Economic and Political Weekly, June 6, 1992:1203-1207.

Identifying Other Backward Classes

A Ramaiah
Under Article 340 of the Indian Constitution, it is obligatory for the government to promote the
welfare of the Other Backward Classes (OBC). The Mandal Commission which was set up for the
purpose recommended 27 per cent job reservations in government services for the OBC However,
implementation of such recommendations has been vehemently opposed by a vocal section. This
paper, presenting the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, brings out some technical errors
in the criteria and approach adopted in identifying the OBC and their representation in government
services. Alternative ways of identifying the deserving OBC have also been suggested.

TRANSFORMING India into an egalitarian society and strengthening its unity and
integrity will remain a myth as long as the widening gap between the attitude of the rich and
the poor, the high castes and the low castes, and the religious and ethnic majorities and the
minorities towards each other is not changed significantly for the better. Such change in the
peoples attitude cannot be brought about overnight. Centuries old caste and religious
practices which have got ingrained in their social-cultural milieu cannot be uprooted so
easily. It is a long-term process, but it is imperative.
To bring all those who are considered the socially and economically backward on par
with the rest of the society, it is a must that they should be assisted in all possible ways.
Education which can accelerate amongst them the process not only of conscientisation but
also of becoming economically independent should be made accessible to everybody. But
given the heterogeneity in the existing socio-economic status, only some are able to climb the
socio-economic ladder while the rest either remain at the same position or find their position
declining. The practice of untouchability which is very much part of the tradition that we
have inherited is prevalent even today. Hence the existing protective and welfare measures
provided in the Constitution for the untouchables, officially known as the scheduled castes.
However, besides the untouchables, there exists a huge proportion of people who are
identified as socially and educationally backward classes. Talk of implementing similar
welfare measures to this section (OBC) has ignited resentment especially among the high
castes. However, it is the constitutional obligation of the government under Articles 340(1).
340(2) and 16(4) to promote the welfare of the OBCs.
Article 340(1)
The president may by order appoint a commission, consisting of such persons as he
thinks, fit to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within
the territory of India 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 as to improve their condition and as to the grants that should be made,
and the order appointing such commission shall define the procedure to be followed by the
commission.
Article 340(2)
A commission so appointed shall investigate the matters referred to them and present
to the president a report setting out the facts as found by them and making such
recommendations as they think proper.

Article 15(4)
Nothing in this article or in clause 2 of Article 29 (protection of minorities) shall
prevent the state from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes.
Article 16(4)
Nothing in this article shall prevent the state from making any provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class citizens which, in the
opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the services under the state.
Despite the fact that the term backward class has appeared more than once in the
Constitution of India, it has not been defined clearly in the Constitution. Thus there was a
need to determine backwardness by means of adopting suitable criteria and identify all those
who come under the backward classes category.
FIRST BACKWARD CLASSES COMMISSION
Adhering to Article 340, the First Backward Classes Commission was set up by a presidential
order on January 29, 1953 under the chairmanship of Kaka Kalelkar. Its terms of references
were to:
(a) determine the criteria to be adopted in considering whether any sections of the people in
the territory of India in addition to the SC and ST as socially and educationally backward
classes, using such criteria it was to prepare a list of such classes setting out also their
approximate members and their territorial distribution;
(b) investigate the conditions of all such socially and educationally backward classes and the
differences under which they labour and make recommendations (i) as to the steps that
should be taken by the union or any state to remove such difficulties or to improve their
economic condition, and (ii) as to the grants that should be made for the purpose by the
union or any state and the conditions subject to which such grants should be made;
(c) investigate such other matters as the president may hereafter refer to them; and
(d) present to the president a report setting out the facts as found by them and making such
recommendations as they think proper.
For identifying socially and educationally backward classes, the commission adopted the
following criteria:
(I) Low social position in the traditional caste hierarchy of Hindu society.
(2) Lack of general educational advancement among the major section of a caste or
community.
(3) Inadequate or no representation in government services.
(4) Inadequate representation in the field of trade, commerce and industry.
The commission submitted its report on March 30, 1955. It had prepared a list of
2,399 backward castes or communities for the entire country and of which 837 had been
classified as the most backward Some of the most noteworthy recommendations of the
commission were:
(i)
undertaking caste-wise enumeration of population in the census of 1961;
(ii)
relating social backwardness of a class to its low position in the traditional
caste hierarchy of Hindu society;
(iii) treating all women as a class as backward;
(iv)
reservation of 70 per cent seats in all technical and professional institutions for
qualified students of backward classes;

(v)

minimum reservation of vacancies in all government services and local bodies

for other backward classes on the following scale: class I = 25 per cent; class
II = 33 per cent; class III and IV = 40 per cent.

There was considerable divergence of opinion among the members of the commission
as to what should be the criteria of backwardness. However, the commission in its final
report recommended caste as the criteria to determine backwardness. But this report was not
accepted by the government as it feared that the backward classes excluded from the caste
and communities selected by the commission may not be considered and the really needy
would be swamped by the multitude and would hardly receive special attention. Thus, there
was a need of a second backward classes of commission.
MAN DAL COMMISSION
The decision to set up a second backward classes commission was made official by
the president on January 1, 1979. The commission popularly known as the Mandal Commission, its chairman being B. P. Mandal. It submitted the report in December 1980. The
terms of reference for the commission were:
(1)
to determine the criteria for defining the socially and educationally backward classes;
(2)
to recommend the steps to be taken for their advancement;
(3)
to examine the desirability or otherwise for making any provision for the reservation
of appointments or posts in their favour; and
(4)
to present a report setting out the facts found by the commission..
The Mandal Commission adopted various methods and techniques to collect the necessary
data and evidence to fulfil the above objectives.
The commission prepared three questionnaires: one for the state government, another for the
central ministries and yet another for the general public besides its extensive tours in the
country to collect the necessary evidence. A socio-educational field survey was organised
under the panel of experts with M. N. Srinivas as chairman. This study also included caste
studies, analysis of data, village monographs and study of legal and constitutional issues. To
identify the socially and educationally backward classes, the commission adopted II criteria
which could be grouped under three major headings: social, educational and economic. The
11 criteria are as follows:
Social
(i)
Castes/classes considered as socially backward by others.
(ii)
Castes/classes which mainly depend on manual labour for their livelihood.
(iii) Castes/classes where at least 25 per cent females and 10 per cent males above the
state average get married at an age below 17 years in rural areas and at least 10 per
cent females and5 per cent males do so in urban areas.
(iv)
Castes/classes where participation of females in work is at least 2 per cent above the
state average.
Educational
(v)
Castes/classes where the number of children in the age group of 5-15 years who
never attended school is at least 25 per cent above the state average.
(vi)
Castes/classes where the rate of student drop-out in the age group of 5-15 years is at
least 25 per cent above the state average.
(vii) Castes/classes amongst whom the proportion of matriculates is at least 25 per cent
below the state average.

