(The text is the presentation part of the Report of Karnataka Backward Classes Commission, constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, by the chief minister of Karnataka State Government, Respectful D.Devaraj Urs under the Chairmanship of L.G.Havanur. This current year commemorates the Golden Jubilee of the formation of the Commission in 1972.)
To
Sri. D. Devaraj Urs,
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka.
Bangalore
November 19, 1975.
Related articles
RESPECTED SIR,
I have the honour to present to you, with a sense of extreme joy and satisfaction, the unanimous Report of the ‘Karnataka Backward Classes Commission’.
After it was inaugurated by you in September 1972, it took us full three years to collect the necessary statistical data, the collection and compilation of such data had never been done before.
The conducting of socio-economic survey of 378 villages and town/city blocks in their entirety covering more than 3,55,000 individuals of about 171 castes and communities (a thing which has not been done before by any Commission/Committee) by more than 425 Investigators and Supervisors and the processing and compiling of the said statistical data and the socio-economic survey materials by 100 Tabulators was no small task having regard to the magnitude, complexity and yet the relevancy of the said materials. Hundreds of replies to the questionnaire, representations and memoranda were processed. Correspondence with thousands of authorities and institutions, collection and compilation of population statistics relating to about 200 castes, and educational and service particulars of nearly a million students and employees, summoning of nearly 400 witnesses and recording the evidence of 365 and consulting hundreds of authors, documents and judicial pronouncements in the preparation of the Report were, not only time-consuming but, all-consuming. When friends told me that it was a challenging job, I said it was dear to my heart. I welcomed the job, and my acceptance of it was to make my little contribution to solve the national, nay, a human problem. Although I prepared the entire Report without an iota of assistance from any Member, the basic approach adopted by me remained without being specifically incorporated in it, and so, I thought I should incorporate it here in this covering letter.
Schools of criticism and interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution relating to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes have developed in India after 1950, and they are as numerous as there are castes, tribes and communities. All these years, identification of castes and communities as backward classes on the principle of caste was assailed by a storm of criticism by the advanced classes, and now their specification by caste and community names is being assailed by the same advanced classes. So sweeping has been the criticism and condemnation, which is like a running cricket commentary, that innocent and gullible backward classes who do not know the masquerading techniques of the advanced sections, have been made to believe that it is an offence to get themselves uplifted. And when I tried to draw the public attention to the social inequalities and economic and educational disparities, I was persistently criticized by the communalists occupying high and influential positions.
Some people suggested for rejecting religion and caste for the determination of backward classes, but in their suggestion I found their confession to perpetuate injustice on the backward classes on the very grounds of religion and caste. I think it is less discriminatory, or no discrimination, in rejecting the vested rights of the so called merited individuals of the advanced classes than rejecting the legitimate claims of the backward classes on grounds of religion and caste to have their due share in all walks of life.
In finding out solutions to the problems of backward classes, including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, many have shown their scholarship and learning. And many more have relied upon their own experience and suffering. In the former category of persons we find divergent opinions, because of the ideological plane from which they speak. But, in the latter category we find unanimity. The real testimony to social disabilities and the extent and intensity of those disabilities under which the backward classes are suffering consists in the factual suffering of those castes, and the evidence of those who are impartial and objective in their approach to social justice. Testimony to social justice does not belong to purely intellectual exercise or legal quibble. Real testimony should be separated from the purely rigorous logical exercises of the mind that lead to monstrous futility.
Caste has come to stay. One who knows the relevant aspects of our Constitution is bound to believe that, apart from Art. 17 which abolished practice of untouchability, no principle exists in it which abolishes or tends to abolish the institution of caste. There is no provision in the Constitution for abolishing the caste system, and if and when the system is abolished, the contents of our Constitution and other laws will be reduced to one-half of what they are to-day. The provisions of our Constitution respect the living institutions of our society, and of them, caste is one. The significance of those provisions can be understood not by taking the words from a dictionary. Those provisions could be understood by considering their origin. Our Constitution intends to protect the interests of the weaker sections, but not to maintain abstract theories that protect vested interests. Backwardness of certain castes and communities is due to our social structure in which rigid endogamous groups inherently sustain inequality due to traditional values and taboos. The system is such that in the stampede for advancement a communal group rushes on others. Lack of caste – or communal – consciousness in the backward classes has prevented them from organising themselves with a cohesive strength and gaining training for an effective confrontation with traditionalism and superstitions.
