Mandal Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mandal Commission, or the Second Backward Classes Commission, was established in India on 1 January 1979 by the Janata Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai[1] with a mandate to "identify the socially or educationally backward classes" of India.[2] It was headed by Bhindeshwari Prasad Mandal, an Indian parliamentarian from Bihar, to consider the question of reservations for people to redress caste discrimination, and used eleven social, economic, and educational indicators to determine backwardness. In 1980, the Commission's report upheld the affirmative action practice under Indian law by recommending that members of Other Backward Classes (OBC) be granted reservations to 27 per cent of jobs under the Central government and public sector undertakings.[1] The Report became a subject of national attention when the National Front government under V.P. Singh decided to implement this recommendation of the Report in August 1990.[3]

Setting up the Mandal Commission

The plan to set up the Second Backward Classes Commission was taken by the Morarji Desai government in 1978.[3] In 1979, by a Presidential Order under Article 340 (Appointment of a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes in India every 10 years) for the purpose of Articles 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth) and 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment), the Commission was set up. While the First Backward Classes Commission had a broad-based membership, the Second Commission seemed to be shaped on partisan lines, composed of members only from the backward castes. Of its five members, four were from the OBCs; the remaining one, L.R. Naik, was from the Dalit community, and the only member from the scheduled castes in the Commission.[4] It is popularly known as the Mandal Commission for its chairman being B.P. Mandal.

Reservation policy

The Mandal Commission adopted various methods and techniques to collect the necessary data and evidence. In order to identify who qualified as an "other backward class," the commission adopted eleven criteria which could be grouped under three major headings: social, educational and economic. 11 criteria were developed to identify OBCs.[5]

Social

  1. Castes/classes considered as socially backward by others,
  2. Castes/classes which mainly depend on manual labour for their livelihood,
  3. Castes/classes where at least 25 per cent females and 10 per cent males above the state average get married at an age below 17 years in rural areas and at least 10 per cent females and 5 per cent males do so in urban areas.
  4. Castes/classes where participation of females in work is at least 25 per cent above the state average.

[6][7]

Educational

  1. Castes/classes where the number of children in the age group of 5–15 years who never attended school is at least 25 per cent above the state average.
  2. Castes/classes when the rate of student drop-out in the age group of 5–15 years is at least 25 per cent above the state average,
  3. Castes/classes amongst whom the proportion of matriculates is at least 25 per cent below the state average,

[6][7]

Economic

  1. Castes/classes where the average value of family assets is at least 25 per cent below the state average,
  2. Castes/classes where the number of families living in kuccha houses is at least 25 per cent above the state average,
  3. Castes/classes where the source of drinking water is beyond half a kilometre for more than 50 per cent of the households,
  4. Castes/classes where the number of households having taken consumption loans is at least 25 per cent above the state average.

[6][7]

Weighting indicators

As the above three groups are not of equal importance for the purpose, separate weightage was given to indicators in each group. All the Social indicators were given a weightage of 3 points each, 'educational indicators were given a weightage of 2 points each and economic indicators were given a weightage of 1 point each. Economic, in addition to Social and Educational Indicators, were considered important as they directly flowed from social and educational backwardness. This also helped to highlight the fact that socially and educationally backward classes are economically backward also.[7]

Thus, the Mandal Commission judged classes on a scale from 0 to 22. These 11 indicators were applied to all the castes covered by the survey for a particular state. As a result of this application, all castes which had a score of 50% (i.e. 11 points) were listed as socially and educationally backward and the rest were treated as 'advanced'.[7]

Observations and findings

The commission estimated that 52% of the total population (excluding SCs and STs), belonging to 3,743 different castes and communities, were ‘backward’.[2][8][9] The number of backward castes in Central list of OBCs has now increased to 5,013 (without the figures for most of the Union Territories) in 2006 as per National Commission for Backward Classes.[10][11][12] Figures of caste-wise population are not available beyond. So the commission used 1931 census data to calculate the number of OBCs. The population of Hindu OBCs was derived by subtracting from the total population of Hindus, the population of SC and ST and that of forward Hindu castes and communities, and it worked out to be 52 per cent.[13] Assuming that roughly the proportion of OBCs amongst non-Hindus was of the same order as amongst the Hindus, the population of non-Hindu OBCs was considered as 52 per cent.[2]

