Abhay Kumar
(THE ASIAN INDEPENDENT UK)- The recent Supreme Court’s decision favouring sub-categorization within SC reservation is “disappointing,” says Ambedkarite scholar and Dalit rights activist Dr. Umakant in interview conducted by Abhay Kumar in New Delhi on Saturday (August 3).
Explaining his view, Dr. Umakant said that reservation was given to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) with the realization that due to socio-educational and cultural backwardness, certain communities had remained outside the mainstream. However, the problem with the anti-reservation mindset, according to him, is that it often tries to find fault with the reservation policy itself, instead of making efforts to address issues in its implementation.
As Dr. Umakant asked, “One should seriously think whether the problem is with the reservation policy per se or the problem lies with the faulty implementation of the reservation policy.”
Dr. Umakant holds a Ph.D. from the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, and is a founding member of the UDSF (United Dalit Students’ Forum). The UDSF was formed in JNU on December 6, 1991, on Mahaparinirvan Diwas (the death anniversary) of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
As the UDSF defines itself, it is a “socio-cultural organization” inspired by “Phule-Ambedkarite ideology.” The UDSF has been a vocal student organization for the last three decades, raising the issue of students coming from “marginalized social groups.” Under the banner of the UDSF, Dr. Umakant as a student activist of JNU has led several legal campaigns and movements against anti-reservation forces.
Based on his study and struggles, Dr. Umakant has come to believe that the real problem lies with the implementation of the reservation policy, which has not shown good results for the large number of people who have still remained outside the fold of reservation benefits. That is why Dr. Umakant strongly believes that the solution to such a problem is not weakening reservation but removing the faulty procedures in its implementation.
He, therefore, expressed his disappointment that instead of addressing the loopholes in the implementation, the reservation policy is being attacked, and the wrong approach is being taken to justify sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Dr. Umakant did not deny the fact that there was differentiation within the SC community. But the bigger question, according to him, was the selection of the right method to sub-categorize the reservation. He, therefore, questioned, “How would one reclassify [castes] within the SC and ST community? On what basis will it be done?”
Dr. Umakant categorically denied that any economic criteria could be applied to reclassify the [SC & ST] communities. “No. There is no provision in the Constitution to give reservation based on economic criteria.”
When asked to substantiate why he called the SC judgment on the sub-categorization “disappointing,” Dr. Umakant said that “the Supreme Court judgment is disappointing because the Supreme Court is leaving it blank on the ground on which such a re-classification would take place. The Court is asking the states to initiate the process of re-classification.”
Dr. Umakant, who has co-authored a widely-cited book, Caste, Race and Discrimination: Discourses in International Context (2004) along with former UGC Chairman Prof. Sukhdeo Thorat, raised the issue that under Article 341 of the Constitution, Parliament had only the power to reclassify the castes and tribes within the SC and ST community. According to him, states had no role in it, but the Supreme Court judgment is now leaving the matter to the states.
On the judgment of the Supreme Court, Dr. Umakant said the language used by the honourable judges in the case was “very patronizing.” “While reading the judgment, I felt that a deliberate attempt was made to prove the point that states have the right to re-classify.”
He claimed that the spirit in which the judgment was written was “not fair at all.” As he argued, “It is very unfair. You are blaming those who have already received the benefits of reservation, and you want to keep them out now so that others can have opportunities to avail the benefits of reservation. That is a wrong way of looking at reservations.”
During his interview, he also questioned the legality of EWS reservation and expressed disappointment that the unreserved category, which is open to every caste and community, has been monopolized by minority sections from a few upper castes. However, the irony, according to him, is that the concept of the creamy layer is being imposed on the marginalized communities instead of the upper castes.
During his interview, Dr. Umakant attacked the idea of a “creamy layer” within the marginalized communities, including SC and ST communities. Thus, he called it a “bogus concept” and “atrocious” policy.
Explaining this, he said, “Instead of properly implementing the reservation policy, an argument is being made that there is a creamy layer [within the SC and ST communities], and it needs to be removed. If that is the way to look at the problem, then it is highly problematic. That is why I am saying that it is a highly disappointing judgment because instead of looking at the problem and finding a solution, the court has once again failed as it has in the past.”
Dr. Umakant is also pained to note that the language of the court is highly “demeaning,” “sermonizing,” and “patronizing” as if “the wretched of the earth are being bestowed with so many things by the privileged castes.”
Dr. Umakant, whose book on anti-Dalit violence, particularly in Bihar in the 1980s and 1990s, is forthcoming, said that the upper-caste mentality had often spoken in a language that the reservation given to the marginalized castes was all due to their [upper caste] charity. He said upper-caste discourse often hides the fact that reservation is ensured by the Constitution to achieve “parity” and is not based on “charity.”
Dr. Umakant alleged that the upper castes, instead of accepting the principle of human dignity and equality, expect Dalits and Adivasis to feel great about reservation because it was given in charity by upper castes and the proposed policy of sub-categorization was to rectify the wrongs. As he argued, “If one approaches the problem with an upper-caste mentality, it becomes very patronizing because the tone and tenor themselves are highly patronizing that upper castes are doing a great service to marginalized castes by rectifying the problem in reservation.”
On the fear of a creamy layer being introduced in SC and ST reservations, Dr. Umakant said that the way the creamy layer issue has been talked about in the judgment was very “demeaning.” As he put it, “The judge who has talked about the creamy layer [says] those beneficiaries of the reservation who have already benefited, they do not want to give up things, and their mentality is like a ‘general-compartment’ mentality.”
In popular idiom, ‘general compartment’ mentality refers to a hypothetical situation in which a passenger, who has earlier struggled hard to secure a seat in a crowded coach on an Indian railway, later pushes out others to get a seat in the coach. Please note that such an example is used in the upper-caste discourse to identify a few castes among the marginalized community as “usurpers” of reservation benefits and shed “tears” for the less-represented members of marginalized communities.
However, such a discourse misses out the bigger picture of the overrepresentation of a few upper castes in jobs, education, business, media and cultural centres. Such a discourse hardly discusses the government’s failure to fulfil Constitutionally mandated reservations for the marginalized castes.
For more, watch the interview in two parts here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfBtvfT49Ek&t=1180s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Bzkh7ryCs&t=39s
Dr. Abhay Kumar is an independent journalist. He is interested in social justice and minority rights. Email: debatingissues@gmail.com
