Karnataka: Will panel consider public employment while revising backward classes' list?

Bengaluru: The Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes (KSCBC) is under pressure to consider representation in public employment as a criterion while revising the list of backward classes. 

According to section 11 of the KSCBC Act, the government has to revise the backward classes’ list once in 10 years to ensure that classes which have “ceased to be” backward classes are excluded and “new” backward classes are included.

The primary intention of the social and educational survey is to revise the BCs’ list.

The commission will study the primary data collected during the survey and the secondary data on the representation of different caste groups in government employment and formulate criteria to determine backwardness. 

Havanur criteria

Fixing such criteria has always been a point of contention. The debate goes back to the 1970s, when the L G Havanur commission prepared two separate lists for backwardness. 

The first was based on social and educational backwardness — Article 15(4). This list comprised 15 ‘backward communities’, 128 ‘backward castes’ and 62 ‘backward tribes’. 

Communities that were not socially and educationally backward were deemed ‘not backward’ and not even considered for the second list.

Those communities categorised as ‘backward’ in first list were then subjected to a second round of scrutiny.

Here, the population percentage of each caste/community was subtracted from the representation percentage of each caste/community in government jobs (Groups A, B & C). 

If the result was positive, the community was considered “over-represented,” and removed from the list.

When the commission considered the Agasa community, its population in 1972 was 3.55 lakh (1.18% of the state’s total).

The percentage of government employees was 0.7. Then, 0.7-1.18=-0.48. Thus, the Agasa community was considered underrepresented and retained as backward class. 

The Havanur commission removed 20 communities from the BCs’ list. This includes Rajputs, Arasus (Urs) and Ganigas.

The final list had 9 ‘backward communities,’ 115 ‘backward’ castes and 61 ‘backward tribes’.

An expert that DH spoke to confirmed that this method was scientific.

Multiple sources associated with previous commissions told DH that considering employment indicators could potentially exclude powerful communities from the BCs’ list. 

Criticism

Critics have slammed the H Kantharaj and Jayaprakash Hegde-led backward class commissions, saying they considered backwardness only under Article 15(4) and not Article 16(4).

A source associated with the Hegde commission argued that they had considered backwardness under Article 16(4), though he acknowledged that certain “practical” decisions had to be made.

The source explained that it was difficult to remove castes from the backward classes list based on representation in public employment since some sub-castes had received more opportunities than others. 

“If the commission had removed sub-castes based on public employment representation, it would’ve been criticised for dividing castes”.

Meeting

A few weeks ago, former backward class commission chairpersons including Ravivarma Kumar and C S Dwarakanath, met incumbent chairman of the backward classes’ commission Madhusudan R Naik and its members.

DH has reliably learnt that the experts are said to have suggested that the aspect of over- or under-representation in public employment was crucial while preparing the BCs’ list.