Who really deserves quotas in India?

In India, caste is one of the most contentious of all issues. Not merely social or political, but also religious, cultural, and legal. That is why when the Chief Justice of India’s Supreme Court says something on caste, it acquires huge significance. Especially if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is himself a member of an underprivileged caste or community.

That is precisely the present situation with the recently elevated Chief Justice, Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai. Justice Gavai’s journey to one of the highest and most coveted posts in the republic has often been described as from “slum to Supreme Court.” He is the second Chief Justice to come from the Schedule Castes, the former so-called “untouchables” of India, and the first Buddhist to occupy this august office. He was sworn in on May 14 at 10am, succeeding Justice Sajiv Khanna, who was superannuated the previous day. Justice Gavai will serve till November 2025 - for approximately six months.

Last August, Justice Gavai was part of a Supreme Court Bench that delivered a landmark judgement on the deeply divisive and fractious issue of caste. The Bench cleared the sub-classification of the “creamy layer” within Scheduled Castes and Tribes. What does this mean? Simply speaking, a sub-identification, on the basis mainly of economic criteria, of the privileged among the underprivileged.

These privileged ones ought to be, according to the Bench, excluded from quota and reservation benefits so that those less fortunate and more deserving might benefit from affirmative action. Else, the creamy layer, as evidenced in numerous studies, would continue to reap governmental benefits, including seats in colleges and universities, and jobs, promotions, government housing, and so on, generation after generation.

Justice Gavai opined: “When a person gets into a compartment, he tries all means to stop others from getting into that compartment. Only on account of social justice they have got the benefit, but when state decides to give that benefit to the ones who are not adequately represented, then the same cannot be denied.” Not stopping at the analogy of an overcrowded train compartment, Justice Gavai continued, “State must evolve a policy to identify creamy layer among the SC/ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action. This is the only way to gain true equality.”

These statements were, indeed, radical. They made headlines and sparked a huge debate. Inevitably, the exclusion of creamy layers within the SC/STs turned into a political slugfest. The politicians who championed identity politics based on deprivation and exclusion won the day. The government failed to act on the apex court’s recommendations. Instead, doing a 180-degree turn on its earlier stated positions, the incumbent regime assented to caste enumeration in the upcoming census. But, as I shall argue, if caste matters cannot be resolved by contention, they cannot be settled by a census either. What is needed, instead, is consensus.

Let us consider Justice Gavai’s remarks again. “Only a section within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are enjoying the benefits of reservation. The ground reality cannot be denied that there are classes within SC/ST communities that are facing harassment. The basis of sub-classification is that a large section is facing discrimination.” Furthermore, comparing a child from the creamy layer of Scheduled Castes with a ragpicker from the same community would be tantamount to “cheating.” As it happened, three other members of the seven-member Bench agreed with Justice Gavai.

The Bharatiya Janata Party led National Democratic Front government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had opposed the caste census tooth-and-nail, calling it divisive and anti-nation. It had accused the Congress and other parties, which had championed such a census, as thriving on negative identity politics. The prime minister famously said there are only four castes, the poor, the youth, the farmers, and the women. Then why has it suddenly become the proponent of such a census, inviting a backlash from many of its supporters, especially the group now characterised as “alt-Hindus.”

I am not interested in opposing or defending the present government’s position as much as asking what would benefit the country most. Because I think that data-based decision-making, especially when it comes to handing out — or withholding doles — is much better than a policy based purely on vote-bank politics. The truth must come out. That is the hallmark of democracy. Not be perpetually suppressed or massaged in the interests of some powerful party, lobby, or group.

If whatever we know from the Karnataka caste census is anything to go by, the results of an all-India caste census will be unexpected, if not startling. First, dominant “backward” groups, usually most vociferous in demanding government benefits and reservations, will be revealed to be numerically much weaker than they pretend to be.

Such groups, to start with the example of Karnataka, include the Lingayats and Vokkaliga. But similar groups, such as Reddys, Kammas, Marathas, Jats, Yadavs, and so on, using the ruling classes in other states, will be shown to enjoy disproportionate political power and state largesse beyond their numbers.

Perhaps, the census will lessen their ongoing demands. On the other hand, Scheduled Castes and Muslims may form much larger proportions of the Indian population than is generally acknowledged. Even Christians, if enumerated accurately, will stand to lose these privileges as per the laws of the land. But even more interestingly, non-Hindus, including Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs, will also be revealed to have not only social stratification, but numerous caste hierarchies.

Now, let us return to the Supreme Court caste ruling from last August and Justice Gavai’s repeatedly stated position that creamy layers within the SC/STs shouldn’t skim off the cream of reservations forever. There is no reason why the impending caste census cannot, additionally, identify the creamy layers of SC/STs too, thus giving the Indian state better data to take future decisions in the interests not just of vote-bank politics but genuine social justice.