Ambasankar Commission and Backward Classes Author(s): P. Radhakrishnan Source: Economic and Political Weekly , Jun. 10, 1989 , Vol. 24, No. 23 (Jun. 10, 1989), pp. 1265+1267-1268 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4394921 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly This content downloaded from 103.157.12.82 on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:51:00 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms REPORTS TAMIL NADU Ambasankar Commission and Backward Classes P Radhakrishnan Under mounting pressures from the Vanniiyars, the DMK ministry in Tamil Nadu announced in March the introduction of compartmental reservations by setting aside, out of the overall 50 per cent reservations, 20 per cent for the most backward classes and denotified communities. This announcement and the tabling of the Ambasankar Commission's report in the state assembly suggest that there is some hope for the real backward classes in the state. THE report of the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission saw the light of day on May 12, when it was tabled in the assembly by the Karunanidhi-led DMK ministry, four years after it was submitted to the M G Ramachandran-led AIADMK ministry. The setting up of this commission itself was a fall-out of one of MGR's gimmicks, following, what his adversaries termed, one of his political bunglings, viz, his GO of July 2, 1979 prescribing an annual income limit of Rs 9,000 on Backward Classes (BC) families for eligibility for BC concessions. This income limit was one of the important recommendations of the First Backward Classes Commission constituted in 1969 by the DMK ministry. In its report submitted in 1970, the commission (headed by A N Sattanathan) had observed that just nine out of the numerous communities listed as backward, accounting for only about 11 per cent of the total BC population, had cornered much of the benefits available to the entire BC population, viz, 37 per cent of the non-gazetted and 48 per cent of the gazetted posts, 44 per cent of the engineer- ing and 47 per cent of the medical college seats, and 34 per cent of the scholarships. It was to prevent this 'creaming effect' of the reservation policy that the commission recommended an income limit of Rs 9,000. Following the recommendations of this commission, in 1971 the DMK ministry enhanced the BC reservqtions from 25 per cent to 31 per cent (against the recommend- ed 33 per cent) and the SC-ST reservations to 18 per cent (against the recommended continuation of the existing 16 per cent). However, it refused to prescribe any income limit, lest it should incur the displeasure of the vested interests. In view of this, notwithstanding the political motivations for the issue of the GO of July 2, 1979, its effective implementation would have ensured, at least to some extent, that only the really backward and deserving benefited from the reservation policy and that the policy did not become a vested interest. There were, however, widespread protests against the enforcement of the GO and agitations demanding its immediate with- drawal. In partfcular, there was the threat of a three-stage stir by the militant DMK. In the wake of these developments and his par- ty's defeat in the January 1980 Lok Sabha elections, M G Ramachandran announced, on the eve of the dismissal of his ministry, the withdrawal of his GO without giving it a fair trial. And, as though to outwit his adversaries, he also announced an increase in the BC reservations from 31 per cent to 50 per cent. A batch of writ petitions filed by two stu- dents who failed to get admission to profes- sional colleges, an aggrieved state govern- ment employee, and the management of a private educational institution which was compelled to implement the new measures challenged the constitutional validity of the two GOs of February 1, 1980 giving ef- fect to the two MGR announcements of January 24, 1980. The petitioners contended that the reservation of 68 per cent (50 per cent for BC and 18 per cent for SC-ST) was excessive, that the categorisation of BC was made not on the basis of socio-economic and educational backwardness but on caste and political considerations and that drop- ping of the income criterion was arbitrary. While disposing of these writ petitions on October 15, 1982, the Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to ap- point a commission within two months for reviewing the existing list of BC in the state after enumeration and a factual and scienti- fic investigation of their conditions. It was in pursuance of this directive that M G Rama- chandran constituted, on December 13, 1982, the Second Backward Classes Com- mission, associating with it as many shades of politicians as he could find within the state through as many as 13 members at the time of its constitution and 21 members a little later. The commission, headed by J A Amba- sankar, former chairman of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, began its work with a bang and covered much ground. For eliciting public opinion, it distributed a com- prehensive questionnaire (in Tamil and English) on a wide range of issues pertaining to every community such as population, social status, educational attainments, representation in public services, economic progress and housing conditions. For hear- ing public representatives and recording their evidence, it toured the entire state. For exposing its members to "modern thought on social and educational backwardness" and to the intricacies of the constitutional provisions on BC, it organised seminars of social scientists and persons with legal knowledge. For enumeration and classifi- cation of the BC, it conducted a cent per cent door-to-door census. For ascertaining the educational conditions of the BC, it organised a 5 per cent random sample survey of school students along with a survey of students in all colleges and universities. For identifying the BC with reference to the criteria of social and educational backward- ness, it undertook a purposive random sam- ple survey of 1 per cent of households. Finally, for ascertaining the representation of BCs in the public services, it arranged a full-scale survey of 'public servants' in each grade. CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDATIONS For determining social and educational backwardness, the commission applied the criteria of social backwardness, occupational backwardness, economic backwardness and educational backwardness as manifested through caste/class, occupations, poverty, educational attainments and illiteracy. For testing these criteria it used the following indicators: (1) caste/class accepted as socially backward; (2) caste/class which mainly depends on manual labour, or unclean or degrading occupations for its livelihood; or caste/class whose percentage of women engaged in manual labour is more than that of the'state by at least ten per cent; or caste/class whose percentage of children employed is more than that of the state by at least ten per cent; (3) caste/class whose percentage of households living in kutcha houses is more than that of the state by at least ten per cent; or caste/class whose percent- tage of households taking subsistence loans is more than that of the state by at least ten per cent; or caste/class whose percentage of households getting loans from moneylenders/pawn-brokers is Economic and Political Weekly June 10, 1989 1265 This content downloaded from 103.157.12.82 on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:51:00 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms more than that of the state by at least ten per cent; (4) caste/class whose percentage of popula- tion which has passed only the tenth standard or its equivalent is less than that of the state by at least ten per cent; (5) caste/class whose percentage of popula- tion which has passed the higher secon- dary or equivalent and above is less than that of the state by at least ten per cent; and, (6) caste/class whose percentage of illiteracy is more than that of the state by at least ten per cent; or caste/class whose percen- tage of drop-outs is more than that of the state by at least ten per cent. The commission awarded nine points for the indicators of social backwardness (three points each for the first three) and six points for those of educational backwardness (two points each to the next three). Its argument fQr giving higher weightage for the first three indicators is that as social backwardness is the result of birth it cannot be easily over- come, whereas it is possible to acquire educa- tional advancement through hard work. Those communities in the existing BC list which scored eight points or more out of the 15 points with at least two points under educational backwardness were recommend- ed for retention in the BC list; while those forward communities which scored more than six points out of twelve points (that is, 15 minus 3 points for theJfirst indicator not used in their case) with at least three points under social backwardness, were recom- mended for addition to the list, as socially and educationally backward classes for pur- poses of reservations in educational institu- tions under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. The communities recommended were 174 from the existing BC list and 24 from the forward communities. The commission estimated their total population at 67 per cent of the state population and suggested that reservations for them be restricted to 32 per cent so as to ensure that, in confor- mity with the court rulings, the total reser- vations did not exceed 50 per cent (32 per cent for BC and 18 per cent for SC-ST). Of the communities so declared as backward those whose representation in ser- vices (government, local bodies, and state public sector undertakings taken together) was found to be less than the state average by 10 per cent were recommended for pur- poses of reservations under Article 16(4) on quantitative basis. Those whose representa- tion though above the state average was found to be below it in at least two of the four groups to which the employees were classified taking into account their scales of pay were recommended for purposes of such reservations on qualitative basis. The com- munities recommended under the former were Ill from the existing BC list, and five from the forward communities. Those re- commended under the latter were 40 from the existing BC list and one from the for- ward communities. Decision on the eligibili- ty of 17 forward communities for reserva- tions under Article 16(4) was deferred for want of particulars on their employment. LIMITATIONS The main product of the commission's work of more than two years as compressed into several tables of communities eligible and not eligible for inclusion in the BC list, along with the chairman's recommenda- tions, is quite impressive. However, like any other attempt at quantifying socio-educa- tional backwardness and casting it into arithmetic straitjackets, the commission's report and recommendations are not with- out pitfalls. To discuss only the most obvious issues: (1) While the indicators used by the com- mission are broad enough to ensure that all the really backward communities are enume- rated as backward, they are rather too broad and cover also the layer just above the BC. Though backward, the communities in this layer do not come under the special treat- ment provisions of the Constitution for the obvious reason that their backwardness, whether social or educational, is not historically so accumulated as not to be over- come by their own efforts and by societal action other than reservations. In this connection, it needs to be mention- ed that caste (or corresponding social rank- ing in the case of converts) is still the most decisive indicator of social backwardness in Indian society, especially in the constitu- tional context. Occupational backwardness and poverty of the traditional types could certainly be derived from this as attributes of low caste ranking. But, because of the wide choice in the application of these two indicators, by giving equal weightage to all the three indicators the commission might have also enumerated as socially backward communities which are not backward in a historical sense. For restricting the BC benefits to the BC alone the first indicator on caste should have been given more weightage, say, at least half of the total weightage assigned to the three indicators of social backwardness, and the application of the other two indicators should have been restricted to their traditional manifestations as attributes of low caste ranking. Similarly, for educational backwardness illiteracy is the most decisive indicator, and other indicators are only related to it. Therefore, instead of giving equal weight- age to all the three indicators of educational backwardness, as in the case of caste, illi- teracy should have also been given more weightage. The commission's attempts to identify the socially and educationally backward among the forward communities are in effect at- tempts to dilute the BC list further. The TABLE:BC BY POPULATION AND ACCESS TO BC BENEFITS SN Code Caste/Community Per cent in Total BC Population ProfessionaIScholarships Scholarship Selected Courses Amount by the PSC 1 231 Kongu Vellalar 6.8 7.6 4.3 6.5 5.3 2 243 Nadar/Shanar/Gramani 6.6 10.2 10.7 10.1 5.1 3 201 Agamudaiyar 5.0 11.1 10.8 9.8 12.1 4 802 Labbai 4.0 4.5 5.6 6.1 4.2 5 210 Gavara 2.6 8.2 5.7 6.7 7.2 6 218 Kaikolar/Sengunthar 2.5 6.2 4.3 5.4 6.4 7 220 Kallar 2.3 3.7 3.9 3.4 2.8 8 239 Maravar 1.5 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.2 9 264 Sozha Vellalar 1.3 2.3 1.6 2.2 1.7 10 206 Devangar 1.2 4.1 2.5 3.0 2.0 11 258 Sadhu Chetty 1.0 2.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 12 277 Vokkaligar 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.7 13 801 Dekkini Muslims 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.9 1.3 14 276 Veerakodi Vellalar 0.7 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.5 15 909 CSI/SIUC 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 16 263 Sourashtra 0.5 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 17 257 Reddy (Ganjam) 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.6 18 260 Saliyar 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.9 19 262 Senaithalaivar 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 20 225 Karuneegar 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.6 1.4 21 131 Sozhia Chetty 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 22 275 Vellan Chettiar 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4 23 111 Jangam 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 24 224 Kannada Saineegar 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4 25 109 Isai Vellalar 0.2 0.4 2.7 0.4 0.7 26 305 Chettu 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 27 113 Kongu Chettiar 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 28 211 Gowda 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.1 29 127 Paravar 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 30 213 Idiga 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 31 245 Nangudi Vellalar 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 32 230 Khatri 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 112 Jogi 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 34 244 Nagaram 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 Total 41.5 76.9 67.2 69.9 64.0 Total of remaining 188 BC 58.5 23.1 32.8 30.1 36.0 Source: Tabulated from government of Tamil Nadu, 1985, Report of the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission, Vols 1-3:100-123, 154-68, 179-97. Economic and Political Weekly June 10, 1989 1267 This content downloaded from 103.157.12.82 on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:51:00 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms backwardness of these communities is not historically accumulated. This is also quite evident to the commission, inasmuch as in their case caste is not used as an indicator of social backwardness. As such their back- wardness does not come under the constitu- tional provisions. (2) The commission's background material on reservations in public services and educational institutions is too sketchy and inadequate for a proper understanding of the reservation policy, that too viewed against the state's long history of reserva- tions spanning more than a century. Its ac- count of reservations in public services is mostly drawn from a seminar paper. As the paper is mutilated so much, its author should be thankful to the commission for not acknowledging the source. (3) Despite its population census, com- mission's report does not contain an ex- haustive list of all the communities in the state (backward, forward, middle-range, and what have you) along with their population. Such a list would have been of immense help in understan-ding better the dimensions of caste-based social phenomena; more so, in the absence of any caste census for more than half a century now. (4) The findings of the commission's educational and employment surveys pre- sented in numerous tables contain the population break-up of only the commu- nities of the existing BC list, that too with wide variations from table to table in the spellings used and the population figures given against each. Corresponding data in the same tables for the remaining commu- nities in the state would have brought out more clearly the differential access of each of the BC vis-a-vis the non-BC to the dif- ferent types of state patronage. (5) Though the data in these tables reveal that only less than half of the existing BC have had any access to the various profes- sional and technical courses of education and to the government services at the time of the commission's surveys (1980-82), they do not bring out clearly the wide variations even in the available access and, by implica- tion, the wide disparity in the levels of backwardness. These variations can be understood better from a collation of the data as attempted in the Table here. the prin- cipal oommunities, that is, those accounting for at least 0.1 per cent of the total BC population, whose percentage access to the professional courses (engineering, medicine and law) is either equal to or more than their percentage in the total BC population are given separately. As may be seen from the table, of the total BC students admitted to the three profes- sional courses, more than three-fourths were from a small number of the BC (34 out of 222) accounting for only about two-fifths of the total BC population in the state. Of the total number of BC scholarships, the total amount of thesc scholarships and can- didates of all grades selected by the Public. Service Commission (PSC), about two- thirds again went to this relatively small number of Backward Classes. Even within this small number, just about one-third (the first eleven), accounting for about one-third of the total BC population, had cornered as much as two-thirds of the BC admissions to the professional courses and more than half of the scholarships, scholarship amounts, and BC selected by the PSC. Though the commission has recom- mended compartmental reservations, that is, grouping conveniently the BC communities according to the degree of their backward- ness and allowing representation out of the reserved quota to the several groups, it has not made anv suggestion for preventing this 'creaming effect' of reservations by income limit or any other measure. The dissenting views of 14 of the 21 members of the commission made its report controversial right from the time of its sub- missionI in February 1985. The dissenters' charges were that the commission did not give three points on caste/class to non-Hindu communities enumerated afresh, while it gave the same to such communities already in the BC list; that poverty should have been treated as a third category of indicators rather than treating it as an indicator of social backwardness; that the performance of students only at the level of PUC/Higher Secondary and above and not up to 10th standard or its equivalent should have been taken for identification of educational backwardness; that only the state average and not any deviation from it should have been taken as a cut off for deciding backwardness; and that the survey of the BC population and the population estimates for various backward communities are inqc- curate. They.also questioned the rationale for inclusion in the chairman's recommer?- dations 17 forward communities as BC and deletion of 34 communities from the existing BC list. Their demands were, therefore, for retaining the existing list of BC, with 67 per cent reservations as against the much reduced 32 per cent recommended by the chairman. In the heat of this controversy, the MGR ministry did not make the report public and, despite repeated requests, refused to table it in the assembly. However, through a series of GOs issued on July 30, 1985 it made selec- tive use of the report. These GOs contain the ministry's orders to continue the existing 50 per cent reservations for BC (in addition to the 18 per cent for SC-ST) in both educa- tional institutions and public services, con- sidering the commission's estimate of the BC population at 67 per cent and the "majority members' recommendations" for 67 per cent reservations; to add 29 forward commu- nities, without at the same time deleting any of the BC recommended for deletion; and the continuation of the existing list of most backward classes within the BC. Under mounting pressures from the Vanniyars (accounting for 19 per cent of the BC population and less than half that pro- portion in the access to BC benefits) one of the important policy decisions which the newly formed DMK ministry announced in March was the introduction, on a trial basis, of compartmental reservations, by setting apart 20 per cent for the most backward classes and denotified communities out of the overall 50 per cent reservations. Now that the tabling of the commission's report has followed this announcement, hopefully in order to facilitate a healthy debate in the assembly, there is some hope for the real BC in the state. RECENT BOOKS ON WOMEN/CHILDREN 1 Indian Women through the Ages by S.K. Ghosh Rs. 250/- 2 Socie-Economic Backwardness in Women by A. Mukherji and Neelam Verma Rs. 50/- 3 Women and Development by R.K. Sapru Rs. 300/- 4 The Woman in Indian Fiction in English by Shantha Krishnaswamy Rs. 175/- 5 Women in a Developing Society by N.J. Usha Rao Rs. 100/- 6 Women's Organisations and Women's Interests by PM. Mathew Rs. 130/- 7 Child Labour in India by J.C. Kulshreshtha Rs. 40/- 8 Child Development in India (in 2 vims.) by R. Kumar Rs. 400/- Send your valued orders to:- A ashish publishing house 8/81, PUNJABI BAGH NEW DELHI-110021 ASHI PHONES: 500561, 5410924 1268 Economic and Political Weekly June 10, 1989 This content downloaded from 103.157.12.82 on Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:51:00 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms