Hindustan Times (Lucknow)

Can creamy layer in the Dalit quota be justified?

The Supreme Court last month upheld sub-classifica­tion in the quota for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). However, some judges further recommende­d adding creamy layer exclusions, restrictin­g reservatio­ns to only one generation or once, making it time-bound, and adding economic criteria. The government has said that it will not implement the creamy layer exclusion. But clearly, these suggestion­s amount to a fullfledge­d assault on the concept of untouchabi­lity-based reservatio­n. An assessment of the assumption­s behind the suggestion­s is needed.

Let’s look at the arguments. Justice BR Gavai argued “unequal treatment to unequal classes” is justified if few members are far too advanced and added that only this can achieve real equality as enshrined under the Constituti­on. Justice Pankaj Mithal said, “The better of the class amongst the backwards eats up most of the vacancies/seats reserved leaving the most backward with nothing in their hands.” Are these statements based on real data?

Official data shows SC reservatio­n benefits the economical­ly weak and less educated people. This can be measured by two criteria — share in jobs and level of education. In 2022, about 89% of SC employees in the central government were in the C and D categories of jobs, and only 11% in A and B. In the same year, about 68% SC employees held degrees below secondary and higher secondary levels. More direct evidence came from the National Sample Survey on Employment 2022-23. About 78% of government employees were from lower income groups and 22% from top income households. The share of lowest, middle and highest income households was 41.4%, 36.5% and 22%, respective­ly. The share of these SC employees with education below secondary or higher secondary levels is 60%.

Clearly, there are substantia­l benefits of reservatio­n to economical­ly weaker SCs, though their representa­tion is confined to low-level jobs. Hence, the view that better-off Dalits eat up more seats or vacancies is misleading. A second suggestion was about using economic criteria as the rationale behind reservatio­n. This view holds that better economic standing is good enough for discrimina­tion-free mobility. But this is not justified either by theory or empirical facts. The theory of economic discrimina­tion tells us that group discrimina­tion is based on group identity, such as race, colour, religion, ethnicity, caste or gender. In identity-based exclusion, such as untouchabi­lity, the untouchabl­e group as a whole faces discrimina­tion, irrespecti­ve of the economic status of an individual.

Empirical evidence also supports this assumption. A study by ActionAid in 2000 on social and economic discrimina­tion in 11 states and another 2013 study of government institutio­ns in eight states revealed discrimina­tion in access to public amenities, in employment, in purchase of inputs and sale of output by farmers, and in purchases from SC-owned businesses in the transport, eateries and grocery sector.Another study of 90 SC businesses by scholar Asim Prakash revealed discrimina­tion, Vinod Mishra’s study revealed discrimina­tion against SCs in renting of houses in urban areas. In urban areas, higher-ranked officers faced more discrimina­tion in the private sector. Internal surveys in IIT Bombay revealed caste humiliatio­n of SC students. Thus, caste discrimina­tion is a ubiquitous phenomenon experience­d by Dalit individual­s irrespecti­ve of their economic background, with some variations. The studies also showed that many SC students, government employees, and entreprene­urs who faced discrimina­tion were second-generation beneficiar­ies of reservatio­n. The view that limiting reservatio­ns to one generation will make SCs free of bias is unfounded.

Similar is the argument on the time limit of reservatio­n. If untouchabi­lity persists 70 years after abolishing it and the gap between SCs and the higher castes on human developmen­t indicators is significan­t, reservatio­n will continue to be necessary. The problem SCs face is complex because they battle not only discrimina­tion but also isolation, antagonism, and humiliatio­n.

If at all there needs to be any reform, it can’t be in the form of a creamy layer. It would be fair to exclude economical­ly better sections of SCs from caste-based subsidised financial and other assistance. However, this can’t be extended to exclusion from reservatio­n.

Data from 2022 found only 5% of SC workers are in government jobs. Although the share is low, it has brought some mobility. Individual mobility also induces group mobility because well-off people extend a helping hand to those who lag behind. I feel this spread effect of reservatio­n is likely to be harmed by sub-categorisa­tion and creamy layer. Therefore, any change in policy which involves a question of life and death for SCs should be determined by hard facts and not by unfounded assumption­s.