Subsequently, the Indian state also launched the world’s most extensive affirmative action program (referred to as ‘positive discrimination’) designed to bring redress for more than a millennial-span of discrimination. Later, in 1993, it attempted to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission Report of 1980 which had called for sweeping reservations in government employment quotas for the socially-disadvantaged castes.
These efforts to bring about social change through constitutional design and enabling legislation did not prove to be a panacea in addressing this social ill. Still, coupled with powerful social movements during the 1960s, in several of India’s southern states, most notably in Tamil Nadu, a virtual non-violent social revolution took place, dramatically challenging sacerdotal authority.
The arc of that movement, for complex sociological reasons, did not include much of northern India. Caste prejudice proved to be deeply entrenched and inscriptive identities far more resilient in those areas. In fact, the Mandal Commission Report, while well meaning, actually triggered a significant social and political backlash as it threatened the long-held privileges of many.
The movement did increase, along with the political participation of lower castes at the ballot box, the power of the hitherto marginalised. In turn, a host of state legislatures became far more representative of the citizenry of these states. Sadly, once in office, many elected officials proved to be populist leaders at best and utterly venal individuals at worst. They seemed more interested in the perquisites of office rather than the amelioration of the lot of the downtrodden. Many of their ardent followers who had reposed a great faith in their leadership steadily saw their hopes and dreams of social change dashed. Once again they turned to the ballot box to express their discontent.
One prime example of such change came about in 2005 in Bihar, one ofIndia’s most impoverished states, with a population of 90 million. After 15 years of rank misrule under a low-caste leader, Laloo Prasad Yadav, the voters resoundingly ousted him from office. The new chief minister, Nitish Kumar, who did not make caste a central platform issue, won with a respectable margin. But in 2010 he dramatically transformed his electoral performance, stressing economic growth and governance. Consequently, though caste remains a critical factor in politics, it is not impossible to escape its stranglehold.
Despite the political advances that lower castes have made they have not been equally successful in achieving substantial socio-economic progress. In considerable part this stems from the terrible legacy of widespread discrimination, the fragmentation of caste-based appeals, limited access to primary education and, of course, populist but insincere leadership. In addition to these hurdles, the practice of affirmative action inIndiahas ironically reified caste. Caste-based quotas have generated considerable hostility from members of higher castes especially when the designated slots remain vacant for years thanks to the unavailability of qualified candidates. Worse still, recent demands for extending such reservations for lower castes to the private sector have generated further resentment and anger.
Will this uniquely Indian dilemma continue to stalk the land indefinitely? If politicians, regardless of caste, continue to embrace existing policies in the quest for electoral advantage, the prospects of significant socio-economic transformation will remain weak. If they can devise more imaginative policies then this ‘mind forged manacle’, to borrow that evocative expression from William Blake, might be broken.
What might some of these policies entail? Instead of the mechanical application of caste status it may be more productive and beneficial to extend the benefits of school, university and employment quotas in a manner based upon need. Such a policy shift could have two important advantages. First, it could address the plight ofIndia’s economically disadvantaged citizenry regardless of their caste background. Since a significant segment ofIndia’s poor is composed of low-caste individuals, they would stand to benefit from a needs-based approach to affirmative action. Second, the move away from caste-based reservations would steadily erode the significance of caste and thereby reduce its social salience.
Obviously, no social policy can be a universal panacea. Given that a system that has been implemented for over six decades has only generated mixed results at best, and perverse ones at worst, it may indeed be a moment to re-visit the fundamental assumptions undergirding one of India’s key social policies.
Sumit Ganguly, Professor of Political Science, holds the Rabindranath Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations at Indiana University, Bloomington.