Opinion: Why and how the Dalit-Bahujan unity can be shattered by the quota dispute within the quota

Author: Khalid Anees Ansari
Indian jurisprudence on reservation has traditionally taken a narrow view. It often frames special provisions as exceptions to the right to equality (Articles 14, 15(1), and 16(1)) or as merely enabling provisions, rather than as an integral element of it. This approach has led to reservation being seen as a compromise with efficiency or a measure of poverty alleviation, rather than a means of ensuring efficiency through diversity. However, the fact is that the Supreme Court judgment on sub-categorisation, i.e., quotas within quotas, correctly acknowledges the diversity within SC/ST groups. It upholds the validity of sub-categorisation. It also introduces the idea of ​​applying the creamy layer principle to SC/ST reservations. The concept of creamy layer was earlier limited to OBC reservations.

The decision has received mixed reactions from the SC/ST community, with strong opposition to the implementation of the creamy layer principle. With regard to sub-categorisation, the decision is not binding on the states, but acts as an enabling provision, allowing states to make sub-categorisation based on concrete data, subject to judicial review. Relatively less deprived and allegedly slightly higher SC/ST castes – such as Mahar, Chamar, Jatav, Dusadh, etc. have opposed the sub-categorisation. They say that first the quota should be properly implemented. Reservation should be given in the private sector. They argue that sub-categorisation will affect social unity. Citing lack of data, they are insisting on upskilling and economic packages instead of sub-quotas. They also see it as a ploy of the RSS-BJP to divide the SC/STs.

Some of these arguments echo those traditionally made by the so-called advanced castes against reservation. The 21 August Bharat Bandh against the decision was supported mainly by intellectuals, parties and organisations from UP, Bihar, Maharashtra and Rajasthan, where leading SC/ST castes dominate. Leaders like Mayawati, Chandrashekhar Azad, Chirag Paswan, Prakash Ambedkar, Ramdas Athawale strongly supported the bandh. In contrast, the most disadvantaged SC castes – such as Valmiki, Madiga, Arunthathiyar, Maan, Musahar, Hela, Bansphor, Dhanuk, Dom etc – largely stayed away from the bandh, especially in South India (Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana) where the debate on sub-classification is more advanced.

These groups have challenged the idea of ​​a unified SC/ST category as a sham without intrinsic justice. They have seen demands for a caste census and other arguments as strategies and preconditions to maintain the status quo. They argue that data on representation in public employment and education already exists. At least in raw form.

Several commissions have studied and supported the demand for sub-categorisation. The demand, which began in Punjab in the 1970s, gained momentum through organisations such as the Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti from the 1990s. This shows that it cannot be dismissed as mere political manipulation.

The most controversial aspect of the judgment is the extension of the creamy layer principle. Interestingly, the creamy layer was not among the issues in the Davinder Singh case or the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case (1992), where a nine-judge bench had ruled that the creamy layer principle would apply only to OBCs and not SC/STs. Despite this, a seven-judge bench has advocated the application of the creamy layer principle to SC/ST reservations, raising concerns among those who see it as undermining the purpose of reservation.

Law Minister Arjun Meghwal has clarified that the creamy layer does not apply to the SC/ST quota. However, the recent Supreme Court verdict has opened the door to the possibility of this principle being applied to the SC/ST category.

Ironically, the arguments of the relatively marginalised SC/ST castes look similar to those traditionally made by upper castes against quotas. The purpose of reservation is to ensure representation and voice for marginalised groups in decision-making spaces, not merely as a tool for poverty alleviation or job creation. Applying the creamy layer principle may defeat the very purpose of reservation, especially if it is implemented in Class A jobs. A person holding a Class A job is directly part of the crucial decision-making process. It pits upper caste officials with generational privilege and cultural capital against first-generation OBC officials, often excluding the latter from influential positions. This reduces their ‘voice’ in policy making.

Ambedkar had said, ‘Education is the milk of a lioness. Once you drink it, you cannot refrain from roaring.’ Excluding the most educated OBCs from reservations reduces their share in the OBC category. Castes opposing quotas within quotas should accept evidence-based sub-categorisation while seeking broader Bahujan solidarity on other issues like caste census, removal of 50% cap on quotas, creamy layer provision, increasing diversity in the private sector, etc. Narrow caste interests can blind the chances. In any case, any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court verdict on sub-categorisation is highly unlikely as NDA allies like JDU and TDP are supporting sub-categorisation.

(The author is Associate Professor of Sociology, Azim Premji University, Bengaluru. Views are personal)