That the forward classes in India are against reservation is an entirely spurious claim. They are not only not against reservation, they love it. The forward classes eagerly gobble up a whole slew of reservations—women’s reservations, sports reservations, domiciliary reservations, reservations for children of Central government employees in Kendriya Vidyalayas and other institutions, and now EWS, to cite a few examples. They have no complaint that the reservations they get destroy merit nor do they demand that their reservations have a time limit. Reservation is part of the cultural DNA of the forward classes—what is Chaturvarnya, if not a massive system of reservation in which public and private employment and education (along with access to all rights of citizenship and all facets of life) are reserved for specific “upper” castes by birth while other “lower” castes are excluded? Reservation is the source of power and dominance of the forward classes.
Forward classes are only against one type of reservation—reservation in public employment, education and the legislature in favour of OBC, SC and ST. It threatens and weakens oligarchic control of the power of forward classes.
For the same reason, however, due representation in public employment, education and the legislature has been a central demand of OBC, SC and ST for over a century, starting with the 19th-century anti-Brahmin movements for representation in Madras, Mysore, Travancore and Maharashtra. Dr B R Ambedkar said to the first Round Table Conference on January 19, 1931, “I have a mandate, and that is, while not opposing responsible government, to see that no responsible government was established unless it was at the same time accompanied by a truly representative government. … I belong to that class which takes its stand on democracy and which seeks to destroy monopoly in every shape and form. Our aim is to realise in practice our ideal of one man, one value in all walks of life, political, economic and social. It is because representative government is one means to that end that the Depressed Classes attach to it so great a value, and it is because of its value to us that I have urged upon you the necessity of making your declaration subject to its fulfilment.”
Addressing the Minorities Committee at the Round Table Conference on September 28, 1931, Dr Ambedkar said, “Should the British make [the transfer of power to Indians], that transfer will be accompanied by such provisions that the power shall not fall into the hands of a clique, into the hands of an oligarchy, or into the hands of a group of people, whether Muhammadans or Hindus; but that that solution shall be such that the power shall be shared by all communities in their respective proportions.”
The demand for separate electorates and reservation in the executive and judiciary for unrepresented classes stems from the demand for representative government. It is also a rejection of the claim of the forward classes that they will represent all people, denying the right and opportunity of any backward class group to self-representation.
It is this struggle for representation that wrote a unique provision into the original 1950 Constitution as Article 16(4), recognising the fundamental right of every “class of citizens” to adequate representation in the services under the State. And to the reservation of seats for it if there was no adequate representation.
Shorn of its false and misleading rhetoric, what the 103rd amendment has done is to block off a whopping 10% of Indian public employment and 10% of all Indian education, public and private, from democratic representation and establish it as a representation-free, diversity-proof, caste apartheid, “upper” castes only, no “lower” castes allowed” space. This caste apartheid space is in direct conflict with the democratic character and identity of the Constitution. It’s an incendiary device planted by the oligarchy inside the Equality Code of the Constitution to blow up the Constitution’s edifice of equality. The entrenchment of the oligarchy will seriously damage India’s development prospects by blocking India’s ability to become a vibrant, plural, diverse, innovative and democratic economy.
EWS, and the larger demand to end representation-enhancing reservation for unrepresented groups and replace it with anti-representation reservation based only on the financial condition of individuals, counters the democratic demand of the unrepresented classes for self-representation and protects the claim of the forward class that they alone will represent all Indians—reminiscent of the insistence of Gandhiji that he alone will represent all Indians including the Oppressed Classes.
EWS has been falsely advertised as an “economic” reservation. It is not an economic reservation. To be eligible for EWS, a person must be a member of a socially and educationally forward class, subject to a creamy layer cut-off. Membership of the forward class by birth is the sole criterion for EWS. EWS is, therefore, actually social reservation.
OBC reservation has been falsely advertised as a “caste” reservation. It is not a caste reservation. To be eligible for OBC reservation, a person must be a member of a backward class, subject to a creamy layer cut-off. Inclusion as a backward class requires compliance with over 15 secular criteria on the social, economic, educational and political representation status of the class.
Backward classes are, therefore, open to all varnas, jaatis, religions and regions which are marginalised and unrepresented according to secular criteria. Accordingly, for example, Brahmin communities are in the backward classes, and the Supreme Court has made transgender a Backward Class. OBC reservation is the real economic (as against financial) reservation.
Reservation is a tool for representation. The century-old struggle is not for reservation; it is for representation. The question is, how long will representation be denied to the vast majority of social groups in the country? How long will the oligarchs insist on representing us all?
The challenge—which the majority judgments of the Supreme Court unfortunately failed to grasp—is to accept the democratic right of every unrepresented community to self-representation and give up insistence that the forward classes alone will represent everyone’s interest, to end the oligarchy and establish a representative state as the foundation of democracy and development.
Dr G Mohan Gopal
Former Director of the National Judicial Academy & former V-C of National Law School, Bangalore. Currently Advocate, Supreme Court of India