NCBC was created pursuant to the direction of the SC in the Mandal Commission case
Public Meeting | Photo Courtsy: National Commission of Backward Classes
Swami Vivekananda said that the biggest sin is to consider oneself weak. But in the country of the great Swami, there is a mad rush to proclaim that we are weak and entitled to preferential treatment by the state. Is there a Galahad left for whom it is galling to be declared weak and backward? The latest to join the growing list of backwards are the Jats, the dominant agrarian community in western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and some other regions. The Union government extended the benefits of reservation to Jats by including them in the Central list of Other Backward Classes on the eve of the announcement of the Lok Sabha elections. For the first time, this was done without or rather against the advice of the National Commission of Backward Classes (NCBC), thus, once again raising the question as to who is backward and what is the criteria of identifying backwardness? Though there is not much problem in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is quite problematic in case of OBC. Under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, the State is empowered to make special provisions for the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and those not represented adequately in the government services.
The first backward classes commission, headed by Kaka Kalelkar, in its report submitted on March 30, 1955, adopted certain criteria for identifying socially and educationally backward classes: low social position in the traditional caste hierarchy of Hindu society, lack of general educational advancement among the major section of a caste or community, inadequate or no representation in government services and inadequate representation in the field of trade, commerce and industry. It prepared a list of 2,399 backward castes or communities for the entire country out of which 837 had been classified as the “most backward”.
Some of the major recommendations made by the commission included undertaking caste-wise enumeration in the Census of 1961, relating social backwardness of a class to its low position in the traditional caste hierarchy, treating all women as a class as “backward”, reservation of 70 per cent seats in all technical and professional institutions for qualified students of backward classes, and minimum reservation of vacancies in all government services and local bodies for OBC on the following scale: Class I = 25 per cent; Class II = 33.5 per cent; Class III & IV = 40 per cent. Surprisingly, the chairman of the commission, Kalelkar, did not approve of these recommendations and opposed them in his forwarding letter to the President. The Union government did not accept the report on the grounds that the commission did not apply objective tests for identifying backward classes..
The second backward classes commission was set up in 1979 under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal, ex-chief minister of Bihar.
The provocation was the strong anti-reservation movement in Bihar in protest against the decision of the Karpoori Thakur government to reserve 26 per cent seats in government services following the recommendations of the Mungeri Lal Commission. After protest, the government made amendments carving out 3 per cent for women and 3 per cent for economically backward, with the remaining 20 per cent divided between Most Backward Castes (MBC, 12 per cent) and others (8 per cent). It was a very scientific arrangement which received adulation even from forward castes. Thus, the relatively more advanced among backwards could not corner major share as the most backward comprised a separate class within the class. The Mandal Commission recommended 27 per cent reservation for the OBC with this clarification that it could not recommend a higher percentage as the ceiling of reservation had to be kept below 50 per cent as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. Since SC and ST were getting 22.5 per cent reservation, 27 per cent for the OBC made it 49.5 per cent which is the maximum percentage permissible.
About merit, it said, “In fact, what we call ‘merit’ in an elitist society is an amalgam of native endowments and environmental privileges. A child from an advanced class family and that of a backward class family are not ‘equals’ in any fair sense of the term and it will be unfair to judge them by the same yard-stick. The conscience of a civilised society and the dictates of social justice demand that ‘merit’ and ‘equality’ are not turned into a fetish and the element of privilege is duly recognised and discounted for when ‘unequal’ are made to run the same race.”
However, it made no distinction between more backward and less backward. This is the main bone of contention that the dominant backward castes are using to carve out the lion share for themselves at the cost of the MBC.
So far as Jats are concerned, the Gurnam Singh Commission in 1990 recommended that they are backward, and the notification for reservation for them in government services was issued in February 1991. In May, the Bhajan Lal government cancelled the notification.
Though Jats were included in the lists of OBC of nine states, they did not figure in the Central list. A caste is included in the Central list on the recommendation of the NCBC which had rejected the demand of Jats for inclusion. It is for the first time that the Union government has given the benefit of reservation to any caste without the recommendation of the NCBC. In 1997, the NCBC had categorically rejected the demand of including Jats from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in the list of OBCs. Only Jats from Rajasthan were included, and only after excluding those from Bharatpur and Dholpur districts. Again in 2005, the demand of Jats from Delhi was also rejected by the NCBC. As the agitation by Jats grew stronger, the Central government asked the commission to review its earlier recommendations after it acquired review power in 2011.
The commission requisitioned services of the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research for collecting additional socio-economic data about Jats. It also held open hearings for four days, from February 10 to 14, 2013, giving two days each to supporters and opponents of the demand. Ultimately, the NCBC came to the conclusion that Jats as a class cannot be treated as backward: “Ethnically they are at a higher level; they are of Indo-Aryan descent, their educational level is high and the social status they command is far higher than the ordinary shudras. In the absence of social and educational backwardness coupled with inadequacy of representation in the services, Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution do not apply for the purpose of treating Jats as a backward class.”
According to Section 9(2) of the NCBC Act, the recommendation of the commission shall ordinarily be binding upon the Union government, though it has power to reject it. But for that, it has to adduce valid reasons as it cannot declare any caste as backward on its own. The opposition to their inclusion in the list came from other backward castes who are already in the list as they genuinely fear a larger share being cornered by a dominant caste.
But Jat leaders feel that the attitude of other castes is like that of train passengers who after boarding the train do not want other passengers to enter and crowd, but when they are on platform, they board no matter how crowded compartments are. They also accuse the NCBC of reproducing the repre-sentations of the opponents verbatim in its report.
The NCBC was created pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court in the Mandal Commission case which said a body was required to identify the OBCs. The commission is mandated to advise the Central government about inclusions in and exclusions from the lists of communities notified as backward for the purpose of job reservations after careful deliberation, but ironically there has never been any revision of the list.
( Source : dc )
Next Story