Solutions to social and economic problems must be found out by a realistic and rational approach, possessing first a comprehensive and an over-all picture of our society from all its angles and of all its aspects. A dry and cold-blooded judge, a communal administrator, an ambitious politician or an enthusiastic social scientist is bound to commit mischief of inestimable magnitude when he calculatedly ignores, suppresses, minimises or mis-interprets the significance of the realities of our social order, and the influence of our social institutions. Every one reveres his religion, and a Hindu, besides revering his religion, loves his caste. And so, everybody is bound to be parochial in practice, though outwardly in his speech he tries to project himself as a detached cosmopolitan.
Differential treatment of backward classes alone can give equality of opportunity to all. Equality of opportunity in absolute terms for unequal castes means aggravation of inequality. Differential treatment of backward classes, particularly in education and in services, is prescribed, because the Constitution-makers found that the backward classes are social groups which are classified, and their classification recognised, by our society.
From the reported judgments it seems that some of the judges who claim to believe in social justice to backward classes, appeared to be in an amusingly simple and unaffected state of mind in interpreting the Constitutional provisions artlessly, and expecting the backward classes to consume their pronouncements as divinely given nourishing substances. In deciding certain cases, a judge depends upon intuition which is subtle, though in assigning reasons for his judgment he is seen articulating major general propositions.
Language of the Constitution, in so far as it relates to backward classes, is simple and unambiguous. But the language of the judiciary in interpreting the Constitutional provisions is highly ambiguous and complicated. In giving meaning to the expression ‘backward classes’, in suggesting the criteria for social and educational backwardness and in prescribing a maximum extent of reservation, judiciary did not assign reasons based on sufficient relevant material. Judiciary has raised problems, suggestion of solutions to which has become rather difficult. As a result of the confusion created by the President-appointed Backward Classes Commission and indefiniteness of the judiciary, the belief that the Government and the judiciary can solve the socio-economic problems of backward classes is proved to be only an illusion. It is, indeed, a nuisance to any one to read the Reports, monographs and judicial judgments on backward classes when one comes across hundreds of expressions, like backward and poor people, neglected groups, oppressed persons, backward areas, rural people, working people etc., being used in place of the statutory expression ‘backward classes’. The art of neology is best (? worst) exhibited in the coinage of innumerable neologism, in a short period of about two and a half decades after the adoption of our Constitution in 1950, for a single simple expression of ‘backward classes’. Indian social scientists of repute, political leaders, journalists and jurists of eminence have, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously, made the expression ‘backward classes’ stipulatory in meaning to wallow in semantic confusion. Judges, by suggesting certain criteria which in the nature of things are impossible of ascertainment, have rendered Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) sufficiently nugatory. Judgments on backward classes have become only an interesting pedagogical material sufficiently voluminous for law students for writing dissertations on abstract and impracticable aspects for their doctorate degrees in law. They have turned Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) odourless by infusing strong confusion in them, while at the same time instilling hope in the backward classes to find favour in their judgments. Indeed many of the judicial pronouncements on backward classes are not great by reason of their intrinsic importance, but they are called great because of the over-whelming interest shown by those whose vested rights are either protected or affected. Such pronouncements have made the Constitutional provisions ambiguous which are clear. There is nothing that one should more deprecate than the judiciary imposing restriction as to the extent of reservation below 50 per cent. By so restricting the extent of reservation, judiciary has gone beyond the language of Arts. 15(4) and 16(4) thus preventing the State from making adequate reservation that a large population constituting the ‘backward classes’ deservedly desires.
Whatever may be the opinions of eminent persons on equal treatment clauses of our Constitution, there can be no doubt that their scope embraces the fundamental principle of discriminatory and protective treatment in favour of backward classes on the ground of their caste. The meaning of equal treatment and non-discrimination depends upon the circumstances, and their meaning varies with the subject matter and the social necessities.
The concept of equality under our Constitution is not absolute in terms, but it is circumscribed by limitations. The reason is, in an unequal society such as ours, the principle of equality is violated if it is applied in its absolute sense. The rule of equality could be applied to those castes which are similarly circumstanced. Equality means equal treatment of equal castes. Classification for legal purposes on the ground of caste differences is the essence of equality. The principle of equality consists in providing equality of opportunity to castes which are equal, and our Constitution does not conceive of absolute equality. It consists in the equal treatment of equal castes in equal circumstances. Constitution does not direct the State to make laws which should have universal application to castes which are not, in the nature of things, in the same position. Different or special treatment to different castes is the rule of equality embodied in our Constitution. Differential treatment of backward classes alone can give equality of opportunity to all. Equality of opportunity in absolute terms for unequal castes means aggravation of inequality. Differential treatment of backward classes, particularly in education and in services, is prescribed, because the Constitution-makers found that the backward classes are social groups which are classified, and their classification recognised, by our society.
(To be continued…)