Mandal’s True Inheritors

Reservations should go to MBCs, not OBCs

By Chandra Bhan Prasad

A quarter of a century has passed since the Mandal report was submitted to the president on December 30, 1980. Since then, tonnes of newsprint and plenty of air time have been consumed debating Mandal. But rarely do we confront a basic question — why did L R Naik, the only Dalit member in the Mandal Commission, refuse to sign the Mandal recommendations?
While submitting his report, chairman of the commission B P Mandal wrote to the president on why the commission could not arrive at a consensus, and referred to L R Naik’s note of dissent. That letter forms the inaugural part of the report. How could V P Singh ignore the very first page of the report, which refers to Naik and his note of dissent, while posing as a crusader for social justice?
During the Mandal controversy, the Congress only mildly opposed the report, saying it was not properly debated. Its think tank knew of Naik’s thesis, but didn’t raise it openly. Clearly, V P Singh and Congress had similar political compulsions. Fifteen years have passed since Mandal was implemented in August 1990, but neither the Left and nor the Bharatiya Janata Party talk of Naik’s thesis. Cutting across party lines, all are afraid of discussing his observations.
Naik said that OBCs were made up of two large social blocks — landowning OBCs whom he describes as intermediate backward classes, and artisan OBCs whom he describes as depressed backward classes. According to Naik, intermediate backward classes or upper OBCs (Yadavas, Kurmis, Jats, among others) are relatively powerful, while depressed backward classes, or most backward classes (MBCs), remain economically marginalised. He argued for splitting the Mandal quota into two in order to safeguard interests of MBCs, as he feared that upper OBCs would monopolise Mandal jobs.
Naik said this 25 years back when the nation did not know of Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav or Nitish Kumar. Today, most states are ruled by upper OBCs, who have evolved into lords of the countryside. People have a fair idea of upper OBC affluence and political power. But who are MBCs and where are they situated in the caste hierarchy? Of this, people are less aware. As traditional service and artisan castes, MBCs are spread all over India. In fact, there can rarely be a village without MBC castes.
With the introduction of modern farm equipment, blacksmiths have become irrelevant. Modern kitchenware did the same to
potters. Has anyone seen palanquins in contemporary India? Only a century back, several hundred thousand people belonging to a caste called Kanhar shouldered this human-powered transport. What happened to them? What happened to Noniyas, the traditional earth movers? Has anyone seen traditional oil-pressing tools in recent times? With motorised oil presses, the bullock driven tool has disappeared. Hundreds of such professions disappeared with the arrival of machines and modernity. What happened to the people involved in those professions?
Traditional artisan and service provider castes called MBCs form more than 50 per cent of the OBC population. With the disappearance of their trades, most of them turned agricultural labourers. In most indices of development, they often fare worse than Dalits. Since they are spread all over India, and divided into so many smaller caste groups, they do not become electorally decisive in any assembly or parliamentary constituency. MBCs have neither political leadership nor any lobby in business or the intellectual world.
Unlike MBCs, upper OBCs are traditional peasant castes, who have now turned into landowning castes. They control most of the countryside’s wealth and institutions. As masters in booth management, upper OBCs control politics at the grass roots, which is reflected in the composition of state assemblies and Parliament. OBCs invest least in
education of their children and block their money in immovable assets.
They need a social movement, not reservations. Naik advocated the cause of voiceless MBCs a quarter century ago and demanded splitting of Mandal quota into two to safeguard their interests. In 2006, justice demands that upper OBCs be expelled from the Mandal list, as MBCs are the truest inheritors of Mandal quotas.
V P Singh refused to buy Naik’s thesis because his eyes were on the powerful upper OBC vote bank. He spoke of social justice but quashed hopes of MBCs. The intelligentsia, which harps on social justice, too stood with upper OBCs, leaving MBCs to their fate. Fifteen years after V P Singh’s assault on social justice, the Congress-led UPA government is going down the same path.
Congress seems to have decided to be the upper OBC party of India. Or else, upper OBCs have blackmailed the UPA government. It is time that the nation got together to redefine the very meaning of social justice. How can the country treat MBCs as social orphans just because they are not a political force? The anti-Mandal lobby gained in legitimacy simply because Mandal went the wrong way.
It is in that sense that Mandal hurts even Dalits. Much of the anti-Mandal steam will evaporate once Mandal is handed over to MBCs — its truest inheritors.

The writer is an ideologue on Dalit issues.

Source: The Times of India 12th April, 2006