I have mixed feelings about the recent verdict by the Supreme Court on sub-categorisation of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). While recognising that an 'elite' section (creamy layer) has been created among the reserved category groups, the apex court has overlooked the poor implementation of reservation and other welfare policies meant for the marginalised over the years.
Most of the countries around the globe have a class that's recognised as elites, even among the downtrodden and marginalized communities - that's a universal phenomenon. Most of them also have some form of affirmative action policies, several of them have reservation policies and, unlike in India, it's extended to the private sector. These benefits are extended to various language, regional and religious groups, depending on the social structure and cultural framework of the society.
However, hardly anyone in these countries attribute the performance of beneficiaries to the implementation of these affirmative action programmes, which is a common practice in India. The reason for such a belief is bias and ignorance.
It's said that the affirmative action policies have led to the creation of elites within marginalised groups. But no one has defined this 'elitism'? Does it mean material, social or intellectual elites? Affirmative policies aren't the magic pill to to solve the inequality in society. Rather, it's a bridge to help the marginalised join the mainstream.
However, from day one, the upper caste dominating the politics and bureaucracy have poorly introduced and implemented the reservation policy in the country. Why else, then, would we have a significant number of reserved posts at the top still lying vacant? Besides, there's a gross unawareness about thes state's schemes among potential beneficiaries. More importantly, the issue from day one the issue has been politicised, whis is the root cause of the problem. It's a very convenient position to say that the most deprived of the Dalit groups are in position because of discrimination from the dominant ones.
There are 1,108 officially recognised scheduled castes in the country, 59 from Maharashtra. Not many know about the names and social profile of these groups as there are very few studies and research about them. They all have their own identity, occupation, culture - they don't have social intercourse and marriage. Considering this, why didn't the country have separate quotas from the beginning. Why put them in one basket?
Usually, the caste that have stopped performing their traditional work, which often carries stigma and provide low income, have done better - Jatavs in Uttar Pradesh and Mahars in Maharashtra are examples of this. Second largest group to have done better would be the followers of Dr BR Ambedkar and his ideology, as they are politically, economically and socially active.
However, there are anomalies. Chamars in Maharashtra continued to do their traditional profession and didn't align thesmeves with Dr Ambedkar and still managed to do relatively well. This shows that there are a variety of factors responsible for creation of an elite class within Dalits. Blaming it all on affirmative actions would be incorrect.
Congress has been successful in catching hold of the castse that were against Ambedkar. Babu Jagjivan Ram is the most prominent example of this politics. The first time Dr Ambedkar was defeated in Parliament, his opponent happened to be a chamar.
Majority of the so-called elites within SCs and STs are first generation learners. While it makes a lot of difference for the second and third generation in terms of everything, what's the guarantee that they wouldn't be discriminated against in universities and society? I recently went to my village in Akola, I am not allowed in the village temple. I have acquired a PhD, but even that doesn't guarantee the same upward mobility as those above me in the caste ladder.
According to 1991 data, higher education enrollment of Mahar Buddhists, the supposed dominant Dalit group in Maharashta was 0.98% - it wouldn't have increased beyond 3%. If we further dissect this data to see to which institutes - technical or tradiational, government or private, rural or urban - they belong, it will further clear the picture. But no one is ready to check this. There might be Dalits in Mumbai and Pune living in flats and driving cars. They must be very elite, it's said. But how many of them are really there?
Besides, upper caste groups are disproportionately better represented in bureaucracy, corporates and politics. Which leads to the question: Who will define elitism? Suppose they form a commission - those in power and upper caste. Will they show sympathy and are aware of the basics of the society without any lived experiences? Even the majority of in academica happen to be Brahmins, who usually offer a view from the top.
While there practices of discrimination within Dalits, aas anywhere tried to empirically analyse those who discriminate, why do they do that? I believe that I learnt it from the caste above them.
Then comes the practical question of actually creating sub-categories and creamy-layer. What will happen to those dumped as elites? Let's say there are special categories created with those sub-castes that have significaent population such as Mahars and Mangs. What about the others? Would they be put in a common 'others' category? How will that solve the problem?
To conclude, production of elites is a natural progression of society. However, In India, the production of elitism is directly connected to affirmative action. However, a hypothesis has been cooked that some sub-castes are deprived because of other groups doing better. No, it's due to the poor implementation of the affirmative action policies.
.jpg)