  • Assuming that a child from an advanced class family and that of a backward class family had the same intelligence at the time of their birth, it is obvious that owing to vast differences in social, cultural and environmental factors, the former will beat the latter by lengths in any competitive field. Even if an advanced class child's intelligence quotient was much lower compared to the child of backward class, chances are that the former will still beat the latter in any competition where selection is made on the basis of 'merit'.
  • In fact, what we call 'merit' in an elitist society is an amalgam of native endowments and environmental privileges. A child from an advanced class family and that of a backward class family are not 'equals' in any fair sense of the term and it will be unfair to judge them by the same yard-stick. The conscience of a civilised society and the dictates of social justice demand that 'merit' and 'equality' are not turned into a fetish and the element of privilege is duly recognised and discounted for when 'unequal' are made to run the same race.[14]
  • To place the amalgams of open caste conflicts in proper historical context, the study done by Tata institute of Social Sciences Bombay observes. “The British rulers produced many structural disturbances in the Hindu caste structure, and these were contradictory in nature and impact …. Thus, the various impacts of the British rule on the Hindu caste system, viz., near monopolisation of jobs, education and professions by the literati castes, the Western concepts of equality and justice undermining the Hindu hierarchical dispensation, the phenomenon of Sanskritization,∅ genteel reform movement from above and militant reform movements from below, emergence of the caste associations with a new role set the stage for the caste conflicts in modern India. Two more ingredients which were very weak in the British period, viz., politicisation of the masses and universal adult franchise, became powerful moving forces after the Independence.[15]

Recommendations

The introduction to the Recommendations, as stated in the report, presents the following argument: [16]

"It may appear the upliftment of Other Backward Classes is part of the larger national problem of the removal of mass poverty. This is only partially correct. The deprivation of OBCs is a very special case of the larger national issue: here the basic question is that of social and educational backwardness and poverty is only a direct consequence of these two crippling caste-based handicaps. As these handicaps are embedded in our social structure, their removal will require far – reaching structural changes. No less important will be changes in the perception of the problems of OBCs by the ruling classes of the country."

As the Commission had concluded that 52 per cent of the country's population comprised OBCs, it initially argued that the percentage of reservations in public services for backward classes should also match that figure. However, as this would have gone against the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court of India which had laid down that reservation of posts must be below 50 per cent, the proposed reservation for OBCs had to be fixed at a figure, which when added to 22.5 per cent for SCs and STs, remains below the cap of 50 per cent. In view of this legal constraint the Commission was obliged to recommend a reservation of 27 per cent only for backward castes. [16]

Implementation

In December 1980, the Mandal Commission submitted its Report which described the criteria it used to indicate backwardness, and stated its recommendations in light of its observations and findings. By then, the Janata government had fallen.The following Congress governments under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were not willing to act on the Report due to its politically contentious nature. After being neglected for 10 years, the Report was accepted by the National Front government led by V.P. Singh. On August 7 1990, the National Front government declared that it would provide 27 per cent reservations to "socially and educationally backward classes" for jobs in central services and public undertaking. Having released the Government Order on 13 August, V.P. Singh announced its legal implementation in his Independence Day speech two days later. [17][18]

That same year in September, a case was brought before the Supreme Court of India which challenged the constitutional validity of the Government Order for the implementation of the Mandal Report recommendations. Indra Sawhney, the petitioner in this case, made three principal arguments against the Order: [19][20]

  • The extension of reservation violated the Constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity.
  • Caste was not a reliable indicator of backwardness.
  • The efficiency of public institutions was at risk.

The five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court issued a stay on the operation of the Government Order of 13 August till the final disposal of the case. On 16 November 1992, the Supreme Court, in its verdict, upheld the government order, being of the opinion that caste was an acceptable indicator of backwardness. [20] Thus, the recommendation of reservations for OBCs in central government services was finally implemented in 1992.

[21]

However, as reported by the Times of India on 26 December 2015, only 12 per cent of the employees under central government ministries and statutory bodies are members of the Other Backward Classes. The data shows that out of 79,483 posts, employees from the OBCs occupied only 9,040 of them.

Protest

A decade after the commission gave its report, V.P. Singh, the Prime Minister at the time, tried to implement its recommendations in 1989.[22] The criticism was sharp and colleges across the country held massive protests against it. On 19th September 1990, Rajiv Goswami, a student of Deshbandhu College, Delhi, committed self-immolation in protest of the government's actions. His act made him the face of the Anti-Mandal agitation then. This further sparked a series of self-immolations by other upper-caste college students like him, whose own hopes of getting a government job were now at threat, and led to a formidable student movement against job reservations for Backward Castes in India.[23] Altogether, nearly 200 students committed self-immolations; of these, 62 students succumbed to their burns.[24] The first student protestor who died due to self-immolation was Surinder Singh Chauhan on 24 September, 1990.[25]

Across northern India, normal business was suspended. Shops were kept closed, and schools and colleges were shut down by student agitators. They attacked government buildings, organised rallies and demonstrations and clashed with the police. Incidents of police firing was reported in six states during agitation, claiming more than 50 lives.[24]

However, according to Ramchandra Guha, the agitation did not gain as much traction in southern India as it did in the North due to certain reasons. Firstly, people in the South were more agreeable to the implementation of the Mandal report recommendations as affirmative action programmes had long been in existence there. Furthermore, while in the South the upper castes constituted less than 10 per cent of the population, the figure in the North was in excess of 20 per cent. Lastly, as the region had a thriving industrial sector, the educated youth in the South were not as dependent on government employment as those in the North.[24]

Criticisms

**NFHS Survey estimated only Hindu OBC population. Total OBC population derived by assuming Muslim OBC population in same proportion as Hindu OBC population

The National Sample Survey puts the figure at 32%.[26] There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBC's in India, with census data compromised by partisan politics. It is generally estimated to be sizeable, but lower than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or and National Sample Survey.[27]

There is also a debate about the estimation logic used by the Mandal Commission for calculating OBC population. Yogendra Yadav, psephologist turned politician, agrees that there is no empirical basis to the Mandal figure. According to Yadav, "It is a mythical construct based on reducing the number of SC/ST, Muslims and others and then arriving at a number."[28] Yadav argues that government jobs were availed by those who by their own means had got higher education, and that reservation for OBC's was only one of the many recommendations of the Mandal Commission, which largely remain unimplemented after 25 years.[29]

The National Sample Survey's 1999–2000 round estimated around 36 percent of the country's population as belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC). The proportion falls to 32 per cent on excluding Muslim OBCs. A survey conducted in 1998 by National Family Health Statistics (NFHS) puts the proportion of non-Muslim OBCs as 29.8 per cent[30]

L R Naik, the only Dalit member in the Mandal Commission refused to sign the Mandal recommendations.[31] Naik argued that intermediate backward classes are relatively powerful, while depressed backward classes, or most backward classes (MBCs) remain economically marginalised.

Furthermore, the opponents of the reservations argue that:

  • Allocating quotas on the basis of caste is a form of racial discrimination, and contrary to the right to equality. If at all, quotas should be based on economic hardships, which can be changed, not on race. Basing them on an unchangeable factor makes them unfair and useless. Despite the improvement in lower caste socioeconomic status, the presence of caste will still be felt and administered officially.
  • As a consequence of legislating to provide reservations for Christians and Muslim, religious minorities in all government education institutions will be introduced[32] which is contrary to the ideas of secularism, and is a form of anti-discrimination on the basis of religion.
  • Most often, only economically sound people (and rather rich) from the so-called lower castes will make use of most of the reserved seats, thus counteracting the spirit of reservations.[33] Political parties know reservations are no way to improve the lot of the poor and the backward. They support them because of self-interest of the "creamy layer", who use the reservations to further their own family interests, and as a political flag of 'achievement' during election campaigns.[34] Several studies show that the OBC class is comparable with the general caste in terms of annual per capita consumption expenditure, and the top strata of OBC is ahead in a host of consumption areas.[35]
  • The quality of these elite institutes may go down, because merit is severely being compromised by reserving seats for certain caste-based communities.[36]
  • There are no efforts made to give proper primary education to truly deprived classes,[33] so there is no need to reserve seats for higher studies. The government schools in India have absolutely no comparison to the public schools in the developed countries, and only about 65% of the Indian population is literate,.[37] The critics argue that "reservation" only in higher institutions and jobs, without improving primary and secondary education, cannot solve this problem.[34]
  • The government is dividing people on the basis of castes for political advantages.[36]
  • The caste system is kept alive through these measures. Instead of coming up with alternative innovative ideas which make sure equal representation at the same time making the caste system irrelevant, the decision is only fortifying the caste system.
  • The autonomy of the educational institutes are lost.[34]
  • Not everyone from the so-called upper classes are rich, and not all from so called lower classes are poor.[34]
  • The reservation policy will create a huge unrest in the Indian society.[36][38] Providing quotas on the basis of caste and not on the basis of merit will deter the determination of many educated and deserving students of India.[36]
  • Multi-national companies will be deterred by this action of the government, and foreign investment in India may dry down, hurting the growth of the Indian economy.[34] Doubtless, urgent actions to improve the lot of the majority, which has not benefited from development—not achieved after 55 years of reservations for scheduled castes—are essential. But this must not hazard improving the economy's competitiveness in a very competitive world.[34]
  • There are already talks of reservations in the private sector.[34] If even after providing so many facilities to reserved categories during education, if there is no adequate representation of those people in the work force, there must be some problems with the education system.

Critics of the Mandal Commission argue that it is unfair to accord people special privileges on the basis of caste, even in order to redress traditional caste discrimination. They argue that those that deserve the seat through merit will be at a disadvantage. They reflect on the repercussions of unqualified candidates assuming critical positions in society (doctors, engineers, etc.). As the debate on OBC reservations spreads, a few interesting facts which raise pertinent question are already apparent. To begin with, is there any clear idea what proportion of our population is OBC? According to the Mandal Commission (1980) it is 52 percent. According to 2001 Indian Census, out of India's population of 1,028,737,436 the Scheduled Castes comprise 166,635,700 and Scheduled Tribes 84,326,240, that is 16.2% and 8.2% respectively. There is nocoss data on OBCs in the census.[39] However, according to National Sample Survey's 1999–2000 round around 36 per cent of the country's population is defined as belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC). The proportion falls to 32 per cent on excluding Muslim OBCs. A survey conducted in 1998 by National Family Health Statistics (NFHS) puts the proportion of non-Muslim OBCs as 29.8 per cent.[40] The NSSO data also shows that already 23.5 per cent of college seats are occupied by OBCs. That's just 8.6 per cent short of their share of population according to the same survey. Other arguments include that entrenching the separate legal status of OBCs and SC/STs will perpetuate caste differentiation and encourage competition among communities at the expense of national unity. They believe that only a small new elite of educated Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs benefit from reservations, and that such measures don't do enough to lift the mass of people out of poverty.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Gehlot, N. S. (1998). Current Trends in Indian Politics. Deep & Deep Publications. pp. 264–265. ISBN 9788171007981. 
  2. ^ a b c Bhattacharya, Amit. "Who are the OBCs?". Archived from the original on 27 June 2006. Retrieved 2006-04-19.  Times of India, 8 April 2006.
  3. ^ a b http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/sunday-story-mandal-commission-report-25-years-later/
  4. ^ Maheshwari, Shriram (1991). The Mandal Commission and Mandalisation: A Critique. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 18–26. ISBN 9788170223382. 
  5. ^ "Redesigning reservations: Why removing caste-based quotas is not the answer". 
  6. ^ a b c "Mandal Commission" (PDF). simplydecoded.com. 
  7. ^ a b c d e Agrawal, S. P.; Aggarwal, J. C. (1991). Educational and Social Uplift of Backward Classes: At what Cost and How? : Mandal Commission and After. Concept Publishing Company. pp. 59–60. ISBN 9788170223399. 
  8. ^ "BC, DC or EC? What lies ahead of the census- Haphazard lists and multiple definitions could pose hurdles in establishing identity during the caste count". 
  9. ^ "OBCs: Who are they?-Reservation policy for OBCs: Who would benefit and what are the costs involved". Retrieved 2006-07-17. 
  10. ^ "Time to curb number of backward castes". 
  11. ^ "The Muslim OBCs And Affirmative Action-SACHAR COMMITTEE REPORT". 
  12. ^ "SECC 2011: Why we are headed for Mandal 2 and more quotas before 2019". 
  13. ^ Ramaiah, A (6 June 1992). "Identifying Other Backward Classes" (PDF). Economic and Political Weekly. pp. 1203–1207. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 December 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-27. 
  14. ^ Mandal Commission report, Vol I, pp 23
  15. ^ Mandal Commission report, Vol I, pp 31
  16. ^ a b Mandal Commission Report, Vol. 1, Recommendations. pp. 57–60. 
