Historicity of reservation

Indian society has not bothered to study either the history or the philosophy of reservation. This ignorance has led to demands for reservation from every class, including the ruling class, which itself secured a 10 per cent reservation in government services.

The concept of reservation in India is linked to the very process of making a free and democratic India and has a history of over 120 years. As a matter of fact, every country around the world with more than one ethno-religious or social group has resolved the issue of representation through some mechanism, and reservation is one such method.

The British Parliament was indeed the best protector of democratic rights in this context. As early as 1911, it initiated the process of people’s participation in governance in India — the essence of true democracy. To work out the participation of all ethno-religious groups, the Chelmsford-Montagu Commission was appointed, and the first comprehensive census was conducted in 1911.

The factual situation identified by this survey established that Indian society consisted of three major ethno-religious groups.

The first and largest group was one in which leadership in every walk of life rested with a microscopic minority that had arrived in the Indian subcontinent almost 3,000 years ago. These people co-opted most of the local population and, to facilitate this, changed their identity from Sanatan to Hindu — a word more acceptable to the locals, as they resided to the south-east of the Sindhu (Indus) river. They were politically brilliant. Although they co-opted the local population, they created a graded varna system to maintain their dominance. Over time, this system generated the caste structure.

The second group was led by another microscopic minority of medieval invaders from Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and other regions — of Turkish-Mongolian origin. This group also co-opted a large number of the original population by using power as a magnet for attraction. They constituted almost 20 per cent of the population and came to be known as Mussalmans (Muslims).

The third group comprised the local population that refused to be co-opted by either the Hindu or Muslim groups. According to the painstaking research of Dr BR Ambedkar, they were followers of the now-extinct Buddhism. Since they refused to assimilate, the ruling Hindu classes imposed several inhuman conditions on them. This resulted in the worst kind of deprivation — their condition was worse than that of animals or slaves. They were proscribed from acquiring wealth, education, or basic human rights, so that they would remain in perpetual servitude. They were treated like chattel. In the first census, their population was roughly 50 million — about 20% of the total population. They were called Untouchables. They were never called “Scheduled Castes” at that time; instead, about ten criteria were prescribed to identify them.

The entire Hindu society was encompassed within the four varnas, from which castes later developed. This 20 per cent population, whose position was akin to slaves or chattels, was not part of Hindu society. They stood outside the varna fold and were referred to as Avarnas. There was no question of their division into castes in the socio-religious sense. They were never part of the varna system, which is the foundation of the caste system.

The Congress, led by Mr Gandhi, refused to recognise the existence of these Untouchables. When Gandhi buttressed his claim to be the representative of the Indian population and asserted the right to speak on behalf of all Indians, he mentioned Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs, but did not mention the Untouchables. Perhaps, in his scheme, they were not human beings but chattels.

However, when the learned Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar entered public life — equipped with deep knowledge of history, sociology, political science, economics, and the French Revolution — things were bound to change. His erudition and powerful oratory created space for the Untouchables in the social and political system. Their participation in future governance became a key and important feature that was eventually accepted.

Mr Gandhi, a self-proclaimed Sanatani, was in no mood to recognise the Untouchables as human beings deserving participation in governance. He wanted them to remain slaves forever and famously staked his life to deny them political freedom. He also proclaimed that Untouchables could convert to Islam or Christianity to escape their slavery, but there was no question of granting them participation in governance. This led to the drama in Pune. The resulting stalemate placed Dr Ambedkar in a dilemma: he had to save Gandhi’s life while also securing freedom for the Untouchables, whom he called the Depressed Classes. Gandhi referred to them by the derogatory term “Harijan” (a word historically reserved for illegitimate children), while the British called them Untouchables. Never in the 120-year history of this discourse were they referred to as “Scheduled Castes.”

The protracted negotiations resulted in the Poona Pact, which introduced the concept of reservation for Untouchables in legislatures and government services as a means to achieve political participation. This was coupled with the creation of a social welfare department for their upliftment, along with a separate budget provision. In return, the Untouchables agreed to give up their right to self-determination — a basic democratic right.

This was indirectly admitted even by the “Iron Man” Shri Vallabhbhai Patel, who thundered in the Constituent Assembly while responding to demands for Muslim reservation: “Those who wanted this separate reservation got separate Pakistan.”

Reservation for the Depressed Classes is enshrined in the Indian Constitution as affirmative action, rooted in the Poona Pact of 1932. The provisions guarantee proportional representation in education, employment, and political offices to correct historical injustices and promote social justice.

Even to incorporate this into the Constitution, Dr Ambedkar had to fight fiercely. When opposed by the majority in Congress, he boycotted the Constituent Assembly for three days, placing the Congress in a serious dilemma. The Constitution could not be completed without his return, and Dr Ambedkar would not return unless the provision for reservation for the Depressed Classes was accepted. Eventually, reservation was included.

The above discussion leaves no doubt that:

1. Reservation was not the result of economic backwardness. It was a political settlement to give representation to the Depressed Classes in governance.
2. It was granted to the Depressed Classes as a group, and not to a collection of castes. The list in the Schedule is merely an administrative convenience. The so-called castes mentioned were only identification labels, often based on profession. In fact, there are no castes among Untouchables because they were never part of the Varna system. This labelling is a ripple effect without religious sanction.
3. The Constitution gave reservation to the Depressed Classes as a homogenous group, as correctly stated by Hon’ble Justice Bela Trivedi.
4. It was single-handedly achieved by the most learned statesman of India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in the face of stiff opposition from the majority class.

END OF ARTICLE