People's Democracy

Milking Intellectual Backwardness?

P M S Grewal

DR Dipankar Gupta’s article ‘Milking Backwardness’ in Hindustan Times dated August 28, 2006 seeks to demolish the justifiability of reservations for OBCs. His basic premise is that OBCs are neither marginalised nor socially persecuted. Instead, they "are among the economically and socially advanced sections in rural India” and “were and continue to be the worst perpetrators of caste atrocities in rural India.” From here he proceeds to damn the Mandal commission report for giving "least weight to economic criteria and the most to intangible social criteria" thereby serving the interests of affluent "caste oppressors". Finally, he attacks the stand favouring exclusion of the "creamy layer" among OBCs from reservation benefits as being naive and unrealisable. Each of these contentions is highly questionable.

The bulk of OBCs and MBCs (most backward classes) belong to the rural poor and are sharecroppers, small tenants or poor peasants with small land holdings. Further, in rural areas they are in occupations, which are still based on the traditional caste hierarchy such as dhobis, barbers, cattle-rearers, weavers and other artisans. Their lowly caste status has historically prevented their entry into education and new occupations. Many of the OBCs are from non-dwijya, shudra castes, which have suffered socio-economic discrimination and oppression over a long period of time, the intensity of which has been next only to that suffered by the STs and SCs. These are facts, confirmed not just by the Mandal Report but also by the reports of the Havanur commission in Karnataka (1975), the backward classes commission in Tamil Nadu (1971), the backward classes reservation commission in Kerala (1971), the socially and educationally backward classes commission in Gujarat (1976) and the backward classes commission in Andhra Pradesh (1970). 

Recent government statistics also bear out the reality of deprivation faced by the majority of the OBCs. According to the 55th round of the national sample survey (NSS) for 1999-2000 and the second national family health survey (NFHS) of 1998-99 the proportions of agricultural and manual labourers among STs, SCs, OBCs and others were 75 percent, 68 percent, 61 percent and 47 percent respectively. The proportion of rural households with no literate adult female in 1999-2000 was 74.5 percent for STs, 72.4 percent for SCs, 63 percent for OBCs and 44.9 percent for others. These inequalities persist in urban areas as well. The ratio of rural people, 20 years or older, with at least higher secondary was 4.9 percent for STs, 5.3 percent for SCs and 7 percent for OBCs as against 13.4 percent for others. In urban areas, only 18.3 percent OBCs had 12 or more years of education as against 36.7 percent of others, the figures for SCs being even lower at 13.2 percent. The findings of the above surveys and studies rebut Dr Gupta’s claims both about the socio-economic conditions of the OBCs and his insidious attempt to portray the likes of Sadhu Yadav as being archetypes of all the OBCs.

Dr Gupta’s claim about OBCs being the worst perpetrators of caste atrocities is false. He has conveniently overlooked the dominant role of upper castes in perpetrating caste atrocities. Bihar is one state where caste atrocities occur with deadly regularity. The infamous Ranvir Sena in Bihar, which has the goriest record of organised casteist violence and oppression against the dalits, is led by and primarily composed of Brahmins, Thakurs and Bhumihars. Facts about caste atrocities from other states also largely reveal a similar picture. Dr Gupta’s omission on this count amounts to whitewashing this heinous role of casteist oppressors and criminals belonging to the upper castes. 

This is not to argue that OBCs never perpetrate caste atrocities. Six decades of development of capitalism since independence have led to class differentiation within the caste structure. This has led to the emergence in some OBCs, in different states, of influential strata that own land and other means of production, besides being well represented in the political power structure as well. It is primarily these strata of OBCs, which indulge in caste atrocities against the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. To club the poor and socially deprived among the OBCs with the affluent and oppressive sections among them and then damn them all, as Dr Gupta has done, is to fly in the face of facts and do grave injustice to the vast majority of these castes.

Dr Gupta believes that the Mandal commission sinned by giving least weightage to economic criteria in defining modalities for determining backwardness. The economic criteria laid down by the Mandal commission Report favour castes/classes: which mainly depend on manual labour for livelihood; whose average family assets are at least 25 percent below the state average; among whom families living in kachcha houses are at least 25 percent above the state average; more than 50 percent of whose households depend on sources of drinking water that are beyond half a kilometre and consumption loans taken by whom are at least 25 percent above the state average. The Mandal commission had also noted that, "unless the production relations are radically altered through structural changes and progressive land reforms implemented rigorously all over the country, OBCs will never become truly independent. In view of this, highest priority should be given to radical reforms by all the states." Dr. Gupta has chosen to ignore all this as it undermines his assertion about economic criteria having been virtually ignored by the Mandal commission.

However, what is more pertinent is the fact that any attempt at redressing social discrimination and backwardness in India cannot afford to ignore existing social realities and harp on economic criteria being the sole basis for identifying its beneficiaries, as Dr Gupta does. This amounts to turning a blind eye to the myriad social oppressions and the resultant deprivation and backwardness that afflict a huge proportion of especially the rural masses. As a sociologist Dr. Gupta ought to know that social backwardness in India is a direct consequence of the position of the individual/community in the caste hierarchy. A big section of the OBCs face the double burden of economic exploitation and social oppression. This includes OBCs from non-Hindu religious denominations as well. Besides being a weapon of social oppression, caste is also used as a means for consolidating class exploitation and has a major role in controlling labour power as well as maximizing its expropriation. Most sociologists have made a living by treating caste as the only valid category for social analysis and deprecated any attempt to make a class analysis of Indian society and its dynamics. That they have suddenly discovered the relevance of economic factors or class and are using it as a means to oppose a small attempt at affirmative action for the victims of social oppression and backwardness speaks volumes about their intellectual honesty and caste/class biases.

Dr Gupta considers the Left's position for exclusion of affluent or "creamy layer" of the OBCs from benefits of reservation to be untenable and impractical on the grounds that it will be scuttled by OBC politicians belonging to ruling class parties who are united in their opposition to it. By this logic the Left should not oppose the neo-liberal policies of the government either, as there is a virtual consensus in favour of them among parties outside the Left! 

Among the Left, the CPI(M) alone favours exclusion of the "creamy layer". This position is based on recognition of class differentiation among the OBCs and the consequent emergence among them of an affluent and politically powerful strata, which does not deserve benefits from any step for affirmative action. In order to see that the poor, more backward and deprived as distinct from the affluent, developed and empowered of these communities benefit from reservation, the CPI(M) supports the application of economic criteria within OBCs for determining their eligibility for reservation. That Dr Gupta has problems even with this position clearly implies that he is opposed to any form of reservations for the OBCs.

Dr Gupta has stated that his analysis of the condition of OBCs in rural India is based entirely on his interactions with ruling class OBC politicians and his impressions about migrant urban dwellers coming from OBC sections. Using this as a basis he has gone on to claim that the Left has no idea about the realities of rural India. The boot is actually on the other foot. Dr Gupta's views sadly represent a sample of the ivory tower elitist intellectualism that permeates much of higher academia in the country today.