A putative obligation to our fellow citizens
The Supreme Court judgement on August 1, mandated by a 6-1 majority that state governments can sub-categorise castes within the Scheduled Castes on the basis of social-economic backwardness, and degree of under-representation in government jobs. This will ensure that the larger share of the 15 per cent quota will go to this section.
The intention is to rule out the creamy layer from the ambit of reservations. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented on two counts. One, that the Scheduled Castes are a homogeneous category as per the ruling of the five-bench Supreme Court in 2004 in the E V Chinnaiah case.
Two, only Parliament can subdivide castes. Justice B R Gavai, the only Dalit member of the bench, concurred with the majority ruling.
The judgement is bound to create a furore within the Dalit community. If we were to, however, interpret it in light of reason, it makes sense. Reservations were designed to neutralise historical injustice wreaked by the ignoble caste system that, through centuries, has brutally excluded a substantial number of Indians from social, economic, and political life. The logic of exclusion was morally arbitrary: denial of life itself on the basis of birth.
Sharankumar Limbale in The White Paper writes: “I do not ask/for the sun and moon from your sky/your farm/your land/your high houses or your mansions/I do not ask for gods or rituals, castes or sects/ Or even ask for your mother, sisters, daughters/ I ask for my rights as a man”. No one should be penalised for factors, like birth, which they have no control over. This is the foundational principle of justice.
This principle is part of the democratic imaginary that permeated the making of the Constitution. The Preamble of the Constitution mandates freedom, equality, and justice. B R Ambedkar suggested that fraternity be included in the Preamble. On November 25, 1949, he memorably stated that political democracy cannot last unless there is at its base social democracy.
Social democracy recognises liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life. These three principles are not separate items. “They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy…Without fraternity, liberty and equality would not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them.” Indian society he said lacks fraternity. “What does fraternity mean? Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians-if Indians being one people. It is the principle which gives unity and solidarity to social life. It is a difficult thing to achieve.”
It is indeed difficult to achieve, and that is the tragedy of Indian democracy. Why do we not feel outraged when we see that people are denied access to the opportunities that a society has to offer, or when they are denied respect?
Reservations were designed precisely for this reason; to provide special access to people doubly disadvantaged by caste and class. The record of reservations is mixed, some members of the community have profited from opportunities to access the educational system, and have become part of the government and of Parliament.
This is not enough, for a majority of those cleaning sewers are the Dalits, they live in deplorable conditions, and go to bed hungry. Studies have shown that there is considerable overlap between caste and class in India, the poorer sections are likely to belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Witness the irony. A given community may be united by its caste, but it is also divided hierarchically by class. In our analysis of society, we have forgotten class. It is often used as a descriptive category. But it is an analytical tool. It is a damning comment on the kind of society we live in; exploitative, unequal, and unjust.
However, the working people are not only a class; they are also riven by the benighted notion of caste. The Dalits continue to be doubly disadvantaged by caste and by class. So, if the Supreme Court mandates that a section of the community that has profited from opportunities provided by reservations give them up in favour of disadvantaged caste members, it is both logical and reasonable.
Citizens owe a putative obligation to their fellow citizens who roam the streets scavenging in dustbins, begging at traffic lights, and eating abandoned food. How long are we going to live with this inequality that is a sad comment upon us as Indian citizens. We must support redistribution of resources as part of our obligations.
The other alternative is, of course, to broaden reservations. Yes, but we must also understand that for government after government, reservations are a soft option. They have no intention of redistributing resources. The best course for a government to adopt in a highly unequal society is to mandate a minimum social income for all Indians below the poverty line.
As a precondition, this government should tell us what the poverty line is. We used to know it till the point the reports of the Planning Commission were consigned to a history that must never be remembered. Social income must be computed on the average income of a wage earner. After that reservations must be mandated for the doubly disadvantaged. If within a community one section has been emancipated from double disadvantage, it is only fair that it ensures that its caste members also benefit from opportunities. This is redistribution.
(The writer is former professor of political science, Delhi University)