The ‘Bharat Bandh’ called against the reservation classification received support from leading Dalit castes, and their talk of unity is inconsistent with the Ambedkarite approach. The Gandhian approach is a stand that chooses unity over equality and justice.
In the recently delivered judgement by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court regarding classification of reservations, the apex court has clarified that ‘states can classify reservations’. Though the court did not come to a clear consensus on imposing a creamy layer for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) category, the discussion on the issue broke out in several directions as far as the SC category is concerned.
Two prominent groups surfaced: the marginalised castes in the pro-reservation classification in SC category, who welcomed the decision, and the ‘advanced’ castes in the SC category, which opposed the decision.
The debate revolved prominently around the two poles on the apex court’s decision―supporters and opponents within the SC category. Many politicians, social workers, scholars and intellectuals have expressed their concerns in this regard. Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leaders like Mayawati (Jatav-Chamar caste) and Chandrashekhar Ravan (Jatav-Chamar caste) from Uttar Pradesh, and Chirag Paswan from Bihar (Dusadh caste) supported the Bharat Bandh against the Supreme Court’s judgement. An objection was raised that there is a danger of division among the SCs due to the reservation classification. It was countered that because of the creamy layer (economic criteria), the foundation of social reservation was being hit and the politics of exclusion (delisting) of reservation beneficiaries was not much discussed.
To read more stories from Outlook's 21 September 2024 magazine issue 'Caste vs Caste', click here
University academicians started discussing the roles and politics of Dalit leaders/public intellectuals who supported the Bharat Bandh calling them ‘narrow and caste-centric’. This debate was somewhat complementary to the popular counterarguments of classification supporters. These castes have taken full advantage of reservations; these castes have usurped the reservation; these castes are not ready to give their share of reservation to others; and these castes are selfish, etc.
The stance taken by political leaders, belonging to leading Dalit castes like Jatav, Dusadh, Chamar and Mahar, against the Supreme Court’s reservation classification and the creamy layer suggestion has also been criticised by many as ‘anti-social justice’. There is some truth in this criticism, except for the generalisation, but due to the generalisation, even the reasonable, cautious pro-classification stance taken by the leaders/academicians from the pre-conversion Mahar/Buddhist community in Maharashtra and Pariya community in Tamil Nadu have been relegated.
Proponents of categorisation, at least to them, it is not right to define it as ‘hegemonic, anti-social justice, self-centered, narrow-minded’. “What did the Bandh prove? It showed that the leading organised SC/ST castes are not ready for “internal justice” and are unable to look beyond their immediate caste interests. For these caste leaders, social justice and systemic change are just rhetoric,” (Khalid Ansari, August, 2024).
Ansari has excluded the ‘leading caste Dalit leaders’ from the south in an article without considering their sensible opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision. The Buddhist leaders from Maharashtra, who look beyond caste-centric politics and look at the reservation classification as an extension of social justice have been unnecessarily categorised as ‘anti-social justice’, ‘caste-centric’ and ‘narrow-minded’ without going into sufficient detail. This view is being countered by the pro-reservation classification stance of two prominent Buddhist leaders in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.
Let us first consider the role of Ramdas Athawale, the leader of the Republican Party of India (RPI). Although Athawale is currently with the BJP-led coalition, he took a stand on Twitter in support of reservation classification and opposition to the creamy layer.
The RPI has a ‘Matang Cell’. The party has been demanding classification in reservation under the leadership of the Matang Cell-RPI in Maharashtra. The demand has been evolving in the past two decades―from ‘separate reservation for Matang caste’ to ‘separate reservation for Hindu Dalits’, and after that, ‘reservation classification (ABCD) in SC category’.
In 2019-20, two seminars on reservation classification were organised by the Matang Cell-RPI. Hanumant Sathe, president of Matang Aghadi, had also attended committee meetings in Pune on pro-reservation classification before these seminars. The 'Mahar’-led RPI has not only supported the reservation classification for political correctness, but has also supported the classification for socio-cultural unity within Dalits. This positive stance was taken five years before the decision of the Supreme Court.
Let us now understand the stance of Buddhist leader Prakash Ambedkar. He has a reputation of being a leader who tried to go beyond Dalit-centric politics. Prakash Ambedkar has been sharing the stage with pro-reservation classification organisations for the past 15 years. He has taken a stand in favour of reservation classification as a matter of ‘social justice’. In the manifesto of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi in 2019, the issue of supporting the reservation classification was prominently mentioned. Prakash Ambedkar lobbied for the pro-reservation classification of Mang caste for lasting political unity as a broad political movement under the new long-term Dalit leadership. Maharashtra has witnessed an enthusiastic response to this call from the leadership of the Mang caste. At Parbhani, Pune, Latur, Akola, ‘Matang Sattaspadan Malavas’ (conferences) were held at the initiative of social organisations of Mang caste.
Organisations like Lokswarajya Andolan, Dalit Yovak Andolan, Lal Sena, Matang Samaj Prabodhan Parishad and a newly emerging political party called the Democratic Party of India also enthusiastically responded to the political call of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi led by Prakash Ambedkar.
Though this political path has not gone forward much after the 2019 elections, even Prakash Ambedkar has not withdrawn from his support for reservation classification till date. Leaders from the Dalit community realise that the support for social justice within Dalits is a prerequisite for sustainable unity of the advanced and underprivileged Dalit groups in Maharashtra.
Thol Thirumavalavan is a prominent Ambedkarite leader from Tamil Nadu. He too has challenged the Supreme Court’s decision. ‘Which castes are more backward in the SC/ST categories? This should be decided by the central authorities.’ Moreover, he has also suggested that these backward castes should be termed as ‘sub-quota’ instead of classification. Thirumavalavan stance appears to be ‘political wisdom and foresight to maintain class unity among Dalits without avoiding internal social justice’.
After the Supreme Court decision, many thinkers and scholars seem to have failed to clearly understand the difference between the stance of the Dalit leadership from the ‘leading’ community in north India and the role of Dalit leaders from ‘leading community’ in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra regarding reservation classification.
It is not in the interest of broader anti-caste politics to project a narrow, self-interested and anti-social justice image of Buddhist/pre-converted Mahar, Pariya leaders who led the Ambedkarite political movement at the national level and advocated ‘internal justice’ within the Dalit community.
The ‘advanced’ Dalit caste leadership in north India is standing up against the Supreme Court verdict to impose retrospective constitutional class division. The common objection made by leading Dalit caste leadership and social activists is that it is ‘unconstitutional’ to categorise these ‘homogeneous’ group of castes.
Opponents of reservation classification are also alleging that the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have ‘fooled’ these castes to break away from the SC category through classification. Amazingly the classification is highlighted as a ‘RSS/BJP move’, unconstitutional and separatist. With a few exceptions, such arguments are coming from the ‘leading Dalit castes’. By baselessly painting the marginal Dalit castes demanding reservation classification as retrogressive, anti-constitutional, separatist, anti-Ambedkar, pro-RSS, the issues of internal social justice among Dalits have been neglected to some extent.
Leading Dalit castes are not in the process of cultural and political assimilation or melting process. These castes are autonomously claiming leadership and achievement at all centers of power.
It will be the politics of the upper caste-led parties to neutralise and blunt the leading Dalit castes who want to move autonomously in this intense power struggle. The BJP’s intention is very clear to use the backward Dalits for political purposes and to strengthen the Hindutva forces.
Therefore, resolving the issue of internal social justice and power struggle in an emancipatory manner becomes imperative for the LD leadership. The responsibility of the LD caste leadership, who claim to be Ambedkarites, has definitely increased.
The challenge is to stand as an autonomous political force without surrendering to established parties based on Brahmo-capitalist ideology, standing firmly as a third alternative, addressing social justice while maintaining internal Dalit unity and seeking political allies from tribal, non-Dalit, religious minorities and oppressed-underprivileged groups. It should be firmly understood that the formula of B R Ambedkar’s entire socio-political journey is ‘equality rather than unity’ and ‘egalitarian unity’. Ambedkar’s approach gives importance to equality and justice, rather than unity. The issue of unity is subordinate to social justice. The ‘Bharat Bandh’ called against the reservation classification received support from leading Dalit castes, and their talk of unity is inconsistent with the Ambedkarite approach. The Gandhian approach is a stand that chooses unity over equality and justice.
Leaders from north India, who call themselves ‘Bhimrao ki beti’, ‘Babasaheb ka beta’, and proudly say they are Ambedkarites, should reconsider their priority of ‘unity’ derived from their Gandhian approach. There is certainly some truth in the fact that the north Indian Dalit leadership feels the danger of the autonomous Dalit politics becoming ineffective and powerless due to classification.
It will surely be easy for the BJP, the Congress and the regional parties to neutralise the autonomous politics of Dalits, led by ‘advanced’ Dalit castes, at least for a while. But to overcome it, the way to oppose reservation classification is more politically destructive.
The Dalit leadership should soon realise that the path to sustainable unity among Dalits will be created only through the expansion of internal social justice. Dalit leaders of the leading castes are shaken and confused after the Supreme Court verdict.
However, it is regrettable that even after avoiding the danger of division, the discussion of internal justice could not be taken forward on precise issues, and in a promising language. Mayawati and Chandrashekhar Ravan have failed as Ambedkarites in devising a strategy to rationalise the reservation classification and stop the BJP’s game in a proper manner. The classification of reservation should have been given a very generous response as an issue of extension of social justice.
Making ‘Dalit unity’ an issue and by ‘targeting’ the creamy layer―which came only in the form of a ‘suggestion’―these leaders have rebelled against the classification. Now a picture of a split within the Dalits has emerged in north India even before the actual classification.
The Phule-Ambedkarite public discourse in Maharashtra was opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court regarding reservation classification. But the rationalisation of this opposition is worth noting. Despite demanding reservation classification, the Mang caste-led parties like the the Democratic Party of India and the Satyashodhak Bahujan Aghadi have declared their opposition to the creamy layer and ‘delisting’, while maintaining their demand for reservation classification. Also, most of the Matang organisations demanding reservation classification like the Manavi Hakk Abhiyan (Human Right Movement) have taken a clear stand against the creamy layer.
But the danger of delisting has not been realised by many organisations. However, Bihar’s Mahadalit leader, Jitan Ram Manjhi, has welcomed creamy layer to check the Dusadh caste-led Dalit politics and leaders of deprived castes like Sansi, Valmiki and Kanjar in Rajasthan have welcomed creamy layer to give a check to Chamar caste-led politics. They announced a street struggle to enforce the creamy layer classification. This self-inflicted language was not done by the Mang caste leadership who had been struggling for a long time for reservation classification.
It is promising that the discussion on the issue of distribution within Dalits is still going on at a deeper level in Maharashtra.
Another hidden side of delisting is the exclusion or ‘othering’ of non-Hindu SCs. Sporadic agitation and discussion for delisting are going on, at least in Maharashtra. Delisting is not only a crisis for Dalit-tribal autonomous politics, but it is also an encroachment on the autonomous cultural identity of the SC-ST categories, which are constitutionally non-Hindu. As the majority of the Mang caste group demanding reservation classification is influenced by the Phule Ambedkarite ideology, it has not gone too far into the Hindu fold.
So what has the court decided now? The discussion should not be limited to this. Do the so-called secular parties and the communal parties think liberally about reservation or categorisation? This should also be discussed. Scholars and proponents of reservation classification, while targeting the few creamy layer among the advanced castes who are the beneficiaries of reservation, should be aware of the fact that there is significant unemployment among the highly educated among the so-called ‘advanced/leading castes (Sukhdev Thorat, 2018).
Moreover, the government or the ruling political parties do not give special favour to the castes which are the beneficiaries of reservation. It is illogical to criminalise those who have entered the education sector or administration through extreme struggle―as if they have entered through favouritism and the exclusion of marginal Dalit castes.
Keeping in mind the validity of reservation classification, further threats raised by the anti-reservation parties, backlog in SC/ST recruitment, impact of privatisation on reservation, refusal of the ruling upper castes for reservation in promotion and politics of participation of the downtrodden in land and other resources beyond reservation in employment, should not be forgotten. Otherwise, it will be like depriving leadership to the Dalits.
Moreover, the current crisis of 200 points roster is not realised by the pro-classification deprived Dalit leadership. If the classification is done by the compartmental method, each of the sub-categories in ABCD will have to wait for a 100 years to get a chance for a point, according to the rotation. Also, there is a danger that the chance of being able to compete freely for the opportunity in the combined castes, which are few in number, will be closed forever. The issue of classification is dealt with by the established parties as a means of reducing and dividing the political power of the Dalit leadership. But by defeating it, the demand for classification ‘from within’ or ‘forced by the established parties’ to the leadership from the leading castes should be looked at from the right perspective. There is a need to develop a better ‘partnership model’ than ‘ABCD’ through politico-cultural awareness of caste groups demanding reservation classification.
(The author is a scholar of social issues and an activist in the pro-reservation classification movement)
(Views expressed are personal)