[ad_1]
As Satish Deshpande points out in ‘Historic with a small h’ (IE, October 4), caste counts and it must be enumerated for an honest appraisal of the social inequalities that confront India. As he says, caste is the most important regulator of life chances. Honest counting is, therefore, needed to combat social inequalities. But I doubt whether the politics of caste allows such honest counting and appraisal of social inequalities.
Serious scrutiny of the political discourse in the country reveals that while samata or social equality is good rhetoric to mobilise votes, it also contributes to the consolidation of power in political dynasties. These dynasties have gained and consolidated their power by appealing to caste and communal sentiments.
The Constitutional provision for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class citizens was based on the Gandhi-Ambedkar compromise that relied on proportional representation as the path to empowerment. The hope was that such a strategy of representation would somehow trigger widespread social mobility because the beneficiaries of reservations would act as role models for other members of their communities, instil in them a sense of self-respect, kindle their aspirations for a better life and open up opportunities for upward social mobility.
Unfortunately, experience shows that the anticipated demonstration effects have not worked in the desired fashion. The politics of caste-based reservation has taken a new turn. Creamy layers within the OBC, SC and ST categories have consolidated their hold over the benefits of reservations. This is, perhaps, the reason for the demands from the more oppressed and deprived marginal castes and subcastes for special quotas within broader reservation categories.
That is why there are demands for inclusion from castes and communities that are left out and for reclassification to the SC or ST category from some castes that find the competition in the OBC category disadvantageous. That is why we still hear reports of atrocities perpetrated on Dalits and vulnerable castes.
The demand for reservations from even dominant castes who operate the levers of power (in states if not at the level of the Centre) offers a clue to the formation of creamy layers whose members do not allow the benefits of reservations to trickle down to the deprived sections. Even the bible of the Backward Classes movement — the Mandal Commission — had accumulated evidence that pointed to the formation of creamy layers within the SC category. An honest appraisal of social inequality and a proper strategy to combat it require closer scrutiny of this phenomenon of creamy layer formation.
Creamy layers are formed because castes and communities that have been the early beneficiaries of reservations can build powerful social and cultural capital to monopolise the privileges to which they are entitled. This early bird syndrome accentuates the disadvantages of the latecomer castes and communities within the reserved categories. The distinguished Harvard scholar, Suraj Yengde, has bemoaned this phenomenon among Dalits and argued that the more successful Dalits have subverted the larger cause of social justice.
Sociologists point out that the formation of a creamy layer and the consequent class differentiation is a universal phenomenon. But in India, it becomes more pernicious because of the institution of the family. Sociologist Andre Beteille once made a prescient and sharp comment that Indian intellectuals who become proud anti-caste warriors and condemn the institution of caste do not even acknowledge the role of family and kinship in sharpening social and economic inequalities.
Most Read
Kinship ties and reverence to familial dharma valourise what in the West is termed nepotism. Nepotism is about favouring nephews but in India all members of the family become important. That is why the Indian tradition of valourising the family is stronger and more durable. Politicians enhance their public credibility by touching the feet of their mothers. A radical solution to social inequality in India, therefore, requires that the battle against caste be stretched to the battle against the institution of the Indian family. When politicians and public servants deviate from their oath and prioritise familial obligations at the cost of public interest, it is accepted as a normal, if not expected, behaviour. There are instances galore of wives, brothers and children of politicians making spectacular gains in business and real estate exploiting
the social capital to which they gain access. That is why dynasties are prominent
in all spheres of social, economic and
political life.
The politics of caste, including the latest discourse on the counting of castes, diverts attention from the more difficult task of building and nurturing public institutions, especially in education and health sectors. In one of its early reports, the Knowledge Commission, constituted by the UPA government, pointed out that India is woefully short of such institutions, both in terms of numbers and quality. In recent years, private universities and professional institutions have proliferated. Unfortunately, because engaging in caste politics gives richer rewards, our policymakers and politicians tend to neglect and, thereby, contribute to the general trend of decline in the quality of our public institutions.
The politics of equality requires the dismantling of institutions that perpetuate elitism. But here is the contradiction — building and sustaining public institutions requires a certain degree of cultural pride that leans towards elitism.
The writer taught at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi
[ad_2]