  17. ^ "How VP Singh Stirred a Hornet's Nest With the Mandal Commission". The Quint. Retrieved 2017-11-04. 
  18. ^ Gehlot, N. S. (1998). Current Trends in Indian Politics. Deep & Deep Publications. pp. 264–265. ISBN 9788171007981. 
  19. ^ Guha, Ramchandra (2017). India After Gandhi: 10th Anniversary Edition. New Delhi: Picador India. pp. 602–604. ISBN 9789382616979. 
  20. ^ a b "Case analysis of Indira Sawhney v. UOI". Legal Bites - Law And Beyond. 2016-09-15. Retrieved 2017-11-04. 
  21. ^ "20 years after Mandal, less than 12% OBCs in central govt jobs - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2017-11-04. 
  22. ^ "Mandal vs Mandir". 
  23. ^ "The Telegraph - Calcutta : Frontpage". www.telegraphindia.com. Retrieved 2017-10-30. 
  24. ^ a b c Guha, Ramchandra (2017). India After Gandhi: 10th Anniversary Edition. New Delhi: Picador India. pp. 602–604. ISBN 9789382616979. 
  25. ^ Kumar, Anu (2012-09-29). "Mandal memories". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2017-11-10. 
  26. ^ Negi, S.S. (10 June 2006). "Reply to SC daunting task for government". The Tribune. Retrieved 23 November 2011. 
  27. ^ Anand, Arun (24 May 2007). "What is India's population of other backward classes?". Yahoo! News India. Archived from the original on 27 June 2007. 
  28. ^ http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/36-population-is-obc-not-52-106050801060_1.html
  29. ^ http://www.catchnews.com/india-news/let-s-have-an-index-to-measure-how-disadvantaged-an-individual-is-yogendra-yadav-1439668620.html
  30. ^ 36% population is OBC, not 52%. South Asian Free Media Association (8 May 2006). Retrieved on 2006-05-27.
  31. ^ "Mandal's True Inheritors". The Times of India. 12 December 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-12. 
  32. ^ Quota for Tamil Nadu religious minorities
  33. ^ a b Srinivas, M.N. (August 1997). "The pangs of change". Frontline. The Hindu. 14 (16). Retrieved 2006-05-24. 
  34. ^ a b c d e f g Rao, S.L. (5 June 2006). "Too Many Bosses – The UPA has a cabinet with many insubordinate ministers". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2006-06-05. 
  35. ^ Dobhal, Shailesh (2 June 2006). "In consumption, OBCs are no longer backwards". The Economic Times, Times Internet Limited. Retrieved 2006-06-02. 
  36. ^ a b c d "Divisive quota: Education alone can empower". The Tribune. 28 April 2006. Retrieved 2006-05-24. 
  37. ^ "Literacy Rate: India". Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India. Archived from the original on 14 May 2007. Retrieved 2006-06-02. 
  38. ^ Ramchandran, S (25 April 2006). "India Inc., liberalisation, and social responsibility". The Hindu. Retrieved 2006-06-02. 
  39. ^ "Population". Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. Archived from the original on 26 May 2006. Retrieved 2006-05-27. 
  40. ^ "36% population is OBC, not 52%". South Asian Free Media Association. 8 May 2006. Retrieved 2006-05-27. 

References

  • Ramaiah, A (6 June 1992). "Identifying Other Backward Classes" ([2]) pp. 1203–1207. Economic and Political Weekly. URL accessed on 05 Dec 2013.
  • Complete Text of the Mandal Commission Report

External links

  • Reserving the deserving, genesis of a debate
  • The Skimming of the creamy layer
  • Countercurrents
  • Youth for Equality
  • Diluting Mandal from S.S.Gill, Secretary, Mandal Commission.
  • Supporting reservations
  • Late Mr Rajiv Gandhi's Speech on Mandal Commission
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandal_Commission&oldid=810956298"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandal_Commission
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Mandal Commission"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA