Today, the reservation system has permeated the very fabric of India. Its scope encompasses Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Castes, Economically Weaker Sections, and people with disabilities. Moreover, reservation extends throughout the entire value chain, encompassing education, employment, and promotion. It is also present in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies.
A Muddied Mind
My mind is confused and muddied, with varied questions on the subject matter of the caste-based reservation system in India, as it has evolved. Some of these questions include: What are the historical, sociological, and anthropological underpinnings of the prevalent reservation system? What did the Constitutional Assembly envisage while framing the Constitution, and what did they not foresee? How have the often-conflicting judgements of even the apex court preceded and followed by a multitude of Constitutional Amendments shaped the discourse and narrative around reservation over the past 77 years?
The Nagging Fear
In Part II of this multipart series, I try to answer some of the above fundamental questions before re-imagining a curated, futuristic affirmative action agenda for Viksit Bharat. Importantly, I also address a nagging fear in my mind: whether India – particularly as it transpires that over the course of the past 77 years, Bharat has deviated from the original vision of the framers of the Constitution, particularly in treating ‘backward class’ as synonymous with ‘backward caste’ – has strayed from its intended path. This is such a complicated topic that it raises temperatures alarmingly, and in the past has upended the nation with ghastly sights: burning trains, towering infernos, self-immolated human bodies, fasts-unto-death, and political grandstanding.
I begin with the history, sociology, anthropology, and politics of reservation – when, why, and where reservation began in India, what its motives were, and what impact it has had so far.
Hunter Re-Hunted
Before that, it is important to discuss the Hunter Commission for two specific reasons. First, there is a popular narrative that it gave birth to the idea of reservation. Second, and more salient, had the Commission’s recommendations been understood and implemented properly in India, there would have been no need for reservation in education, employment, promotion, or legislature in present-day Bharat.
Let me debunk the first myth. The establishment of the Hunter Commission, its terms of reference, and its main recommendations had nothing to do with reservation. Its principal purpose was the reform and advancement of education. The name of the Commission set up by Lord Ripon is self-explanatory: the Indian Education Commission. Sir William Hunter (a member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council) headed the Commission, which had 20 other members and it popularly became known as the “Hunter Commission.”
The sole focus of the Hunter Commission was the improvement of primary and secondary education in the country. Its terms of reference included providing suggestions for primary education reforms; determining whether government educational institutions should function as usual; evaluating the standard of education provided by missionaries; and determining if private Indian educational institutions required encouragement from the government.
The Commission produced a long wish list of educational reforms. Had the Hunter Commission’s recommendations regarding primary and secondary education been properly implemented and further supplemented with salutary reforms in higher education, we would be witnessing a different Bharat today.
Alas, it was not to be.
History Revisited
The history of caste-based reservation in India is relatively recent, originating during British rule but championed by princely states within their own territories. It began two decades apart in two such states: Kolhapur (present-day Maharashtra) in 1902 and Mysore (present-day Karnataka) in 1921. Here’s a brief look at the reservation’s pre-independence history:
One, Universal Education Reforms: The early seeds of educational reform and reservations for the downtrodden were sown by Maharashtra’s social reformer, Jyotiba Phule. It’s fitting then that the history of reservation also began in present-day Maharashtra. In 1902, Chhatrapati Shahu, the king of Kolhapur, introduced reservations in education for non-Brahmin and backward communities. Whether Shahu was inspired by Phule, who had died a decade earlier, or acted independently is difficult to determine.
Nonetheless, Chhatrapati Shahu emerged as a social reformer whose goal was an egalitarian, casteless society, and his chosen instrument was the universalisation of education. He offered free education to all and established numerous hostels to facilitate access. He also advocated for suitable employment for those who were educated and campaigned against untouchability. However, there is no evidence that Chhatrapati Shahu actively pursued or mandated compulsory reservations in education or employment. That development occurred two decades later in the Princely State of Mysore.
The central message from Shahu’s Kolhapur reforms is clear: had India adopted his model, at least for the first fifty years after independence, the need for reservation might have disappeared by now.
Two, Mysore Raja Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wadiyar – Harbinger of Caste-Based Reservation: It is he who holds the mantle as the first proponent of caste-based reservation. Notably, he did so under duress, succumbing to pressure from non-Brahminical groups. Their agitation forced him, on August 23, 1918, to establish a committee to implement reservations for non-Brahmins in government jobs and education.
