvery low. For a population of about 16 percent, their representation is only about 6 percent m both higher employment and highereducation. Their performance in the SSLCexamination is also mostly well below thestate average.
Among these castes/communities it isonly the Marathas, who have a high socialstatus, as traditionally a caste of higheragriculturists and soldiers, who claimKshatriya status, follow Brahminical ritesand usages, and even wear the 'sacredthread'. Having regard to this, their goodperformance in the SSLC examination, andhigh literacy rate as revealed by the commis-sion's test survey of 523 villages dispersedthroughout the state, it is only this groupwhich justice Reddy has classified asadvanced in category 1.
The rest, all classified as backward, havea very low social gradation though in vary-ing degrees: Kurubas are a pastoral com-munity of sheep rearers, woollen and blanketweavers; Besthas are fishermen (treated insome other states as SCs); Upparas are salt-makers, tank diggers, earth-workers, bxicklayers, and construction workers; Agasas arewashermen; Tigalas are gardeners andbetel, wine cultivators (comparable to theVanniyars in Tamil Nadu); Nayindas arebarbers and pipers; Devadigas are templeservants (of a lower order than priests) andtemple musicians; Halwakki Wakkals areagain lower agriculturists; Medars are basketweavers; Bavajis, Dasaris, and Kudubis arewandering mendicants; and SomavamsaArya Kshatriyas are painters and artists ofa lower order, and makers of toys and idolsand saddles for horses.
(2) Though the access of the castes/com-munities in category 2 is slightly better, it
1751
TABLE 1: CASTES/COMMUNITIES BY ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION, 1988
SN Caste/Community
1 2
I Very Low Access1 Kuruba2 Maratha3 Bestha4 Uppara5 Agasa6 Tigala7 Nayinda8 Devadiga
Popula-tion
Per Cent
3
6.32.92.51.20.90.50.50.3
9 Halwakki Wakkal 0.210 Dasari11 Medar12 Bavaji
0.10.10.1
13 Sonavansa Kshatriya 0.114 Kudubi15 Others
TotalII Low Access16 Muslim17 Beda18 Idiga19 Viswakarma20 Golla21 Kunbara22 Mudaliyar23 Satani24 Others
Total
III High Access25 Lingayath26 Vokkaliga27 Brahmin28 Christian29Balija30 Jain31 Bunt32 Vysya33 Devanga34 Neygi35 Ganiga36 Kshatriya37 Darji38 Kodagaru39Katik40 Nayar41 Rajput42Urs43 Kotekshatriya44Sadaru45 Jogi46 Others
Total
IV Others47 SC48ST49 Others
Total
0.10.1
15.9
11.72.52.31.81.30.60.40.10.1
20.7
15.310.83.52.11.20.8 v0.7 V
0.70.70.60 40.40.30.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.1
38.5
16.76.71.4
100.0
EmploymentsAB
4
2.90.90.70.40.30.20.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.05.9
5.81.01.11.40.80.30.40.00.0
10.7
20.614.419.51.81.70.91.01.71.20.80.40.60.60.90.30.20.30.20.30.20.10.2
67.9
9.81.24.5
100.0
C
5
3.32.21.30.50.80.40.50.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.19.6
8.01.61.72.10.80.50.40.10.1
15.1
18.011.813.83.01.60.61.00.91.00.70.60.50.51.00.40.20.30.10.60.10.10.2
57.1
13.01.43.8
100.0
Per CentD
6
4.92.31.90.71.50.50.50.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.1
12.9
11.31.91.51.80.9<XS0.80.00.1
18.8
12.113.85.13.12.10.30.30.60.90.60.60.70.30.20.60.30.4ai0.30.10.10.2
43.0
18.21.85.3
100.0
HigherEduca-
tionPer Cent
7
2.71.01.00.40.30.10.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.05.8
5.71.71.81.21.30.40.40.00.0
12.6
15.711.621.52.31.50.60.91.3
. 1.01.00.60.80.50.30.00.40.20.10.10.00.10.5
61.2
14.42.43.5
100.0
SSLCPass
Per Cent
8
0.20.40.20.20.30.20.30.40.20.20.20.40.60.10.30.2
0.30.20.30.50.20.30.30.10.20.3
0.50.41.00.60.50.7O.S0.90.50.50.50.60,70.90.80.70.60.31.51.10.40.50.6
0.20.1«.O0.4
Col
9
0.50.30.30.30.40.50.40.40.10.30.30.20.40.00.30.4
0.50.40.50.80.60.40.90.60.70.5
1.31.35.60.91.41.21.32.41.81.41.11.52.14.01.91.31.82.83.73.41.31.81.8
0.60.2371.0
Access Index4 Col 7
10
0.40.30.40.* „0.30.20.40.40.10.20.20.20.00.00.20.4
0.50.70.80.71.00.61.00.60.70.6
1.01.16.21.11.30.81.21.91.61.81.5
' 2.01.7
" 1.4022.81.51.21.20.72.03.31.6
0.90.42.51.0
ofCol 8
11
0.51.10.50.50.70.60.91.00.40.40.51.01.60.30.80.6
0.70.50.91.40.60.80.80.40.60.8
1.41.12.51.51.21.91.42.31.41.31.21.51.82.22.01.91.60.93.92.9U>1.31.4
0.60.20.11.0
Averageof Cols
9 and 10
12
0.40.30.30.30.30.40.40.40.10.30.30.20.20.00.30.4
0.50.50.60.70.80.50.90.60.70.6
1.21.25.91.01.31.01.3 .2.21.71.61.31.71.92.71.12.11.62.02.52.1.1.72.51.7
0.70.32.81.0
RecommendedClassification
13
Backward 2Advanced
Backward 1Backward 1Backward 2Backward 2Backward 2Backward 2Backward 1Backward 1Backward 1Backward 1Backward 1Backward 1
See note
Backward 2Backward 2Backward 2Backward 2Backward 2Backward 2
AdvancedBackward 2
See note
AdvancedAdvancedAdvanced
Backward 2AdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvanced
Backward 1AdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvancedAdvanced
Backward 1See note
See note
Note: Others in the first three categories (SNs 15, 24, and 46) are Aganudi, Asbalakkaran, Baandhi, Budubudiki, Gondali, Dudigara, Siddi,and Tewar (SN 15); Ganiga, Kotari, and Ladara (SN 24); and Ambalavasi, Gatti, Hugar, Jatti, Kaniyan^agartha, Pategar, Rajukshatriya,Kanjirbhat, Rayaramath, and Sikkaligara (SM46). In category I Gudigara is classified as advanced; Gondali is not classified; the restare classified as backward 1. In category 2 all the three are classified as backward-1. In category 3 the last three are classified as backward 1and the rest as advanced. Others! in the last category (SN 49) are (a) groups whose population was not ascertained; and (b) castes notknown. The former are Parsi and Sikh (both classified as advanced); Bhanta, Bhatraju, Bogad, Chunchar, Devadasi, Ghisade, Gurav,Gurkha, Hawadiga, Kashikapadi, Katabar, Kolari, Kolla, Kurma, Malava, Mudhar, Otari, Pamlor, Pangual, Panika, Reinudas, Sansia,Satarkar, Takankar, Tilari, Vaidu, Vasudev, Veer, Yeralu, and Yerakala (all classified as backward 1); and Buddhist, classified as backward 2.Among Christians only SC-ST converts are classified as backward 2. The rest are advanced.
Source: Tabulated from Report of the Karnataka Third Backward Classes Commission, Vols 1 and 2, 1990.
1752 Economic and Political Weekly August 11, 1990
is still far from proportionate. For a popula-tion of about 21 per cent, their representa-tion is only about 11 per cent in higheremployment, and about 13 per cent in highereducation. The performance of'most ofthem in the SSLC examination is also belowthe state average. Among these castes/com-munities it is only the Mudaliyars, a highcaste of landowners and higher agriculturistsfrom Tamil Nadu, who have a high socialstatus.. Having regard to this, and theirrelatively, better access (almost very close totheir population percentage) to higheremployment and education, it is only thiscaste in category 2 which justice Reddy hastreated as advanced. The rest, all classifiedas backward, also have a low social status,though in some respects better than that ofthe groups in category 1: Bedas are hunters;Idigas are toddy-tappers; Viswakarmas arethe smiths, Gollas are cowherds; Kumbarasare potters; and Satanis are priests of thevillage (non-Brahmin temples).
(3) In contrast to the above two categories,the access of the castes/communities incategory 3 is high. For a population of about
39 per cent, their representation is about 68per cent in higher employment and 61 percent in higher education. Their performancein the SSLC examination is also mostly wellabove the state average. In this category itis only the Khatiks, as butchers and sellersof meat and animal skin, and Jogis aswandering minstrels and mendicants, andthe lower stratum of Christians (SC/ST con-verts) who have a low social status.Therefore, from this category these groupsalone have been classified as backward. Therest, all classified as advanced, have a com-fortable social position ranging from thehighest to the middle: The highest socialstatus of Brahmins as priests, andrepositories of traditional learning andwisdom is well known; Lingayaths andVokkaligas are predominantly landownersand higher agriculturists; Balijas, Bunts,Vysyas, and Jains are respectable tradingcommunities; Devangas and Neygis areweavers; Ganigas are oil-pressers and oil-mongers; Darjis are tailors and dyers;Kodavas, Kotekshatriyas, Kshatriyas,Rajputs and Nayars are landowners and
TABLE 2: CASTES/COMMUNITIES BY POLITICAL REPRESENTATION, 1988
SN Caste/Community
I Backward1 Muslim2 Kuruba3 Bestha4 Beda5 Idiga6 Christian7 Viswakarma8 Golla9 Uppara
10 Agasa11 Kunbara12 Tlgala13 Nayinda14 DevadigaIS Halwakki Wakkal16Katik17 Others
TotalII Advanced18 Lingayath19 Vokkaliga20 Brahmin21 Maratha22Balija23 Jain24 Bunt25 Vysya26 Devanga27Neygi28 Mudaliyar29 Oaniga39 Kshatriya31 Darji32 Kodagaru33 Nayar34 Rajput35Urs
Totalmothers36 SC37 ST38 Others
Total
PopulationPer Cent
11.76.32.52.52.32.11.81.3U0.90.60.50.50.30.20.20.7
35.6
15.310.83.52.91.20,80.70.70.70.60.40.40.40.30.20.10.10.3
39.5
16.76.71.4
100.00
MLAs
5.54.60.93.25.50.90.00.90.00.00.00.00.00.50.50.00.0
22.4
26.019.64.13.72.71.81.40.50.00.00.00.00.50.00.50.00.50.5
61.6
15.10.90.0
100.0
MLCs
5.92.90.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.08.8
35.319.110.30.02.91.52.91.50.00.00.01.50.00.02.90.00.00.0
77.9
13.20.00.0
100.0
Percentage ofMPs
7.17.10.03.60.03.60.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
21.4
28.617.97.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.03.6
57.1
14.30.07.1
100.0
ZPMs
2.73.00.92.51.81.10.00.60.40.01.20.20.10.00.10.00.0
14.5
29.621.83.22.30.20.51.20.70.20.00.10.10.40.21.10.0O.00.1
61.7
18.45.40.0
100.0
ZPPs
0,05.35.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
10.5
31.631.60.05.30.05.310.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.05.30.00.00.0
89.5
0.00.00.0
100.0
Note. ZPMs = zilla parishad members; ZPPs = zilla parishad presidents. Percentages arein the state totals.
Source: Tabulated from Keport oftheKamataka Third Backward Classes Commission. Vol 1,1990.
Economic and Political Wwkly August 11, 1990
higher agriculturists, still harking back totheir traditional importance as militia;Arasus (Urs) are a tiny ruling lineage; andSadarus are higher agriculturists.
POLITICAL REPRESENTATION
The pattern of political representation ofthe different groups in the different bodiesfrom the parliament down to the zillaparishad broadly corresponds to their accessto higher employment and higher education(Table 2).
For a population of about 36 per cent, therepresentation of the castes/communitiesclassified by justice Reddy as backward isonly 22 per cent in the legislative assembly,21 per cent in parliament, 9 per cent in thelegislative council, and 15 per cent in the zillaparishads. In contrast to this, for a popula-tion of about 40 per cent, the representationof those classified as advanced is about 62per cent in the legislative assembly, 57 percent in parliament, 78 per cent in thelegislative council, and 62 per cent in the zillaparishads. Virtually all (90 per cent) thepresidents of the zilla parishads are alsofrom this category.
It is, however, the numericallypreponderant Lingayaths and Vokkaligaswho dominate the political scene. For theircombined population of about 26 per centthey have a representation of. about 46 percent in the legislative assembly, 54 per centeach in parliament and the legislative coun-cil, and 31 per cent in the zilla parishads.About 63 per cent of the presidents of thezilla parishads are also from these com-munities. As justice Reddy has rightly noted,this political dominance is a reflection of theeconomic dominance of the two groups. Histest survey of the 523 villages reveals thatfor a population of about 18 per cent theLingayaths control as much as 27 per centof the land held by all the communitiestogether, while for a population of about 13per cent the Vokkaligas control as much as28 per cent.
Though the Brahmins rank only next tothese two groups in the power structure, theirpower rests elsewhere. For, of all thecastes/communities in the state they have thegreatest access to higher employment andhigher education. For a population of just3.5 per cent their representation is as highas 19.5 per cent in higher employment, and21.5 per cent in higher education. Their per-formance in the SSLC examination is alsowell above the state average and of mostother group's. Thus, as, in the traditionalsociety they are still ensconced at the sum-mit of the social hierarchy, and are top mostof all communities, socially and educational-ly. What is more, with their dominance inhigher employment and higher educationand with about 41 per cent of all thesecretaries to government from their com-munity, they virtually constitute theestablishment.
Though justice Reddy has, thererightly excluded from the BCs list thesrgroups, along with the other ad
groups, he has not overlooked the numeroussubdivisions and the socio-economic andoccupational stratification among theLingayaths. Keeping their peculiar problemof belonging to a sect (Veerashaiva) whichhas denounced caste distinctions and yetretain all the pernicious practices of the castesystem, he has listed as backward thoseLingayat subgroups which occupy the sameposition as the corresponding Hindu sub-castes identified by him as backward.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Justice Reddy has made several importantrecommendations for the effective imple-mentation of the reservation policy, and forthe betterment of the really backward. Theseinclude:(1) Exclusion from reservations of all those
either of whose parents is/was employedin higher grades (A or B), is a qualifiedprofessional as doctor, engineer, etc, isan income-tax or sales tax assessee, oris owner of more than eight hectares ofrainfed dry land or its equivalent; andalso all those whose parents aregraduates;
(2) Eligibility for the reservation benefits byany member of the BCs only on produc-tion of a Tahsildar's certificate, issued onaffidavits by parents and by a 'respon-sible resident' of the locality;
(3) Punishment, by imprisonment up to sixmonths, of all those who obtain falsecertificates and of all their accomplicesincluding the issuing authorities, andforfeiture of all benefits secured throughsuch certificates;
(4) Application of the reservation rule notonly for the initial appointment but alsofor the first stage of promotion;
(5) Setting up of a permanent committee formaking the reservation scheme self-moderating and self-regulatory, byevaluating the progress of each of thecastes/communities included in the BCslist, by deciding before February 15 everyyear whether the list needs any revisionon a consideration of how each of themhas fared in the SSLC examination, andin the admissions to higher employmentand higher education during thepreceding three years, and by recommen-ding measures for their overall advance-ment; and
(6) Creating conditions for the advancementof the BCs through literacy and povertyeradication, educational and economicimprovement programmes, rather thansubstituting such programmes by merereservations from which in any case onlya select few benefit, but not the bulk ofthe BCs.
CONCLUSION
Justice Reddy's report, a legacy of thepusillanimous Janata government headed byHegde, as the Deccan Herald had rightlypointed out in one of its editorials, has leftVeerendra Patil, the Congress(I) chiefminister of Karnataka, in a quandary.
Though, Patil has repeatedly announced hisgovernment's commitment to implement thereport, if the stirrings in some of the exclud-ed communities like, the numerically strongLingayaths and Vokkaligas, the two majorvote-banks of Karnataka, and the lessnumerous Devangas, Ganigas, Padmashalis,and Catholic Christians, and their demandsfor rejection of the report, are any indica-tion, this commitment is a 'doublespeak', forbuying time for stalling a ticklish issue. Thisis precisely what the sceptics see in thegovernment's action of consigning the deci-sion on the report to a cabinet subcommit-tee headed by none other than Patil himself,and in placing the report before thelegislature, apparently for debate in both thehouses; more so when the centre is also stillsitting tight on the Mandal Commissionreport, occasional pronouncements on itsimplementation notwithstanding.
At a time when quarrels over the constitu-tional provisions on reservations have almostset the states ablaze and torn the social fabricapart, Patil's failure to honour his commit-ment may push the state and its reservationpolicy to an irrational dead end, presumablyby also pushing him again into politicalwilderness. The centre, which is also in aquandary now because of the promise on theimplementation of the Mandal Commissionreport which it unwittingly made even beforeit could grapple with the imperfections andinadequacies of this teport, may also do well
to have a close look at justice Reddy's report,especially its methodology and rich database.
Notes
1 The 207 pages of annexures are relegated toVolume 2 of the commission's report.
2 Since the Venkataswamy Commission'sfigures were accepted by the government fortheir accuracy, after cross-checking them invarious ways justice Reddy has used thesefigures for making projections for 1988.
.3 The one.group left out, Gondali, was provi-sionally listed as backward by justice Reddy.Its omission is apparently an error. As a linygroup of religious mendicants and wander-ing minstrels, like the Jogis this group shouldfind a place in category 1.
4 For analytical convenience, data on employ-men|-m the four corresponding grades in theuniversities, public enterprises, and state civilservljcesare combined in the table.
5 Castes/communities with population of lessthan 0.1 per cent aregrouped together under'others' in the table.
ReferencesGovernment of Karnataka, 1990, Report of the
Karnataka Third Backward Classes Com-mission, 2 Vols.
—, 1986, Report of the Karnataka SecondBackward Classes Commission, 3 Vols.
—, 1975, Report of the Karnataka BackwardClasses Commission, A Vols.
Must Published!SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF TECHNOLOGISTS,SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS
Anuradha Sharma & Raka Sharan (Eds.)
Highlightsjjeveloprnent & growth of organisation andsociety through auditing, monitoring and forecasting of theimpact of scientific and technological developments andmanagerial assumptions.
1990 Rs. 125160pp. 23 cm
THE UPROOTEDDevelopment, Displacement and Resettlement
Edited by V. Sudarsen & M.A. Kalam
Offers and indepth comprehensive study of the uprootedpeople, the causes and consequences of their displacement,and the stemgths and weaknesses of the plans to re-inductthem into a normal lifestyle.
200pp 23cm Rs. 120
GIANGIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE
Road, u a r y a q a n j . N e w Delhi 1 1 0 0 0 2 Phone
1754 Economic and Political Weekly August-11, 1990
