The oppressors and the OBC script

Blogger MK had posted a comment parroting the old, unsubstantiated charge that 'OBCs-are-Oppressors' here. I did not think his barely hidden animosity towards the OBCs needed a response... but I responded nevertheless because I felt this would give me an opportunity to crystallize my own thoughts on an issue that is increasingly being used by anti-reservationists of all hues (whatever mukhota they might be wearing, red or saffron) to paint all OBCs with the same brush. This is the response I posted there :

'MK,
I noticed your interesting comment very late..You have alluded to me in your comment, so I assume its import is meant for my enlightenment too.

'You are posting a great Chandrabhan Prasad article about dalits, and then expecting us to just replace the word dalit with OBC and accept the import of the article. ' you said (to shivam vij, another blogger).

Some other bloggers here have also made this point, in fact at least one of them has been running what could only be described as a 'campaign' to press home this point - using his knowledge and data about the OBCs in one particular state. One out of twenty five odd.

The charge goes : the OBCs are stealing the Dalit script of oppression, and are, in fact, oppressors themselves.

I am an OBC - so this kind of sweeping charge places me in the dock, too. I am assuming you have visited my blog (and gathered that I am in favour of reservations) because you have so very openly hinted that I needed education on certain issues. If you haven't visited my blog I fail to understand how you can draw any inferences about my opinions. And even if you have visited my blog, I assume you haven't read any of my posts because nowhere in any of my posts do I indicate that the OBCs' claim to reservations is premised chiefly on oppression, as understood in the context of the claim of the Dalits. And wherever I linked to avowedly Dalit sites (this was less than half a dozen times in around 30 odd posts) I cited the articles (referred to) only to illustrate the nature of caste. I mentioned Chandrabhan Prasad's name only once ..and in passing.

Chandrabhan Prasad says "It is not the majority [bahujan] which is oppressed, it is the minority, it is the Dalits. Do you think Shudra communities such as Thevars, Vanniyars, Chettiyars, Gaudas, Lingayats, Vokkaligas, Kammas, Reddies, Jats, Yadavs, Gujjars, Kurmis, Patels, Marathas are oppressed communities?"

I can name a few more such castes - castes, referred to by the approximation 'intermediate castes', who, according to Dipankar Gupta 'now (wish to) convert their political and economic assets, which are primarily rural, to urban assets in terms of office jobs.' But what's significant is Chandrabhan Prasad echoes similar views in almost similar words :'When Phule talked of uniting with Shudras, the Shudras then were only the social police of the Brahmans; they were tenants. Today, they own land, most of the rural assets and institutions. They have a fair share in the media, cinema, and urban assets as well. All the four chief ministers in the South are of Shudra origin, including the CMs of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Bihar. Thus, ten major States are ruled by Shudra Chief Ministers. What is the condition of Dalits in these States?' (Link). Let's also consider a milder variant of this charge - Rajiv Gandhi had this to say on the issue : 'Many castes that are listed in (this) list are forward castes and are scheduled castes ... I know for a fact that Brahmins are included, Reddys are included, Vokkaligas are included, Kammas are included, Lingayats are included, Gounders are included, Chettiyars are included. Are these backward castes? Do they need the help?...'

Now you echo this very 'original' charge. There had been no policy action of positive discrimination favoring the OBCs at the central level until 1991 and at the regional level, a majority of the states hadn't taken up reservations until as late as the eighties and the nineties. What am I trying to say? I am trying to point out that the script of the OBCs hasn't evolved fully until now (if it had been, and the OBCs had been as articulate as the upper castes in voicing their concerns, and as conscious of their rights, the present round of reservations would have happened in 1990..no in 1980 itself) - but its critique has already been conceived, fashioned, crystallized and fleshed out and even converted into (easily digestible, remembered) popular memes such as the one you chant and and the nuggets offered by upper caste students who say : 'casteism DOES NOT EXIST at the highest peaks...divisions are characteristic of the lowland...'

Allow me to deal with your charges in two parts :
first, I'll explore the term oppressors as used in relation to the OBCs,
second, I'll attempt to ponder over the question whether the term 'oppression' fits the OBCs' collective state of mind.

I've taken the liberty to detail/define the contours of the term (your term) 'prosperous upper-OBCs' by naming some of the castes. I've borrowed the names of the castes identified by Chandrabhan Prasad and the late Rajiv Gandhi..and in the course of my argument I will add to the list. Let's see who they are and are not:
Thevars, Vanniars, Chettiars are included in the list (I am following Prasad's order). I don't know who exactly he means by Gaudas. I am assuming, he means the Gounders of Tamil Nadu, who again are in the List . If he means the Gouds of Andhra Pradesh (also known as setti balija/srisayana/idiga etc., in different regions), yes they are included too. But the traditional occupation of the caste is toddy tapping - or drawing out and selling palm liquor. If you have ever seen any wiry individual, with nothing but a handmade rope and the barest langot scaling up a tall palm in any part of South India - that's the toddy tapper(oppressor?). There are some members of this very large community who've made it big in liquor contracting and brewing in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. But a great number still scale the palms (unlike the nadars of Tamil Nadu, also associated with toddy tapping, or the Ezhavas of Kerala who claim kinship with the Idigas across the south). If he means the gowdas of Karnataka - their names appear again further down his (Prasad's) list. An unnecessary repetition? Yes, the Lingayats, Vokkaligas (and the Kurubas, among others who call themselves goudas) are there in the national list. A similar inclusion is the Patels - he probably means the farming, trading Patels of Gujarat. They are not in the list. A great number of communities in western India use the surname Patel, including some tribal communities in South India. The Kammas and the Reddies are in the list. As are the Jats, Yadavs, Gujjars, Kurmis. To understand why these well-known (therefore obviously 'prosperous') communities are in the list (or the lists, because the NCBC list is a compilation of the statewise lists), we need to look a little more closely. A 'nuanced' scrutiny will reveal the following patterns :

# The listed castes are state-specific : the Kammas and Reddies appear in the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka lists (the reddies, curiously appear in the Kerala list too) and not in the Andhra Pradesh list where these two communities together have shared, between them, overall reins of the state's top leadership for the last fifty years. Members from other communities which have held the chief ministership of the state include a Velama, a Brahmin and interestingly, a Dalit. The Velamas are again regarded as a 'forward community' in Andhra but most of the Vellalas, in Tamil Nadu are backward communities. Yes, Andhra has had Shudra Chief Ministers but never a backward class chief minister. The Dalit who had been Chief Minister for a brief while (a compromise arrived at to resolve a conflict between intransigent rival reddy claimants), was the rare exception when a low caste hindu reached the highest echelons of power. YS Rajasekhar Reddy is a Christian, but it's his caste that has earned him his position. Up north, the Jats are in the Rajasthan list but don't appear anywhere on the Punjab, Haryana or the Uttar Pradesh lists. In Punjab and Haryana, of course, they have held the key to the chief ministership for several decades. In Uttar Pradesh, the backward classes coalition they tried to forge so very assiduously in the sixties, seventies and eighties failed to materialise because most of the other backward classes never considered them truly backward. Charan Singh who tried so very hard to project himself as a pan-Indian kisan leader never managed to rise above his limited status as a jat leader. Deve Gowda of the Vokkaligas, from the south, shares similar ambitions ..and history. The Marathas are missing from the Maharashtra list- some of them appear in certain other states' lists. The Gujjars are not listed in the Gujarat and J&K lists but they appear elsewhere.

# The listed castes are region-specific: For example - not all the Chettiars are included in the Tamil Nadu list. Chettiars from specific districts are excluded. This region-specificity applies to many 'prosperous upper-OBCs' with some notable exceptions (which I will touch upon later). It applies to the Jats of Rajasthan too. Jats, from certain districts are excluded from the Rajasthan list.

# The listed castes are sub-caste specific: The Munnuru Kapus from Telangana are included in the Andhra list - the affluent Kapus from Coastal Andhra are not. The Lingayats, as you are probably aware, claim allegiance to a faith of their own - different from Brahminical Hinduism- and have their own small caste system. The Navaliga (Hadapad), Madiwal and Kimbhar are the backward castes among the Lingayats. The smaller communities of Lingayats in Andhra and Maharashtra are listed as backward.

# The listed castes are varna-blind. The Rajputs in Karnataka, a very small group originally from northern India, are listed as backward because that's what they are in that state..They're listed backward in Andhra Pradesh too, under a different name. Dbobis/rajakas are listed as a Scheduled Caste in certain states, and sub-castes from different regions of the same states are listed as backward.

# Only the Yadavs, Kurmis are listed as backward in almost all the states they are found in.
Those are some of the parties one can identify on looking more closely at the lists (I am referring to the lists so that you don't have to take my word for any of this, check for yourselves). What conclusions can we draw from these patterns ?

1. That substantial sections of these 'prosperous upper-OBCs' are excluded from the lists. Most of the Jats are excluded, a majority of the Reddies, Kammas, Patels and Marathas are excluded, large sections of the Lingayats are excluded. If they are listed anywhere, they appear only as minorities in those states. These exceptions are not the typical OBCs.

2.That those castes which still remain largely listed, like the Vokkaligas, Thevars, Vanniyars, Ezhavas, some Vellala castes from Tamil Nadu...are those exceptions the typical OBCs?

3.That the Yadavs and Kurmis, who are listed in all states where they live, aren't exactly the typical 'prosperous upper-OBCs' in most states. In states outside the Hindi belt, or more accurately outside U.P and Bihar, the Yadavs/Kurmis don't hold the same kind of economic/political clout. They don't play such an important role in political equations because their representation is either very limited or non-existent in the upper ranks of most political parties. The yadavs/kurmis of UP/Bihar are the exceptions among the yadavs/kurmis.

So, to summarise, the 'prosperous upper-OBCs' you refer to are either not listed as OBCs or they do not typify the OBCs.

They do not typify the Shudras either. Let me explain:

Chandrabhan Prasad says 'Today, they own land, most of the rural assets and institutions. They have a fair share in the media, cinema, and urban assets as well. All the four chief ministers in the South are of Shudra origin, including the CMs of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Bihar. Thus, ten major States are ruled by Shudra Chief Ministers.' Prof.Dipankar Gupta of JNU concurs.

I'll begin with the northern castes. If you consider the Jats, Gujjars, Yadavs/Kurmis, Marathas, Patels etc., all of them share certain common attributes:

# they all claim a status equivalent to Kshatriyahood. They have each formulated elaborate theories, supported by part history and part mythology and much folkloric legend to support this narrative of 'lost' kshatriyahood. THe Jats support their claims by referring to five medieval kingdoms spread across Gujarat, Rajasthan, to Madhya Pradesh and Pakistan. History does support the existence of such kingdoms. The Jats have converted to other faiths in large numbers but their refusal to relinquish their caste should serve as an indicator of what value their 'status' holds for them. The Marathas have devised an even more detailed narrative - their ancestry is traced to puranic 'vanshas', their legend to kingdoms spanning half the country (from Bagalkot in the South to Ayodhya in the North) and their brotherhood binds together '96 clans'. History too supports their pre-eminent role in the medieval ages. The Patels & Gujjars have their own claims, which are once again bolstered by history. The Yadavs/Kurmis of Aryavarta do not have to justify their claim to 'kshatriyahood' at all- they just have to point to the Mahabharata which honours them with an 'almost-kshatriya' status.

# they are all dominant castes in at least one of the the States they belong to (with some exceptions). All these castes are part of an elite club of three-four castes (in each state) who constitute the political leadership of those states. Most other backward castes are characteristically small, peasant-artisan groups. These castes dominate through sheer numbers, and the strength of their chequered histories of dominance. If we take 1980, the year Mandal finished his study, as a kind of landmark.. you'll find that representatives from most of these castes had already come to occupy top executive positions, at least once, in their respective states. Actually, every time a chief minister is chosen in any of these states, there is a very good chance that an aspirant from one these castes stands a good chance at least one out of three times. In some states, two times.

# their ascendancy predates independence and land tenure reforms (with some exceptions). Most of these castes' ascendancy can be traced to around 1000 years ago. The advent of the Muslims only hindered their rise a little, in the beginning, but didn't stop it. One can gauge this truth from the phenomenal expansion of the Maratha empire during the later period of the Mughal rule and the strength of the Jats from the audacity with which they managed to raid Delhi almost at will in the middle ages. Apart from accommodating the interests of the savarna princes, the British had to acknowledge the power of these castes too in their efforts to build their own empire.There were Rajahs and Zemindars/Jagirdars from these castes before independence, before the beginning of the last century. Land tenure reforms only helped small and medium sized farmers from these castes consolidate their 'rural assets'. As for acquiring 'urban assets', some of these castes were as quick as the upper castes in doing so. Cinema, media, other assets - we tend to forget that Dadasaheb Phalke, the father of Indian Cinema was a Maratha. And who can ignore the role of the Jats in the growth of cinema in Lahore and in Mumbai? And the Patels started establishing a global prescence in business even before independence. Their presence isn't/wasn't entirely rural, and their ownership of urban assets is old as that of rural assets. Reservations didn't help them acquire any of these 'urban assets' because they came into effect in most of north and western India less than two decades ago. Only the Yadavs/Gujjars/Kurmis lag behind these other 'intermediate castes' in this race to acquire urban assets.Shudras?

Let's move on to the South now:

Despite all the noise that is made about 'how different things are down there' you'd notice some striking similarities between the so-called 'upper-OBCS' of the North and the South.

# they all lay claim to a 'higher status'in the varna order, too. And some of them have gone beyond 'kshatriyahood' to create a sub-caste of 'brahmins' within their castes. Lingayats would tell you how tough it is to be one - their faith, Veerashaivism, lays down stricter codes of conduct, diet and rituals than Brahminism. The Thevars claim they are an 'indigenous martial caste' (meaning the Tamil equivalent of Kshatriyas), the Ezhavas now claim kinship with a rajput sub-caste of Nepal, the Nairs believe they're kshatriyas. T.Ramaswami Chaudhuri, a Kamma poet & scholar went to great lengths to 'prove' the Kshatriya credentials of the Kammas. Like the Mudaliars, the Kammas also tried to evolve their own class of priests who'd officiate at all ceremonies. Again, history supports their claims (they can all trace their ancestry to not just kingdoms but vast empires) but the scriptures don't.

# they are all dominant castes in at least one of the States they belong to, too (with some exceptions). The Lingayats and Vokkaligas together make up about one-third of the population in Karnataka. And between them they have held the reins of chief ministership in the State for more than three-fourths of the time. The Brahmins have also have had a fair representation at the top. The Ezhavas constitute around one-fourth of Kerala's population and despite their numbers, it's the Upper castes in Kerala who have managed to hold the top executive position for more than 80% of the time. The Reddies, Kammas, Velamas, together with the Brahmins have shared the top chair in Andhra Pradesh for nearly all the time since the State was formed in 1956. For a very brief period of two years, a Dalit held the post of Chief Minister. No OBC has occupied the top chair until now. The Nadars, the Nairs and the Mudaliars (and for a brief while, a Thevar) together with the Brahmins have shared the top position in Tamil Nadu for all the time since the State was formed. Dravidianism or not, the State strictly follows the pattern I have described until now - Brahmins, along with 3-4 other dominant castes have the brightest chances of occupying the top chair in any State in the South. Make that, any State in the country.

# their ascendancy predates independence and land tenure reforms, too. The Chettiars owned urban assets such as film studios, and the Mudaliars owned newspapers before independence. So did the Reddies and the Kammas. The Kammas owned mills and factories... All of them did have access to other urban assets like jobs, because of reservations, before independence too. And there were, among these castes, zemindars/jagirdars and rajahs. And since independence they have managed to consolidate their rural/urban assets. They did not need to 'consolidate' any assets now - they are looking to expand.

[A digression : So, is there any major difference between the northern and southern 'prosperous upper-OBCs'?

Yes.

In my view, reservations have helped the upper-OBCs in the south consolidate their assets and maintain their lead in most spheres of life, but they have helped some lower OBCs and artisan castes in a much more substantial way - they could gain access to education and jobs they never could have dreamed of given their social ranking and their access to resources - which were primarily rural, inadequate or non-existent. The difference between the northern upper-OBCs and the southern upper-OBCs would be much less than the difference between the northern lower-OBCs and the southern lower-OBCs. You could say reservations have transformed the lives of some southern lower OBCs as much as they have affected the lives of most Dalits who were helped by them.

You can see the difference between the States which have adopted reservations earlier and considerably later in the South itself : Andhra Pradesh was the last State to enforce reservations in the South. The State ranks lowest in terms of literacy (in fact, it is closer to the Bimaru States in this respect, than its southern neighbours. It also ranks lower on most of the Human Development Indices than its neighbours. It also has faced much greater strife arising from inequality between classes. Naxalism, which has successfully usurped the legacy and associated aura of the Telangana peasants' struggle, has wide, entrenched roots in the state. It's also the only state in the south with a long history of communal riots.. Sounds like I am referring to one of the northern states?]

My conclusions :

1. The castes, popularly referred to as 'upper OBCs' - don't typify the OBCs. The political/economic/social clout of some of these castes places them closer to the upper castes than the OBCs and the Dalits. In fact, they're the upper castes in the south because the strength of the savarnas is so very low, in terms of population, that these castes automatically rank the top positions in the local polity, economy and society of any of these states. In western India (Maharashtra, Gujarat) and some states of Northern India (Punjab, Haryana) too you'd notice the same phenomenon.

2. It would be wrong to classify many of these castes as Shudras anymore - strictly speaking, it's only a question of semantics now.. because it's a long established fact that it is these castes that always call/have called the shots in all states of the South (definitely since independence) and in many states in the west and the north. A peasant, who's done well, wraps himself in the mantle of a Mudaliar in Tamil Nadu, calls himself a Gowda in Karnataka and is referred to as a Reddy in Andhra. The Jats call themselves Chaudhuries (so do the Kammas) and ,more importantly, folks from the lower castes too address them as Chaudhuries.

3. The Lists of Backward classes exclude, as I said earlier, a substantial section of these mistakenly labelled Upper OBCs. Those who still remain in the lists, perhaps, still meet the criteria of 'social and educational backwardness'..like the Yadavs and Kurmis in UP/Bihar where reservations were introduced late.

4. A hundred years ago, if you had asked any Dalit in any of the States in which these castes are dominant, 'who are the oppressors?', he'd have pointed to one of these castes. You'd have got the same response if you'd asked one of the lower OBCs too.

But these sections account for not more than 3% or so of the total Indian population and only 6% or so of the OBCs.

Now, I want you to take a short trip for me - you suggested I come over to Delhi and to JNU, to perhaps learn more (about what?). I suggest a much easier trip for you - go to the National Commission for Backward Classes website, search for the Statewise Lists (the link is in the earlier part of this comment) and go through them. Identify them, or get someone who knows to identify them for you..by their occupations. Find out about their socio-economic status from whatever sources you can access. Or better still, go to the villages and find out who they really are. If you spot any castes among them who share the the same kind of clout/rank, as some of the 'upper OBCs' you mentioned do..come back and share the information with everyone here. Show us the 'knowledge'. Chandrabhan Prasad himself thinks some of the most backward classes live in worse conditions than the Dalits.. But, of course, you wouldn't have read that.

Show us the knowledge, or stop making noises about how oppressive the OBCs are.. Stop making these very unoriginal charges, that speak more of the prejudices you nurse towards the OBCs than your 'concern' for the Dalits, and extrapolating sweeping 'truths' from them.

That was part one of my argument, the part dealing with 'oppressors'.

Now I come to part two : about what's the OBC script.

You've called me Shivam's alter-ego. In your view, I don't exist on my own. I don't exist. That's what the Mandal Commission found out too.. Sociologist Satish Deshpande wrote ''It needs to be borne in mind that this large group of OBCs, who constitute close to 60 per cent of the population, had a negligible presence of about 4 per cent in government employment when these recommendations were implemented".

That's the OBC script. The OBCs don't exist. When Nehru was building one of the hugest public sectors in the whole world, building a large central government and was prodding the states on to do the same, and when the governments that followed were doing more of the same..generally acting like God and dispensing largesse and jobs left-right-and-centre, it looks like great care was taken to exclude the OBCs from the queues. Or, it looks like the Indian Government didn't know of the existence of the OBCs. And what the Indian Government, the largest employer (which avowedly strove to be a 'model employer' also) and educator was doing was being followed by private sector (organized and otherwise) too.

The wikipedia says 'The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms.' The OBCs were excluded from education and the best , or more accurately, two thirds of the organized sector jobs available in the country and the best institutions of learning (not that they got a fair share in the rest of the jobs, in the private sector, available either). The OBCs were being kept down... and in my view, by a very sophisticated combination of all the three means suggested.

What does that mean? It means oppression, in a way, is the OBC script too.

I had said at the beginning of this comment that the OBC script hasn't evolved until now - what I mean is it hasn't been rightly articulated until now. The 'dominant upper-OBcs', which you and everyone's guru from JNU seems to assume 'represent', in all the senses of the term, the OBCs do not speak for the overwhelming majority of the OBCs. If they did, Dravidianism would have become the language of all the OBCs in the South. The so-called Dravidian parties (would there have more than one 'party' if the original party had represented all the OBCs?) have failed to represent all the OBCs . That's the explanation for the growth of the caste-based parties in Tamil Nadu. Laloo and Mulayam's parties represent themselves. The rest of the OBCs haven't found a forum yet.
I have a translation of one of Gadar's songs - it says '..it's us at the plough, it's us at the kiln, it's us at the loom, it's us by the pyre, it's us with the cattle, it's us in the paddies, it's us in the mills...it's us in bondage, who's the oppressor?'

That, in my view, expresses the core of the argument for Dalit-OBC unity (that should also form the core of any true OBC script too, in my view). It's the Dalits who have reached out to the OBCs until now ..recent examples being the pro-reservations movement in 1990 and now. It's the lack of reciprocation by the upper-OBCs that forms the basis of Chandrabhan Prasad's justified angst. Don't twist his words to suit your own prejudiced arguments the OBCs. Specially since you seem to consider the issue of reservations itself a 'tertiary issue', an unimportant issue.. (if you consider it such an unimportant issue why did you feel the need to comment on it?) Why don't you try telling Chandrabhan Prasad and other Dalit intellectuals, activists reservations are a 'tertiary', unimportant issue?

To conclude, oppression is wrtten into the DNA of the caste sytem..and by extension, Indian society..Consider how often Gadar himself was sidelined, excluded, threatened by the Naxal top brass.. First by the PWG, and now by the Maoists. Consider how upper caste 'revolutionaries' like Varavara Rao and Muppala Lakshmana Rao have held sway over Naxal thinking in the so-called Red Corridor. Consider how often they have ignored reports of low caste, lower rank members in their own parties being 'oppressed'. Consider what made K.G.Satyamurthy, one of the founding members of the PWG and its leading ideologue for a long time..and a Dalit, call the Maoist Central Committee a 'savarna Kuru Sabha'.

Consider how he was expelled. Is hamaam mein hum sab nange hain.

I've decided to ignore the implied insults in your comment..and decided to respond to it because I'm hoping people less 'knowledgeable' and more open-minded than you'd read it.'

Now I welcome your comments.

Wipro maachis

Azim Premji says: "We have no alternative but to hire the best talent available within India and the best talent available globally to man our positions - critical positions, non-critical positions, (and) programming positions".

A few days ago, Headlines Today, the television channel, did a story on a massive job racket in the IT/ITES industry in Bangalore. 'Job agents' who arrange/manage tests and interviews for aspirants at any of the top companies, including Wipro, Infosys, Satyam, IBM etc., disclosed on hidden camera how easy it is for them to 'provide' jobs at these companies for a price. The racket, of which HR Managers at these companies are a key component, has 'provided', until now, jobs for thousands of dubious applicants in the industry. (The job racket isn't confined to Bangalore alone - folks in the business know that it is spread all over the south and some cities up north). The top managers at these companies pretend not to be aware of this scam.. But the truth is, they prefer to look the other way because.. they need 'people'. And lots of them. And apart from certain basic skills, they don't really look for much else. And, of course, the top bosses all have their own extra-curricular agendas like running down reservations and collecting awards - who has the time or the inclination to be squeamish about 'merit'?

Twin mythologies : Merit & Citizenship

In my last post, I had pointed out that OBCs are not (cannot be) the dominant castes in the countryside, and most of them cannot be 'oppressors' of the dalits because they lack both the economic clout and the social rank (a function of their traditional, caste-assigned occupations mostly) necessary. But the chief argument Dr.Gupta put forth against reservations for OBCs was that : it goes against what he calls the 'larger democratic principle of citizenship'. He explains, in the same article : 'Reservations for OBCs are objectionable not because they would lower merit, that comes much later, but rather because they take away from the democratic, secular content of what it is to be Indian. Do we want India to become a country where people think of caste first or of citizenship? Are we to decide on our civic life on grounds of reservations and quotas or on the basis of universal principles?'

So it was the perverting of 'citizenship' that reservations would entail, in his view, that Dr.Gupta objected to..Given his principled objection, why did he feel the need to discuss the merits of the claim of the OBCs at all? And spice it up with gratuitous, unsubstantiated, information on the 'ruthlessness' of the OBCs? Is it because everyone who's someone in the media, industry, academia has declared an open season on reservations, and by extension - OBCs, and the good professor felt obliged to add his bit?

I had linked to the article in my post, and I am surprised no one took up this issue of 'citizenship', in the comments on the post.. (I've learnt now that most visitors here jump to the comments section without bothering to read the post they're commenting on .. like I said, open season and all..).

Anyway, the Mandal report sets the record straight on the inclusivity of Indian citizenship - you can also look at these post-Mandal figures on OBCs in the Central Government (Human Development Report - Caste, Ethnicity and Exclusion in South Asia : The Role of Affirmative Action Policies in Building Inclusive Societies, prepared by D.L.Sheth for the UNDP - page 72). Judging from these reports, you can hardly be blamed for thinking 'citizenship' in India is akin to membership in a very exclusive club. So what does citizenship mean for most OBCs? It has shrunk to the size of voting rights and little else.

The professor is also concerned about merit, albeit in a roundabout fashion. His views have gained common currency now - folks on the street and on television chant his views, without knowing who formulated these ideas. Karan Thapar used them on P.Chidambaram a few days ago - to enlighten him on how reservations had actually lowered educational standards in the South. Nanopolitan (a.k.a. Abinandanan), who's been conducting a very diligent exploration of the idea of reservations in the past few weeks, has recently published on his blog, a very readable 'article' on the mythology of merit. I suggest that everyone who's concerned about merit should read it.

Ruthless truths

Prof. Dipankar Gupta of JNU writing in indiatimes says : 'This is why opposition to the OBC reservation should not be approached from the angle of downgrading merit but from the larger democratic principle of citizenship. When Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were given reservations it was to make sure that they would get some help to pull themselves out of centuries of discrimination and disprivileges. But this was not the case with the OBCs. They were certainly never discriminated against and kept from going to schools and picking up an education. In fact, after land reforms and zamindari abolition these agrarian castes, that prefer to be called Backwards today, became the dominant communities in rural India. Further, it may also be recalled that many Scheduled Caste activists have pointed out that it is these dominant agrarian castes that are more exploitative and ruthless against the subjugated communities than members of the other three varnas.'

The Professor wants you to accept his opinion that the 'Backwards' are now the dominant communities in rural India as clinching proof that they do not deserve reservations. Here's what another egghead, Satish Deshpande has to say, with the help of some figures (from the NSSO's much disputed 55th Round, but figures nonetheless): 'Looking at the land ownership data from the 55th Round, we find that the ``Others'' comprise 50 per cent of all households owning more than 4 hectares of land, while the OBCs are 35 per cent, Scheduled Castes 6 per cent and Scheduled Tribes 8 per cent. Although this does not tell us how much land is owned by each group, it does suggest that popular stereotypes about the OBCs having ousted the upper castes from land ownership may be somewhat exaggerated.'

So, those figures tell us the OBCs haven't replaced the upper castes as the 'dominant communities' in rural India. But they still don't disprove the 'fact' that the these 'dominant (?) communities have been more 'exploitative and ruthless against the subjugated communities than members of the other three varnas'. The Professor must have exclusive access to every single record of 'exploitative and ruthless' acts against the Dalits for the last three thousand and odd years to conclude with such confidence that the OBCs have been 'more exploitative and ruthless' in the fifty odd years since Independence!

Let's look at Bihar, one of the chief akharas of Mandalised politics, for instance: '..A look at the 'chronology of massacres' in the rural south Bihar shows only a few incidents show the 'backward castes' or 'upper backwards' being involved in attacks on SCs - 11 out of 90 incidents...This means that roughly only about 10% of attacks, involved the 'upper backwards' attacking Dalits.' That was from a paper presented by Shaibal Gupta at the "Conference on State Politics in India in the 1990s'.

