Caste census and the 1B puzzle

Karnataka’s Socio-Economic & Educational Survey—referred to as the caste census—is a much-needed justice mechanism to correct the existing hierarchy of disproportionate birth-based access to privileges and resources.

Yet, ironically, public debate around the survey has largely focused on relatively peripheral matters, such as the numerical strength of the Lingayat-Vokkaliga communities or about who was or wasn’t surveyed.

It is necessary to examine why and how the survey introduces a new ‘1B’ category within the Other Backward Classes (OBC) classifications, despite no historical precedent for such a grouping. Notably, this new group includes a politically influential community, Kurubas--that of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and former Karnataka State Permanent Backward Classes Commission head H Kantharaju--and appears to assign it a disproportionately high degree of backwardness and reservation. Under the Constitution, state governments are empowered to include or exclude communities from the state OBC list in accordance with a backward classes commission report.

Until the survey was formally placed before the Karnataka cabinet on April 11, the 1B sub-classification did not exist. The Justice O Chinnappa Reddy Commission Report (1990), which came into effect in 1994, provided sub-classifications for the OBCs on the basis of categorisations 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B — ranking communities based on degrees of socio-economic and educational disadvantage. For instance, Category 1 comprised the most backward groups, arguably on par with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs) in terms of disadvantage but without social stigmatisation. More backward communities were placed in 2A, while the Muslims, Vokkaligas, and Lingayats were placed in 2B, 3A, and 3B, respectively.

While regrouping these communities on the basis of individual socio-economic-educational development or lack thereof is necessary, it must be done objectively and scientifically. However, the introduction of a new ‘1B’ category in the current survey—beginning on page 118 of the report— raises several concerns on this front. The category lists 80 communities, many of which were previously classified under either Group 1 (Hallaki Wakkaliga, Devadasi, Handigolla, etc.) or Group 2A (Kuruba, Madivala, Kumbara, etc.). The basis on which these communities have been grouped together— whether ethnographic, socio-economic, or otherwise—is unclear.

It is worth asking whether the Hallakki Wakkaligas (often argued to merit ST status), Devadasis (who have historically faced exploitation), or Handigollas (who remain backward across several indicators) can reasonably be grouped with relatively dominant and larger communities such as Kurubas. This juxtaposition will dilute the intended benefits for the most disadvantaged. The numerical and representational implications of this classification are striking.

The 1B categorisation, with a population of 73,97,313, is recommended to receive a 12% reservation, whereas the 2A category, with a larger population of 77,78,209, is recommended a 10% reservation. On what basis does 1B get 2% more reservation than 2A in spite of having nearly four lakh less population? This indicates that population is not the basis for reservations, while it should be. Then, what criteria are being applied? Has a separate indicator of backwardness been used in the context of 1B—and if so, on what ethnographic basis?

Moreover, the 1B categorisation has not only taken 5% reservations from the 2A pool, which previously had 15%, but it has also increased its pool by 7% to take its total to 12%. What is the rationale behind this seemingly disproportionate increase in reservations for the 1B category?

An equally important question arises: in the 35 years since the Chinnappa Reddy Commission submitted its report, have no communities shown enough progress in socio-economic and educational terms to merit a change in classification—or even removal—from the OBC list?

Importantly, the survey—while it has taken cognisance of primary sources such as the Kantharaju Commission Report—appears to have failed to consider secondary sources in its final recommendations. Secondary sources which interpret the primary sources include academic articles, news reports, books, documentaries, and reports dealing with OBC representation in jobs and education. This omission weakens the credibility of its findings. In particular, the justification for the separate categorisation and elevated reservation share for the Kuruba community requires greater transparency.

The primary flaw with the survey is not the numbers of the Lingayats and Vokkaligas but the questionable rationale behind the creation of the 1B category and the privileges assigned thereof. This raises legitimate concerns about whether political influence has shaped outcomes that ought to be based solely on empirical evidence and social justice.

(The writer is an actor and activist)