The
second Backward Classes Commission under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal
criticized
this government policy of emphasizing the economic criteria and dismissing
caste
as a criterion to determine the social and educational backwardness. It
strongly
advocated
that the caste should be the basis for determining social and educational
backwardness.
It wrote: “It may be possible to make out a very plausible case for not
accepting
caste as a criterion for defining ‘social and educational backwardness’. But
the
substitution
of caste by economic tests will amount to ignoring the genesis of social
backwardness
in the Indian society.28” The report of the Mandal Commission was taken
up
for implementation by the then Prime-Minister V. P. Singh in 1990. The
significance
of
Mandal Commission’s report was that it turned the nations attention back to the
‘social
oppressions’
inherent in the social structure of the Indian Society. Unfortunately, the soul
of
the debate lost its gloss in the narrow politics and the nation failed to
honour the spirit
of
the constitution which was committed to end social discrimination and ensure
liberty
and
social justice to all its citizens. The Indian State missed the opportunity to
expand its
policy
for ‘protective discrimination’ and ‘affirmative action’ in order to root out
the
vices
of centuries old caste system in Indian society.
B.
P. Mandal brought the nation’s focus back to the caste based oppression and
social
disabilities
inherent in the system to be considered as a relevant criteria for welfare
activities
by the State. However, it failed to define other dimensions of ‘social
discrimination’
and ‘social prejudices’ which were not covered at the time of making of
Indian
Constitution. Mandal construed the caste hierarchy having two distinct
divisions,
i.e.,
forward and backward. This two-tired division fails to capture shades of
complicity
within
the caste based society. The practices of ‘social discrimination’ and ‘impacts
of
social
prejudices’ operate at multiple levels and results into an array of ‘social
disabilities’.
B. P. Mandal was reluctant to accept this multiplicity of social
discrimination.
This attitude is reflected in Mandal’s report with regard to Mr. L. R.
Naik’s
suggestion to divide the list of OBCs into two sections, i.e., ‘Intermediate
Backward
Class’ and ‘Depressed Backward Class’. As a consequence, Mr L. R. Naik
wrote
a separate minute of dissent with reference to this suggested bifurcation in
the
categorization
of the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens.
The
intermediate backward classes are those who have co-existed since times
immemorial
with upper castes and had, therefore, some scope to imbibe better
association.
The ‘Depressed Backward Classes’ are those communities whose
intermingling
with the Indian society was either denied, prohibited or segregated on
account
of stigma of nomadism or criminality. Thus, L. R. Naik was clearly brought
nomadism
and criminal stigma as two unattended dimensions of discrimination practiced
in Indian
society into the discourse. L. R. Naik believed that “these unfortunate class
of people, i.e., ‘Depressed Backward Classes’ seeped as they are in massive
backwardness would take time for their
enlightenment
and advancement, unless, of course, concerted efforts, at national levels,
are
made by way of sagacious inputs of safeguards the benefits of which should be
percolated
to them in a large measure. So there is a compelling need to shift them
carefully
from the main common list and create a separate entity of equals or near-equals
to
bring about a healthy competition among hem for the benefits of safeguards. The
rest
of
the communities in the common list should then form a distinct category for the
same
reason
of creating an atmosphere for competition among equals for the safeguards. This
device
is necessary in the interest of the nation as a whole.29”
L.
R. Naik makes another important observation on a more recent dynamics in the
caste
system.
He wrote: “During the course of my extensive tours throughout the length and
breadth
of India, I observed that a tendency is fast developing among ‘Intermediate
Backward
Classes’ to repeat the treatments or rather ill-treatments, they themselves
have
received
from times immemorial at the hands of the upper castes, against their
brethrens.
I
mean, the Depressed Backward Classes. In an unequal society like ours, it is
necessary
that
the commission takes all precautions so that the more helpless and needy
segments
are
not deprived of the benefits of the various safeguards by avoiding cut-throat
competition
among unequals.30” L. R. Naik here exposes inconsistency in the social
policy
of being selective about only a certain kind of social discrimination to
provide
preferential
treatment by the State. B. P. Mandal in his covering letter addressed to the
President acknowledges the relevance of these arguments introduced by Mr L. R.
Naik. In this context he wrote: “Whereas the commission sees the point of Shri
Naik’s contention, the acceptance of his approach will
result
in a situation which is repugnant to Article 15(4) of the Constitution. In the
case of
Balaji
Vs State of Mysore, the Supreme Court has clearly held “In introducing two
categories
of Backward Classes what the impugned order, in substance, purports to do is
to
devise measures for all the classes of citizens who are less advanced compared
to the
most
advanced classes in the State, and that, in our opinion, is not the scope of
the Article
15(4)”31.
No comments:
Post a Comment