Caste Based Reservation Policy in India

 Despite the fact that India is the world's largest democracy, the caste system has resulted in a slew of scandals. For as long as anybody can remember, the caste system has been an essential component of Indian society. The "lower castes" were subjugated by the "upper castes" under this system. As a result, the Indian government implemented caste-based reservation in government positions and educational institutions in order to better the plight of the lower castes. But the question remains whether this has been useful or if it has resulted in the discrepancies being even more pronounced. Or maybe a reservation system based on income or economics is a better option?

HISTORY

The Manusmriti is the first written literature to discuss the caste-based system, or "dharma of the four social classes," in its totality. It claims that each person's job is predetermined by their birth.

Some of the most noteworthy examples in modern India date from 1933, when the then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Ramsay MacDonald, introduced the Communal Award. Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and Europeans each receive their own representation. Mahatma Gandhi was outraged by the prize and fasted to death to convey his discontent. It did, however, garner a lot of support from people like B. R. Ambedkar. Gandhi broke his fast after many negotiations, and the Poona Pact was the product of those negotiations.

Minorities have demanded "special status" before, and this isn't the first time they've done so. Incidents date back to 1891, when there was a demand for caste-based reservation in government posts in the Princely State of Travancore. The first recognised case occurred in Kolhapur in 1902, when backward classes/communities were given 50% reservation in services (BCs).

The most major post-independence step was the formation of the Mandal Commission in 1979. It was chaired by Indian lawmaker Bindheshwari Prasad Mandal and used eleven social, economic, and educational indicators to establish "backwardness."

The commission's report from 1980 affirmed Indian law's affirmative action practise, in which members of lower castes (known as Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes and Tribes) were given exclusive access to a certain percentage of government jobs and slots in public universities, and recommended changes to these quotas, increasing them by 27 percent to 49.5 percent.

But, now, are these caveats being implemented in the way that our policymakers intended? The response is a resounding 'NO,' because the "creamy layer" is robbing the benefits.

RESERVATION AGAINST RESERVATION

The government is permitted to create specific measures for "advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens," including their admittance to aided or unassisted private educational institutions, under the 93rd Constitutional Amendment. It was also suggested that this reservation policy be introduced progressively in private organisations and businesses. Non-reserved category students were outraged by the move, which cut seats for the General (non-reserved) category from 77.5 percent to less than 50.5 percent (since members of OBCs are also allowed to contest in the General category).

The government is empowered under Article 15(4) of our constitution to create specific arrangements for the advancement of backward classes. Similarly, Article 16 guarantees equitable treatment in cases of employment or appointment to any post under the state.

The irony is that, despite the fact that our constitution is reservation-friendly, the word "backward classes" is not specifically defined in a plain reading of the document. What determines backwardness or what characterises backwardness are still unsolved questions that have only been given significance by legal declarations.

So, how can you make a reservation for something that isn't defined?

In all honesty, it must be understood that affirmative efforts are made to ensure that the under-privileged portions of our country are given an equal playing field. The problem is that for the past 30 years, practically every government – no matter how "secular" they profess to be – has attempted to convert this socioeconomic crisis into a matter of sleazy vote bank politics, communalism, and national pride.

THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE

Reservation policies based on caste fail to understand social backwardness as a fluid and changing category. Gender, culture, purchasing power, and other factors can all affect capacities, and any one of these factors, or a combination of them, can lead to deprivation and social backwardness. Caste attachments are eroding as a result of increased globalisation and urbanisation, necessitating the identification of new factors to characterise social backwardness. Economic criteria should be expressly stated in reservations. A wealthy person (regardless of caste) may afford to educate his or her children and does not require the reservation policy's protection.

Because the link between the economically disadvantaged and the lower caste may not be as strong in today's world as it formerly was. Regardless of caste, it is the impoverished who require such protection. Instead of debating what constitutes the "creamy layer" and how it should be defined, everyone should be given an equal chance to demonstrate their merits. No one should be spoon-fed in society. Instead, they should be provided with enough resources, and merit should win out in the end.