Economic
(viii) Castes/classes where the average value of family assets is at least 25 per cent below
the state average.
(ix)
Castes/classes where the number of families living in kuccha houses is at least 25 per
cent above the state average.
(x)
Castes/classes where the source of drinking water is beyond half a kilometer for more
than 50 per cent of the households.
(xi)
Castes/classes where the number of households having taken consumption loans is at
least 25 per cent above the state average.
Of these three groups, separate weightage was given to indicators of each group. A
weightage of three points each was given to all the social indicators. Educational indicators
were given two points each. And economic indicators were given one point each. In addition
to social and educational, economic indicators were considered important as they directly
flowed from social and educational backwardness mainly to highlight the fact that socially
and educationally backward classes are economically backward also.
It can be understood from the values given to each indicator that the total adds up to
22. All these 11 indicators were applied to all the castes covered by the survey for a particular state. All castes which had a score of SO per cent (i.e., 11 points) or above while
applying the said score were listed as socially and educationally backward and the rest were
treated as advanced. Using the above-mentioned criteria, the commission identified 3,743
caste groups as other backward classes.
Figures of caste-wise population are not available beyond 1931. 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. Assuming
that roughly the proportion of OBCs amongst non-Hindus was of the same order as amongst
the Hindus, population of non-Hindu OBCs was also considered as 52 per cent of actual
proportion of their population of 16.16 per cent or 8.40 per cent. The total population of
Hindu and non-Hindu OBC therefore naturally added up to nearly 52 per cent of the
countrys population.
The following are the recommendations of the Mandal Commission to improve the lot of the
OBCs.
The population of OBCs which includes both Hindus and non-Hindus is around 52
per cent of the total population. However only 27 per cent of reservation was recommended
owing to the legal constraint that the total quantum of reservation should not exceed 50 per
cent. The already existing reservation for SC and ST is in tune with their proportion to total
population, i.e., 15 per cent for SC and 7.2 per cent for ST and together amounts to 22.5 per
cent is to be taken into account, while counting the total percentage of reservation. States
which have already introduced reservation for OBC exceeding 27 per cent will not be
affected by this recommendation. With this general recommendation the commission
proposed the following over-all scheme of reservation for OBC:
(1)
Candidates belonging to OBC recruited on the basis of merit in an open competition
should not be adjusted against their reservation quota of 27 per cent.
(2)
The above reservation should also be made applicable to promotion quota at all levels.
(3)
Reserved quota remaining unfilled should be carried forward for a period of three
years and de-reserved thereafter.
(4)
Relaxation in the upper age limit for direct recruitment should be extended to the
candidates of OBC in the same manner as done in the case of SCs and STs.

(5)

A roster system for each category of posts should be adopted by the concerned
authorities in the same manner as presently done in respect of SC and ST candidates.

These recommendations in total are applicable to all recruitment to public sector undertakings
both under the central and state governments, as also to nationalised banks.
All private sector undertakings which have received financial assistance from the government
in one form or other should also be obliged to recruit personnel on the aforesaid basis.
All universities and affiliated colleges should also be covered by the above scheme of
reservation.
Although education is considered an important factor to bring a desired social change,
educational reform was not within the terms of reference of this commission. The
commission was expected to suggest palliative measures within the existing framework.
Representation of SC/ST and OBC Employees in Government Services
Total Number of Percentage
Percentage of
Category of Employees
OBC
Employees
of SC/ST
Class-I
174043
05.68
04.69
Class-II
912786
18.81
10.63
Class- III & IV
484646
24.40
24.40
All classes
1571475
18.71
12.55
Source. Report of the Backward Classes Commission (1980), First part, p 42.
The commission suggested that there should be additional funds and framing of integrated
scheme for creating proper environment and incentives for services and purposeful studies.
To promote literacy the following measures were suggested:
(i) An intensive time-bound programme for adult education should be launched in selected
pockets with high concentration of OBC population; (ii) Residential schools should be set up
in these areas for backward class students to provide a climate specially conducive to serious
studies. All facilities in these schools including board and lodging should be provided free of
cost to attract students from poor and backward homes; (iii) Separate hostels for OBC
students with above facilities will have to be provided; (iv) Vocational training was
considered imperative.
It was recommended that seats should be reserved for OBC students in all scientific, technical
and professional institutions run by the central as well as state governments. The quantum of
reservation should be the same as in the government services, i e, 27 per cent. These states
which have already reserved more than 27 per cent seats for OBC students will remain
unaffected by these recommendations. Students of OBCs selected in reserved quota should be
given special coaching assistance.
Members of village vocational communities who want to set up small-scale industries on
their own should be given suitable institutional finance and technical assistance. And similar
assistance should be extended to those promising OSC candidates who have undergone
special vocational training. In this regard, separate financial institutions should also be
established. It was also considered imperative that all state governments should create a
separate network of financial and technical institutions to foster business and industrial
enterprise among OBC as a part of its overall strategy to uplift them.

The commission felt that a radical transformation of the existing production relations
is the most important single step that can be carried out for this welfare and upliftment of all
backward classes. The commission recommended that all state governments should be
directed to enact and implement progressive legislation.
It also suggested that a part of surplus land as a result of the operation of ceiling laws
should be allotted not only to SC and ST but also to OBC landless labourers.
The Mandal Commission recommended that all development programmes at the state
level especially designed for OBC should be financed by the central government in the same
manner and to the same extent as done in the case of SC and ST. The commission suggested
that the entire operations of its recommendations should be reviewed only after 20 years.
Although all these recommendations and suggestions are acceptable to many, there
are differences of opinion in supporting them fully. There are two major reasons for it One
arises out of total ignorance of the objectives behind such recommendations and also due to
lack of understanding of the real cause for the escalating problem of unemployment.
Reserving 27 per cent of government jobs to those who have been identified as
socially and educationally backward classes by the Mandal Commission besides the existing
22.5 per cent for SC/ST has caused a sense of fear among non-SC/ST and OBC students that
their future is doomed, all their efforts to achieve higher education will become meaningless,
and all their job opportunities are going to be usurped by SC/SI and OBC. It is to be
remembered that even if we leave all the job opportunities in open competition, the
unemployment problem is not going to be solved.
Ignoring or being ignorant of the reality, students went berserk during the antireservation agitation. unfortunately, some of them went to the extent of self-immolation. The
media and some of the political leaders eulogised and glorified such incidents instead of
condemning and discouraging them. Such incidents were portrayed as protest against
casteism and communalism. As a result, many students tried to immolate themselves. While
extending my heartfelt sympathy to those parents who lost their children in the antireservation agitation, I also question the inhuman way in which some of the innocent students
and even a few school children have been forcefully burnt by the agitating students and
named them all as acts of self- immolation against Mandal Commission recommendations.
These conscious and patriotic students never protested when innocent Sikhs and Muslims
were ruthlessly murdered, when Harijan women were raped and murdered, when a few
Harijans were forced to eat human excreta, when Harijans were killed en masse in rural areas
and when a Harijan cop was stoned to death just for taking shelter for a few minutes on the
steps of Hanuman temple.
The other arises out of a critical approach and understanding of the -justification attributed and criteria adopted to the recommendations of Mandal Commission. It is
represented by some of the intellectuals and critics of Mandal Commission. Social scientists
and intellectuals, have opposed the Mandal Commissions recommendations on the ground
that there are many technical errors in the methodology adopted for identifying the
educationally and socially backward people. They oppose it also on the ground that the
justification advanced for reserving 27 per cent government jobs for OBC is not valid. First
of all, let us see what are the criteria that the Mandal Commission adopted to come to the
conclusion that the representation of OBC employees in government services is lesser than
that of SC and ST.

Criteria furnished to central government offices for identifying OBC employees for both
Hindu and non-Hindu communities:
(a)

(b)

In respect of employees belonging to the Hindu Communities:

(i) an employee will be deemed to be socially backward if he does not belong to any
of the three twice born (Dvij) varnas, I e, he is neither a brahmin, nor a kshatriya/nor
a vaishya; and
(ii) he will be deemed to be educationally backward if neither his father nor his grandfather had studied beyond the primary level.
For non-Hindu Communities:
(i) an employee will be deemed to be socially backward if either (1) he is a convert
from those Hindu communities which have been defined as socially backward as per
para (a) (i) above, (2) in case he is not such a convert, his parental income is below
the prevalent poverty line, i e, Rs 71 per head per month.

(ii) he will be deemed to be educationally backward if neither his father nor his grandfather had studied beyond the primary level.
It may be noted, an employee will qualify for membership of OBC only if, both socially and
educationally, he is found to be backward according to the above criteria.
Of the various criteria adopted to identify the number of OBC employees in
government services, let us see criteria (a)(i) and (a)(ii) which may be called the first set of
criteria and compare them with all those three criteria (v, vi and vii) adopted to identify the
educationally-backward people which may be called the second set of criteria.
While looking at these two sets of criteria, there seems to be some technical errors in
the nature of criteria adopted for the purpose. The commission instead of finalising the list of
OBCs first and then identifying among them the number of those employed in government
services, using some criteria arbitrarily, had already finalised the list of the so-called OBC
employees in government services who may or may not fall in the category of OBC
according to the criteria adopted later by Mandal. Second, when a particular set of criteria
was adopted to decide whether or not an employee in government service is socially and
educationally backward, the same set of criteria should have been adopted to decide whether
or not an individual is socially and educationally backward. Had the commission adopted the
same set of criteria the population of OBC would not have accounted for 52 per cent. As the
proportion of OBC employees in government service is found to be less, the proportion of
OBC population would have also been less. The II criteria model adopted later by Mandal to
identify the OBC has in fact included a huge proportion of population into OBC category
which according to the first set of criteria was not part of OBC. This can be understood if we
look at the first set of criteria to identify the proportion of OBC employees in government
services. The emphasis has been placed on the educational achievements of the employees
fathers and grandfathers instead of emphasising on the employees themselves. This is needed
because the employment achievement of an individual depends directly on his/her
educational achievement and not on his/her fathers or grandfathers educational achievement
although it may contribute indirectly in the longer run.
Let us now see how far the conclusion that the representation of OBC employees in
government services is less than that of SC/ST. Table giving the details of representation of
OBC and SC/ST employees in government services indicates that the percentage of OBC
employees in Class-I and Class-Il services accounts for 04.69 and 10.63 respectively whereas
the same of SC/ST accounts for 05.68 and 18.81 respectively. It is rather unbelievable. The
OBC who had the access to start their educational career next to Brahmins but much before
the SCs and STs would definitely be having more number of educated fathers and grand-

fathers than that of the SCs and STs. In that case the number of OBC employees in
government services is bound to be much more than that of the SCs and STs. B K Roy
Burman aptly questions, can any one with intimate knowledge of the social scene in India
say that even among the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes there would be many persons
in Class-I jobs and, whose fathers or grandfathers would not have read upto primary level
(Mainstream, September 29, 1990). Then what could be the reason?
Let us see criterion number a(ii) of the first set of criteria which declares that an
employee will be deemed to be educationally backward if neither his father nor his grandfather had studied beyond the primary level. It is clear that the commission while counting
the number of OBC employees in government services has taken into consideration only
those employees whose fathers or grandfathers had not studied beyond primary level and it
has left all other employees whose fathers or grandfathers had studied beyond primary level.
This is perhaps an important reason why the proportion of OBC employees in government
services is seen to be lesser than that of SC/ST.
Let us also see the criteria adopted to determine the educational backwardness of
OBCs. While in the first set of criteria to decide whether or not an employee comes under
OBC, the educational achievement of employees fathers or grandfathers has been considered
an important criteria, and in the second set of criteria to decide whether or not the OBC
community as a whole is educationally backward or advanced the emphasis has been laid
only on the childrens educational achievement ignoring the educational status of their
parents and grandparents. The educational status of their parents and grandparents should be
given the main consideration as only such criteria can reveal the historical reasons behind
their present educational status.
The Mandal Commissions recommendations have been opposed on the ground that
the term backward classes enshrined in the Constitution under Article 340 does not imply
those whom Mandal has identified as the other backward classes. So, a clear understanding of
the meaning of the term is imperative.
The meaning attached to the term backward classes as understood in recent days,
seems to contradict the meaning attached to it during pre-independence period. For many
during pre-independence period, the term backward class was a synonym for untouchables.
Over a period of time the term has come to mean different things in different places.
The term backward classes first acquired a technical meaning in the princely state of
Mysore. Preferential recruitment. of backward communities was instituted in 1921 and they
were defined as all communities other than Brahmins, who are not adequately represented in
the public service. In 1928 the Hartog Committee defined backward classes in their glossary
as castes or classes which are educationally backward. They include the depressed classes,
aboriginals, hill tribes, and criminal tribes. The Indian central committee not only excludes
from backward classes the word depressed classes but includes in addition to tribal, some
strata of the caste population. The state committee in Bombay proposed in 1924 that a wider
group should be called backward classes which should be divided into depressed classes
(untouchables); aboriginals, and hill tribes; other backward classes (including wandering
tribes). They also noted, it should be renamed intermediate caste. According to Simon
Commission the term backward classes refers to intermediate castes.
The-United Provinces Hindu Backward Classes League founded in .1929 were of the
view 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
reluctant to, identify themselves as depressed. The league suggested the term Hindu
backward as a more suitable nomenclature. The list of 115 castes submitted included all
candidates for the untouchable category as well as a stratum above. They were described as
low socially, educationally and economically. In 1937 Travancore discarded the

nomenclature depressed classes and substituted the term backward communities to include
all educationally and economically backward communities. The term backward classes was
used in Madras to refer the strata above the untouchables. In 1934, the Madras Provincial
Backward Classes League was founded for the purpose of securing separate treatment from
the forward non-Brahmin communities. In November 1947 separate reservations were
provided for these backward Hindus in the Madras service.
It is apparent now that there was no definite meaning attached to the term backward
classes at the all-India level. Although the meaning of backward classes varied from state to
state, representatives from Madras, Mysore and Bombay by the time 9f constituent assembly
were of the opinion that the term backward classes was a distinct term with technical
meaning. Example, in Mysore the backward classes were all but Brahmins, in Madras the
backward classes were referred to a stratum of non-untouchable Hindu castes, and in Bombay
the backward classes were not only SC and ST but also others who were economically,
educationally and socially backward.
Although, there wa~ no nationwide accepted definition for the term backward class,
the term has been used in the Indian Constitution. However, as stated earlier, no where in the
Constitution, the term socially and educationally backward has been defined. Ambedkar,
the chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution, when asked about the criteria to
be followed to determine the social and educational backwardness, explained, we have left it
to be deter-, mined by each local government. A backward community is a community which
is backward in the opinion of the government As a result social scientists have come out
with varying definition of who should be and who should not be called OBC. There is no
consensus even among different state governments in this matter. While some have favoured
the definition of OBC of Mandal, some others have rejected it altogether.
I have earlier expressed the view that the term socially and educationally backward
classes (SEBC) as it appears in the Indian Constitution under Article 340 is the same as the
SC and ST and it only reflects their low position in the caste hierarchy and their educational
backwardness. I have also expressed that the OBC in practice do not like to be identified as
socially backward although they claim to be so just for some government benefits
(Mainstream, August 18, 1990, p 19). This judgment becomes more and more true in the
light of the increasing number of atrocities meted out on SC by the high castes most of whom
come under OBC category. Andre Beteille and M N Srinivas have also expressed almost
similar opinion on this issue. Andre Beteille has rightly said reservation to SC and ST are
for all their limitation directed basically towards the goal of greater equality over all.
Reservation for OBC and for religious minorities, whatever advantages they may have are
directed basically towards balance of power (The Times of India, September 11, l990).
But it does not mean that all those who have been identified as SEBC are not so.
There are castes among OBC which suffer from caste discrimination like the SC and ST.
These caste groups should not be in the list of OBC instead they should be incorporated in the
list of SC and according to the increase in the total SC population arising out of such
inclusion of new castes in the list of SC, the percentage of reservation available for SC should
be increased.
There is another aspect in the Mandal Commissions analysis of socially and
educationally backward classes which needs some modification. To understand the meaning
of the term socially and educationally backward classes better, it may be bifurcated into
two:
1. socially backward classes, 2 educationally backward classes. These terms are
applicable for both Hindu and non-Hindu communities. According to the Mandal
Commission, people belonging to socially backward classes among Hindus are those Hindus
who fall below the high castes in the caste hierarchy who are also known as the middle castes
or intermediate castes and whose economic condition needs to be improved. Obviously the

main emphasis here has been laid first on identifying those castes which are considered
socially backward and then among them the economically backward classes have been
identified. By and large, caste has been considered the important criterion to determine
individuals social backwardness. If this is taken as valid, then how can we call the Muslims,
Christians, Buddhists and other religious minorities which do not or which are not supposed
to believe in caste system socially backward? Is it because they are numerically minority? or
is it because they believe in altogether different religious faith, values and customs, or does it
mean that all the non-Hindu religions are inferior to Hindu religion? However, Mandal
treated all those among non-Hindu religions who were educationally and economically
backward as socially backward. This certainly needs modification. The term socially
backward is applicable only for those Hindus who compared to the high castes, are
considered low castes. It cannot be applicable to people belonging to non-Hindu religions.
Thus all those caste Hindus who are both educationally and economically backward according to the Mandals criteria may be called socially, educationally and economically
backward castes (SEBCt) and all those among non-Hindu religions who are both
educationally and economically backward may be called other backward classes (OBCl).
Identifying among the SEBCt and OBCl the really deserving individuals as M N Srinivas
suggested may not be an easy task in a country like ours. It is relatively easy to identify the
deserving families among SEBCt and OBCl. Identifying deserving families instead of
deserving individuals may help avoid problems like many individuals in the same family
trying to avail all the existing provisions instead of one or two individuals in every family
making use of such provisions.
There is yet another aspect of the Mandal Commissions recommendations which
needs modification, i.e. recognising caste identities in non-Hindu religions which do not
believe in caste system. Most Christians and Buddhists in India were untouchables in the
Hindu fold. They embraced non-Hindu religions mainly to get rid of the humiliating practices
of caste discrimination meted out to them by the high caste people. If this is the main cause of
embracing non-Hindu religions, then why should the government insist on caste identities in
non-Hindu religions. We can take the case of neo-Buddhists. Most of them are those who
were once untouchables. They need to identify themselves as SC to take advantage of any
government assistance although they have embraced Buddhism. We can refer the criterion
number (b)(i) of those criteria adopted by Mandal to identify the OBC employees in
government services. This seems to defeat the very purpose of untouchables renouncing
Hinduism and embracing non-Hindu religions. The better way of helping them all will be that
they all should be treated as part of the religious minorities, and among them we should identify the educationally and economically. backward families. As most of the converts (low
caste people) are economically poor and educationally backward, all of them are bound to
become the beneficiaries of those provisions extended to the non-Hindu religions/religious
minorities/OBCl.
The SEBCt and OBCl should be further divided into three categories: (1) those who
are economically backward but educationally advanced; (2) those who are educationally
backward but economically advanced; and (3) those who are both economically and
educationally backward. All these three categories should be measured taking into account
their present educational and economic status.
For those families in which most of the members are educationally advanced but
economically backward, there should be less or no percentage of reservation for admission in
educational institutions but maximum percentage of job reservation in government services.
For those families in which the per capita income of most members is very high but their
educational advancement is very low, there should be less or no job reservation but maximum
reservation f~r admission in educational institutions. And for those families which are both

educationally and economically backward, there should be maximum reservation for both
education and employment. The quantum of reservation should be decided taking into
consideration the overall socioeconomic development of the various castes and religious
communities.
CONCLUSION
The government should make a national level survey immediately and list out all the
caste groups including that of the forward castes, and their socio-economic and educational
status. The survey should take note of all the technical errors found in the various criteria
adopted by Mandal and formulate more rational criteria and scientific approach towards
identifying the really deserving people within the castes and communities of each stratum of
our society.
The survey should not mix the socially,
educationally and economically backward castes (SEBCt) with the other backward classes of
non-Hindu religions, i e, the religious minorities (OBCl). After finalising the list of SEBCt
and OBCl, we should find out the proportion of SEBCt and OBCl employees in government
services. The quantum of reservation should be finalised only after undertaking this exercise
and understanding the magnitude of the problem of each caste and communities. For those
who are economically well-off but educationally backward, there should be reservation for
education. For those who are educationally advanced but economically backward there
should be reservation for employment. And for those who are both educationally and
economically backward there should be reservation for both education and employment.
Pointing out the various technical errors and limitations of the recommendations of
Mandal Commission, as we have discussed so far, is not an effort to oppose the move
directed towards uplifting the OBC, instead it is an attempt to make such efforts more
rational, just and logical which in turn could avoid all possible criticism against such a move
in future.
Whatever be the criticism advanced against the recommendations of Mandal
Commission, none can question its objective of uplifting those sections which are really
backwardbackward in terms of their educational and economic achievements.
It is difficult obviously to accept the logic of giving admission in educational institutions and
jobs in government services to students/candidates who are relatively less qualified in terms
of required marks/experience, and not doing the same to students/candidates who are
relatively more qualified. To understand the meaning of this logic, we should go beyond
merely looking at the marks, experience of the concerned students or candidates. We should
not ask a sweepers son to compete with a professors son to judge the competence of these
two students. There is equality only among equals. To equate unequals is to perpetuate
inequality
Economic and Political Weekly, June 6, 1992, pp.1203-1207.