Politics of backwardness

A former chief minister of Karnataka once told me that caste was a key element of the state politics and that cannot be ignored. That was in response to a question I had asked him about the selection to a high-level post of a certain officer whose credentials were questionable. Present Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa’s action in creating numerous caste-based bodies only reconfirms the dominant role played by caste in the politics and administration of the state.

It is pertinent to recall that the erstwhile princely state of Mysore was a pioneer in taking affirmative action in favour of the backward sections of society. Over a century ago, in 1918, then Maharaja of Mysore Nalwadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar set up a committee to enquire into the grievances of non-Brahmins regarding inadequate representation in state services.

The committee in its report considered backwardness more on the basis of ‘caste’ than on economic criteria and classified all non-Brahmins as ‘backward’. No doubt, Brahmins at that time enjoyed a predominant share in government positions. The Maharaja accepted and implemented the report despite opposition from none other than M Visvesaraya, who resigned from his position as Dewan of Mysore on this issue.

There was an undercurrent of conflict between the two dominant communities of Lingayats and Vokkaligas, the latter suspicious of the former who were numerically larger. The dominance of these two communities has continued till this day.

During the last 72 years since independence, among the 22 leaders who have donned the mantle of the chief minister of Karnataka, nine have been Lingayats and six Vokkaligas, together accounting for 68%. The remaining seven have been shared between backward castes (5) and Brahmins (2). It is significant, though sad, that no person from scheduled caste or tribe has ever adorned the chair of the chief minister.

The constitution enables the state to make provision “for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens” (Article 15(4)) and “to reserve vacancies in public service”(Art 16(4)). In Karnataka, the first Backward Classes Commission was set up as far back as 1972 under the chairmanship of L G Havanur and it was followed by two more commissions in 1983 and 1988.The Commission has now been made a permanent body with the chairman and members enjoying a term of five years.

A Backward Classes Development Corporation was established in 1977 and a separate department of backward classes was carved out of the social welfare department. All these bodies are aimed at ameliorating the welfare of the backward classes and they are allocated funds every year in the state budget.

The question then is why is there a mad race for setting up separate bodies for different castes which are already covered under backward classes? Three factors seem to lie behind this: 1) certain castes might nurse the feeling that they are still being ignored and have not derived the benefits they aspired for; 2) a strong sense of identity and desire to have an organisation that can attend exclusively to its awn causes; and, 3) a political leadership willing to consider their demand.

The first could be attributed to the feeling of inequality. The hierarchy of the system of castes and sub-castes is still a strong part of our social system. The crux of the matter lies in caste politics which may be translated as vote bank politics with an eye on retaining or capturing power. And this is what seems to have prompted Yediyurappa to create the Maratha Development Board to woo voters in the upcoming byelection in Basavakalyan.

The decision not only triggered a protest with a threatened bandh on December 5 but a chain reaction resulting in the creation of a series of caste-based organisations. The most vociferous demand came from the chief minister’s own community and he was quick to oblige, setting up the Veerashaiva-Lingayat Development Corporation with a magnanimous funding of Rs 500 crore.

Not surprisingly, this has been followed by a demand for Vokkaliga Development Corporation which in all likelihood will be conceded. People would be justified in asking questions about the need for such new organisations, that too at a time when we are in the midst of a severe health crisis and are short of resources forcing the government to resort to borrowing to the tune of Rs 33,000 crore.

It may appear strange that increasingly, the demand for more privileges are coming from caste groups considered as ‘forward’ rather than those that are really backward. It is relevant to recall that the second BC Commission headed by Venkataswamy, a retired district judge, had recommended that both Lingayats and Vokkaligas be deleted from the list of OBCs.

This was accepted by the government but the strong agitation by both the communities ensured that they were back on the backward list. A similar fate awaited the report of the third BC Commission chaired by Justice O Chinnappa Reddy who had produced one of the finest works on the subject.

Going forward, what is important is to establish accountability of the various bodies associated with the welfare of backward classes. The BC Commission is mandated to conduct surveys on the social and educational status of the citizens of the state and recommend to the government necessary measures for their amelioration.

What action has been taken by the government on the reports of the previous commissions? The Devaraj Urs Backward Classes Development Corporation is charged with the task of promoting the economic and development activities for the backward classes.

What has been the impact of their activities? In what way will the newly set up bodies differ from the existing ones and how will overlapping be avoided? These are some of the questions that become relevant at this stage. The citizens of the state have a right to demand a white paper on the subject.

(The writer is former Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka)