No quotas please, says this OBC
B.S. Baviskar (senior fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi)
(This article has been taken from the Indian Express and is reproduced here for the benefits of the citizens of India)
I am an OBC. I belong to the caste in Maharashtra called the Malis. The great social reformer, Mahatma Jotiba Phule, was a Mali. He advocated the abolition of the caste system, but never asked for reservations for the so-called backward classes.
I studied in a village primary school and then joined a high school in a small Maharashtra town. Then I went to Fergusson College, Pune, for my degree. Finally, I did my post-graduate studies, including a PhD, at the Delhi School of Economics. I then taught sociology for 32 years at Delhi University. I was never conscious of my identity as an OBC, because none of my classmates, teachers and colleagues ever bothered about my caste. I was never unfairly treated because of my caste.
It was the deliberations of the Mandal Commission during the late ’70s which first made me aware of my OBC identity. As a part of his inquiry its chairman, B.P. Mandal, called a meeting of social scientists to discuss the main task before the Commission: improving the condition of the OBCs. I was present at the meeting. The question boiled down to what should be the criteria to identify the backward sections to provide benefits and concessions through reservation. Should caste be the only criterion, or should the economic criterion also be used? It was clear from Mandal’s initial statement that he favoured caste as the criterion. There were more than 60 social scientists (mainly sociologists and social anthropologists) at the meeting. A majority of them favoured caste as the best option. I was one of the very few who opposed this view.
I said that the proposal to treat caste as the basis of backwardness goes against the spirit of our Constitution, which aims at building a cohesive society beyond caste distinctions. Making caste the criterion of backwardness would only sharpen the rivalries and promote conflict in society. The reservations were justified in the case of SCs/STs because of the long history of their exploitation and oppression, but this was not applicable to the OBCs. Let’s not take steps which will perpetuate caste distinctions that will engender conflict, I said.
There was a total silence for a few moments. Then one participant stood up to oppose what I said. “These upper-caste people don’t like the other castes to come forward; we should ignore what they say,” he said. He presumed I was a Brahmin and my views were based on my caste. A senior colleague clarified that I was not a Brahmin or an upper caste person. That I was, in fact, from an OBC community, who stood to benefit if caste became the criterion of backwardness. After that I did not have to say anything in my defence. As expected, the Mandal Commission decided in favour of caste.
Over the years, I have reflected on this issue and stuck to my original opinion. The proposed 27 per cent quota for the OBC castes is going to be harmful to our society. Worse, it is not going to benefit the genuinely needy and deserving backward castes. The way in which the OBC quotas are being implemented in some states is nothing short of a fraud. In most states the dominant castes have manipulated the system to hijack the benefits for themselves. How can one justify the Jats being included among OBCs ? They are substantial landowners, wealthy, politically powerful, and not backward.
Similarly, the Marathas in Maharashtra have cleverly included themselves in the OBC category by playing with the Kunabi-Maratha dichotomy. In the thirties, the Kunabis of western Maharashtra gave up Kunabi identity and claimed to be Marathas, which denoted a higher social status. Under the Mandal scheme, the Kunabis are listed as OBC but not the Marathas. Now all Marathas are claiming to be Kunabis to derive the benefits of quotas. The Marathas have outwitted the Mandal Commission. They have the best of both the worlds — the benefits of backwardness as well as dominance. There are many such cases in other states. The advocates of OBC quota, however, never mention these blatant anomalies, nor do they take seriously the issue of ‘creamy layer’.
Everyone knows that our politicians are supporting OBC quotas not because they care for the well-being of OBCs but because they expect electoral gains through this gimmick. However, as in the case of V.P. Singh, they are in for disappointment. They are not likely to get the votes they expect. You cannot fool the people all the time.
I am an OBC. I belong to the caste in Maharashtra called the Malis. The great social reformer, Mahatma Jotiba Phule, was a Mali. He advocated the abolition of the caste system, but never asked for reservations for the so-called backward classes.
I studied in a village primary school and then joined a high school in a small Maharashtra town. Then I went to Fergusson College, Pune, for my degree. Finally, I did my post-graduate studies, including a PhD, at the Delhi School of Economics. I then taught sociology for 32 years at Delhi University. I was never conscious of my identity as an OBC, because none of my classmates, teachers and colleagues ever bothered about my caste. I was never unfairly treated because of my caste.
It was the deliberations of the Mandal Commission during the late ’70s which first made me aware of my OBC identity. As a part of his inquiry its chairman, B.P. Mandal, called a meeting of social scientists to discuss the main task before the Commission: improving the condition of the OBCs. I was present at the meeting. The question boiled down to what should be the criteria to identify the backward sections to provide benefits and concessions through reservation. Should caste be the only criterion, or should the economic criterion also be used? It was clear from Mandal’s initial statement that he favoured caste as the criterion. There were more than 60 social scientists (mainly sociologists and social anthropologists) at the meeting. A majority of them favoured caste as the best option. I was one of the very few who opposed this view.
I said that the proposal to treat caste as the basis of backwardness goes against the spirit of our Constitution, which aims at building a cohesive society beyond caste distinctions. Making caste the criterion of backwardness would only sharpen the rivalries and promote conflict in society. The reservations were justified in the case of SCs/STs because of the long history of their exploitation and oppression, but this was not applicable to the OBCs. Let’s not take steps which will perpetuate caste distinctions that will engender conflict, I said.
There was a total silence for a few moments. Then one participant stood up to oppose what I said. “These upper-caste people don’t like the other castes to come forward; we should ignore what they say,” he said. He presumed I was a Brahmin and my views were based on my caste. A senior colleague clarified that I was not a Brahmin or an upper caste person. That I was, in fact, from an OBC community, who stood to benefit if caste became the criterion of backwardness. After that I did not have to say anything in my defence. As expected, the Mandal Commission decided in favour of caste.
Over the years, I have reflected on this issue and stuck to my original opinion. The proposed 27 per cent quota for the OBC castes is going to be harmful to our society. Worse, it is not going to benefit the genuinely needy and deserving backward castes. The way in which the OBC quotas are being implemented in some states is nothing short of a fraud. In most states the dominant castes have manipulated the system to hijack the benefits for themselves. How can one justify the Jats being included among OBCs ? They are substantial landowners, wealthy, politically powerful, and not backward.
Similarly, the Marathas in Maharashtra have cleverly included themselves in the OBC category by playing with the Kunabi-Maratha dichotomy. In the thirties, the Kunabis of western Maharashtra gave up Kunabi identity and claimed to be Marathas, which denoted a higher social status. Under the Mandal scheme, the Kunabis are listed as OBC but not the Marathas. Now all Marathas are claiming to be Kunabis to derive the benefits of quotas. The Marathas have outwitted the Mandal Commission. They have the best of both the worlds — the benefits of backwardness as well as dominance. There are many such cases in other states. The advocates of OBC quota, however, never mention these blatant anomalies, nor do they take seriously the issue of ‘creamy layer’.
Everyone knows that our politicians are supporting OBC quotas not because they care for the well-being of OBCs but because they expect electoral gains through this gimmick. However, as in the case of V.P. Singh, they are in for disappointment. They are not likely to get the votes they expect. You cannot fool the people all the time.
posted by Cliff | 3:41 AM
|
1 comments
