The recent judgment regarding subquotas by the Supreme Court has attracted criticism largely centered on 'location.' Strikingly, even liberal factions have begun to criticize the Supreme Court for various issues. Many seem to overlook the significant movements advocating for subquotas across numerous states, with the most notable being the protests by Madiga groups in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka.
For instance, in Tamil Nadu, there exists a 3% subquota specifically for Arundhatiyars (the manual scavenging community), which is a part of the 18% quota allocated for Scheduled Castes. A similar proportional representation is preserved within the quotas for backward classes, culminating in a total reservation capacity of 69%.
The core issue of this debate highlights a troubling hypocrisy and dishonesty prevalent among both political leaders and so-called intellectuals. These self-styled advocates neglect the growing distrust and frustration among marginalized communities. Engaging with groups like Balmiki, Dom, Mushahar, Pasi, Majahabi, Arundhatiyar, Mangs, Matangs, and Madigas would reveal their views on the matter. Politically, these communities often feel alienated from mainstream Dalit leadership, leading to a growing dissatisfaction that transcends the simplistic narrative of Savarna versus Dalit.
The real contention lies in the struggle for resources among Scheduled Castes, where mainstream leaders and intellectuals have failed to connect with these other communities. As Baba Saheb Ambedkar articulated, this reflects a system of graded inequality, signifying the varying degrees of respect and contempt among groups. He chose not to use terms like Dalit or Bahujan, recognizing the complexity within communities, which is why the term Scheduled Castes was constitutionally adopted.
Unfortunately, a lack of internal dialogue persists, compelling those who feel unheard to turn to other parties or the Supreme Court for support. It is well understood that courts and the government are often eager to 'intervene,' but this situation also calls for profound reflection.
The Supreme Court's unnecessary involvement in the creamy layer issue among Scheduled Castes needs to be addressed. It is critical for the Court to revisit past judgments, especially concerning the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) criteria, and to provide a clear definition. Many individuals from SC, ST, and OBC backgrounds could qualify under EWS, but the Court appears to have limited this category primarily to Brahmin and Bania groups, excluding others.
Various court rulings, including those from the apex court, alongside the strategic circumvention of these rulings by Brahminical bureaucracies, have converted unreserved seats into so-called general or savarna quotas.
The Supreme Court must clarify that these so-called general or unreserved seats should be accessible to everyone, including SC, ST, and OBC individuals, making the discussion around creamy layers justifiable. Without addressing historical injustices, any discourse on creamy layers remains superficial. In essence, we are observing a pervasive atmosphere of hypocrisy across the board.
A political resolution is viable if leaders across all Dalit communities unite to ensure fair representation for the most marginalized
Many criticize Balmikis for pursuing litigation, which starkly reflects the failure of the broader Dalit movement to embrace these marginalized factions. The consequent rebellion among these groups should not be blamed on them but rather on the movement's shortcomings. India is calling for proportional representation across all societal levels. Hindu, Dalit, Bahujan, and Muslim are larger identities, but individuals are rallying around specific Jati identities.
The discourse surrounding supposed upper castes is misleading; we need to focus on the representation of various Jatis, with distinct mentions of Banias, Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas, and also the marginalized communities like Doms, Balmikis, Mushahars, Matangs, Mangs, and Arundhatiyars, which must be reflected in official records. Ultimately, it is crucial for all marginalized communities to recognize that their prosperity hinges on internal dialogue.
Baba Saheb brought diverse communities together, as did Kansiram, resulting in unprecedented solidarity among various sections of Scheduled Castes and backward communities. Unity cannot be constructed through blame but rather through collaboration and constructive dialogue. Instead of disregarding legitimate demands, acknowledging them is essential for the strength of the movement that Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Kansiram worked tirelessly to build.
A political resolution is viable if leaders across all Dalit communities unite to ensure fair representation for the most marginalized, not just in jobs but within their political parties as well. Only then can real progress occur; otherwise, opportunistic 'intellectuals' will step in and undermine the movement.
Nearly two decades ago, I observed a significant Madiga protest in Hyderabad demanding their rightful quota; they faced criticism yet remained resolute in their quest. I previously wrote about the Dalit movement being at a crossroads. Now, it is time for this movement to foster unity, confront existing crises and hostilities among marginalized communities, negotiate, and advocate for proper representation.
We must not allow the manipulative elite to divide Dalit communities. Without genuine efforts toward cohesion, the Hindutva-liberal elite will readily exploit divisions for their political objectives.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments