Caste in stone

States should not misuse the power vested in the 127th Amendment

The passage of the 127th Constitution Amendment Bill in both Houses of Parliament with rare unanimity across the political spectrum reflects the deeply political nature of the issue of caste reservations in India. The significance of this amendment lies in the fact that it vests with the states the power to identify socially and economically backward classes (SEBCs). The immediate background for this Bill was a ruling by the Supreme Court in May this year that struck down a separate jobs and educational quota that the Maharashtra government sought to establish for the Maratha community. The apex court cited a 2018 amendment (the 102nd constitutional amendment) that vested the power to identify backward castes with the President of India, based on the recommendations of the National Commission for Backward Classes.

According to its interpretation, the 102nd constitutional amendment constrained states from identifying SEBCs and providing them with benefits. In practice, the task of identifying SEBCs had involved some degree of cooperative federalism. Although Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16 (4) empower states to identify lists of SEBCs, in practice, such lists were drawn up by the Centre and the states. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 102nd constitutional amendment, however, would have had the effect of abolishing the state lists, excising some 671 SEBC communities from access to reservations in jobs and educational institutions.
 

On the one hand, the Bill deserves praise for restoring a healthy spirit of federalism by empowering states to identify SEBCs. It is also praiseworthy that MPs desisted from some demands to extend reservation quotas from the mandated 50 per cent. The misgivings, however, could lie in how political dispensations will choose to leverage this power to derive populist advantages at the cost of genuine social justice and empowerment, which was the original intent of such reservations. It is no coincidence, for instance, that the legislation has been passed ahead of critical Assembly elections next year, not least in the populous state of Uttar Pradesh where OBCs account for a significant proportion of the voting population. The agitations by Patidars and Jats in Haryana and Gujarat respectively —  and, indeed, the Marathas in Maharashtra — have amply demonstrated the risks embedded in the demand for entitlements from hitherto powerful castes that have lost out on the opportunities of economic growth after 1991.

More to the point, this period saw a significant alteration in the dynamics of economic activity, with the private sector overtaking the government in job creation and delivery of education. These developments render job and educational quotas in government institutions somewhat moot and constrains the ability of political leaders to make employment a realistic political plank. This could bring into play the private sector as a vehicle for entitlements. Efforts in this direction have not yielded much traction yet. But the extension of local employment laws in Haryana and Andhra Pradesh could be seen as a first step on this slope; caste-based reservations could well follow. Neither development is desirable at a time when India is struggling to improve the environment for doing business. With the 127th constitutional amendment, the states have just acquired a powerful tool to promote meaningful social empowerment. It is vital that they do not reduce this power to a cynical instrument of entitlement politics.