This committee, in its report, recommended: “Within seven years, the proportion of members representing the backward communities in all departments of the state service should be gradually increased to 50 per cent, as long as they possess the prescribed qualifications.”
I posit that the implementation of these recommendations ultimately sparked a chain reaction that engulfed the whole nation. The mere formation of the committee led to the resignation of the then Diwan of the State of Mysore, Sir M. Visvesvaraya – the later recipient of the Bharat Ratna – in protest.
Three, Justice Party: Parallel to the formation of the pressure group in the Princely State of Mysore, the Justice Party was established in 1916. Its aim was to advocate for the reservation of non-Brahmins in government jobs within the Madras Presidency. This culminated in a government order in 1921, proposing a 44 per cent reservation, which faced immediate and stiff opposition, resulting in a stay. Finally, in 1927, a revised government order implementing a 100 per cent job reservation scheme came into effect where a separate percentage of the quota was allocated to different communities.
While the state of Mysore sowed the seeds of the incendiary system of reservation, the Madras Presidency (now Tamil Nadu) arguably took it to an extreme. The fact of the matter is, given the opportunity, there’s a possibility that the entire political spectrum of India would come together and enact measures similar to what the Madras Presidency did in 1927.
Four, Round Table and the Communal Award: While reservation in education and employment originated in the Mysore and Madras Presidency, reservation in legislature was crafted in London in 1932. This came in the form of the ‘Communal Award,’ proposed by British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald during the Round Table Conferences. The award provided separate representation for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans. The Depressed Classes, corresponding to present-day Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs), were assigned seats to be filled by elections within constituencies where only they could vote. However, they retained the right to vote in other constituencies as well.
Five, Poona Pact: The Communal Award triggered the first fast-unto-death in India concerning the reservation. The participant in this protest was none other than Mahatma Gandhi, who began his fast on 23 September 1932, while still imprisoned. This act of resistance led to the Poona Pact, an agreement forged between Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar. This concise, nine-point document, written in quasi-legal language, outlined the manner and extent of representation for the Depressed Classes (without separate electorates) in both central and provincial legislatures.
Crucially, the Poona Pact advocated for the non-discrimination of Depressed Classes in public services. It also included a provision proposing the allocation of a portion of state educational grants specifically for the Depressed Classes. The pact, signed on 26 September 1932, found resonance in the Government of India Act of 1935, where separate electorates were granted to Muslims, Sikhs, and other groups, but not to the Depressed Classes.
It is significant to note that the Poona Pact, negotiated by B.R. Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution, did not propose reservation in education or jobs per se. Instead, he discussed fair representation in public services and the earmarking of a portion of state grants for the Depressed Classes.
The Constituent Assembly Debate: A Turning Point for Reservation
A pivotal debate took place on November 30, 1948, concerning Draft Article 10 of the Indian Constitution, which eventually became Article 16. Given its significance, the full text of Draft Article 10, as introduced in the Constituent Assembly, is reproduced below:
“10(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or any of them, be ineligible for any office under the State. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any class of citizens who, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.”
Three things become clear at this stage-
- The primary focus of Article 10 was to ensure equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment under the state.
- Discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, descent, or place of birth was strictly prohibited in matters of employment.
- Clause 10(3) was an enabling provision, granting the government the power to reserve appointments or posts for any “class of citizens” deemed inadequately represented in state services.
Careful reading reveals that there is no explicit mention of “caste.” The wording refers only to a “class of citizens.”
However, the events of November 30, 1948, in the Constituent Assembly, irrevocably altered the future course of the Indian nation. While a detailed analysis of the debate is beyond the scope of this piece, here is the primer.
One, it is instructive to note that it was the Drafting Committee of the Constitution, under the Chair of Dr BR Ambedkar, that inserted the word “backward” between the words “in favour of any” and “class of citizens”, amending Clause 10(3) to: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any ‘backward class of citizens’ who, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.” [Emphasis supplied in italics].
To the best of my knowledge of sociology, I humbly submit that the insertion of “backward class” in place of “backward caste” appears to be a deliberate act of the Drafting Committee.