The well recorded incidents of 'ruthlessness' in States such as Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu can't be denied - but who did they involve? A few 'upper backwards' like the Yadavs and Thevars. And a few other castes whose names have been selectively picked and brandished as evidence that the OBCs are, not the 'oppressed', but active 'oppressors' by anti-reservationists cutting across IQ levels. These 'oppressing castes' - how many are they? Not more than a few dozen. Only two dozen or so perhaps. Out of 3700 odd castes across the country - most of whom traditionally practised such occupations as fishing, snake-charming, rat-catching..begging, among others. Apart from bead-making, pottery, stone-cutting, hairdressing, tailoring and...(this, as a blogger I have come to admire- Apurva Mathad suggested, deserves another post). Oppressors?

Don't you agree this 'exploitation and ruthlessness' needs to be seriously investigated before any judgments are passed?

This expansive use of generalisations, this mixing of 'the gossip of menials' (as JM Lyngdoh would have probably called it) with the language of academia and this parading of prejudices as 'proof'.. beamed across national television by a beaming media.. make reservations a very ruthless 'debate'.

Cui bono ?

'do you have any data on the efficiency of the reservation system? the socio-economic backgrounds of those benefitting from it, for example?'

That was a question posed by an anonymous commenter here. It made me think of another question and as I felt the blog where the original question appeared wasn't the right place to ask it...I'm posting it here:

'Do you have any data on the efficiency of the 'scheme' called the 'Government of India'? The socio-economic backgrounds of those benefitting from it, for example?'

Unlike the first question, my question is for everyone - including anti-reservationists.

Molten lead in my shudra ears -or- The Scavenger's Drum 2

I now return to the points of contention raised by the students fighting for 'equality' I referred to in the post - 'The Scavenger's Drum'. These points have now metamorphosed into a 'Charter of Demands' - a new age Magna Carta, if you go by the reverence with which the media is so painstakingly trying to drape this whole drama.You might assume that they have 'come down' a lot, that they have 'modified their earlier rigid stance', that they are being very 'reasonable' etc., and it's the government which is being 'adamant', and is 'showing no sign of trying to listen to them even 14..15..16 days after the strike began'. Your assumption is wrong on both counts : the charter is actually no different from the earlier points - only their phrasing has been changed, and the government isn't being adamant - it has already conceded considerable ground by making it clear that the seats would be increased to ensure no 'meritorious' general category student would be deprived of his chance of admission. And after several days of repeated posturing before the camera that the quota decision is 'irrevocable', the government is slowly revealing what it actually has in mind, what kind of hectic parleying is going on in the corridors of power.. to protect the 'gurukuls' of modern India from pollution. To ensure that upper caste students wouldn't have to face the compounded ignominy of not just sharing the same classroooms and hostels as the shudras but also actually having to give up some of their places to the unclean. Witness how politicians on either end of the ideological spectrum share so very identical concerns : 'merit' should not be compromised, the 'poor' among the upper castes also need reservations, 'the creamy layer' should be skimmed off. I don't remember either the Sangh cohorts or the communists ever having pleaded or argued for, or even raised the issue of implementation of that untouched part of the Mandal Commission recommendations (which mandated reservations for the OBCs in Central Government-run educational institutions) in the last thirteen years since the first part was implemented. Another vital component of this very sophisticated mechanism of dilution and derailment is/will be the involvement of twice-born-but-never-retired-and-much-lionised legal minds - which had actually begun the day this strike was announced but is coming out into the open only now.

Those who had witnessed the Act 1 of this Mandal drama in the early nineties must be feeling a sense of deja vu. Would this also take another three years to go through? Or would this also be implemented only in part and the OBCs would have to wait for another thirteen years, and another school-going generation, for the government to come around to the unfinished part?

The second point raised by the striking medicos outlined in my post 'The Scavenger's Drum' was this:
'...Two, when asked what if the seats were increased to accommodate students from the general category..he tried to explain to the reporter that given the infrastructure and the 'unsustainability' of the proposal (of the increase) he wasn't in favour of any increase,...'

What does that mean? It means that the medicos think a) that the existing infrastructure and faculty and staff can't support an increase in the number of seats and b) an increase in infrastructure, faculty etc., has been long overdue and as it hasn't been done until now there's no reason to believe the government will do it in the very short period it has before the quota is implemented. And I agree with the medicos. Just look at what happened to the promise of raising state spending on education to 6% of the Gross Domestic Product, an idea first mooted by the Kothari Commission in 1964 and endorsed by the National Educational policies in 1968 and 1986 and 1992. Over the last forty years, the Centre and the States, together, have been 'struggling' to raise spending to at least half the figure recommended. So don't you find the idea of increasing seats 'unsustainable'?

So if I agree with the medicos, what is this post all about?

It's about exploring a mindset that perceives reality in stark white and grey tones. Which looks at the world and sees : us and the unimportant. An attitude which says : heads I win, tails you lose. That will shirk off responsibility with the same ease as it would demand accountability from others.

'And you know the estimated cost of increasing facilities to accomodate quota candidates is put at Rs 8,000 crore,...' That was an anonymous commenter fighting for 'equality'. In his view, the increase is not due to the fact that the government wants to ensure the general category seats are not reduced - but due to the burden of implementing the quota. This about sums up the attitude I am talking about. An attitude which is emblazoned across the ultra clean T shirts pulled over their unburdened chests : not our problem.

This also comes across when they tell the OBCs : 'shouldn't you be fighting for an improvement in school education instead..?' Not our problem, you're told again. For the last forty years, the government had been promising the people and itself, that it'd start moving towards the goal that Kothari had set for it, next year. Every year. Consider this and this : in 2004-5, the centre and the state governments spent around 80,000 crores on education. Increasing this allocation to 6% of the GDP would have meant an additional expenditure of around 100,000 crores. More than three-fourths of this sum would have to come from the states. From states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu which work towards numbers more than overall quality, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh which believe in Vedic mathematics and Saraswati vandana more than basic arithmetic and sciences and Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh which don't seem to believe in education. And there are other states like Jharkhand, Orissa etc., which don't seem to have heard of education at all. The overall governmental spending on education hasn't moved anywhere near the goal of 6% of GDP in the last forty years. And going by the pace with which it has been moving in the last forty years, it would probably take another forty years to reach that goal and the elusive target of quality education for all sections of society.

So the 'pragmatic' people leading this fight for 'equality' who do not believe that an investment of 6000-8000 crores investment in the short run to accomodate an increase in seats is a 'sustainable' idea, given the record of the government in this regard, want the lower castes to believe in the 'sustainable' idea that an effort which would require several times more serious societal and political will and resources (more than a 100,000 crores and increments, every year ) would ensure a fair share for them in higher education? In effect, they're asking the lower castes to wait for another forty years (and hope and pray that it will be only forty years). Or until 2046-47 A.D., when India would be 'celebrating' a hundred years of independence.

But the central government has made it clear through several announcements and spokesmen that it does plan to make the investment required to increase the infrastructure in the centrally-run institutions and in the shortest possible time. The Oversight Committee it has set up would work out the details of expanding infrastructure, among other things, and submit a report in the next two months. But the striking students still object to reservations on the basis of caste in the prestigious institutions now being 'invaded'. Why? Is it an atavistic response to the sacrilegious idea of children of lesser gods daring to think of 'higher learning'? A throwback to the times when the prescription that molten lead should be poured into the ears of the shudras who even overheard a recitation of the Vedas by accident, was practised? Definitely a problem, they seem to think.

But the students are not entirely to blame, as it is now becoming clear. If you pull your eyes away and back from the cameras focused on the squatters on AIIMS grounds, you'll notice a wide phalanx of eggheads, as formidable as the Kuru patriarchs and heroes, providing all the logic, support and solace needed for this 'strike'. Experts from fields which the students would have considered 'pseudo-sciences' or at best 'lesser sciences' until yesterday. Anthropologists, economists, sociologists, jurists. Apart from businessmen, professors, lawyers. All with strong credentials and stronger surnames. And they all tell you : reservations are an 'easy' (chalu?), short term 'eyewash' of a solution while strengthening the schools is the 'real', long term solution to the 'problem'. Who can disagree with such wise men? Specially since they represent the 'intellectual cream' of our middle class? A middle class composed almost entirely of one section of our society - a middle class created, funded and supported almost entirely by a large government and a larger public sector through most of this country's post-independence history. A middle class which still 'owns', in a way, Yojana Bhawan, North Block, South Block and all other blocks to development. So why weren't adequate efforts made in 1955 when Kaka Kalelkar pointed to the warning signs, or in 1980 when Mandal submitted his report, by this middle class and its representatives who constituted, and still do, the overwhelming majority of the top, middle and lower rungs of this country's bureaucracy, the top and middle of the leadership of all 'national' political parties (including the naxalite groups), the parliament, the academia, the media, the organised industry.... to actually strengthen the schools in this country so that the lower castes wouldn't require reservations in higher education? There is a Hindi expression, which modified, would best describe this new age double-speak : ulta kotwal lock-up mein marnewale qaidi ko daante..! The only reasonable explanation for this hypocrisy is this : it was not their problem. Their kids didn't/don't go to those schools, so it wasn't their problem.

Every agitation, protest movement organised by the lower castes in this country since independence and several yugs before that carries an implicit appeal : we want education.

The Shudras are aware of both the options : the short term prescription and the long term plan. But they have also come to understand that the long term plan wouldn't work if the short term prescription is not enforced.

[Note: To those still reading this blog, I've decided not to delete any comments for now. Including spammers selling mouth-wash. So would some serial abusers reserve some space for others who would like to contribute their own share? And to plain old-fashioned commenters? ]