who are the obcs

Who Are the Other Backward Classes?: An Introduction to a Constitutional PuzzleAuthor(s): Marc GalanterReviewed work(s):Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 13, No. 43/44 (Oct. 28, 1978), pp. 1812-1828Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4367065 .Accessed: 10/09/2012 02:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toEconomic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4367065?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Who Are the Oiler Backward Classcs?

An Introduction to a Constitutional Puzzle Marc Galanter

In view of the recent upsurge of interest in Other Backward Classes, it mny be timely to reflect on how this term became a category for public po!icy in India and what its possible meaning is.

The question of who were the Schedu'ed Castes was debated and roughly settled before Inde- pendence within the executive and without the participation of the courts. But who are the Backward Classes is a post-Independence question which the constitutional recognition of the category made one of all-India scope.

The Corstitution left the matter with the execUtive at the .State level uith an option tor the Centre to unify it. When the executive at the Centre first failed and then declined to provide a resolution, the question1 teverted to the states.

In the wake of the Janata victory in The 1977 elections, the Backward Classes returned to the niational political agen.da. Pursuant to its electoral promnise, the Janata government appeared I oised to appoint a new Backward Classes Commission, but had not done so by mid-1978. The UP and Bihar governments, zinder Janata control, enlarged su).:tantially the pr.ferences for Other Backward Classes, leading to massive violence in Bihar and political intervention bq the Centre.

During the hiatus of Central involvement, what the statos did was invreasikzgly subjected to the examination of the courts. It has heen the Supreme Court rather than the Central governtmenzt which has been the unifying and limiting itnfluence and presumably any new Central I^olicy will be shaped in -the light of two decades of judicial predominance in this area.

THE Constitution of India authorises special preferential treatment not only for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but for "other socially and educationally backward classes". Just who these groups are, how they are to be selected, and what measures the government may take on their behalf are matters surrounded by some uncertainty. In view of the recent upsurge of interest in Other Backward Classes, it may be timely to reflect on how this term became a category for public policy in India and what its possible meaning is. As an introduction to such discussion, I would like to present some material drawn from a forthcoming book about the Indian experience with protective or compensatory discrimination. This paper does not attempt to analyse the judicial treatment of the concept, but to sketch he shifting career of the Backward Classes category. The reader will find some gaps in the story. Anyone who has evr tried to gather Information about Backward Classes will appreciate just how elusive ft can be. Any help in filling the gaps or correcting errors would be most welcome.

The Other Backward Classes for whom preferential treatment is authorised are not defined in the ConstitutSon,

nor is any exclusive method or agency for their designation provided. For all the uncertainty surrounding the term "Scheduled Castes" (and its predeces- sor "Depressed Classes") its central purpose is clear - to identify the victims of "untouchability". At the time of Independence, the term "Backward Classes" had a less fixed and definite reference. The term had been around fo- some time.1 but it had a variety of referents, it had shifted rapidly in meaning and had come to mean different things in different places. For purposes of tracing these varied meanings in the following discussion, we may portray some of the variety of meanings in schematic form in the Figure.

In 1917 the Maharaja of Kolhapur recounted to Montagu that he had "been taking very keen interest... in uplift- ing the Backward Classes ard especially the untouchables".2 [Denotation 3?]. Soon after, the term appears in the terms of reference of the Southborough Committee, which was to advise on measures to secure representation of "minorities, of special interests, or of backward classes".3 But the Committee did not mention any such groups in its report, other than Dep-essed Classes. [Denotation 1?]. The Joint Select Com- mittee of the British Parliament which

reviewed the Southborough Report mentioned in passi;.g the importance they attached to "the educational advancement of the depressed and backward classes".4 There is no indication that the term was meant to include anyone besides the depressed classes. [Denotationl? 2?].

"Backward Classes" first acquired a technical meaning in the princely state of Mysore. In 1918, the Mysore Gov- ernment appointed a committee to en- quire into the question of encouraging members of the "backward communities" in Public Service.5 In 1921, preferential recruitment of "backward communities" was instituited an(d they were defined as "all commun.ities other than Brahmins, who are not now ade- quately-represented in the public service".6 [Denotation 9].

The Reforms Enquiry Commission (1924) did not find occasion to use the term, but the Ministry Report refers to its use as a synonym for the Depressed Classes (untouchables) and in contra- distinction to "r.on-Brahmins".7 [Deno- tation 1].

Although "Non-Brabmin" and "Mara- tha" were much more frequlently uised in the setting of the Bombay "Non- Brabmin" Moveme-t of the 1920s the Backward Classes rubric, was employed

t812

FIcURE: VARIOUS DENOTATIONS OF THE TERM "BACKWARD CLASSES"

Highest Castes /

inltennedl- ts 11

t es iediI I

Untouch-

/boriginals, I

'10riminal rir 14onhds, etc.

(1) As a synonym for Depressed Classes, untouchables, Scheduled Castes. (2) As comprising the untouchables, aboriginal and hill tribes, criminal tribes,' etc. (3) As comprising all communities deserving special treatment, namely those included in (2) above and in

addition the lower strata of notn-untouchable communities. (4) As comprising all non-tribal (Hindu) communities deserving special treA.tment. (5) As comprising all communities deserving special treatment except the untouchables. (6) As comprising the lower strata of non-untouchal;le commnunities. (7) As comprising all communities above the untouchables but below the most "advanced" communities. (8) As comprising the non-untouchable communities who were "backward" in comparison to the bigaest castes. (9) As comprising all communities other than the highest or most advanced.

(10) As comprising all persons who meet given non-communal tests of backwardness (e g, low incomne). Note: This diagram portrays varying usages, of which examples are given in the text below. Exact specifications

may differ along other dimensions as well - e g, whether non-Hindus are included, whether prosperous faini- lies within these groups are excluded, etc.

both popularly and officially in a broad meaning, somewhat akin to that in My- sore.8 In 1925, a Government Resolu- tion defined Bockward Classes as all except Brabmins, Prabhus, Marwaris, Parsis, Banias and Christians.9 [Denota- tion 9?]. Reservations in government service were provided for this group.

The Hartog Committee (1928) defined Backward Classes in their glossary:

Castes or classes which are educationally backward. They include the depressed classes, aboriginals, hill tribes, and criminal tribes.10 [Deno- tation 21.

In 1929 the Indian Central Committee distinguished the problem of the "'backward classes', among whom may be counted aboriginals, criminal tribes and others among the less advanced of the inhabitants of British India"." [Deno- tation 5] Apparently the Committee not only excludes the Depressed Classes but includes in addition to tribals, some strata of the caste population, for they mention an estimate of sixteen million

backward classes in UP (excluding the untouchables).12 But the category is not used as expansively as, the Mysore or earlier Bombay usage, for it did not include the Madras non-Brahmins or Marhattas in Bombay who were discussed separately.13 The term could not have been a familiar one for the Report finds it necessary to distinguish Back- ward Classes from untouchables several times. In a separate note, M C Rajah, an untouchable spokesman, mentions Backward Classes only as a con- fusing synonym for Depressed Classes.14 [Denotation 1].

In 1930 the Starte Committee in Bombay devoted careful consideration to the question of nomenclature. It noted that in 1924, the term Depress- ed Classes had been accorded a wider meaning to include

aboriginal tribes and the Criminal Tribes and some other wandering arld backward Castes ... [which had] resulted in much confusion of thought in this Presidency, as in or-

dinary usage the phrase Depressed Classes is taken as.rjmeaning the untouchables .... whereas they do not form half of this new and enlarged grouping of Depressed Classes.u

The Committee recommended that "Depressed Classes" should be used in the sense of untouchables. a usage which "will coincide with existing common practice".'6 It proposed that the wider group should be called "Backward Classes", [Denotation 31 which should be subdivided into:

Depressed Classes (i e, untouchables). Aboriginal and Hill Tribes. Other Backward Classes (including wandering tribes).

It noted that the groups then current- ly called Backward Classes [Denotation 8] should be renamed "intermnediate classes".17 tn addition to 36 Depressed Classes (approximate 1921 population 1.475 million) and 24 Aboriginal and Hill Tribes (approximate 1921 population 1.323 million), it listed 94 Other Backward C asses (approximate 1921 population 1.041 million).18 [Denota-

October 28, 1978 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WE1FKLY

tationi 6]. The Simnon Commission, though it

refers to "intermediate castes", and takes note of the non-Brahmin movement, makes no mention of Backward Classes.19 But shortly after, in the early 1930s we find a flowering of the term. In the hearings held by the Indian Franchise Committee in the United Provinces, the term recurs in the testimony in a number of significa- tions. Thus a note by S S Nehru, ICS, presents a list of Depressed Classes of which portions are designated "Vag- rant Tribes" and "Backward Classes".20 [Denotation 6]. Presumably these are the groups who least fit the "untouchability" criterion. However the memorandum of Pandit Sheokaran Nath Misra (Deputy Collector of Fyzabad) suggests that "depressed classes should include untouchables as well as backward classes". He equated depressed classes roughly with all Sudras except- ing Kayasthas.21 [Denotation 4]. The United Provinces Hindu Backward Classes League (founded in 1929) submitted a memorandum which suggested that the term "Depressed" carried a connotation "of untouchability in the sense of causing pollution by touch as in the case of Madras and Bombay" and that many communities were re- luctant to identify themselves as depressed. The League suggested the term "Hindu Backward" as a more suitable nomenclature.22 The list of 115 castes submitted included all candidates for the untouchable category as well as a stratum above. [Denota- tion 4]. "All of the [listed] communities belong to non-Dwijas or degene- rate or Sudra classes of the Hindus". They were described as low socially, educationally and economically and said to number over 60 per cent of the population.23

This inclusive usage was adopted elsewhere. Travancore in 1937 abandoned the Depressed Classes nomenclature and substituted the term "Back- ward Communities" to include all educationally and economically backward communities.24 [Denotation 31. How- ever, in Madras and elsewhere the term "Backward Classes" was used to refer to the strata above the untouchables.2-5 The Madras Provincial Back- ward Classes League, consisting of the less forward non-Brahmin communities was founded in 1934 for the purpose of securing separate treatment from "the forward non-Brahmin communities". According to the list

they preseinted to the Madras Covern- ment in 1944, the Backward Classes comprised more than a hundred communities with about 25 million people (more than two-thirds of the non- Brahmin category and 50 per cent of the total population of the Presiden- cy).26 [Denotation 6]. In November 1947, separate reservations in the Ma- dras services were provided for these "Backward Hindus".27

In the meantime, the Objectives Re- solution ,of the Constituent Assembly, moved by Jawabarlal Nehru on De- cember 13, 1946, bad resolved to provide adequate safegurads for "minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes".25 [Denotation 5? 6?].

Thus, the term had never acquired a definite meaning at the all-India level. There had been no attempt to define it or employ it on the national level and there were no nationwide backward classes' organisations or spokes- men. It bad definite meanings in local contexts, although these differed somewhat. After the listing of Scheduled Castes, the usage as a synonym for untouchables [Denotation 1] drops away. Two major species of usage emerge: (1) as the more inclusive group of all those who need special treatment. [Denotations 3, 9]; (2) as a stratum higher than the untouchables but nonetheless depressed [Denota- tions 6, 71. This double usage continues today: the former in the usage of Backward Classes in the wide sense (including Scheduled Castes and Sche- duled Tribes); the latter in the 'usage as equivalent to "Other Backward Classes". It is with the latter that we are now concerned here.

By the time of the Constituent As- sembly the usage of the term "Back- ward Classes" to refer to some larger or smaller portion of the population deserving of special treatment was familiar in many parts of the country. In the Assembly, delegates from the north expressed puzzlement at the provisions for "Backward Classes" (in what came to be Article 16[4]). It struck them as vague and some thought it was meant merely as a synonym for the Scheduled Castes,29 while others were concerned that it miglht mean more.30 But representatives from Ma- dras, Mysore and Bombay assured their colleagues that Backward Classes was a distinct term with a technical meaning. Examples were given of

Mysore wbere Backward Classes included all but Brahmins,31 of Madras where it referred to a stratum of non- untouchable Hindu castes,32 and to Bombay where it included not only Scheduled Castes and Tribes but others who are economically, educationally, and socially backward.33 A representative from Bihar (which had the most active Backward Classes movement in the north) explained that Backward Classes were a section of society between the highest castes and the Scheduled Castes: 'the third [section] occupying the middle position ... and consisting, of a large portion of our people is what may be termed the Backward Class.... No doubt they are not treated as untouchables."34

K M Munshi assured the house that the term would include the Scheduled Castes, when doubts were expressed, and explained that it was "necessary to find a generic term". "It signifies people - touchable or untouchable, be- longing to this community or that - who are so backward that special protection is required in the services."35

Although one speaker pJointed out that classes were not necessarily castes and that literacy might be the test of backwardness,36 it was generally envisioned that the backward classes would be communities. When asked what is a backward community, Am- bedkar, defending the draft, explained

...we have left it be determined by each local government. A backward community is a community which is backward in the opinion of the Covernment.37

However, the matter was not as clear as this suggests. The most prophetic statment was T T Krishnamachari's prediction that the clause would be "a paradise for lawyers".38

It was anticipated, then, that the backward classes other than the Sche-

*duled Castes and Tribes, were to be designated at the local level. The de- legation to local authorities undoubted- ly reflected an acceptance (at least temporarily) of the divergence of existing practices, a desire to preserve flexibility, and an awareness of the difficulties of prescribing universally ap- plicable tests of backwardness in view of the varying local conditions. It may also have been presumed that "Back- ward Classes" were sufficiently potent politically to look out for their own interests on a local level, and, unlike Scheduled Castes and Tribes, central control of their designation was not~

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY October 28, 1978

TABLE 1: CONCESSIONS TO OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES, 1951-52

State Education: Reser- Other Recruit- Expendi- Expendi- Fee Con- vations in Welfare ments to ture, ture, cessions, Educa- Govern- 1951-52 1953-54 Stipends, tional ment (lakhs) (lakhs) Training Insts. Posts Facilities, etc.

Andhra 4.33 Assam X 0 0 0 18.04 2.49 Bihar X 0 0 0 6.22 10.26 Bombay X X X X 24.95 50.15 Madhya Pradesh 0 0 0 0 0 .77 Madras X X X X 13.04 41.25 Orissa 0 0 0 0 0 0 Punjab 0 0 0 0 0 0 UP X 8 0 0 4.75 6.29 West Bengal X 0 0 0 NA 5.86 Hyderabad 0 0 X 0 36.27 1.70 Madhya Pradesh 0 Mysore X ? X X ? 9.14 Pepsu 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rajasthan X 0 0 0 .29 NA Saurashtra 0 0 0 X 0 6.44 Trav-Cochin X ? ? X ? 8.71 Ajmer X 0 0 0 0 0 Bhopal 0 0 0 0 .05 .05 Bilaspur 0 0 0 0 ? NA Coorg 0 X 0 0 NA .06 Delhi X 0 0 0 NA NA Himachal Pr 0 0 0 0 3.47 NA Kutch 0 0 0 0 NA 3.7 Manipur 0 0 0 0 NA NA Tripura 0 NA Vindhya Pr. 0 0 0 0 N. A. NA Central Gvt X 0 X7 0

Note:. * OBC lumped together with SC and ST. Source: This Table is a composite of information found in RCSCST 1952: 202 205

with introductory chapters X, XI. The 1953-54 expenditures are taken from I BCC 146.

required to ensure the inclusion of the deserving. However the Central government was not entirely excluded from the process. The President is instructed to appoint a Backward Classes Com- mission.

to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes .... and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove such difficulties and to improve their condition.. .39

No special central machinery for su- pervision of programmes for backward classes is provided in the Constitution, but Article 338 (3) provides that the Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Tribes shall include in bis duties such other groups as the President may specify on receipt of the report of the Backward Classes Commission. It is not clear from the text that this Pre- sidential specification was meant to be exclusive.

Even before the Constitution came into force there was a great expansion in the employn-ent of the Backward

Classes category. Several states creat- ed such a category for the first time and,40 of those who already had it, several expanded the benefits conferred upon the Backward Classes. The Cen- tral government was pressed to extend its scheme of post-matriculation scholarships to the Other Backward Classes,41 and, when it did so, it compiled lists of Backward Classes in each state for this purpose.42 Backward Classes' organisations emerged;43 a national federation was formed.44

Apart from the Central scholarships. provisions for Other Backward Classes roughly followed a regional pattern as indicated by Table 1. In South India and in Bombay, provisions for Other Backward Classes flourished. In the north, there were mostly a scatter ot educational concessions and many states did not have any lists at all (other than those compiled for purposes of the Central post-matriculation scholarship scheme).

It remained unclear just how many people were included in the Backward Classes category.45 The never-complet-

ed 1951 Census enumeration, based in part on the existing state lists, counm- ed 67 millions (18.9 per cent of the total population).46 The Planning Commission in July 1951 estimated that Other Backward Classes were approximately 20 per cent of the population,47 but in late 1952 noted that "these other backward classes ... are believed to number about [54.6 millions]".48 Other observers predicted a smaller list,49 but the President in his address to the inaugural meeting of the Backward Classes Commission is reported to have mentioned the figure of 70 millions.50

A pair of Supreme Court decisions in April 1951 shattered the legal foundation of the system of communal quotas which prevailed in South India. State of Madras v Champakam Dorai- rajan, struck down Madras' reservations in educational institutions and by im- plication barred all preferential treatment outside the area of goveminent employment."1 Venkataramana, v State of Madras struck down Madras' quotas itn government posts for all groups other than the Scheduled Castes and "Backward Hindus", confining poten- tial recipients to those who could qua- lify as the "backward classes" mentioned in Article 16(4).52'These decisions caused a political furore in South In-' dia and occasioned the prompt addition of Article 15(4) to the Constitu- tion.53

The debate over the amendment centered on the desirability of provid- ing educational preferences to the Back- ward Classes, and it' revolved in part around the question of who were the backard classes.54 Although the Scheduled Castes and Tribes were equally discornfited lby Champakam Dorai;'ajan and presumbly equally concerned with educational preferences, there was little mention of them in parliament. The question worrying the house was the identity of Backward Classes, and the possible abuse of the new provision by advanced groups.

In an attempt to confine the possible medning of Backward Classes, the wording of Article 15(4) was keyed to that of Article 340,55 which provided that the not yet established Back- ward Classes Commission should list the "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens". Some speakers drew assurances from the notion that the listing by the Commis- sion and subsequent presidential spe- efiScation would be determinative.5O

1815

October 28, 1978 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

TABLE 2: ESTIMATED FOPULATION OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES

State Backward Classes 1951 Census Commission

410 v 73 .C pq CZ O

000'O

CUX ~ c c' CU C?

ASSam 90.44 18.84 20.8 *26.15 28.9 28.66 31.7 Bihar 402 .26 62 .76 1 5 .6 66.90 1 6. 6 1 53 .21 38. 1 BOmbaY 359.56 44.90 12.5 16.13 4.5 1 10. 10 30.6 MadhYa PradeSh 212.48 66.48 31.3 *56.04 26.4 79.03 37.2 MadraS and

Andhra 570.16 197.16 34.6 263.95 46.3 126.81 22.2 OriSSa 146.46 41.73 28.5 15.85 10.8 13.56 9.3 PUnjab 126.41 NA NA *7.89 6.2 25.56 20.2 UP 632.16 41.51 6.6 41.51 6.6 269.10 42.6 WeStBengal 248.10 13.59 5.5 1.81 0.7 22.66 9.1

Andhra (inClUded in MadraS) HYderabad 186.55 94.13 50.5 122.85 65.9 137.66 73.8 Madhya Bharat 79.54 13.68 17.2 13.25 16.7 19.37 24.4 MYSOre 90.75 174.53 19.3 20.62 22.7 59.64 65.7 PePSU 34 .94 NA NA *3 .79 1 0. 8 4.42 2. 7 RajaSthan 152.91 32.16 21.0 *34.30 22.4 34.31 22.4 Saurashtra 41.37 15.78 38.1 1*1.06 26.7 12.16 29.4 TraVanCOre-

ACnhin 92.80 4.16 4.5 2.85 3.1 9.12 9.8 A;mer 6. 93 . 35 5.*1 . 35 5 .1 2 .98 42. 9 BhOPal 8.36 1.25 14.4 1.35 13.5 2.98 35.2 HimiaCha1 PradeSh

andBilaspur 11.09 NA NA *2.38 21.4 3.15 28.4 COOrg 2.29 .69 30.3 .68 29.7 .64 27.8 Delhi 17.44 NA NA *2.41 13.8 3.18 18.2 KUtCh 5.68 .01 .2 1.08 19.0 2.01 35.4 ManiPur 5.78 NA NA - - .35 6.1 TriPUra 6.39 .30 4.7 - 64.5 .69 10. 1 VindhYa PradeSh 35.75 7.40 20.7 - - 13.56 38.5 AndamanS and

NiCobarS .30 45 8 3 - -

India 3568.29 674 .39 18.9 730.01 20.5 1135.10 31.8

* Represents estimated 1951 population of educationally backward classes. (The

source is not entirely clear as regardS ASSam.

Source = I11 BCC 14-1 5.

Others assumed that the identity of the Backward Classes would remain a question for the state governments and counselled trust in their good faith.57

Examination of the debate leaves it abundantly clear that the Backward Classes, by whomever designated and according to whatever tests they were chosen, were expected to be a list of castes or communities. Ambedkar, then Law Minister, forthrightly observed that the amendment was needed precisely because "whaat are called backward classes are ... nothing else but a collection of certain castes".58 There was considerable concern that the provision should not permit communal quotas to be enjoyed by more advanced

groups. While there was discussion of the economic backwardness of the groups who deserved preferences, it was not merely the poor that the drafters and speakers had in mind.59 (Indeed, if thev had, an amendment would hardly have been necessary.) Some speakers argued that preferences should be directed to the economically poor, but the predominant concern was to provide some special treatment to offset and remedy specifically those social inequalities of caste and community which were seen as underlying and compounding economic differences.60

The Venkataramana case had indicated that the "Backward Classes" included only those caste groups of

whose backwardness there was some assurance. In spite of some unflattering observations about that judgment, there was nothing in the proceedings to indicate that Parliament sought to over- turn it.61 Indeed it was seen as the foundation for judicial protection against unwarranted use of the power to confer preferences.62 Upon passage of the amendment, Madras revised its former system of communal quotas to accord with the new requirements; the situation in other states remained un- changed. There was no further litigation over the Backward Classes for eight years.63

The Backward Classes Comnmission was established in 1953 and directed to

determine the criteria to be Zdopted in considering whether any sections of the people ... (in addition to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes) should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes; and, in accordance with such criteria to prepare a list of such classes.. ..64

The directions express an expectation of Centrally-established uniform standards and a Central master list of Backward Classes.65 Accordingly, the Commission, after two years' work, pre- sented a list of 2,399 backward groups and recommended various measures for their economic, educational, social, cultural and political advancement.66 It was estimated that these groups comprised a total of more than 116 million members (about 32 per cent of the total population of India).67 This does not include women as a separate group, although the Commission recommended that all women in India comprised a Backward Class.68 Nor does it include Scheduled Castes and Sche- duled Tribes who in 1951 made up over 14 per cent and 6 per cent res- pectively of the total population.

It had been generally anticipated,69 if not universally approved,70 that the "classes" designated by the Commission would be castes or communities. While indicating its desire to avoid perpetuating evils of caste and its eagerness to avoid caste, the Commnission "found it difficult to avoid caste in the present prevailing conditions".7' The Com- mission felt it was "not only correct but inevitable" to interpret its terms of reference "as mainly relating to social hierarchy based on caste".72 As general criteria of backwardness the Commission listed trade and occupation, security of employment, educational attainments, representation in

1816


government service and, most empha- tically, position in the social hierarchy.73 It did not use these standards directly to isolate categories of backward persons, but to isolate backward communi- ti?s. The units to which these tests were applied were for the most part .caste and sub-caste groups. In identify- ing the backward, the Commission used caste in tvo ways: first, it used caste groups as the units or "classes" to be classified; and second, it used the position or standing of these groups in the social hierarchy as the principal criterion for determining their back- \arrdness.

In classifying communities, the Com- mission aimed to take into consideration

... the social position which a com- munitv occupies in the caste hierarchy, the percentage of literacy and its general educational advancement; and its representation in government service or in the industrial sphere. The economic backvardness also had to be kept in view ... as also the recent trends in its advancement as a result of various [government] measuires ... during the past one or two decades.74 The Commission was deluged by

communities claiming to be backward. 75 But it found that the paucity of data fully matched the immensity of its task.76 The state governments were fotund not to have relevant statistics, "4administrators and census 'officers pleaded their inability to supply the relevant material", and figures supplied by the communities themselves were chiefly guesswork. 7 7 The decision to de-emphasise caste in the 1951 census operations had left the Commission without any figures on the literacy, income or occupation of the various communities.78 The Commission had no facilities for generating data themselves. In the face of these obstacles, the Commission plowed bravely on:

in the absence of reliable facts and- figures, the only course open to us wvas to rely on .the statistics available from the various governments and the previous census reports, and to go by the gFeneral impressions of government officers, leaders of publfc opinion and social workers.79 In some cases there was no data at

all and "the decision had to be taken on the strength of the name of the community only, on the principle of giving the benefit of doubt".80 The Commission did not undertake to document the application of its tests to the communities on its list, for which it provided only names, traditional occupations and estimated population.81

In addition to listing the Backwardl

Classes, the Commission was instructed to

investigate the conditions of all such socially and educationally backward classes and the difficulties undcr which they labour

and m-ake recommendations (i) as to the steps that should be

taken bDy the union or any state to remove such difficulties or to improve their conditions;

(ii) as to the grants that should be mnade t...82

True to its charge, the Commission recommended a vast array of schemes for the protection and advancement of the backward, including a number of major changes in tural life - redistri- bution of land, protection of tenants, help to the small agriculturalists, (credit, price supports, irrigation, etc).83 It recommended the creation of a separate ministrv for Backward Classes' Welfare.4 It proposed reservations for BackNvard Classes in government service of at least 25 per cent in Class I, 33!'I per cent in Class II and 40 per cent in Classes III andl IV.8s ID addition there were various aids to the education of these groups and a reservation of 70 per cent in medical, scientific and technical colleges.86

in a last minute volte face, the Chair- man virtually repudiated the Com- mission's work, having concluded that "'it would have been better if we could (letermine the criteria of backwardness on principles other than caste".87 He finds the caste test repugnant to demo- cracy and inimical to the creation of "a casteless and classless society" (in the then fashionable phrase) by perpetuating and encouraging caste divisions. It is not entirely clear what he would put in its place. He recom- mencls that backwardness be measured bv residential, economic, educational and cultural criteria.88 Apparently he not only repudiates caste standing as the test of backNvardness but also the uise of caste units. At several places in his covering letter he suggests that only individuals and families should be the units whose backwardness is ascer- tained.89 Elsewhere, however, he re- commends policies which seem in- compatible with this position (e g, that where an income test is. employed, members of backward communities should be given priority).90

The Chairman's last minute desertion foreshadowed (and perhaps augmented) the negative reception, that awaited the report.9' The spectacle of numeronis groups vying to display their backwardness, the feeling that caste classisfcations were divisive and unfitting, the

casualness of the Commission's application of its criteria the vastness of the number it f ound backward, and the expansiveness of the preferences it proposed, exposed its work to widespread criticism.92

The Commission's report was laid on the table of both houses of Parliament on September 3, 1956, accompanied by by a withering critique from the Mini- ster of Homne Affairs, expressing disap- pointment with its criteria and its con- clusions.93 The emphasis on caste, the

Minister asserted, displayed the "dangers of separatism".94 Not only \vas the caste basis unfair to the backward outside these comminities, but the caste system was undeniably "the greatest hindrance in the way of our progress toward an egalitarian society, and the recognition of specified castes as backward may serve to main- tain and perpetuate the existing distinctions on the basis of caste".95 The Commission's standards other than caste were "obviously vague".96 The verv expansiveness of the Commission's list undermined its usefulness, for if everyone "barring a few exceptions, has thus to be regarded as backward, the r-eally needy would be swamped by the multitude and hardly receive any speCial attention...97 Thus the Com- mission failed to find "positive and workable criteria".98 "Further investi- gations will have to be unidertaken so tlwt the deficiencies that have been no- ticed in the findings of the Commission are made good and the problem is solv- ed with duie regard to the requirements of Article .340...." 99 The state govern- ronents wvere requested to undertake ad hoc surveys to determine the numbers of

Backward Classes and in the meantime to "give all reasonable facilities" to the Backward Classes "in accordance with their existing lists and also to such others who in their opinion deserve to be consideredl as socially and educationally backward in the existing circumstances."100 Thus the matter went back to the states; the Commis- sion's report remained on the table, and in spite of occasional agitations, waz not taken uip by Parliament until 1965.

When the replies from the state governments "were not found helpful" the Central government requested the Offi- ce of the Registrar General to conduct ad hoc surveys to determine suitable criteria.101 Tt was hoped that the Re- cgistrar General could determine occu. pationlal tests of backwardness. On the

1817

TABLE 3: STATE PRACTICES FOR SELECTING BACKWARD CASTES

State Year Name of Criteria Est of Posts Medical Other Comments Source Group Pop (Per College

(Per Cent) Admi- Cent) ssions

(Per Cent)

Andhra Pradesh 1975 BCs 92 listed con-- 38 25 25 Scholarships; "Other" bene- 1, 3 mnuities fee conces- fits only for

sions those with income under Rs 3600

Econonlically All with income None None Scholarships. BCs under Rs 1500 hostel I

Bihar 1978 BCs Members of NI 26 NI NI 2 (1955 BCC) list of communities with income less than Rs 12,000

1977 BCs NI NI - 10 _ 3 Gujarat 1972 Economically Income less than NI None None Scholarships, 4

BCs Rs 4800/ year etc. Himachal

Pradesh 1973 BCs Ni NI I - seat of 60 5 Jammu and 1973 Socially and I Occupations NI

Kashmir Educationally 2 19 Commu- NI l BCs nities . 42 NI NI 6

3 Border & poor areas 8 J

Karnataka 1978 BCs [List of Comm- [45] 40 NI NI Direct recruit- 7 [141 unities] ment

1977 BCs NI - _ 28 3 Kerala 1977 Socially and Members of list- NI 25 3, [81

Educationally ed communities BCs with income less

than Rs 10,000 1972 Socially and Members of list- NI - Scholarships, 9

Educationally ed communities loans BCs with income less

than Rs 6000 1970 BCs Members of 560 NI 40 _ _ Kerala Service 15

listed communi- Rules 14-17 ties with incOme less than Rs 8000

Maharashtra 1977 OBCs NI NI 10 3 1966 OBCs [List of commu- 12 14 - Scholarships, Exclusive of re- 10

nities] loans,.etc servations for Nav-Buddhas and some tribals

Punjab 1977 BCs fList of commu- NI 5 3, [16 nities)

Backward - NT 2 Areas

Tamil Nadu 1972 BCs ListoflO5com- [51] 31 31 Hostels;speci- 11,[171 munties (plus al training add'I list for Kanya Kumari District)

Uttar Pradesh 1978 BCs List of 58 NI 16 Intitial recruit- 12 Communities ment

15 - _ Promotion 13 1977 Hill Areas NI 3 - 3

Notes: (1) Brackets indicate information from source earlier than date showr.. (2) NI indicates no information.

Sources: (1) Andhra Pradesh Department of Social Welfare, Performarice Budget 1975-76: 1-3. (2) Overseas Hindustan Times, April 6, 1978. (3) Haildbook of Medical Education, 1977. (4) Gujarat Directorate of Education, Annual Report 1971-72: 76-77. (5) Kaur v State of HP, AIR, 1974, HP 35. (6) Janki Prasad v State of Jammnu and Kasllmir, AIR 1973, SC 930, 933, 939-942. (7) The Statesnman, March 18, 1978: 4. (8) Jayasree v State of Kerala, AIR 1976, SC 2381, 2383. (9) Kerala Harijan Welfare Department, Administration Report 1971-72: 10.

(10) Maharashtra Administration Report on Welfare of Backward Classes 1966-67. (11) Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Performance Budget 1972-73: 1. (12) The Statesman, March 1 5, 1978. (13) Thie.Statesman, June 8, 1978. (14) Government of Karnataka, 1975: 1, 316-317. (15) Government of Kerala, 1971: 169-174. (16) Gurinder Pal Singh v State of Punjab, 1975 AIR, P and H 125: 126; (17) Government of Tamil Nadu, 1971: 1, 176.

tC1 00

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY October 28, 197h

basis of a three-state sample survey an occupational test with an income ceil- ing was tentatively proposed.'02 The Home Ministry's suggestion that the states adopt such an occupational criterion enjoyed a mixed reception.'03 However, this effort collapsed when the Deputy Registrar General reported that it would be impossible to draw up a precise and complete list of occupations whose prectitioners were socially and economically backward.104

Those, who entertained hopes of generous preferential treatment for the Other Backward Classes found some encouragement in the late 1950s. Sta- te expenditures on schemes for the Other Backward Classes increased (par- ticularly in education where they were

substantial),105 although the expansion of the^ Centre's scheme for post-matriculation scholarships slowed down after 1955-56. Apparently at some point in 1957 the Government of India instructed all state governments to extend the benefits of various welfare schemes to the Other Backward Classes, using the Ministry of Education lists, pending finalisation of a list of Other Backward Classes. Furthermore it requested the state governments to fill unused vacancies in the seats reserved in educational institutions for Scheduled Castes and Tribes with students from the Other Backward! Classes,106 a measure found very gratifying by the All-India Back- ward Classes Federation who observed that "at long last the voice of the Federation is being effectively heard".'07

By the beginning of the 1960s the tide was running strongly against definition of the Backward Classes by community. Opposition within the government,108 was augmented by criticism from academics and much of the national press, who voiced a common suspicion of the caste criterion.109 For the first time since 1951,. a court in- tervened to strike down a scheme for Backward Classes in a decision widely acclaimed as a blow at casteismY? Revulsion from communal criteria was reinforced by reports of their abuse. In a situation where many thoughtful persons were increalingly concerned about the dangerous potentialities of social cleavages,"" the alleged divisive tendencies of the communal criterion seemed a serious threat to national unity and integration.1"2

While a "casteless and classless society" remained the avowed aim of the

Congress and a wide section of the in- telligentsia, there had been a subtle shift irn notions of how this aim was to be pursued. A decade before it was widely thought that special redistributive measures were required specifically to offset inequalities associated with caste, even while general development programmes addressed other aspects of inequality. The notion of caste diffe- rentials as themselves a significant form of inequality deserving of special governmental attention to eliminate their effects gave way to a notion that the salient differences were economic; specific redistributive mneasures directed at caste differences were not necessary, since overall development would raise the general level.'13 Recognition of caste differences in order to offset their effects was replaced by an enhanced reluctance to recognise them at all; indeed, any recognition of such differences was seen as itself a violation of egalitarian principles and productive of inequality.

In May 1961 the Cabinet decided that no national list of Other Back- ward Classes should be drawn up and the states were informed that in the view of the government of India "it was better to apply economic tests than to go by caste".114 At the end of May a Conference of Chief Ministers to con- sider matters relating to National In- tegration "agreed that. economic backwardness rather than community or caste would provide an appropriate criterion for giving aid to individuals in matters of education including pro- fessional and technical training".115 In August 1961, the Home Ministry informed the state governments of the Center's decision not to list Backward Classes. In the Ministry's view, the very expansiveness of such proposed enumerations as that of the Backward Cldsses Commission militated against them: "if the bulk of the country's millions were to be regarded as coming within the category of Backward Classes, no useful purpose could be served by separate enumerations of such classes". Furthennore the caste criterion was objectionable: "the remedies suggested on the basis of caste would be worse than the evil of backwardness itself".116 But subsequent efforts to discover usable criteria on economic lines "did not yield any useful results". Where in 1956, the Home Ministry had ack- nowledged an obligation to compile a list in accordance with the require-

ments of Article 340, it now pointed out that the Constitution did not require the Centre to draw up a list. Since even if it were to do so, "it will still be open to every state govemment to draw uji its own lists [and] any all- India list would have no practical uti- lity"."17 More importantly, the "crying need" of the day was social cohesion and emotional integration. There was the grave danger that different treatment of the 'backward' would foster divisive tendencies, and would under- mine efforts for general economic uplift and the reduction of disparities between different classes. The states were urged to emphasise the expansion of welfare and educational benefits to all of the poor,'employing economic rather than communal categories.1-18

The withdrawal of the Central government from involvement in preferences for the Other Backward Classes was confirmed by the omission of any provision for them in the Central sector of the Third Five Year Plan.119 The amount contributed by the Central government for post-matriculation scholarships for Other Backward Classes, which had increased steadily since 1949, was frozen at the 1958-59 level.120 And, beginning in 1963, the state lists of O}ther Backward Classes used in administering this scheme were abandoned in favour of a test of family income.121

The Central government's campaign for economic criteria in the states was given added impetus by the first (since 1951) intervention of the Supreme Court into the matter of who are the Backward Classes. In September 1962 the Supreme Court struck down the Mysore Backward Classes list, whose defects included exclusive reliance on caste standing as a measure of backwardness, adding the onus of consti- tutiooal disrepute to the caste criterion.lm The Court's judgment, which warmly commended economic tests, was widelv acclaimed and widely (and mistakenly) interpreted as outlawing entirely the use of caste tests. This case marked the emergence of the judiciary as the institution within which the problem of who are the Backward Clas- ses was most carefully and coherently addressed.

In 1965, when the Report of the Backward Classes Commission was finally discussed- in Parliament, the Central gove-nment's spokesman firm- ly reiterated its opposition to commul-

1819

October 08, 1978 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WELEKLY

nal criteria. Caste criteria were not only adnministratively unworkable, but were conitrary to the "firist principle of social justice" in their unfairness to the other poor. They were contrary to the Constitution, would perpetuate caste, and would create in the recipients botlh vested interest and a sense of helplessness. The Centre endorsed economiic criteria, but refrained from enforcing it on the states, preferring "tthe path of persuasion".123 Eight states were said to have adopted the economic criterion.124

Backward Classes organisations continued to campaign for greater benefits and for a revival of -Central res- ponsibility and interest in the Back- ward i1asses.125 In particular, they petitioned for a restoration of the caste basis, for implementation of the long- ignored report of the Backward Clas- ses Commission, and for creation of a ministry to attend 'to the problems of the Backward Classes.126 Organisations of particular communities and some

composite Backward Class organisations at the local level (especially in the' South and in Bihar continue to flou- rish, but many of the local composite organisations have become moribund.127 After a period of desuetude, the national AIBCF had a revival in the late 1960s.

As the Central role in designation of Backward Classes moved from an attempt to prepare a single nationwide list to suggesting standards to the states, courts involved in litigation over Backward Classes' lists made it clear that the Constitution did not confer on these Central proposals any conclusi- veness in the identification of the Backward Classes.128 While the state might make special provision for 'any' Backward Class, it is under no constitutional obligation to make such provision for every class designated as backward by the Backward Classes Commis- sion or by any other agency. Indeed, the state may not rely on the findings of the Backward Classes Commission to esta- blish conclusively that a given class is backward.129 Conversely, preferences may be given to a group which does not appear on the Commission's list. State power to provide preferential treatment to the backward is not limited to those listed by the Commis- sion or any other agency. The original expectation that the Commission's list or some part of it would be confirmed by Presidential specification has gone unfulfilled. This failure does not in-

validate other listings of Backward Classes for, the courts have held, presidential specification would not exhaustively define the Backward Classes for purposes of preferences under Arti- cles 15 (4) and 16(4).130 Central proposals may, of course, carry some persuasive weight with the states (or, as guides to "reasonableness", with the Courts).131 But it is the "State" in the broad sense of all governmental organs that retains the power of designation.132 Preferences and who is-'to receive them may be provided by executive (as well as by legislative action) and they almost alwayN are.133

WVith the aban'donment of ceneral at- tempts to define the Backward Classes and theX relinquishment of whatever control might accompany central funds for Other Backward Classes the matter reverted to the states. The composition of the Other Backward Classes, the scope of preferential programmes and the level of benefits continued to vary widely from state to state.

Some of the varying state practices for selecting Backward Classes are sum- marised in Table 3. For all its incom- pleteness and oversimplification, this list gives us a rough profile of who are the Backward Classes in the mid- 1970s.

It is worth noting a few of the salient features of this profile. Caste and communal units remain the predominant "classes" that are deemed backward' Caste lists range in magnitude from those which include a substantial portion of the state's population to those comprising a narrow stratum just above the untouchables. Income tests are also emploved in many cases, sometimes in- deDendently and sometimes in con- jutnction with communal units. The level of benefits ranges from none through scholarships and fee concessions to an array of reservations in government posts and medical college admissions.

There is important regional variation. For convenience we may think of three contiguous groupings. First there fs what we might call the peninsular bloc comprising the four Dravidian states (Ardhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu) and- Maharashtra. In these states the Backward Classes categories have a long history descending f-om pre-Independence arrangements; there are a wide range of benefits, (except in Maharashtta) a major segment of the population - from 38 to 55 per cent - is included and a major segment of scarce opportunities are

reserved for them. In stark contrast is what we might

call the eastern-middle band, stretchina acfoss India from Assam in the northeast tlhrough WVest Bengal and Orissa, across Madhya Pradesh to Rajasthan and Gu- jarat. In these states there is no significant use of the Other Backward Clas- ses category.

The northern tier of states displays an irntermediate pattern. Jammu and Kashmir, with its history. of communal quotas, resembles the southem pattern. An admixture of geographical criteria is found there and in Punjab and UP, along with use of communal units. Bi- har, like Jammu and Kashmir, approxi- mates the peninsular pattern. The Backward Classes are selected on a communal basis and make up a sizeable 1)ortion of the population, but the benefits have not been as extensive as in the South. Extension of benefits to reservations of government posts in 1978 set off a political crisis.

What the Central government tried in 1965 to portray as a trend toward substitution of economic for communal criteria was even then largely a rheto- rical artefact, - albeit one built around two substantial items - the abandon- ment of communal units in Andhra ancd in Mysore.134 From the vantage point of the late 1970s this "trend" appears more as a transient deflecti- from the main line of development of Backward Classes lists. That line of development has been one of continuing use of communal uints, but with increasing re- finement and restraint. Under pressure from the courts, almost all the state gove-nments that made extensive use of the Backward Classes category set up commissions to Identify the Back- ward Classes. From 1965 to 1971, such comrhissions reported in Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala again and Tamil Nadu.135 In 1975 a Karrataka commission filed the most massive and scholarly report to date.136

All of these commissions, and the government orders based on their recommendations, use communal units to designate the Backward Classes. But Jammri and Kashmir relies heavily on occupational and territorial groups and Kerala employs an income cut-off. The selection of communities is more sophi- sticated: the commissions attempt to assemble (and sometimes generate) evidence about occupatiop, income and educatfon as well as status and disabilities. Most of them strive to elimirnate the well-off. In some cases, the number


of groups designated is more modest than earlier.137 Benefits are recommended for a limited span of time and there is concern about termination and re- assessment.

Perhaps some of this state activity was in response to the animadversions of the Centre against communal criteria, but more directly and palpably it was a response to the courts. In some cases it was a response to courts acttally striking down schemes; in others, threatening to do so if they were not reformed; in still others it was to the implicit threat of litigation. The states aligned their scheines with the prescrip- tions of the courts rather than with the pronouncemetits of the Central executive.

In part this may be because the Centre offered so little, apart from commending the income test. In retros- pect it is surprising that the Centre never attempted to formulate a workable quantitative standard for selecting backward communities - e g, those groups whose average income and average literacy were less than one-half of the state average. It may have been felt that practically such a course was foreclosed by the decision to omit castewise data in the censuses of 1951 and 1961, but the absence of such at- tempts suggests that the animus against communal tests eclipsed any consideration of making them more work-able.

What emerges from the interaction of state governments, commissions and courts are lists of communal groups, with some admixture of geographic and income factors, chosen on the basis of low status, low educational attainments and poverty. We might generalise very tentatively about the magnitude of the Backward Classes category: the lists tend to converge on something like the second and third lowest quintiles of the population (as- suining the Scheduled Castes and Tri- bes make up roughly the lowest quin- tile). Northern and southern states ar- rive at this position from very different starting points. In the peninsula (and in Jammu and Kashmir) the commission process represents a pruning away of the more prosperous and powerful groups from a comprehensive list that approximated a regime of communal quoras. In the northern tier, however, provision for this stratum is added slowly, first in education, then in gov. ernment iobs, converging on a somewhat similar position.

Thlrough the course of this. develop-

ment the term "Backward Classes" as retained a multiplicity of meanings. It is used to describe the totality of groups entitled to preferential treatment on the basis of their "backwardness"'38 - ie, the Scheduled Castes and Tribes as well as "Other Backward Classes" -

but not those accorded special treatment because of temporary or situatio- nal disadvantage (e g, disaster victims, refugees, defence personnel). The term also refers specifically to those backward groups other than the Sheduled Castes and Tribes. There remain fundamental, if rarely articulated, dis- agreements about who these groups are. Some would confine this category to the lowly - those 'far below' the mean in welfare and resources, or those whose deprivations are comparable to those of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes;139 others use the term Back- ward Classes to describe a wide middle stratum of Indian society, who require and deserve special help because they ,a.e lagging behind the most advanced groUps.140 There is, as we have seen, further disagreemerot over whether the term refers to the less well-off in all communities or whether it encompasses only those communities that suffei "backwardness" as a group.

The question of who were, the Sche- duled Castes was debated and roughly settled before Independence within the executive and without the participation of the Courts. But who are the Back- ward Classes is a post-Independence question which the constitutional recognition of the category made one of all-India scope. The Constitution left the matter with the executive at the state level with an option for the Cen;tre to unify it. When the executive at the Centre first failed and then declined to provide a resolution, the question reverted to the states. In the wake of the Janata victory in the 1977 elections, the Backward Classes returned to the national political agenda. Pur- suant to its electorail promise,141 the Janata government appeared poised to appoint a new Backward Classes Com- mnission, but had not done so by mid- 1978. The UP and Bihar governments under Janata control, enlarged sub- stantially the preferences for Other Backward Classes, leading to massive violence in Bihar and political intervention by the Centre.

During the hiatus of Central involvement, what the states did was increasingly subjected to the examination of the courts. It nhas been the Supreme

Court rather than the Central government which has been the unifying and limiting influence and presumably any new Central policy will be shaped in light of two decades of judicial predominance in this area.

Notes

[This paper is drawn from my forthcoming book, tentatively entitled "Com- peting Equalities: The Indian Experi- ence with Compensatory Discrimina- tion".]

The following abbrieviations are used for frequently cited material:

BOC = Report of the Backward Classes Commision (1955)

CAD = Constituent Assembly De- ba-tes (1946-50)

RCSCST = Reports of the Coin- missioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (1951- )

1 The Fort St George Gazette No 40 of November 5, 1895 mentions grants in aid to schools for a list of "Backward Classes" which in- chides most of the "untouchable" castes of Madras Presidency. Irschick (1977) notes that the term was used as far back as 1880 to describe a list of groups, also called illiterate or indigent classes, entitled to allowances for study ini elementary schools.

2 Latthe 1924: II, 574. '3 Southborough Report 1919:1. 4 Reprinted in Mukerji 1920: 528. 5 A 1921 GO referring to the 1911

GO is reprinted in Mysore Back- ward Classes Committee 1961:57- 61.

6 Id, at 58. An attached education memorandum employs the terni "backward classes" (id, at 61). but it is not clear that it was exactly synonymous.

7 Muddiman Report 1925:147. 8 Ornvedt 1976 : 184, 186, 188. 9 Government of Bombay Finance

Department Resolution No 2610 of Feb 5, 1925, cited by Omvedt 1976: 343.

10 Hartog Report (1929) at 399. 11 Indian Central Committee (1929)

at 45. 12 Id.- 13 Id, at 47. 14, Id, at 365. 15 Government of Bombay 1930:8. 16 Id, at 8. 17 Id, at 9. 18 Id, appendix II. The total Back-

ward Classes population was 3.840 millicons or 14.4 per cent of the 1921 population of the Presidency.

19 Indian Statutory Commission (1930) I, 35-7.

20 Tndian Franchise Committee (1932) IV: 734.

21 Id, 738. 22 Id, 826. In an interview in 1966,

S D. Singh Chaurasia of Lucknow, who was associated with the League and subsequently became la leading spokesnian of Backward

October 28, 19 78 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

Classes andl. served on the Back- ward Classes Commission, recalled that he coilned the term in 1930 or 1931. Sinice 1974, Singh Chau- rasia has been a member of Bajya Sabha.

23 Id, 826. 2'4 Depressed Classes 1935-37: 364.

The official announcement was that communities not then classified as depressed would be in- clilde(d and that advanced groups Aimon,g the depressed would be re- classified. For a similar inclusive usage, inote the announcement in December 1936 that the Govern- inent of the Central Provinces con- stituited a committee to promote the edudation of the Backward Classes. Depressed Classes 1935- 37:273.

25 A writer in the Times of India (July 1936) claimed that tjl estimates of Depressed Classes population were highly inflated by the inclusion of "backward class Hindus, such as dhobis, barbers, and iothers who are not untouchables...." See response of S R Venkataraman, reprinted in De- pressed Classes 1935-37: 161. Cf the March 1937 manifesto on the Christian Dutv to Depressed Classes and Backward Classes, reported in Depressed Classes 1935-37: 354.

26 CO 190 Public Department (Janu- arv 20, 1944).

27 GO 3437 Public (Services) (Nov- ember 21, 1947).

28 Quoted in Baneijee 1948: 1, 313. 29 Hirday Nath. Kunzru (UP) at VII

CAD 680; Ari Bahadur Gurung (West Bengal) at VII CAD 685; RM Nalavade (Bombay) at VII CAD 686. Dharam Prakash (UP) proposed that Depressed Classes or Scheduled Castes should be used in place of Backward Classes, since the former terms had a definite meaning. VII GAD 687.

30 H J Khandekar (CP and Berar) preferred the use of Scheduled Castes lest "the people of other castes would claim to be back- wvard..." VII CAD 692. Hukum Siingh (EP) expressed uncertainty as to wNhether the term covered the Schedule(d Castes and religious minorities. VII CAD 694.

81 T Channiah (Mysore) at VII CAD) 689-90,

32 Ismail Sahib (Madras) found the Madras usag,e objectionable in that if clid not extend to "the backward classes of minoirity comnunities". VII CAD 692.

33 K M Mu-nshi at VII CAD 697. 34 Chandrika Ram (Bihar) VII CAD

687. 35 VII CAD 697. 36 T T Krishnamachari at VII CAD

699. 37 VII CAD 702. In the light of the

later analysis and the text itself, this seems rather misleading, for the "opinion" of the government is determinative only of the group's "n-nder-representation" not of its backwardness.

38 VII CAD 699. 39 Art 340. While the Constituent

As.sembly was at work, A V Thak-

kar, a imiember of that body and one of India's leading social workers, explained that the Draft visualised a commission "to go through the whole of the country...and find out which castes of 1-Hindus, Muslims, etc, are reallv backvard according to certain standards, educational, social, economic etc". Hindustoni Times, Dec 26, 1948 (reprinted in Jagadisan and Shyamlal 1949: 338). That what was contemplated was reservation for backward "communities" is clear from the recomrnenda- tions of the 1948-49 Universitv Education Commission (1949: 1 5.3) that ."the needs of justice to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the communities declar- ed to be backward by the govern-

Went... can be met. by reserving a certain proportion of the seats... for qualified students of these coni- munities . . .".

40 Eg, the Bihar government made provisions in 1947 for Other Back- ward Classes in post-matriculation studies and, on the basis of the Ministry of Education's list, pro- pounded its list of Backward Classes in 1951. (Interview with Deva Charan Singh, one of the founders of the All-India Back- ward Classes Federation, and later Chairman of the Bihar Legislative Council, on March 30, 1966.) It was estimated that these- groups comprised 60 per cent of- the state's populhiton. Educational concessions for Other Backward Classes began in UP in 1948. The list of 56 cas!tes was estimated to comprise 65 per cent of. the population (interview with S D Singh Ch'aurasia on March 17, 1966).

41 Deshmukh (see note 44 below) reports that his "first concrete attempt" took the form of personal letters to Prime Minister Nehru and Maulana Azad in March, 1948 "requesting that some amount should be set apart for the award of scholarships to the Other Back- ward Classes also as was done for the Scheduled Castes and Sche- duled Tribes. This request... was accepted in principle by government and the Other Backward Classes were added to the list for award of scholarships for the first time in 1948-49. The state governments were then asked. to prepare sehedules of these castes.. As soon as the Central government took this decision .;.. I was nominated as a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes' Scho- larships Board..." AIBCF 1955: 2.

Post-matriculation scholarships were provided for Other Backward Classes beginning in 1949-50,-with an expenditure of Rs 2.46 lakhs, less than half of that for the Sche- duled Castes. Bv 1953-54, the expenditure had increased ten-fold to Rs 26.51 lakhs, approximatelv equal to that for Scheduled Castes. RCSCST 1954: 366.

42 The Central government's lists may be found at RCSCST .1951: 163ff. Although I have not mnade an ex- haustive comnptison, it seems that

thcse lists foUow very closely the lists of those states which then had Backxvard Classes lists. Thus, for example, the Mysore list includes not only Muslims, Christians and jains, but all Hindu groups other thaii Brahmins. The Madras and Bombay lists, however, are more restricted and do not include the higher non-Brahmin castes.

43 The Bihar State Backward Classes Federation was founded in 1947. (Interview with Deva Charan Singh, as above. See above, note 40.)

44 Majumdar (1955:474-75) in 1954 counted 88 organisations worling for the Backward Classes in 15 states, of which 74 represented individual communities and 14 Backward Classes in general on a local or state hasis. To some ex- .tent, at least, the national Back- ward Classes movement represented a coming together of remnants of the non-Brahmnin movements of the South and Bombay with the less successful Backward Class movements of the north (especiallv UP and Bibar). Their relative suc- cess is reflected in the disparate benefits afforded by the states in Table 1. The chief spokesman for the Other Backward Classes at the national level was Puniabrao Desh- mukh of Madhya Pradesh ((Minis- ter of Agriculture from 1952 to 1957 and 1958 to 1962). He reported that when he came into the Constituent Assembly "I mustered courage to take up the problenm [of Backward Classes] and place it on an all-India plane...." The All- India Backward Classes Federation came into existence on Januasv 26, 1950, the day that the Con- Btitution came into force. All-India Backward Classes Federation 1955:2.

45 The -Backward Classes category was found to provide a convenient admintstrative depository for groups which were felt to deserve some special treatnent, but which were not included or includable uinder other headings. Two and a half million "left out" tribal -peoples, who had mistakenly been omitted from the list of Scheduled Castes, were included until the ScheduLle was, amended . in 1956. (RCSCST 1953: 196.) The denoti- fled tribes (formerly Criminal Tribes) were at first listed separately for budget purposes but were later assimilated to the Other Back- ward Classes for budgetary purposes. Backward Classes lists typi- cally included converts from Sche- duled C.astes to non-Hindu reli- gions and several states used this category to provide some concessions to sections of their Muslim population. This is especially true of Bihar and Hyderabad. (See the lists in RCSCST 1951.)

46 The 1951 Census, unlike previous Censuses, had decided not to collect caste data, except for "Spe- cial Groups". including not onlv Schueduled~ Castes and Tribes, but Backward Classes specified by the

1822

state governments. However, the statistics on Backward Classes were not ftully tabulated and were never pihllicsh(1. 'T'hec Censtis authorities providted the Backward Classes Commission with two figures for "Backward Classes: their enumerat- ed population" (67 million or 18.9 per cent of the total population) atnd their estimated 1951 population of each caste (73 million or 20.5 per cent of the total population). III BCC 9. The similarity of totals conceals great discrepancies at the state level. See Table III B-3. Although Shah, III BCC 9, Inidicates that the Census totals are based on the existing state lists, there seem to be some cases in which this is not so- e g, Mysore where the Census enumeration is 19.3 per cent of the population, while the state list was closer to the Commission's figure of 65 per cent.

47 Planning Commission 1951:231. 48 Planning Commission 1953:243. 49 Eg, a writer in the Times of India

anticipated that the Backward Classes Commission, soon to be formed, was expected to enume- rate about 20 million in the Back- ward Classes - that is, less than one-third of the census total. Times of India, December 3, 1952.

50 Deshrnukh in All-India Backward Classes Federation 1954:5.

51 AIR 1951 SC 226. Both judg- nments were handed down on April 9, 1951 but they could not bave been wholly unanticipated for the Madras High Court decided simi- larly in the Champakam case on July 27, 1950, AIR 1951 Mad 120.

52 AIR 1951, SC 229. 5.3 In the debate on the amendment,

Prime Minister Nehru remarked: The House knows very well and there is no need for try- ing to hush it up, that this particular matter in this par. ticular shape arose because of certain happenings in Madras.

Parliamentary Debates, Vol XII - 13 (Part II.) at col 9615. While others concurred in locat- ing the thrust for the amendment in Madras, one member pointed out that

It is not only the Madras government that is concerned with this but the whole of South TndM-the states of Mysore, lravanco-re-Cochin and even Bombay... (Shri Shankaraiya Id, at 9000).

Deshmukh saw the regional origin as a question of time-lag: the problem was not confined to Madras, but was bound to arise elsewhere as soon as the Bockward Classes became more aware and assertive. Id, at 9775.

54 The bill was referred to a select committee after some discussion on May 16, 1951. Further deb;ate on Article 15 (4) took place on May 18, 29, 30, 31 and June 1 and 2. The clause inserting Article 15(4) was passed on Julne 1; the entire bill on June 2. This amendment was one of the three major changes made by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.' Both the amendments of Article 19 (freedom

of speech) and of Article .31 (acquisition of property) received lar mioret of Pl>i-lamen'ts time and

atteultion. Of the three imiajor provisions, Article 15 (4) encouintered the least opposition. The clause was passed 243-5. (The Article 19 amendment passed 228-19; Article .31, 239-7.)

55 The original draft of Article 15 (4) would have added to Article 15 (3) which authorised special provision for women and children, the words

or for the educational, economic, or social adva.ncement of any backward class of citizens. Id, at 8929.

Prime Minister *Nehru explained that the Select Committee chose the final wording "because thev rsociallv and edujcationally] occur in Article 340 and we wanted to bring them bodily from there. Id, at 9830.

56 While some members liked the final phrasing because they thought it confined Backward Classes to those to be specified by the Presi- dent uinder Article 340 (Thakur Das Bhargava, Id, at 9719; MA Ayyangar, Id, at 9817) others ob- jected that they were not so confined (Hukiim Singh, Id, at 9823; S P Mookeriee, Id, at 9824). An Amendment to. mnake explicit this limitation to the groups specified under Article 340 was not accepted by the government and was defeated by the House. Id, at 9832-3`3.

57 Seth Govind Das Id. at 10051; Venkataraman Id, at 10081.

58 Id, at 9006. 59 Prime Minister Nehru observed

that we have to deal with the situation where for a variety of causes for which the present generation is not to blame, the past has the re- sponsibility, there are groups, classes, individuals, communities, if you like, who are backward. They are backward in many ways -economically, socially, educationally sometimes 'they are not backward in one of these respects and vet backward in another. The fact is therefore that if we wish to encourage thein irn regard to these matters, we have to do something special for them: Id, 9616.

In spite of his reluctance to talk about caste, it is clear that what was inte'nded were not measures to erase all inequalities, but specifically those which were associated with traditional social structure

we want to put an end to... all those infinite divisions that have grown up in our social life ... we mav call them bv any name youi like, the caste system or religiouis divisions, etc. There are of course economic divisions but we realize them and we try to deal with themn... But in the structure that has grOwn ulp... with its vast number~ of 'fissures or divisions. ..

The Prime Minister's extiaordinary

reticence abouit using the word "caste" was nIot shared lby all (f his felloxv meinb rs. (f the moret straightforw% ard remi:arks of Be- veren(l d'Souza, Id, at 9(W89- 9 0; Deshmukh Idl, at 9775-76.

60 Thus K T Shah, the strongest ad- vocate of an individualised ap- proach, avowed that the backward- rness to he remledied w as economic (Id 8121) and proposed to eliminate the word "classes" and to add "e conomicallv" to the qualifiers of tl,e termii "backward classes". Id, 9815. Plrime Minister Nehru, ex- plaining his unwillingness to accept any of the amendments, indicated that he had no objection to adding "economically" but that to do so would put the language at variance with that of Article 240. He then observed:

-But if I added "economicallv" I wouild at the same time not make it kind of a cumulative thing but would say that a person who is lacking in any of these things should be helped. "Socially" is a much wvider word including many things and certainlv includinig economically. (Id, 9830).

61 Althouah Ambedkar attributes the necessitv for the amendment to both judgments collectively, it is difficuilt to discern that he has a specific objection to the Venkata- raman case (Id. 9006.) Venkata- raman (Madras) closed the debate with the observation that the present amendment puts the position in regard to education on a par with that in government service and expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court's holding in that area. (Id, at 10081.)

62 Venkataraman assured the Houise that there was no need for ministerial assurances for "there is a decision of the Supreme Court . . . you have adequate protection, even as the law now stands ... to prevent anv abuse of this clause". (Id, 10081.)

6.3 Madras listed 15.5 communities as the Backward Classes. See e g, Government of Madras. Public (Ser- vice) Department GO No 2687 (dated September 1953).

64 The charge to prepare a list is, of course, not specified in the constitutional provision for such a committee (Article 340) although some listing seems to be anticipated bv Article 338(3).

65 The expectation that there would emerge an official central list of Backward Classes was expressed by the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who noted in his report for 1953 that ". . .at present there are no 'Backward Classes' as such, which may have been officially recognised by the Government of India. This would be done after the recommendations of the Backward Classes Commission are available." RCSCST 19 53: 196. ( See also Planning Commission 195:3: 243.

66 During the Comnmission's delibera- tions, estimates of the Backward( Classes had risen as high as 70 per cent of the total population. III BCC 'D. It was proposed and

1828

!erfoursly coaisidered to list "ad- vancf d" gr.-ups with all of the re- mainder to constittite the Back- ward Classes. I BC'C 48. This is diseussed at length in Chaurasia's minute of dissent, III BCC 41ff.

67 This poptulation figure is for only 91.3 of the 2399 Backward Commul- nities. Ministrv of Home Affairs 1956:2. The Commission had- no population figures for the others, but it may be nresumed that few were very nuimerous.

68 I BCC 31-32. 69 This expectation was evident in

the Parliamentary debate over Arti- cle 15 (4), discuissed above. It was very neatly expressed in 1954 by N D Majumdar, a civil servant, v.writing in a government publication on social welfare:

The backwardness with which the commission is expected to deal is much more special. For one thing, the commission cannot itoognise indMidual backwardness, however - widespread. For its puipose, the backwardness must be collective....

Even this is not enough. The group must not be a purely economic group or even a social groun of the modem type. For exanmple, industrial labour... The commission cannot concern itself with these groups because it cannot trench on the ground of labour or agrarian welfare. In order to come under the scope of the commission's investiga- tions, a social group has to be a genetic or hereditary group, and exhibit disabilities and back- wvardness as a group confined to lowliness bv birth. . . . the commission is expected to deal with certain undesirable consequiences of the evolution of HinduL society, and developments of the same kindl in the non- Hindu societies which have been influenced by the Hindu social pattern.

Maiuamdar 1960:219. An eminent anthropologist (who had served as Gandhi's secretary and was later to serve as Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) writing in 1954 also visualised the specific purpose of the Backward Classes Commission as the devising of measures not to eliminate all inequalities but specifically those associated with caste. "It is ... the desire and will of the Indian nation to do away with the hierarchy of caste and of its consequent social discrimination, ana prepare the ground for full social equiality." Bose 1967: 182. He suiggests that "castes whose water is not acceptable to Brah- mins, and who are at the same time very poorly represented in school registers or in Income Tax and Union Board [tax] lists in proportion to their population, should be considered 'backward' in the sense of the Commission's en- quIiry". Bose 1967: 188. -

70 Nehrul is reported as saying at the inauguration of the Backward Classes Commission (on March 18, 195.3) that he disliked the term Backward Classes, and that it was

basically wrong to label aniy section as backward even if they were so, particulariv when 90 per cenit of Indians were poor and backward. I BCC 3. This seems to mark a shift from his 1951 Position in the debate over' Article 15(4). (See note 59 s-upra.)

71 1 BCC 41. 72 Id, 42. 7.3 Id, 46. 74 Id, at 47. 75 The Commission received a total

of 3,344 memoranda and inter- viewed a total of 5,636 persons. I BCC 217.

76 In addition to compilation of a list of Backward Classes, the Commis- sion was subsequently charged with recommending revisions of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

77 I BCC 7. 78 1 BCC 11. Apparently the absence

of caste data was the deliberate policy of Sardar Patel, the Home Minister kintif 1950, who rejected caste tabulation as a device to con- firm, the British theory that India was a caste-ridden country and an expedient "to meet the needs of administrative measures dependent upon caste division." From a 1950 address to the Census Conference, quoted as I BCC 9. Cf III BCC 18.

79 Id, at 8. Cf I BCC 47, where the Commission notes that the existing backward classes lists of the states and the Ministry of Educa- tion "formed the basis of our information".

80 III BCC 9. Cf I BCC 49. 81 Hardgrave 1969: 141ff provides

a revealing account of the Nadars' successful efforts to be listed by the Comriission as a Backward Class. This numerousTamil caste, whose traditional occupation was toddv-tapping, had produced edu- cated and prosperous strata by diint of strenuous efforts at self- improvement. The Nadar Maha- jana Sangam submitted to the Commission that "barring a few individuials who can be counted in nuimbers, the community is illiterate, economically poor and socially boycotted". A Nadar par- tisan was informed by the Secre- tary of the Comnmission that it would be "impossible to include 'Nadars' since many witnesses have told the Commission that the 'Nadars' are not all backward". The Commission's solution was to include in its list "Shanan", a derogatory appellation for the caste which the Nadars had long fought to discourage. (The Madras government later adopted the same device, and, after a period of some confuision. finallv ordered that "Nadar" be treated as synonymous with "Shanan".)

82 I BCC 2. 8.3 I BCC 51ff. 84 I B1CC 143ff. 85 I BCC 140. The Commission indi-

cated that it was inclined to rec- commend reservations in proportion to population, where e?ducational attainments permitted, but adoPted the mninimrum figures, to leave suffi- cient scope for highly qualified candidates.

86 I BCC 125. This recommendation was meant to apply uintil accomo- dation was available for all students quabfied for admission.

87 1 BCC xiv. 88 I BCC xiv-xv. 89 I W9C iv, xiv. 90 I BCC viii. Cf his suggestion that

the most backward communities should be treated separately to prevent all benefits from going to the most advanced among the backward. I BCC xxi ff.

91 In addition to the Chairman's re- pudidtion, three other members of the Commission, including the Se- cretary, filed minutes of dissent objectipg to the caste basis of classification. (Minutes of Dissent of Anup Singh, Arunangshu De, P G Shah.) Two other members dissented on the ground that the Commission had not gone far enough: T Mariappa merely ob- jected to the failure to include urban Lingayats and Vokkaligas in Mysore; S D Singh Chaurasia set forth a detailed proposal for equating Backward Classes with Sudras. The various Minutes of Dissent make up Volume III of the Commission's Report.

92 Opposition to the way in which the Commission proceeded might have been anticipated in view of the government's decision to ignore caste in the 1951 Census (See note 78 above) and from Prime Minis- er Nehru's remarks at the Com- mission's inauguration (see note 67 above).

93 Ministry of Home Affairs, 1956: 3-4.

94 Id, at 3. 95 Id. 96 Id. 97 Id, at 4. 98 Id. 99 Id.

100 Id, at 4-5. 101 RCSCST 1957-58: I, 9. 102 RCSCT 1958-59: I, 11-12. The

Census authorities indicated that it might be possible to draw up a list of socially and educationally backward occupations on the basis of (a) any non-agricultural occupa-

tion in any state in which 50 per cent or more of the persons belong to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes; or

(b) any non-agricultural occupation in which literacy percentage of the persons depending thereon is less than 50 per cent of the general literacy in the' st4te.

It was suggested that this test be u4ed in corn4unction with an income lin,it of Rs 1000 per family.

103 RCSCST 1958-59: I, 12. 104 Letter of the Ministry of Home

Affairs to Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territo- ries, August 14, 1961, reprinted at RCSCST 1960-61: II 366.

105 A number of states gave fee concessions to Other Backward Classes. RCSCST 1956-57: II, 65.

106 Beginning in 1957, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Educa- tion Ministry recommended that vacancies in reservations for Schieduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be filled with Other

1824

Backward Classes candidates provided they met minimum qualifica- tionis. Letters from Ministry of Homne Affairs No 10/41/57-SCT (IV), clated July 30, 1957; Letter No 10/32/57-SCT(IV), dated June 11, 1958. This provision was with- drawn in letter No 28/6/61-SCT(I), dated januiarv 4, 1962, after the governmnent had decidled not t) draxv up an all-India list of backward classes. The latter two letters are reproduced in Planning Com- mission 1965: 2.34-5.

107 All-India Backward Classes Fede- ration 1958: 6-7. In December 1958 the Federation's executive committee reiterated its thanks to the government and its appeal that the same he done for unfilled re- se,rvations in government posts. All-Indlia Backward Classes Fede- ration 1959: Appendix vi. In an interview with Jai Narayan Singh Yadava (10 April 1966) he estimated that uindler this arrangement Back- ward Classes candidates obtained roulghly 6 per cent df places in the affecte(d institutions.

108 In 1959 the Stuidy Team on Social Welfare and Welfare of the Back- wvard Classes recomnended the aholition of the OBC category and its replacement with economic criteria for selecting beneficiaries for government schemes. The recommendation is contained in the Introduction (dated July 1959) but the Committee's position is hardlv clear in the body of its report. Committee on Plan Projects 1959: 7. Cf p 127.

109 See, eg, Srinivas' 1957. presidential address to the anthropology section of the Indian Science Congress. After a dispassionate review of developments, he suggests "it is time to give serious thought to evolving 'neutral' indices of backwardness.... The criteria of literacy, landownership and income in cash or grain should be able to subsume all cases of backwardness". But other less disin- terested critics perceived the development of a "vested interest in backwardness" and all sorts of dire effects on national integration and efficiency. See eg, Mehta 19:3. (There were few to argue the other side. For a rare example, see Subbiah 1963.) For a convenient review with many references to the sdholarly and polemical literatu-re of this period, see Bar- nabas and Mehta 1965.

110 Ramakrishna Singh v State of My- sore (AIR 1960 Mys 338.) The Court's judgment, handed down on September 18, 1959, was acclaimed as a blow at casteism. E g, Times of India's Mysore News- letter for September 23, 1959 began: "The Mysore High Court has done what no politician of this state would dare to do. It has put a brake on the race to seek educational' privileges by all and sun- dry."' The next day the decision was lauded in an editorial which observed : "The only rational test for backwardness is a person's economic circumstances and not his caste.... The Mysore and similar orders elsewhere show how caste-

ricdden the Congress is despite the anti-casteist protestations of its leaders."

111 In 1960, Selig Harrison's book appeared with its gloomy reflections on the disintegrative for ces of laniguage, region and caste and its seriouis questioning of whether India could renmain united. Al- thoujgh he points oiit that caste tests of backwardness consolidate caste consciousness, he does not assign them any major disintegri- tive role:

... the constitutional guarantees only institutionalise a grotup awareness that would in any case exist to a great extent. Since the upper castes often refuse to recognise tbe achievement of an individual member of a low caste who may, for example, acquire education, the individual invari- ably concludes that mobility on any significant scale must be a grouip phenomenon.

Harrison 1960: 104. 112 E g, in 1961 the Ministry of Edu-

cation's Committee on Emotional Integration received over 1200 replies in a poll of highly-placed educators. Over 70 per cent were convinced that divisive forces had increase(d since Independence. When asked to identify the "disintegrative forces", the highest numn- ber chose "casteism/communa- lism" (62 per cent) - significantly more than chose religious bigotry, etc (.39 per cent) or regionalism, etc (44 per cent). Ministry of Edutcation 1962:189. Cf the Times of India'.s view that if the use of preferences were not to defeat the establishment of a "casteless and classless society" the government must amend the Constitution to eliminate the permissibility of communal units in distributing preferences. Times of India, Auguist 30, 1961.

113 Thus the Estimates Committee of .he Lok Sabba (Forty-Eighth Re- port) proposed that the "weaker sections of society" should be defined by econornic criteria as well as educational and social backwardness. "'Progressive emancipa- pation from economic backwardness should help the people be- longing to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to overcome their social backwardness." (Quoted at Ministry of Community Develop- ment and Co-operation I, 12). The shift in emphasis is apparent in the October 1961 renort of the Stuidv Group on the Welfare of the Weaker Sections of the Village Community (chaired by jayapra- kash Narayan). The "weaker sections" are identified as the economically backward-practically all of the village community. Caste inequality is a contributing cause of economic backwardness which is to be addressed by remedial measures framed along lines of a means test. Ministry of GCommu- nity Development andl Cooperation 1961:1I, Chapter 2.

1 14 Ministry of Ho)me Affairs 1962b: 38.

115 Id.

1 16 Letter of the Minister of Home Affairs to Chief Secretaries of All State Governnments/Union Terri- tories, Aniguist 14, 1961, reprinted at RCSCST 1960-61: II, 866.

1-17 Id. 118 Id. These VieNS Nere endorsed by

the Ministry of Education's Comi- mnittee on Emotional Integration (1962 : 45) wvhich concluded that

the time has now come, in our opinion, when increasingly assistance should be based on economic criteria. In some states powerfuil groups have exploited 'backwardness' to their own advantage and to the detriment of society as a whole.... I't also results in the long run in making the backward classes less self- reliant than they should be.

119 The Other Backward Classes category had become, from the Centre's point of view, not a stratum of the poptulation but a catch-all category for groups other than the Sche- duled Castes and Tribes felt to be deserving of Government help. In 1960 the Commissioner for Sche- duled Castes and Scheduled Tribes noted that Denotified Communi- ties, Nomadic- Tribes and Neo- Buddhists were "decidedly the groups to get Government help as Other Backward Classes . during the Third Five Year Plan period". RCSCST 159-60: I, 9.

120 RCSCST 1959-60: 238. 121 RCSCST 1964-65: 115, 158, 159. 122 Balaii v State of Myisore, AIR

1963, SC 649. 123 Lok Sabba Debates, Series 3, Vol

48, 397:3-3976. (November 25, 1965).

124 Tlhe list included two states (Guja- rat and Maharashtra)) that had retained the caste test outside the scholarship area; one state (Punjab) which not only retained the caste test outside the scholarship area, but emiployed a list of communities in the scholarship area as well, albeit in conjunction with an income test; one state that had no schemes of its own for Other Backward Classes (Orissa) and two states that had *none outside of scholarships (Assam, West Bengal). The onlv states with economic tests and a high level of benefits for Other Backward Classes were Mysore and Andhra Pradesh. The latter reverted to a caste test less than a year later and the former in 1976 or 1977.

125 Backward Classes groups themselves differ in their definition of the Backward Classes and their population estimates, but they tend to be rather expansive - often including all religious minorities as well as Hindu groLups. Thus speakers at the 1966 conference of the All-India Backward Classes Federation con- stantly used the figure of 85 per cent of the population (this was intended to include the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, Muslims, Buddhists and Christians as wvell as the Other Backward Classes who were saidI to comprise 40 per cent of tZhe total populatioln). (Author's

notes.) Welcoming the partici-

pants in a 1969 Seminar on Backwarcd Classes ancd the Fouirth

yive-Year Plan (organised l)y the All-[n(lia lBaek\war-d'(l (Clalsses Fled(et'- rationi) Vl' Sinlgh imlenitioned the figure of 60-70 mlillioni Backwaicd Classes. The chief guiest, A N Jha, Lieutetnant Governor of Delhi, used the 85 per cent figire while warni- ing the (lelewates of the futility of attempting to define Backwar(d Classes. Backwaard Classes Review 1 (3):18.

1_6 E g, theo resolutions of the All-India Backward Classes Conference, held in New Delhi in March 1966.

The Federation is of the firm opinion that even though ulti- mately a class of people are to be judged by the econornic well-being, in the transition period when large sections suffer from social disabilities in addition to economic poverty it would not be in the national interests to determine backwardness in terms of economic criteria alone. Social backwardness - as laid down in the Constitution -can only be determined in terms of castes and communities to which the stigma- applies as a whole and till the society be- comes casteless it only injures the interests of the 'socially backward' to determine backwardness in terms, of economic criteria only.

The Federation supported generous help for the "poorer sections of socially advanced classes" but asserted that while economic tests might be appropriate for these, "for the Backward Classes, the criterion should be 'Social' ". Cf Sathi nd who expresses the view, widely shared in Bdckward Classes circles, that Article 340 represents a definite (and uinfulfilled) commit- ment to a specific stratum of com- mTninities; he decries the income test as

against Article .340 of the In- dian Constitution since Article 340 mentions all those castes which have heen considered low like the barber, potter, blacksmith, carpenter, or the household servants, the shep- herds, etc.

Rao 1968:781 reports that at the Conference of the Yadava Maha- sabha in 1968, implementation of the BCC Report and the revival of the caste criterion were among the most prominent demands.

127 All of these composite groups are oriented to the 'caste' basis and there is some indication that they have declined in direct correspon- dence to the slackening of the flow of benefits along these lines. The desuettude of the All-India Back- ward Classes Federation can he rounlghly measured by the fact that the last of a series of nicely printed reports begun in 1955 appeared in 1961. (There was a quickening oIf activity after the 1967 elections. The Federation began publishing .a pulblicatio>n called the Backwnrd Classes Reuiew, whose first issue appeared in December 1968.)

The Mysore State Backward

Classes Welfare Association, established in 1960 (apparentlv in response to initiatives fromi the] Fede- ration) and de-voted mainly to or- ganising anid representing the "more back-ward classes" (i e, not the Vokkaligas and Lingayats) becamne defunct after Mysore aban- dlone d the caste list. (Interviewv with Venkataswamy, Secretary, in Bangalore, 1966.) Organisations of particular communities have proved much more durable. Thus, ironically, the government's policy against communal criteria has dis- couraged the more broadly based composite organisations and left the field to organisations that are communal in the literal sense. I encountered no organised groups of recipients of benefits distributed along economic lines.

128 But cf Professor Tripathi's argument (1972:206) that the way to v/indicate rights against caste discrimination is to confine the power to make provisions for Backward Classes exclusively to Parliament. Tripathi 1972 :206. Presumably he would then confine the power to designate Other Backward Classes to the Centre as well. On the failure of textual arguments to this effect, see Note 130 below.

129 Jacob Mffathew v State of Kerala AIR 1964 Ker 39 at 56.

130 Article 338(.3) served as the cor- nerstone of an ingenious argument that the Constitutional plan for designation of Backward Classes is analogous to the exclusive central control over designation of Sche- duled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; that Articles 340 and 338(3) provide for exclusive central designation corresponding to Articles 341 and 342, the only difference being the additional step of the Commission Report. This argument was rejected in Ramakiiishna Si-ngh v State of Mysore, AIR 1960 Mys 338 at .342. The Court, noting the absence of any provision corresponding to Article 366 (24) or (25), pointed out that there is no indication that the presidental specification of Backward Classes for purposes of the operations of the Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was to define Backward Classes exhaustively for all consti- ttutional purpoEes.

Another variant of this argument for exclusive central control over designation of Backward Classes puit forward in Balaji v State of Mqlsore, AIR 1963 SC 649: 657-8, relies on the provision in Article .340 for the appointment of the Backward Classes Commission. It was argued that "Backward Classes" couild he designated only by the President in pursuance of recommendations of the Commission. Noting that Article 340(1) refers to measures that might be taken by the states and the Union goverin- ment, the Supreme Court found that exclusive presidential power in this area was not contemplated b)y the Constitution. (This conclu- sion is reinforced by the fact that the Commission is not a continuing -body with power to revise its list. Nor is there any provision for re-

vision of a presidential listing of Backward Classes.) This argument (that reservations can only be made for Backward Classes identified by the Commission contemplated by Art 340) is advanced again in Fradip Tandon v State of UP, AIR 1975 All 1, 6, and encounters a simiilar rejection.

131 Thus, in the Balaji case, the Court took careful note of the Central Government's suggestion (incorpo- rating the recommendations of the All-India Council for Technical Education) that reservations in higher education should not exceed 25 per cent (or, in exceptional areas, 35 per cent). AIR 1963 SC at 656.

132 The "State" in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) must be 'interpreted as defined in Article 12 as including governments as well as legislatures and state and local as well as central authorities.

133 This was early established by Ramakrishna Singh v State of Mysore, AIR 1960 Mys 338 at 343. The latest assertion of this point is in Triloki Nath Tiku v State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1969 SC 1 at 2.

134 See note 124 above. 135 Government of Kerala (1966);

Government of Jammu and Kasb- mir (1969); Government of Andhra Pradesh (1970); Government of Tamil Nadu (1971); Government of Kerala (1971). Cf Punjab Wel- fare Department 1966.

136 Government of Karnataka (1975). 137 Eg, in Andhra Pradesh the num-

ber of groups on the list fell fromn 139 in 1963 to 112 in 1966 to 92 in 1970. See State of AP v Bala- Tram, AIR 1972 SC 1375 at 1387ff.

138 In this broad meaning it is more or less equivalent to "'weaker sections" in current political usage. (Cf the reference to "weaker sections of the people" in Art 46.)'

139 This notion is set out by the Supreme Court in Balaji v State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 at 658, and has been invoked by many subsequent courts (eg Sagar v State of Andhra FJradesh, AIR 1968 AP 165 at 187).

140 This view is neatly epitomised in the remarks of K Hanumanthaiya, a Congress MP from Karnataka. during the debate over the 1976 ievision of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. He observed that he welcomes reservations for the latter, hut:

It is the middle or the backward classes that have been completely ignored and they are the neople who are suffer- inig the most' in this set-up. ... it is the middle classes which stuffer most during the time of inflation. These most neg- lected middle classes or the b)ackward classes ... [should] be helped in the spirit of the Kalelkar Commission['s]... recommen(lations.

Lok Sabba Debates (17th Session)

Vol LXIV, No 16 Cols 76-77 (Sept- ember 2, 1976).

141 The 1977 election manifesto cf the Janata Party called for an end

to caste distinctions and promised the establishment of an indepen- dent and autonomous civil rights commission "competent to ensure that the minorities, scheduled castes and tribes, and other backward classes do not suffer from discrimination or inequality". It promised a radical reduction of disparities by a "policy of special treatment" ir. favour of the "weaker sections of our society". In connection with the provision of "preferential opportunities for education and self- employment to these sections" the Party promised to

... reserve between 25 and 33 per cent of all appointments to Government service for the backward classes, as recOm- mended by the Kelkar [sic] Commission. The Party will formulate a special programme within the framework of the five-year plans for the substantial advancement of the scheduled castes and tribes and other backward classes and will provide adequate funds for the purpose. Special machinery will be set up to implement the programme and assure fulfillment of the relevant Constitutional guarantees.

References

[11 Books. Articles, Memoranda, etc. All-India Backward Classes Federation

1954 Memorandum to the Backward Classes Commission

1955 Report of the working of the ... Federation from the date of its formation up to 30 September 1955

1957 Report, 1 October 1955 to 31 March 1957

1958 Report, 1 April 1957 to 31 March 1958

1959 Report, 1 April 1958 to 31 March 1959

1961 Review, 1 April 1959 to ni March 1961

Backward Classes Review (A publication of the All-India Backward

1968 Classes Federation). New Delhi, Vol 1, No 1, December.

Banerjee, Anil Chandra 1948 The Making of the Indian

Constitution 1939-1947, Vol 1, Documents. Calcutta: A Mu- kheriee and Co.

Barnabas, A P and Mehta, Subbash C 1965 "Caste in changing India".

New Delhi: The Indian Insti- tute of Public Administration.

Bose, Nirmal Kumar 1954 "Who Are the Backward

Classes", Man in India 34 (2): 89-98. Reprinted in "Culture and Society in India". Bom- bay: Asia Publishing House, 1967.

The Depressed Classes A Chrono- logical Docunpentation

19.35- Part I: Ranchi, Rev Fr J Jans, S J, Catholic Press

1?937 Part II-XI: Kurseong: St Mary's College.

Hardgrave, Robert 1969 "The Nadars of Tamilnad:

the Political CultuLre of a Community in Change". Berke- ley: University of California Press.

Harrison, Selig S 1969 "India: The Most Dangerous

Decades". Princeton: Prince- ton University Press.

Irscbick, Eugene 1977 "Social Movements and the

Indian Nationalist Movement: Tamilnad in the 1930s", Chap- ter I: "The Theory and Prac- tice of Backwardness" (Mimeo- graphed Draft, 1977).

Latthe, A B 1924 "Memoirs of His Highness

Shri Shahu Chhatrapati Meha- raja of Kolhapur". 2 Vols, Bombay: Printed at the Times Press.

Majumdar, Nabendu Dutta 1960 "The Backward Classes Com-

mission and Its Work", in "Social Welfare in India' (isstied on behalf of the Plan- ning Commission). New Delhi: Government of India, Revised and abridged edition.

Mehta, Subbash Chandra 1962 "Persistence of the Caste

System: Vested 'Interest in Backwardness", Quest No 36: 20-27 (Winter 1962-63).

Mukherji, Panchanandas 1920 "The Indian Constitution...

and all Relevant Documents Relating to the Indian Consti- tutional Reforms of 1919". Calcutta: nacker, Spink and Co.

Omvedt, Gail 1976 "Cultural Revolt in a Colonial

Society: The Non-Brahman Movement in Western India, 1873 to 1930". Bombay: Scientific Socialist Education Trust.

Rao, MSA 1968 "Political Elite and Caste

and Caste Association: A Re- port of a Caste Conference", Econonmic and Political Weekly 3: 779-82.

Sathi, Chedi Lal [nd ca 1960] Nehrzu Sarkar Dtara

Pichare Vargo ke Adhikaron ki Hatya? [Crushing down of rishts of Backward Classes in Nehru Government], Luicknow.

Stubbiab, A 1963 "The Caste System: Vested

Interests of the High Castes", Quest, No 37: 85-87 (Spring 1963).

Tripathi, P K 1972 Somne Insights intto Funda-

mental Rights. Bombay: University of Bombay.

[IIl Government Documents Andhra Pradesh, Government of

1970 Report of the Backward Classes Commission [Manohar Pershad, Chairman] Hyderabad: Gov- ernment Secretariat Press.

Bombay, Governmen,t ,of (Transferred Departments). 1930 Report of the Depressed Clas-

ses and aboriginal Tribes Com- mittee, Bombav Presidency, March 1930 [0 H B Starte, Chairman] Bombay: The Gov>- ernment Central Press.

Great Britain, India Office (Indian Constitutional Reforms)

1919 RReports of the Franchise Committee [Lord Southborouh, President], etc. Calcutta: Government Printing Office.

Great Britain, Indian Franchise Com- mittee 1932 Vol I, Report of the Indian

Franchise Committee [Mar- quess of Lothian, Chairman] Calcutta: Government of India Central Publication Branch.

Great Britain, Indian Statutorv Corn- f I I S; i

1929 Atuxiliary Committee on Growth of Education [P Hartog, Chair- man], Interim Report, London: HMSO.

Great Britain, Indian Statutory Com- mission 1930 Vol 5 Memoranda Submitted

by the Government of India. Calcutta: Government of India Central Publication Branch.

India, Government of (Pre-1947) 1929 Indian Central Committee

[Sankaran Nair, Chairman] Report. Calcutta: Government of India, Central Publication Branch.

1925 Reforms Enquiry Committee [A P Muddiman, Chairman] Report and Connected Papers. London: HMSO.

India, Govertnment of (Post-1947) 1955 Backward Classes Commission

[K Kalelkar, Chairman]. Re- port. 3 Vols [Vol I (Report), Vol II (Lists), Vol III (Minutes of Dissent)]. Simla: Manager, Government of India Press.

1959 Committee on Plan Projects, Report of the Study Team on Social Welfare of Backward Classes [Renuka Ray, Leadei]. Vol I (only volume published). New Delhi: Manager, Govern- ment of India Press.

1946-1950 Constituent Assembly De- bates. 12 Vols. Delhi: Manager of Puiblications.

1961 Ministry of Community Deve- lopment and Co-operation. Report of the Study Group on the Welfare of the Weaker Sections of the Village Com- munity [J P Narayan, Chair- man]. Vols I and II. New Delhi, October 1961.

1962 Ministry of Education. Re- port of the Committee on Emnotional Integration [Sam- pIirnanand, Chairman]. Delhi- NManager, Government of India Press.

1956 Mlinistrv of Home Affairs. Mermoratndum'- on the Report of the Backward Classes Com- misssion. Delhi: General Ma- nager, Government of India Press.

1962a Ministry of Home Affairs. Re- port of the Special WVorking Grouip on Co-operation for Backward Classes [M P Bhar- gava, Chairman]. Vol II, Sept- ember 1962.

1962Jb Ministry of Home Affairs. Conference of State Ministers in Charge of Welfare of Back;- w ard ClasseXs. Agendla andl Notes, Mimeographed, 71 pp, Jully 26-27, 1962.

1950-19l52 Parliamnent. Parliamentary D)elates.

1827

1951 a'lwi ning Conmmrission. Trhe First Five Year Plan: A I)raft Outline. New Delhi: Govern- tment Press.

1953 Planning Commission. First Five Year Plan, People's Edi- tion. Delhi: Publications Di- vision, Miniistry of Information ainid Broadcasting.

1965 Plannirng Commission. Report of the Seminar on Employinenjt of Schedtuled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Faridabad: Manager, Governmient of India Press.

1949 University Education Com- mission (December 1948-Au gust 1949), Report. 2 Vols. Delhi: Manager of Publications.

Jammu andl Kashmir, Government of 1969 Report of the Back-ward Classes

Committee [J N Wazir, Chair-

n.an] . Srinagar: Governmetn t Press.

Karnataka, Government of 1975 Karnataka Backward Classes

Commission Report [L G Havanur, Chairman]. 4 Vols in 5 parts. Bangalore: Govern- ment Press.

Kerala Government of 1966 Report of the Commission for

Reservation of Seats in Edui- cational Institutions Kerala, 1965 [G Kumara Pillai, Chair- man]. Trivandrum: Govern- ment Press.

Kerala Government of 1971 Report of the Backward Classes

Reservation Commission, Ke- rala, 1970, [Nettur P Damo- daran, Chairman]. Vols I and II, Trivandrum: The Govern- ment Press.

Mysore, Government of 1961 M.ysore Backward Classes -Com-

mittee, Final Report [RB Nagan Gowda, Chai.rman]. Bangalore; The Government Press.

PUnjab), Governmnent of 1966 Report of the Evaluation Com-

mittee on Welfare Regarding the Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Denotified Tribes in, Punjab State for the Period Commenc- ing from 15 August 1947 (December 1965-August 19661). Chandigarh: Controller of l'rinting and Stationery, Punjab.

Tamil Nadu, Government of. 1971 Report of the Backward Class-

es Commission [A N Satta- nathan, Chairman]. S Vols. Madras: Director of Stationery and Printing.

RECENT CHANCES IN INCOME TAX LAW-v

I )~~~~~~~~~~~

WVtINNINGS from horse races paid by bookmakers -jrd race clubs have also become liable to deduction of tax at source with effect from 1st June, 1978. If you a7e responsible for payingj any winnings from horse races, your obligations under the Income-tax law are:

* As and when you pay to any person resident in India such winnings exceeding Rs. 2,500- DEDUCT tax (7 34.5 per cent (30 per cent as income-tax and 4.5 per cent as surcharge) at the time of payment.

3 DEPOSIT the tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government within one week from the date of deduction.The deposit may be made at any office

of the Reserve Bank of India, or the State Bank of India or its subsidiaries conducting Government business or at a branch of specificd public sector bank authorised to accept the payment of tax at the concerned station, through an income-tax chalan in Form No. 39. blank copies of wuhich may be obtained from your Income-tax Officer.

*FURNISH to the person to whom the winnings from horse races are paid, at the time of payment, a certificate in regard to the,tax deducted at source in the prescribed Form No. 19-838.

0SEND to your Income-tax Officer a statement in prescribed Form No. 26-BB quarterly on 15th July, 15th October, 15th January and 15th April in tes- pect of the tax deductions made by you during the immediately preceding quarter. If you need any guidance or assistance, you may contact your l.T.O. or the Public Relations Officer in the office of the Commissioner of Income-tax.

COMPLIANCE WITH TAX LAWS HELPS RESOURCE MOBILISATION FOR NATION-BUILDING.

Issued by- = DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION

(Research, Statistics & Publication) . _8INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Nsevv Delh - 110001 iavp 78123

199,9