Mandal Commission: An Analysis
The promulgation of the Mandal Commission report by the United Front under ex-Prime Minister V.P Singh rocked the country with protests, strikes and self-immolation of students. The commission initially set up in 1979 under Member of Parliament B.P. Mandal. The Commission was initially called the Second Backward Classes Commission and was set up to identify the criteria that determined the definition of Socially and Economically Backward classes in India. The First Backward Class Commission was set up in 1953, headed by Kaka Kalelkar. The main purpose of the committee was to:
1. Identify the criteria, if any, of identifying the Socially backward classes (except for SC and ST).
2. Investigate the condition of such social groups, and make recommendations to uplift them.
The commission made a few observations about the nature of backwardness in the country. The first was that untouchability had largely been eradicated, but backwardness persisted. The education rates of the backwards classes were abysmally low, therefore lack of education was one of the important pointers that were adopted in the report. Lack of representation of the backward classes in government services as well as in trade and commerce was also observed. This became yet another criterion of identification of backward communities. However, caste was taken to be the primary indicator of backwardness, which ultimately also reflected in the Second Backwards Class Commission. This report was rejected by the Central Government due to lack of an established definition and criteria of backwardness, albeit the influence of the report’s findings persisted for decades of policymaking.
Definition
The Second Backwards Class Commission remedied the first problem that its originator faced: definition of backwardness. The commission, which will henceforth be called the Mandal commission, adopted 11 criteria of identification to come to a concrete understanding of what constituted the backwards social groups. These 11 criteria were broadly categorised into three categories: Social, Educational and Economic. The indicators were to categorise a particular social group as OBCs by gauging how the group stood with other groups. For instance, one of the determinants of social backwardness is Castes or classes with the illiteracy between the ages of 5–15 is 25% above the state average. Some factors were considered to be more relevant than other factors in terms of defining social backwardness.
Missteps
However, there are a lot of missteps that must be pointed out in a critical review of the commission’s report. The first being the hostile approach that the commission took towards dominant castes. The commission defines dominant castes/classes as ones that indulge in social, political and economic exploitation. This tone clearly creates a dichotomy of a centre and periphery. The exploiter-exploited dynamic is not conducive to creating a healthy relationship among the many castes/classes of society. Another misstep is the categorisation of a vast array of castes nebulously into the broad category of OBCs. In fact, there is a subgroup within OBCs, referred to as Most Backward Classes (MBCs). Castes that do not fall into this category are in fact, well educated and socially mobile. Education loans are easier to obtain for these classes, and they are also economically well off. Initially, the commission recommended 52% reservations for backwards classes since according to the report, 52% of the country comprised of backwards classes. This would have been accepted had it not been a previous supreme court judgement that did not allow for reservations of more than 52% (Indira Sawhaney v. Union of India). The categorisation based on castes is not a substantial judge of backwardness and leads to the “creamy layer” benefitting from the privileges. The exclusion of economically well off classes does exist, but it doesn’t include Dalits, Jatis and other categories, and has many loopholes that can easily be circumvented.
The rationale behind why castes are insufficient criteria of backwardness is simple. Statistics reveal that 10% of the rural households control almost 55% of cultivation, while over 35% do not even own land. However, the industry is also concentrated in the hands of a few elites that control most of the operations. This is a capitalist model that has drawn quite a lot of criticism. For the Mandal commission to stratify society into different groups and subgroups based on caste is not only redundant but also archaic. Taking a more Marxist approach, social forces are dictated by the economy and the means of production rather than by outdated factors like caste.
Misinterpreting the report
Another issue lies in the interpretation of the report itself. The interpretation and application of the report are selective and biased. Under many sections of the report, land reforms, the formation of cooperatives and other conducive measures are recommended. However, contemporary dialogue on the issue is limited to the context of reservations. The reservations are doubtlessly one of the main points of contention of the report. However, to sideline other possibly useful measures just goes to show the approach that the intelligentsia has adopted in understanding the report. The land reforms recommended in the report is to homogenise the possession of the land, and decreased taxing and interest rates have been recommended. This could potentially benefit the country as it is based primarily on economic welfare than on something superficial like caste.
Critics have time and again complained that the commission’s report has a very superficial take on Indian society. Criteria of the class is not a valid indicator of backwardness. Regardless, even after a myriad of PILs against this norm, the Supreme Court has declared caste to be valid criteria. Reservation of 27% is applicable to all states, and the report recognises that most states already had reservation policies in place before the recommendations. In such cases, the reservation policies of the state are standardised to 27% in order to have a uniform policy.
The ability of individuals is also to be considered. Individuals belonging to backward classes, especially the moderately well off, have an unfair advantage in terms of education reservations. The reservations and low cut-offs for these students in IITs, state exams and medical colleges result in individuals with inferior ability to take up an important job. This is not an argument against caste, but against the skill that an individual has. This may hamper development as a whole and is another pointer of how caste is insufficient in recognising backwardness.
Written by: Akanksh. Team TEGS