Two, the debate was acrimonious, to say the least. Some found the words “backward” and “backward class” vague, difficult to define, and likely to create complications in the future. Others wanted the reservation to be limited to ten years, and still, others advocated for strictly merit-based employment.
Three, it is here that the reply of Dr H.C. Mookherjee, Vice President of the Constituent Assembly, needs to be read carefully. He replied: “… The clause [10(3)], which has so long been under discussion, affects particularly certain sections of our population – sections which have in the past been treated very cruelly. And although we are today prepared to make reparation for the evil deeds of our ancestors, still the old story continues, at least here and there, and capital is made out of it outside India… I would, therefore, very much appreciate the permission of the House so that I might give a full discussion on this particular matter to our brethren of the backward classes…?”
It is worth noting again that there is no mention of caste, though there is a mention of “backward classes”.
Four, it is here that the debate became rather interesting, with Sri T. Channiah (Mysore) explaining the north-south distinction. I repeat his words verbatim:
“The backward classes of people, as understood in South India, are those classes of people who are educationally backwards – it is those classes that require adequate representation in the services. There are other classes of people who are socially backward; they also require adequate representation in the service.”
Five, lastly, the words of wisdom from the horse’s mouth, BR Ambedkar, that sealed the debate and led to the adoption of Clause 10(3). Despite the limitations of words, Ambedkar’s utterances were so profound, that I quote extensively below:
“… there are three points of view … for us to reconcile if we are to produce a workable proposition which will be accepted by all.
View 1: There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens. It is the desire of many Members of this House that every individual who is qualified for a particular post should be free to apply for that post, to sit for examinations and to have his qualifications tested so as to determine whether he is fit for the post or not and that there ought to be no limitations, there ought to be no hindrance in the operation of this principle of equality of opportunity.
View 2: Shared by a section of the House is that, if this principle is to be operative – and it ought to be operative in their judgment to its fullest extent – there ought to be no reservations of any sort for any class or community at all, that all citizens, if they are qualified, should be placed on the same footing of equality so far as the public services are concerned.
View 3: Then we have quite a massive opinion which insists that, although theoretically, it is good to have the principle that there shall be equality of opportunity, there must at the same time be a provision made for the entry of certain communities which have so far been outside the administration … the Drafting Committee had to produce a formula which would reconcile these three points of view.
… If honourable Members will bear these facts in mind – the three principles we had to reconcile – they will see that no better formula could be produced than the one that is embodied in sub-clause (3) of Article 10 of the Constitution.
It is a generic principle. At the same time, as I said, we had to reconcile this formula with the demand made by certain communities that the administration, which has now – for historical reasons – been controlled by one community or a few communities, that situation should disappear and that the others also must have an opportunity of getting into the public services.
Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public service to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be equality of opportunity.
… If honourable Members understand this position that we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State, then, I am sure they will agree that unless you use some such qualifying phrase as “backward” the exception made in favour of reservation will ultimately eat up the rule altogether. Nothing of the rule will remain. That, I think, if I may say so, is the justification why the Drafting Committee undertook on its own shoulders the responsibility of introducing the word ‘backward’ …”
The Provisions
I decide to close this part with the provisions of the Constitution of India as they were adopted on January 26, 1950. The subsequent amendments (and there have been many) will find their place in Part III. The Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. In a nutshell, the goal is “equality of status and of opportunity.” And I have a caveat: Articles 14 to 18 must be understood not merely with reference to what they say but also in light of the several articles in Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) – “Justice, Social, Economic and Political”. This provides the landscape for reservation in India.
Having said that, the touchstone remains Clause 16(4), which reads as follows:
“Article 16 Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union territory prior to such employment or appointment.
(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.”
This was the state of the nation on 26 January 1950. What happened after that is a series of violent football games full of fouls and self-goals. The two Backward Class Commissions, particularly the second, muddled the field further. Conflicting judicial pronouncements did not help the case either and led to plentiful, controversial constitutional amendments.
The story from 1950 to 2024 follows in Part III. Suffice it to say, the die is cast, and the path ahead is fraught with difficulty. It’s unlikely anything will change, no matter what we do. Can Bharat find redemption? Improbable, yet possible. More in the next part.
The author is Multidisciplinary Thought Leader with Action Bias, India Based International Impact Consultant, and keen watcher of changing national and international scenario. He works as President Advisory Services of Consulting Company BARSYL. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment