This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.(February 2023) |
This article is part of a series on the |
Politics of India |
---|
Indiaportal |
The Mandal Commission or the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission (SEBC), was established in India in 1979 by the Janata Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai with a mandate to "identify the socially or educationally backward classes" of India. [1] It was headed by B. P. Mandal, an Indian member of parliament, to consider the question of reservations for people to address caste discrimination, and to use eleven social, economic, and educational indicators to determine backwardness. In 1980, based on its rationale that OBCs ("Other backward classes") identified on the basis of caste, social, economic indicators made up 52% of India's population, the commission's report recommended that members of Other Backward Classes (OBC) be granted reservations to 27% of jobs under the central government and public sector undertakings and seats in the higher education institutions, thus making the total number of reservations for SC, ST and OBC to 49.5%. [2]
Though the report had been completed in 1980, the V. P. Singh government declared its intent to implement the report in August 1990, leading to widespread student protests. [3] As per the Constitution of India, Article 15 (4) states, " Nothing in this Article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the advancement of any socially or educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes". The Mandal Commission had therefore created a report using the data of the 1931 census, the last caste-aware census, extrapolated with some sample studies.
V. P. Singh was accused of using the Mandal Report despite it having previously been ignored by the Congress government. With almost 75% of the Indian population to receive preferential treatment in government employment, up from 25%, causing social unrest. Earlier 25% population of India which is Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was covered and now more than 50% of Other Backward Class came under reservation. [4] The decision of V.P Singh government led to 1990 Mandal Commission protests. The youth went for massive protest in large numbers in the nation's campuses, resulting in many self immolations by students. [5]
Indra Sawhney challenged the Mandal Commission and government decision to implement it in the Supreme Court in front of a nine Judge bench. The case was known as Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India. After hearing both sides the bench upheld the decision of government of reserving 27% of jobs under the central government and public sector undertakings with a provision that there will be ceiling of 50 per cent quotas and emphasized the concept of "social backwardness", and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness. Also, the bench held that creamy layer of income will be applicable for the Other Backward Classes quota. Presently the creamy layer limit is Family income of ₹ 8 lakhs per year. It was implemented in 1992. [6]
The second recommendation of Mandal Commission to implement OBC reservations in higher educational institutions was implemented in 2006. The Union Minister of Human Resource Development at that time, Arjun Singh promised to reserve 27% seats for Other Backward Classes in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), National Institutes of Technology (NITs), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and other central institutions of higher education. The Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act 2005 that was introduced by the First Manmohan Singh ministry, granted a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in all Central Government institutions.
This decision of government led to 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests. The protests ended when on 10 April 2008, in the Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court upheld the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment and Central Educational Institutions(CEIs) (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, [7] for the provision of 27% quota for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes in IITs, NITs, IIMs, AIIMS, IISc and other premier educational institutions. [8]
Part of a series on |
Discrimination |
---|
The primary objective that the Mandal Commission had in India was to Identify the conditions regarding social and educational backward classes to consider the question of reservations of seats and quotas.
Leading to the formation of the Mandal Commission, Indian society was based largely on the principles of Jaati and Varna, and to that extent a partially closed system. As the result of colonialism, the artisan and similar classes had been impoverished. This created a social stratification that played a dominant role within Indian society, laying the context for the Mandal Commission to be formed. Therefore, during the late 1900s India witnessed caste and class to stand for different patterns of distribution of properties/occupations for individuals. This directly affected Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes that were known collectively as Other Backward Classes (OBC), which were the focal groups that experienced the severities of colonial exploitation and the resultant caste/class stratification within the social organization found within traditional India.
The extent of how embedded the caste system is in India, coupled with the colonial impoverishment that many groups such as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes experience, paved the path towards the Indian state to recognize/attempt to redress caste discrimination. Other Backward Classes have historically been excluded from opportunities and duties that lead to socioeconomic advancement in Indian society. The artisans, peasants, farmers, and owners of cottage industries bore the direct brunt of exploitation under the British Raj. Many self sufficient cottage industries were destroyed to serve colonial needs. The rise of industrialisation and globalisation changed the economic structures in rural India and was another factor leading to the impoverishment of the artisan classes. Combined with social mobility - social is hereditary, and marrying outside one's group is rare. [9]
However, two different types of change that were prevalent during the lead up to the Mandal Commission was: Change in the relative positions of the groups in the caste hierarchy and the Change in how the tendency of how hereditary groups were ranked. Respectively, the first did not impair the caste system as a form of "social stratification" and the second type of change lead to the caste system to transform entirely. Educational background in relation to occupation between two generations were found to be directly correlated. Thus, educational facilities played a critical role among Other Backward Classes, and the opportunities for those who received poor/well education contributed to the overall social stratification of India. Additionally, the overlap between caste and economics became more apparent. [10]
Appointment of a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes in India every 10 years, for the purpose of Articles 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth). The First Backward Classes Commission had a broad-based membership, the Second Commission seemed to be shaped on partisan lines, composed of members only from the backward castes. Of its five members, four were from the OBCs; the remaining one, L.R. Naik, was from the Dalit community, and the only member from the scheduled castes in the commission. [11] It is popularly known as the Mandal Commission for its chairman being Shri. B.P. Mandal.
The Mandal Commission adopted various methods and techniques to collect the necessary data and evidence. In order to identify who qualified as an "other backward class," the commission adopted eleven criteria which could be grouped under three major headings: social, educational and economic. 11 criteria were developed to identify OBCs. [12]
As the above deginal's family says that three groups are not of equal importance for the purpose, separate weightage was given to indicators in each group. All the Social indicators were given a weightage of 3 points each, educational indicators were given a weightage of 2 points each and economic indicators were given a weightage of 1 point each. Economic, in addition to social and educational Indicators, were considered important as they directly flowed from social and educational backwardness. This also helped to highlight the fact that socially and educationally backward classes are economically backward also. [14]
Thus, the Mandal Commission judged classes on a scale from 0 to 22. These 11 indicators were applied to all the castes covered by the survey for a particular state. As a result of this application, all castes which had a score of 50% (i.e. 11 points) were listed as socially and educationally backward and the rest were treated as 'advanced'. [14]
The commission estimated that 52% of the total population of India (excluding SCs and STs), belonging to 3,743 different castes and communities, were ‘backward’. [1] [15] [16] The number of backward castes in Central list of OBCs has now increased to 5,013 (without the figures for most of the Union Territories) in 2006 as per National Commission for Backward Classes. [17] [18] [19] Figures of caste-wise population are not available beyond. So the commission used 1931 census data to calculate the number of OBCs. The population of Hindu OBCs was derived by subtracting from the total population of Hindus, the population of SC and ST and that of forward Hindu castes and communities, and it worked out to be 52 per cent. [20] Assuming that roughly the proportion of OBCs amongst non-Hindus was of the same order as amongst the Hindus, the population of non-Hindu OBCs was considered as 52 per cent. [1]
The introduction to the Recommendations section in the report presents the following argument: [23]
As the commission had concluded that 52 per cent of the country's population consisted of OBCs, it initially argued that the percentage of reservations in public services for backward classes should also match that figure. However, as this would have gone against the earlier judgement of the Supreme Court of India which had laid down that reservation of posts must be below 50 per cent, the proposed reservation for OBCs had to be fixed at a figure, which when added to 22.5 per cent for SCs and STs, remains below the cap of 50 per cent. In view of this legal constraint the commission was obliged to recommend a reservation of 27 per cent only for backward castes. [23] The overlap between caste and economic backwardness became even more tenuous as a result being that it extended to include the OBC. [24]
Prior to the establishment of the Mandal Commission in India, the state of India faced caste discrimination in terms of social, economic, and political context. Living standards, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and OBC households were viewed to be significantly lower than in the mainstream population, comprising Hindu forward castes and other religious groups. [25] In December 1980, the Mandal Commission submitted its Report which described the criteria it used to indicate backwardness, and stated its recommendations in light of its observations and findings. By then, the Janata government had fallen. The following Congress governments under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were not willing to act on the Report due to its politically contentious nature. After being neglected for 10 years, the Report was accepted by the National Front government led by V.P. Singh. On 7 August 1990, the National Front government declared that it would provide 27 per cent reservations to "socially and educationally backward classes" for jobs in central services and public undertaking. Having released the Government Order on 13 August, V.P. Singh announced its legal implementation in his Independence Day speech two days later. [26] [27]
That same year in September, a case was brought before the Supreme Court of India which challenged the constitutional validity of the Government Order for the implementation of the Mandal Report recommendations. Indra Sawhney, the petitioner in this case, made three principal arguments against the Order: [28] [29]
The five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court issued a stay on the operation of the Government Order of 13 August until the final disposal of the case. On 16 November 1992, the Supreme Court, in its verdict, upheld the government order, being of the opinion that caste was an acceptable indicator of backwardness. [29] Thus, the recommendation of reservations for OBCs in central government services was finally implemented in 1992. [30]
A decade after the commission gave its report, V.P. Singh, the Prime Minister at the time, tried to implement its recommendations in 1989. [31] The criticism was sharp and colleges across the country held massive protests against it. These protests were known as 1990 Mandal Commission protests. On 19 September 1990, Rajiv Goswami, a student of Deshbandhu College, Delhi, attempted self-immolation in protest of the government's actions. His act made him the face of the Anti-Mandal agitation then. This further sparked a series of self-immolations by other upper-caste college students like him, whose own hopes of getting a government job were now at threat, and led to a formidable student movement against job reservations for Backward Castes in India. [32] Altogether, nearly 200 students committed self-immolations; of these, 62 students succumbed to their burns. [28] The first student protester who died due to self-immolation was Surinder Singh Chauhan on 24 September 1990. [33]
Across northern India, normal business was suspended. Shops were kept closed, and schools and colleges were shut down by student agitators. They attacked government buildings, organised rallies and demonstrations and clashed with the police. Incidents of police firing was reported in six states during agitation, claiming more than 50 lives. [28]
The mountainous region (present day Uttarakhand) of Uttar Pradesh saw multiple protests after the implementation of OBC reservation in Uttar Pradesh (covering current Uttarakhand). The Hills had abysmal educational infrastructure with Govt Job the only option. Although, OBC constituted a major chunk of population in the plains of Uttar Pradesh, the Demography was quite different in the Hills. The population in Hills mainly consisted of Upper Caste, SC and ST with hardly any OBC presence. However, the implementation meant 27% seats in Schools/colleges/Govt Jobs would now go on to the people from Plains. The implementation was one of the reason that intensified the statehood movement of Uttarakhand. [34]
However, according to Ramchandra Guha, the agitation did not gain as much traction in southern India as it did in the North due to certain reasons. Firstly, people in the South were more agreeable to the implementation of the Mandal report recommendations as affirmative action programmes had long been in existence there. Furthermore, while in the South the upper castes constituted less than 10 per cent of the population, the figure in the North was in excess of 20 per cent. Lastly, as the region had a thriving industrial sector, the educated youth in the South were not as dependent on government employment as those in the North. [28]
The first recommendation to implement OBC reservation in 27% of jobs under the central government and public sector undertakings was implemented by V.P. Singh. However, the second recommendation to implement OBC reservation in 27% of seats in higher education institutions was implemented in 2006 under United Progressive Alliance government.
After the State Assembly elections in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry, Assam and West Bengal in 2006, the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, Arjun Singh promised to reserve 27% seats for Other Backward Classes in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), National Institutes of Technology (NITs), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and other central institutions of higher education. The Constitution (93rd Amendment) Act 2005 that was introduced by the First Manmohan Singh ministry, granted a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in all Central Government institutions.
The 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests took place in opposition to the decision of the Union Government of India to implement reservations for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central and private institutes of higher education.
Finally, the protests ended when the Supreme Court of India upheld the reservations in its landmark judgement. On 10 April 2008, in the Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court upheld the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment and Central Educational Institutions(CEIs) (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, [35] for the provision of 27% quota for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes in IITs, NITs, IIMs, AIIMS, IISc and other premier educational institutions. But it directed the government to exclude the "creamy layer", families whose annual salary in more than ₹4,50,000, among the OBCs while implementing the law. However, the "creamy layer" exclusion would not be applied to the SC/STs. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
The National Sample Survey puts the figure at 32%. [43] There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBC's in India, with census data compromised by partisan politics. It is generally estimated to be sizeable, but lower than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or and National Sample Survey. [44]
There is also a debate about the estimation logic used by the Mandal Commission for calculating OBC population. Yogendra Yadav, psephologist turned politician, agrees that there is no empirical basis to the Mandal figure. According to Yadav, "It is a mythical construct based on reducing the number of SC/ST, Muslims and others and then arriving at a number." [45] Yadav argues that government jobs were availed to those who by their own means had got higher education, and that reservation for OBC's was only one of the many recommendations of the Mandal Commission, which largely remain unimplemented after 25 years. [46]
The National Sample Survey's 1999–2000 round estimated around 36 percent of the country's population as belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC). The proportion falls to 32 per cent on excluding Muslim OBCs. A survey conducted in 1998 by National Family Health Statistics (NFHS) puts the proportion of non-Muslim OBCs as 29.8 per cent. [47]
L R Naik, the only Dalit member in the Mandal Commission refused to sign the Mandal recommendations. [48] Naik argued that intermediate backward classes are relatively powerful, while depressed backward classes, or most backward classes (MBCs) remain economically marginalised.
Critics of the Mandal Commission argue that it is unfair to accord people special privileges on the basis of caste, even in order to redress traditional caste discrimination. They argue that those that deserve the seat through merit will be at a disadvantage. They reflect on the repercussions of unqualified candidates assuming critical positions in society (doctors, engineers, etc.). As the debate on OBC reservations spreads, a few interesting facts which raise pertinent question are already apparent. To begin with, figures on the proportion of OBCs in the Indian population vary widely. According to the Mandal Commission (1980) it is 52 percent. According to 2001 Indian Census, out of India's population of 1,028,737,436 the Scheduled Castes account for 166,635,700 and Scheduled Tribes 84,326,240; that is 16.2% and 8.2% respectively. There is nocoss data on OBCs in the census. [49] However, according to National Sample Survey's 1999–2000 round around 36 per cent of the country's population is defined as belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC). The proportion falls to 32 per cent on excluding Muslim OBCs. A survey conducted in 1998 by National Family Health Statistics (NFHS) puts the proportion of non-Muslim OBCs as 29.8 per cent. [50] The NSSO data also shows that already 23.5 per cent of college seats are occupied by OBCs. That's just 8.6 per cent short of their share of population according to the same survey. Other arguments include that entrenching the separate legal status of OBCs and SC/STs will perpetuate caste differentiation and encourage competition among communities at the expense of national unity. They believe that only a small new elite of educated Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs benefit from reservations, and that such measures don't do enough to lift the mass of people out of poverty.
Arjun Singh was an Indian politician from the Indian National Congress, who served twice as the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh in the 1980s. He also served twice as the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, in the Manmohan Singh and P. V. Narasimha Rao ministries.
The Other Backward Class (OBC) is a collective term used by the Government of India to classify communities that are "educationally or socially backward". It is one of several official classifications of the population of India, along with general castes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The OBCs were found to comprise 52% of the country's population by the Mandal Commission report of 1980 and were determined to be 41% in 2006 when the National Sample Survey Organisation took place. There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBCs in India; it is generally estimated to be sizable, but many believe that it is higher than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or the National Sample Survey.
Babu Bindheshwari Prasad Mandal was a scion of the erstwhile Murho Estate and an Indian politician who chaired the Mandal Commission. Mandal came from a rich Yadav landlord family from Madhepura in Northern Bihar. He served as the seventh Chief Minister of Bihar in 1968, but he resigned after 30 days. As a parliamentarian, he served as the chairman of the Second Backward Classes Commission, popularly known as the Mandal Commission. The commission's report mobilized a segment of the Indian population known as "Other Backward Classes" (OBCs) and initiated a fierce debate on policies related to underrepresented and underprivileged groups in Indian politics.
Reservation is a system of affirmative action in India created during the British rule. Based on provisions in the Indian Constitution, it allows the Union Government and the States and Territories of India to set a high percentage of reserved quotas or seats, in higher education admissions, employment, political bodies, etc., for "socially and economically backward citizens".
The Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) practices affirmative action and offers reservation to the "backward and weaker sections" of the society that includes SC/ST/OBC-NCL/EWS/PWD/Girl candidates.
The 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests were a series of protests that took place in India in 2006 in opposition to the decision of the Union Government of India, led by the Indian National Congress-headed multiparty coalition United Progressive Alliance, to implement reservations for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central and private institutes of higher education. These protests were one of the two major protests against the Indian reservation system, the other one being the 1990 anti-Mandal protests.
Forward caste is a term used in India to denote castes which are not listed in SC, ST or OBC reservation lists. They are on average considered ahead of other castes economically and educationally. They account for about 30.8% of the population based on Schedule 10 of available data from the National Sample Survey Organisation 55th (1999–2000) and National Sample Survey Organisation 61st Rounds (2004–05) Round Survey.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India is an Indian public interest litigation case challenging the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment and the Central Educational Institutions(CEIs) Act, 2006. Reservations for underprivileged persons in public institutions is one of the policies devised by the Indian Legislature to espouse the cause of the disadvantaged.
Creamy layer is a term used in Indian reservation system to refer to some members of a backward class who are highly advanced socially as well as economically and educationally. They constitute the forward section of that particular backward class – as forward as any other forward class member. They are not eligible for government-sponsored educational and professional benefit programs. The term was introduced by the Sattanathan Commission in 1971, which directed that the "creamy layer" should be excluded from the reservations (quotas) of civil posts. It was also identified later by Justice Ram Nandan Committee in 1993.
In India, a caste although it's a western stratification arrived from Portuguese word Casta and Latin word castus ,is a social group where membership is decided by birth. Broadly, Indian castes are divided into the Forward Castes, Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. Indian Christians and Indian Muslims are also function as castes. With castes separating individuals into different social groups, it follows that each group will have conflicting interests; oftentimes putting those with lower social standing in less favorable positions. An attempt to address this inequality has been the reservation system, which essentially acts as affirmative action to provide representation to caste groups that have been systematically disadvantaged. There have also been other cases where political parties, like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), was formed to challenge the power of the upper castes.
Mandal commission protests of 1990 were against reservation in government jobs based on caste in India.
Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education and employment. Reservations in the state rose from 41 percent in 1954 to 69 percent in 1990.
The National Commission for Backward Classes is an Indian constitutional body under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India established through Constitution Act, 2018 this amendment act in the constitution to make it a constitutional body under Article 338B of the Indian Constitution. It was constituted pursuant to the provisions of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993.
The Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011 (SECC) was conducted for the 2011 Census of India. The Manmohan Singh government approved the Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011 to be carried out after discussion in both houses of Parliament in 2010. SECC-2011 was not done under the 1948 Census of India Act and the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India was not entrusted to do the same. The SECC 2011 was conducted in all states and union territories of India and the first findings were revealed on 3 July 2015 by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. SECC 2011 is also the first paperless census in India conducted on hand-held electronic devices by the government in 640 districts. The rural development ministry has taken a decision to use the SECC data in all its programmes such as MGNREGA, National Food Security Act, and the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana. SECC 2011 was the first caste-based census since 1931 Census of India, and it was launched on 29 June 2011 from the Sankhola village of Hazemara block in West Tripura district.
The Jat reservation agitation was a series of violent protests in February 2016 by the Jats of North India, especially those in the state of Haryana, which "paralysed" the state for 10 days. The protestors sought inclusion of their caste in the Other Backward Class (OBC) category, which would make them eligible for affirmative action benefits. Besides Haryana, the protests also spread to the neighbouring states, such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and the National Capital Region.
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in India is a subcategory of people having an annual family income less than ₹8 lakh (US$9,600) and who do not belong to any category such as SC/ST/OBC across India, nor to MBC in Tamil Nadu. A candidate who does not fall under SC/ST/OBC and fulfils the EWS economic criteria are to be part of the EWS category. However, OBCs described in the State list but not in the Central list are also eligible for the EWS.
The Upper Backward Caste is a term used to describe the middle castes in Bihar, whose social and ritual status was not very low and which have traditionally been involved in the agricultural and animal husbandry related activities in the past. They have also been involved in low scale trade to some extent. The Koeri, Kurmi, Yadav, and Bania are categorised as the upper-backwards amongst the Other Backward Class group; while the various other caste groups which constitute the OBC, a group comprising 51% of the population of state of Bihar, have been classified as lower backwards. The upper-backwards, also called upper OBC, represent approximately 20.3% of the population of Bihar. These agricultural caste were the biggest beneficiaries of the land reform drive which was undertaken in the 1950s in the state and they strengthened their economic position by gaining a significant portion of excess land under the ceiling laws, which prohibited the ownership of land above a certain ceiling.
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India also known as the Mandal verdict was an Indian landmark public interest litigation case delivered by a 9-judge constitution bench.
Reservation policy in Bihar is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education and employment. Reservations in the state rose from 60 percent in 2021 to 75 percent in 2023. In June 2024, Patna High Court struck down the new reservation policy.
The Ninety-third Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 2005 enabled the provision of reservation (27%) for Other Backward Class(OBCs) in government as well as private educational institutions.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help){{cite book}}
: |last=
has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)