Caste System — Living Reality in Politics and Administration

Caste is a social phenomena, an undeniable reality, because of its deep roots in our history, psychology and politics. Caste identity springs from birth, is strengthened by upbringing, education and marriage, and even in the process of finding one’s place in the larger society a man can change his religion or speak a language other than his mother-tongue but just as he cannot change the colour of his skin, he cannot change his caste.

The Constitution prohibits discrimination by the state among citizens on the basis of caste but it does not call for the abolition of caste identity or delegitimising the caste system. We know that though our freedom movement tried to consolidate all Indians beyond the pulls of religion, language or domicile, caste remained a persistent and effective factor in politics and development. Neither Gandhi nor Periyar nor Ambedkar could abolish it nor was it invented by Lohia or Mandal.

We should, however, differentiate between caste and casteism. A man born in a particular caste lives and dies in that caste but casteism is a political tool for the exploitation and misuse of his caste by a caste group to secure a disproportionate share of social goods, assets and services. Even in a democracy, if we take economic and social assets like land, wealth, social status, place in administration and management, access to influence and ‘sifarish’, we find that all along, and more so after independence, the high castes have monopolsed wealth and position. It was pointed out by Lohia that 15 per cent of the people who belong to the high castes control 85 per cent of the social resources. This is not only true of the Hindu community but of all other major communities like Muslims and Christians. Lohia also pointed out that India made great progress at two points of history where high castes were not politically and economically dominant.

The caste system has been ironically consolidated by the introduction of universal franchise after independence. This was a good thing in itself and opened the corridors of power to 90 per cent of the people who were not electors in the restricted system till the end of the British Raj. For the first time many caste and sub-caste groups, enriched by their votes, were sought by the political parties and they became conscious of their political power as king-makers under the electoral system. In free India every vote under the first-past-the-post system counts in single-member constituencies which were the rule rather than the exception. All single-member constituencies were dominated by identifiable caste groups because of their numbers, or their access to money and muscle, and capacity to court or coerce those electors who were reluctant or refused to be counted in. Secondly, free India adopted the parliamentary system, which made governments, both Central and State, products of the legislatures. According to this system, any party which enjoyed a majority, even of one in the House, formed the government. That both systems actually distort, dilute and erode democracy, by giving us unrepresentative legislatures and even more unrepresentative governments specially in the era of coalition, is another question and was beyond compre-hension and still is. But caste blocs, which enter the voting chambers through political parties of their choice, naturally seek administrative power and inequitable share in the goods and services provided by the state.

Since every political party has a core caste constituency, apart from the other satellite castes and sub-castes, they receive their share of power, but by virtue of political and historic advantage, high castes, however, continue to dominate power, because of the convergence of political and adminis-trative power (and therefore judicial power) in their hands. Over the years this was resented and challenged by the newcomers, by the intermediate castes and by the shudras who under the Constitution were called Backward Classes which have slowly come to occupy political space and demand their due. Politics is, after all, distribution of economic assets and political power among various contenders and stakeholders and determines which group gets what, when and how much. This is the essence of caste politics. This phenomenon is essentially democratic because those who were marginalised for centuries and did not receive their due from the society for their contribution, now demand and get their due share. This is not limited to one region or one State but covers the entire country. Even the untouchables (achhuts), who form 15 per cent of the population, and adivasis, who form about 7.5 per cent of the population, have joined the queue and become, 50 years after independence, important factors, determining which combination governed the country and distributed social and economic benefits in the nation and within each State, by acquiring a degree of control over administration and management. These groups also wanted their due share in the licenses and contracts awarded by the government, which became the main source of wealth. This awakening has spread through general and technical education.

It is interesting to note that with modernisation and industrialisation caste per SC has been eroded. The railways made the biggest contri-bution which not only facilitated inter-State migration but also made ‘untouchability’ meaningless. This was further promoted by education and technical training in common institutions and by working in common work- places, even living in common ghettos in urban areas on migration. In the process caste identity also exhibited its positive aspects; it provided shelter and social security and consolidated people from the same castes, particularly if they came from the same place and spoke the same dialect. Castes also slowly became a factor in administrative postings because of the preferential play of caste in higher appointments and decision-making.

The caste system in modern India has become a factor in politics and casteism has indeed prospered in the political arena, from the Panchayati Raj to the national level. The difference lies in that the overall dominance of the high castes is yet to be broken and among the Backward Classes, the forward among them do not treat those who are backward as equal and certainly not the achhut or the adivasi.

Any influential politician will tell you that the working of the entire political selection process is based on castes. When a political party or its worker eyes a constituency, he first surveys its caste demography, identifies the caste groups and sub-groups in the constituency, not only by numbers but also by categories, as friendly, hostile or neutral. If the party has a viable social base, it then selects a winnable candidate and supports him and helps him to win the seat. The governments which are then formed represent the various caste groups and sub-groups and for that matter religious groups or professional groups, roughly in proportion to their numbers in the State or the country. In essence, the government and legislature have become caste federations, with high castes generally occupying the top.

Once in government, the ruling caste-combination determines the composition of the other parts of the political structure, including High Court judges, makes nominations to various discretionary appointments like Chairmen and Members of various Commissions, Boards and Corporations. It would be interesting to find out the distribution of power, political and economic, among various castes, but unfortunately the caste identity is never made transparent because it covers obvious injustices, disproportions and inequities. If the castes of legislators, particularly those sitting on the Treasury Benches, the composition of the Ministers, of High Court judges, of nominees to high positions and even the higher bureaucracy were known, it will confirm my thesis that after independence the positions of power, which also generate money and influence, are overwhelmingly monopolised by the three high castes of the Hindu society, the Brahmins, the Rajputs and the Banias. But over the years the proportion of intermediate castes and the forward Shudras has risen, particularly in the membership of legislatures, possession of cultivable land and as public servants or government contractors.

The disproportion that continues is not caused by comparative merit but by design. Power and wealth are not gifts but merely the other side of the coin which has deprivation and margi-nalisation etched on it. The battle against casteism or communalism is a long battle. As a nation we never tire of repeating the slogans of Social Justice but invariably we falter when it comes to taking any drastic step or any revolutionary measure which would change the political, social and economic landscape. That is whey the elite or high castes or rich classes always join in rejecting the demand for universal reservation for all identifiable groups, in proportion to their population, in legislatures, in government employment, in education of quality, in distribution of development benefits, in flow of bank credit. All political parties pay lip-service to the aam admi and at best provide nominal employment, minimum food security and even schools which do not teach, hospitals which do not treat the people but keep them alive on hope. Not even the intellectual class is prepared to test whether the educational, economic and social disparities are tapering down. The repre-sentational gap, the per capita family income, the educational gap, in terms of suitable parameters, can be tested every ten years to see whether the inter-group disparities have gone up or down.

The powers that be may speak of inclusive development, participatory governance and power-sharing, but these are all political bluffs, intended to keep the people off the revolutionary path. Casteism and communalism as well as tribalism and even linguism will die a natural death if the political system, especially the parties in the governments, is committed to equitable distribution of resources, goods, services and opportunities among all. We all speak of human dignity and fraternity but Homo Indicus is yet to be born. We have failed to create an environ-ment of Freedom, Equality and Justice for all, which shall then infuse the social processes. Homo Indicus will have a multi-dimensional personality and an integrated approach to discard what is no longer socially useful and keep what is valuable for his survival and progress.

Such a basic change cannot be brought about by a single election (as claimed in Bihar in 2011) especially under the present first-past-the-post system. It cannot be brought about by governments which do not enjoy the support of a majority of the people. The antidote to casteism and communalism lies in basic changes in our political and electoral systems by adopting a presidential system in keeping with our culture, ethos and proportional electoral system by extending universal reservation, as mentioned above, to each identifiable group and give equal opportunity to all. It can be achieved by a system in which the government shall exercise its discretionary and nomination powers in accordance with a rotational system. It can be achieved only by decentralisation of power, by strengthening the Panchayati Raj system, by creating strong, effective and articulate Gram Sabhas. It can be achieved not by imposing Plans formulated in an ivory tower but by planning from below, permitting each village and each panchayat to prepare its own plan, adding them up to create the block plan and then adding up the block plans to create the zilla plan and by adding up by the zilla plans to create the State Plan and finally adding up the State Plans to create the National Plan, adding at each level some schemes which benefit the blocks or the zillas or the State or the country as a whole.

This shall be achieved only when the Centre becomes no more than an agency for collection of tax and distributing it among the States, right down to the panchayats on an equitable basis along with shelve-full of social and local development schemes and programmes, to be chosen by the people freely. Once all villages and all towns and all zillas and all States have the same level of economic prosperity, educational attainment, job opportunities, our essential identities like caste or religion or region or tribe shall become meaningless and wither away and all Indians will be proud of having a common identity.

A certain measure of social reform will also be essential to achieve this goal. Today a Muslim is recognised by his name. A caste is recognised by a surname. Why can’t we change the system and abolish surname and even promote inter-group marriages to the extent possible in our diversity?

As Indians, we should not be proud of our adherence to formal democracy or of our provided capacity to change governments without violence. We should always look at the unfinished agenda of the nation: to create a society based not only on Freedom but Equality and Justice.

The author is an ex-MP, and the former editor of Muslim India.