Dipak Kurmi
(The writer can be reached at dipaknewslive@gmail.com.)
The Lok Sabha 2024 campaign unfolds as a clash between two perspectives on social justice. While the Congress advocates for quotas based on population, the BJP champions a comprehensive approach, focusing on the empowerment of the most backward classes through enhanced political representation and holistic development.
At first glance, the Congress’ position appears logically flawed. If the idea is to align reservations with the proportional share of the population for historically oppressed segments, one could argue for a universal application of quotas. For instance, according to the Bihar caste survey, the cumulative percentage of Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) amounts to around 85%. Applying quota based on this figure would mean they could stake a claim to 85% of job opportunities and seats in educational institutions, leaving the remaining 15% to be contested among the so-called upper castes. This scenario might be perceived as somewhat inequitable.
The Congress Working Committee also overlooked the aspect of gender parity. If the criteria revolve around the share of population and historical oppression, then women, constituting 48.4% of the population, should be considered from the outset. A logical consequence of such a policy would be a vertical quota of 48.4% for women, with horizontal divisions based on caste and community lines.
Politics and laws, being products of male craftsmanship, operate within their own logic and lexicon, where social justice often diverges from gender justice. At its most optimistic, the narrative suggests that social justice measures will somehow alleviate gender-based inequalities. However, at its worst, leaders of prominent Mandal parties can openly endorse patriarchal norms without facing significant repercussions.
Setting aside gender considerations, relying on census-backed proportional representation becomes a complex labyrinth. Given the existence of around 2,500 notified castes in the central OBC list, pursuing this approach would lead to a progressively finer division of quotas. This holds true even in the highly improbable scenario of the Supreme Court-mandated 50% cap on reservations being lifted.
The G Rohini Commission, tasked with the sub-categorization of OBCs, required 13 extensions and six years to navigate through the extensive data. Among its reported findings is that a quarter of OBCs monopolise all the associated benefits. If this glaring injustice is substantiated by census data, it could potentially spark social conflict, with various communities invoking statistics to bolster their claims for a more substantial share of the resources.
The Congress’ focus on OBCs is a direct reaction to the BJP’s mobilisation of non-Yadav OBCs. In northern, central, and western India, the ongoing effort to integrate OBCs within the ‘Hindu’ framework has been successful, resulting in significant electoral gains for the BJP. More than a third of BJP MPs, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, belong to the OBC category.
The Congress drew inspiration from Janata Dal (United) leader Nitish Kumar, recognizing the electoral significance of his non-Yadav OBC vote bank. Nitish strategically unveiled the results of his caste survey (technically not a census), highlighting the numerical dominance of non-Yadav OBCs in Bihar. Whether aligning with the core constituencies of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (Muslim-Yadav) or the BJP-HAM-LJP (upper castes-Dalit), depending on the prevailing alliance, these non-Yadav OBCs under Nitish’s leadership can sway the outcome of elections in the state.
Uttar Pradesh lacks a caste survey, but the BJP’s alliance of upper castes and non-Yadav OBCs has proven to be highly successful. There are speculations that the JD (U) is interested in fielding candidates in eastern Uttar Pradesh, known for its substantial Kurmi population, the same caste as Nitish Kumar. However, the hurdle lies in its coalition partner, the Samajwadi Party, which is reluctant to concede seats in a region where it performed well by securing the backing of various small OBC groupings.
The Congress has observed the electoral effectiveness of influential local OBC leaders such as Ashok Gehlot in Rajasthan, Bhupesh Baghel in Chhattisgarh, and Siddaramaiah in Karnataka. By advocating for ‘jitni abadi, utna haq (quotas as per population),’ it aims to challenge the BJP’s OBC strongholds in Madhya Pradesh, UP, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Haryana. The party justifies its call for a caste census by arguing that the 50% cap on quotas could be surpassed if the Supreme Court is presented with compelling data.
The BJP contends that initiatives focusing on development and welfare programmes for the underprivileged will have a more substantial impact on the most backward communities than quotas. Nevertheless, the party granted constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC), supported OBC reservation in medical education, and advocated for states to enforce the 27% quota for OBCs while also pushing for their increased representation in local bodies. Rather than expanding caste-based quotas, the BJP introduced a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections.
Is the Congress capable of disrupting the BJP’s caste consolidation and undermining the unity under the ‘Hindu’ umbrella? The challenge lies in the fact that, despite reservations being an emotionally charged issue, voters may question the credibility of the Congress’s stance. After all, the apex court has been hesitant to endorse caste quotas exceeding the 50% limit. Any legislation attempting to exceed this limit would likely face legal challenges, arguing that it is divisive, overlooks merit, and promotes brain drain. The Congress needs to put in more effort to ensure its ‘OBCD’ (OBC plus Dalit) electoral strategy resonates effectively.