REPORTSKarnataka Backward Classes P Radhakrishnan Karnataka chief minister Veerendra Patil has repeatedly announced his government's commitment to implement the report of Karnataka Third Backward Classes Commission. However, if the stirrings in some of the communities excluded from reservation benefits, like the numerically strong and politically crucial Lingayaths and Vokkaligas, and their demands for rejection of the report are any indication it is unlikely that there will be any earnestness in fulfilling this commitment, i THE report of the Karnataka Third Backward Classes Commission, submitted by justice O Chinnappa Reddy in April 1990 and placed before the Karnataka assembly in June 1990, is probably the most erudite and authentic document on who should be treated as belonging to the backward classes (BCs), how, and what should be done for their deliverance from rhetoric to reality. The appointment of justice Reddy in March 1988 and the constitution of the third commission was in the wake of the state government's rejection of the report bf its second commission. The appointment of this commission in turn was the outcome of some writ petitions challenging the validity of the two government orders on the report of the first commission. HAVANUR COMMISSION parent error) for the purpose of Article 16(4), and from category 2 all the 13 communities which the commission had included without any basis. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court in the K C Vasanth Kumar case. In the course of the hearing of this case by a constitution bench, in November 1982 the Karnataka government gave an undertaking to the Supreme Court to appoint another commission. It was following this undertaking that the government constituted the second commission in April 1983, with 15 members including its chairman T Venkataswamy, and member-secretary. VENKATASWAMY COMMISSION In its well researched and widely acclaimed report (in four bulky volumes) submitted in 1975, this commission, constituted in 1972 by chief minister D Devaraj Urs with L G Havanur as chairman and six fithers as members, first identified the socially backward castes/communities by applying multiple tests such as economic, residential, and occupational. Among the communities so identified, for educational purposes (Article 15(4)) the commission treated those whose performance in the 1972 SSLC examination was below the state average but above 50 per cent of it as category 1 of 15 'backward communities'; and those whose performance was below 50 per cent of the state average as category 2 of 128 'backward castes', and category 3 of 62 'backward tribes'. Category 2 also contained 13 minuscule communities with a combined population of about 0.1 per cent though the commission did not have adequate data on their backwardness. After excluding six communities from category 1 (Arasu, Balija, Devadiga, Ganiga, Rajput, and Satani) which the commission found were adequately represented in the public service, and the 13 communities from category 2 on which it did not have enougn data, it retained the above three categories for employment purposes (Article 16(4)) as Economic and Political Weekly well. For an estimated population of about 42 per cent to 45 per cent (19 per cent to 22 per cent in category 1, 14.5 per cent in category 2, and 8 per cent in category 3), the commission recommended an overall reservation of 32 per cent (16 per cent, 10 per cent, and 6 per cent respectively for the three categories) for purposes of both the articles. As the commission treated only one populous community, Vokkaligas, as backward, but not the Lingayaths, Muslims, and Christians, while accepting its recommendations in general, for political expediency the Urs government included the Muslims as a whole in category 1, and the ' scheduled caste (SC) converts to Christianity upto the second generation in category 2 for purposes of both the articles. To satisfy the Brahmins, Lingayaths, and other forward communities excluded by the commission, the government contrived a 'special group' irrespective of caste/community consisting of actual cultivators, artisans, petty businessmen, persons holding 'inferior appointments' (class IV or equivalent), and self-employed or those engaged in manual labour. The government also increased the quantum of reservation to 40 per cent (20 per cent for category 1, 10 per cent for category 2, and 5 per cent each for categories 3 and 4), and. introduced an income limit, ostensibly for restricting the reservation benefits to those whose annual family income did not exceed Rs 8,000 in the case of the first three categories, and Rs 4,800 in the case of category 4. In 1978 the two government orders (GOs) on Havanur's report, of February 22 and March 4, 1977, were challenged before the Karnataka High Court on many grounds by as many as 252 persons. In April 1979 the high court upheld the GOs in the main but struck down in part: It upheld the division - of the BCs into three categories, the creation of the special group, and the inclusion of Muslims and SC converts to Christianity; but struck down from category 1 Arasu for purposes of either Article 15(4) or Article 16(4), and Balija, Devadiga, Ganiga, Rajput, Satani, and Nayinda (the last by some ap- As justice Reddy has rightly observed in his report, the Venkataswamy Commission made one of the most comprehensive socioeconomic and educational surveys ever undertaken, covering about 91 per cent of the state's 3.6 crore population consisting of about 61 lakh households, by a door-to-door enumeration; issued wideranging questionnaires and elicited answers; interviewed large number of individuals and representatives of associations; and gathered statistical information from all available sources. For determining backwardness the commission formulated as many as 17 socio-economic, educational, and employment indicators, covering in each caste/community the number of houseless/siteless families, families living in puk'ka/katcha houses, families with annual income of less than Rs 5,000, and more than Rs 20,000, families holding less than one standard acre of land, and more than 20 standard acres; and the population of agricultural labourers, urban settlers, illiterates, drop-outs below the seventh standard, SSLC students, employees in each of the four classes (I to IV), and self-emp(oyed. The commission first identified as socially backward all those communities which scored nine or more indicators. Among them, like the Havanur Commission, it treated as educationally backward those whose performance in the 1985 SSLC examination was below the state average. It found the social and educational backwardness as revealed by trie 17 indicators and the SSLC performance test respectively to be coincidental in all but 13 eases. In these cases it took the SSLC performance test as yet another indicator and treated as educationally backward those communities which scored ten or more indicators. Of the communities so identified it treated 15 whose SSLC performance was below th< state average but above 50 per cent of it as group A, and 20 whose performance was 50 per cent below the state average as group B. It applied similar tests for determining employment backwardness after taking into consideration the caste/community percentage and state average of employment in the 1749 August 11, 1990 should strike even the naivest of the naive as eloquent testimony of its thorough investigation and the general authenticity and reliability of its methodology. economic prosperity. and statistics on education and employment for the entire state collected from an apathetic bureaucracy after frustrating interactions. the best way to fight it is to fight the other two evils from which it draws sustenance in abundance. and occupational attainments of the various castes. and abolition of the hackneyed special group from which only the forwards had benefited mainly by entry into professional colleges and state services. exclusion from the reservation benefits all those with annual family income above Rs 15. and such other castes at one end of the spectrum. its second recommendation was for an overall reservation of 27 per cent for both purposes. the three volumes of the commission's report.000. insistence on income certificates for claiming the benefits. Justice Reddy has rightly termed the first charge as unjust and uncharitable. and other religious groups. right at the outset justice Reddy has expressed in unequivocal terms his abiding concern for the continuation of this policy and the constitutional mandates on it. the SC/ST 'outcasts' at the other end.2 He has then examined their relative position with reference to political power. and elaborately dwelt on each one of them with reference to the data collected by it. Making good use of the rich data collected from a wide array of sources such as evidence by individuals and associations representing various castes/communities. carry forward system for unfilled quotas. and share in the total admissions to the various professional and post-graduatf courses and in the total employment in universities. social and educational" (p 3). though the Surpeme Court laid down the guidelines for the commission's benefit only in May 1985. especially the drastic cut in the BCs from about 200 names to just 35 names and in the quantum of reservations from about 50 per cent (with reservation for the special group increased to 15 per cent in 1979) to 27 per cent. and 7 to 16 in group D. 12 in group A. In doing this justice Reddy has first presented the population estimates for 1988 for the different castes/communities. But if the government were in earnest it could have easily overcome this defect by a reconsideration of the relative importance of the different indicators for which the numerous statistical presentations made by the commission gave ample scope. and treated 31 of the above 35 communities as backward for employment purposes. Its recommendations directly related to the implementation of the reservation provisions included reservations in promotions as well. Not surprisingly. and a wealth of information on the history and sociology of the BCs. 14 per cent for group A (for about 18 per cent population) and 13 per cent for group B (for about 15 per cent population). for the benefits of the policy by taking into consideration their traditional caste-based socio-economic. Yet in identifying backwardness. In making a general assessment of each caste/community justice Reddy's main considerations have been its traditional social status. economic. proceeding roughly "on the precedence given in rural society to learning over land. Devanga. educational unawareness. This reiteration of the need for reservations in the context of the glaring caste-based inequalities itself brings to the fore the relevance of caste as an inevitable identification unit for any BCs commission (and obviously also for any administrator dealing with the BCs programmes). packed with meticulous details of its work. It also offered a wide array of other recommendations for the gradual upliftment of the BCs. pending the appointment and report of yet another commission. 1990 Economic and Political Weekly . to land over trade. He has done this by calling attention to India's despairingly vast socioeconomic inequalities. Relevance of Caste In view of the frequent attacks on and agitations against the reservation policy. Later. 7 in group C. because of the humble occupations which they pursue. its severe restrictions and several exclusions. and 19 in group B. but also quite a few other advanced and undeserving communities. The five groups into which it divided the BCs. August 11. and. Group E was a numberless 'backward special' of occupational groups. As of the second. and the numerous other castes in between. brought back to the BCs' fold not only the Lingayaths and Vokkaligas. literacy. in particular of the dominant Lingayath and Vokkaliga communities. and of them 31 for employment purposes. and employment. merchant. to crafts over manual labour and manual labour over labour engaged in obnoxious work" (p 42). These recommendations. specially commissioned surveys. education. tours of villages in the several districts. and its methodological inaccuracies. Nehgi. 119 to 138 in group B. landlord. if not for overcoming it. and re-examined this position with reference to their traditional 'social status gradation and hierarchy'. public enterprises and . The 'interim arrangement' which the government then made. together covered practically all Hindu castes (except Brahmins other than Padartis and Staniks. landlessness. and caste degradation. consigned the report to the dustbin. Buckling under pressure from vested interests. It is partly as a challenge to this arbitrary and unsavoury politics of backward classes and reservations. "who because of the low gradation of the caste to which they belong in the rural social hierarchy. and an estimated population of 92 per cent. There were as many as 61 principal names in group A. were in sharp contrast to the expectations of the vested interests. Anticipating that some factors which appear to loom large in the case of one community may appear to be 'dwarfed' by other factorsin the case of another community. and partly as a vindication of the Venkataswamy Commission report that justice Reddy's report has to be seen. that these three 'villains' not only cause backwardness but also sustain each other with remarkable mutuality. REDDY COMMISSION Beginning on page one and going nonstop till page 180. to trade over crafts.in the state government. he has also arrived at the unambiguous conclusion that social and educational backwardness is the outcome of economic underdevelopment.' without any contents list and chapterisation. in addition to other advanced castes such as the Brahmin. in the wake of mounting pro-: tests and agitations especially by the vocal and vociferous Vokkaligas. It is precisely this great relevance of the caste factor which has prompted justice Reddy to probe into the social gradation of the castes in south India. that as caste is a burden acquired with birth. interviews. or because of their poverty and ignorance are also condemned to backwardness. and all those whose grandparents and parents had availed the benefits under both articles. performance in the SSLC examination with reference to parents' income and occupation. the Janata government headed by Ramakrishna Hegde. and as an important criterion for testing the claims of members of such units. that for overcoming backwardness each of the 'villains' has to be vanquished. and the displeasure of a government whose very survival depended on their support. Ganiga. with an overall reservation of 50 per cent. a sort of 'original sin'. he has examined how this social gradation is now reflected in the political. or communities with corresponding gradations. and Maratha. he has projected caste as the primary key. The only 1750 serious defect which justice Reddy has found with the report was what he has termed as its 'weightless marking method' of allotting one mark for each of the indicators. the report did not get the deal it deserved. Predictably. and Vysyas). educational and occupational conditions and the changes which such conditions might have undergone over the years. Vysya. inasmuch as. if necessary. land ownership. poverty. literacy rate with reference to the state average. the report in volume 1 demonstrates in ample measure justice Reddy's sensitivity to the historical and socio-cultural dimensions of the problem of the BCs in a society permeated by cumulative inequality" and a polity purtrefied by power-hungry politicians.public service. educational. even at this late stage the commission made all out efforts to take full notice of these guidelines. His excuses for rejecting the report were the commission's failure to proceed by the Suprerhe Court guidelines. with the 'superior' priestly. were quick to draw the ire of these communities. Balija. While its first recommendation was thus to treat as backward 35 castes/communities for educational purposes. by a revision of the BCs list drawn up by the commission. who claim Kshatriya status. Economic Criterion Justice Reddy has then subjected his assessment of the castes/communities in these lists to the economic criterion. Accordingly. Table 1 is an attempt to capture this pattern. First. improving as the income level went up.3 Keeping in mind the uniform and consistent patterns which have emerged from the data on various factors of social and educational backwardness. occupational. Halwakki Wakkals are again lower agriculturists. justice Reddy has confirmed the two provisional lists prepared by him. Tigalas are gardeners and betel. Taking the average of the ratios of higher employment and higher education (column 12) so as to fully capture both these aspects of relative access. who have a high social status. to-confine to the groups with 0. justice Reddy has treated the three categories as common for purposes of Articles 15(4) and 16(4). As the economic factor is closely linked to the caste factor and the caste factor has greater links with social backwardness. 1990 . construction workers. 14 names in category 2. Incidentally. justice Reddy has been only too right in suggesting that with some caution and care the socially and educationally backward classes may be identified with reference to a combination of the caste and economic factors. As employment in the public service and admission to higher educational institutions are the main attractions of the present reservation policy. as traditionally a caste of higher agriculturists and soldiers. disaggregated and aggregated analysis of the latent and manifest evidences of social and educational advancement or backwardness. After all his systematic. He has also introduced the economic factor for restricting the reservation benefits to the really backward Economic and Political Weekly by excluding from benefits persons who are seemingly forward as revealed by their parents' educational. The pattern which has emerged from his earlier analysis of the data on the 1988 SSLC examination for the state as a whole is that children of the lowest income group fared badly while those of the highest income group fared best. INEQUALITIES IN OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE as a simple access index (columns 9 and 10). and economic background. all classified as backward. earth-workers.o extremely backward socially and educationally [or] are so small in number that they cannot possibly hope to compete with the larger groups or those who though socially and educationally backward. bxick layers. Having regard to this. arbitrariness involved in fixing and computing such income. and as a further measure of caution. As this issue is part of his recommendations. the 'impracticability'. follow Brahminical rites and usages. Bavajis. Medars are basket weavers. the. more of this later. Article 15(4) is obviously not part of a poverty eradication programme though poverty eradication may also necessarily be involved in any socio-educational programme aimed at the removal of backwardness (p 148).it is the overall effect. Nayindas are barbers and pipers. it 1751 Before proceeding further with justice Reddy's other recommendations. with 52 names in category 1. tank diggers. their representation is only about 6 per cent m both higher employment and higher education. more so because of the difficult in ascertaining the actual income. handloom weavers not owning more than two looms and working for wages or on piece rate basis. The division into categories 1 and 2 is on the basis of the comparative backwardness of the castes/communities as well as their size. have a very low social gradation though in varying degrees: Kurubas are a pastoral community of sheep rearers. As this itself is enough evidence of the crucial role of economic background and the importance of the economic criterion in locating social . and the greatest possible abuse of the income certificates. and 5 per cent for category 3 consisting of landless or land-poor agricultural labourers. The table reveals an amazing consistency in the patterns in the relative access of the different castes/communities to the principal dimensions of the opportunity structure. The overall reservation recommended by him is 38 per cent (11 per cent more than Venkataswamy Commission's recommendation)—5 per cent for category 1. and that the performance was distinctly linked to income. and another of the forwards with 32 names. Since a pass in the SSLC examination is the least qualification with which one could aspire for getting a foothold even into the bottom of either the public service or the higher education. and so on. should give a general idea of the relative access of the different groups to these higher echelon benefits of reservations. and Kudubis are wandering mendicants. one of the backwards with 67 names. and high literacy rate as revealed by the commission's test survey of 523 villages dispersed throughout the state. Justice Reddy's final recommendation on the status of the castes/communities is mentioned in the last column. by arguing that the occupational factor is closely linked with the caste and economic factors. bearing in mind that "some of [them] are either s. Besthas are fishermen (treated in some other states as SCs). The rest. (2) Though the access of the castes/communities in category 2 is slightly better. and a broad caste-class correspondence as revealed by their traditional occupations which are still pursued in varying degrees. the first two categories also include 34 of the 35 castes/communities identified as backward by the Venkataswamy Commission. he has first offered two very powerful arguments. the ratio of the percentage of each caste/community in higher employment (A and B grades)4 and higher education (professional and post-graduate courses) to its percentage in total population. he has again looked at the representation of the different castes/communities in the public service. Dasaris. it will be useful to know the overall pattern that has emerged from his consideration of the various factors in identifying the BCs. The population coming under the first two categories is about 8 per cent and 33 per cent respectively (including the Lingayath subgroups) while that of the third category is unknown. the Constitution would have used the expression 'economically backward' and not the expression 'socially and educationally backward'. this time by treating women as a separate category within each caste/community for the state civil services for which he could obtain the relevant data. and even wear the 'sacred thread'. On this. By numerous illustrations he has then exposed the 'hollowness'. and construction workers. Thus. and numberless occupational groups as category 3. However. He has divided the list of the backwards into three categories. wine cultivators (comparable to the Vanniyars in Tamil Nadu). they are included in the fourth category. without necessarily recognising the economic factor through income certificates. his main task has been to consider the extent of relevance of this criterion. and educational backwardness. For a population of about 16 per cent. or effect of all factors taken together that justice Reddy has considered for determining caste backwardness. are more advanced than themselves" (p 170). and makers of toys and idols and saddles for horses. and the 'undesirability' of adopting an income criterion as the sole basis. woollen and blanket weavers. the ratios of the percentage of each caste/community in columns 4 and 7 to the percentage in column 3 are presented in the table August 11. 28 per cent for category 2. the castes/communities are arranged into three categories. the ratio of the percentage of SSLC passes in the population of each caste/community to the percentage of SSLC passes in the total population (column 8) is presented in column 11. it is only this group which justice Reddy has classified as advanced in category 1. Since the SCs and STs are not part of the reservation policy under discussion.1 per cent or more population which alone are listed in the table:5 (1) The access of the castes/communities in category 1 to the opportunity structure is very low. Agasas are washermen. Devadigas are temple servants (of a lower order than priests) and temple musicians. stage by stage. Second. and Somavamsa Arya Kshatriyas are painters and artists of a lower order. Upparas are saltmakers. Their performance in the SSLC examination is also mostly well below the state average. if economic criterion is to be the sole test and if socially and educationally backward classes are to be equated with the economically backward. On the basis of his overall assessment of the different castes/communities he has drawn up two provisional lists. Among these castes/communities it is only the Marathas. their good performance in the SSLC examination. This is precisely what he has already done in his consideration Of the various factors under caste backwardness. 4 0.8 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 Advanced Advanced Advanced Backward 2 Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Backward 1 Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Advanced Backward 1 See note 6.2 0.0 0.4 0.6 14.0 18.2 1. Pangual.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 9 Halwakki Wakkal 0.4 0.7 11.3 0.0 1.5 16.4 3.3 10.8 0. and Yerakala (all classified as backward 1).0 3.0 1.0 See note Others in the first three categories (SNs 15.7 3. and 46) are Aganudi. Chunchar.1 0.6 0. Asbalakkaran. Takankar.0 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.3 0.1 11 Medar 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.3 1.3 2. 1990.5 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.2 1.0 0. Bhanta. Gurkha.1 0. Vasudev.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.3 1.8 0.3 0.0 5.3 0.5 1.0 0.4 0. Bhatraju.0 0.7 0.1 23 Satani 0.1 0.2 37 1.1 .0 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.3 1.1 0.1 9.0 0.5 0.0 2.7 0.8 5. Pamlor.4 0.3 0.4 02 2.6 21. Among Christians only SC-ST converts are classified as backward 2.2 0.5 0.4 1.0 12.8 0.2 0. Yeralu.4 0.2 0.3 0. Kotari.5 0. Gurav.8 0.4 0.2 0. Vaidu.3 1.6 0.6 0.5 2.3 0.7 1.2 0.2 0.4 1.2 0. Source: Tabulated from Report of the Karnataka Third Backward Classes Commission. Kanjirbhat. Katabar.0 0.7 " 1. Dudigara.4 0.1 2.1 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.8 2. Kolari.4 0.6 1. Tilari.1 18.5 1. Bogad.3 0.3 1. In category 3 the last three are classified as backward 1 and the rest as advanced.1 0.5 1.0 1.8 1.2 0. The rest are advanced.5 1.2 10 Dasari 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.8 12.7 O.2 5. Rajukshatriya.0 0.7 0.8 0.3 18 Idiga 19 Viswakarma 1.0 0.8 0.0 1. Satarkar.4 22 Mudaliyar 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.8 v 0.4 0.4 1.4 3.1 0.9 11.6 1.7 2.1 13 Sonavansa Kshatriya 0.4 0.2 0.3 1.4 1.9 1.5 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 1.6 0. Panika. Budubudiki.6 0.9 0.7 0.4 0. Hugar.0 0.3 0.8 0. Kurma.5 100.7 2.6 0. Mudhar.5 2.7 1.4 0.1 0.1 15.6 1.9 1.0 0.1 14 Kudubi 15 Others 0.0 10. Kaniyan^agartha.5 0.7 0.0 1.5 1.2 67.4 0.1 0.3 1.3 1.9 U> 1. Kolla.6 0.6 0.1 2.9 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.5 0. Ganiga.1 1.9 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 4.0 0.0 0. Reinudas.2 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.6 1.6 0.8 0. Sansia.4 1.4 0.3 1.1 24 Others 20.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0. Ghisade.4 1.4 0.7 2.0 1.7 0.0 11.5 0.2 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.9 0.9 2.1 0.9 0.4 0.3 1. Veer.1 0. In category 2 all the three are classified as backward-1.7 1.7 0.6 1.9 .1 0.5 6 Tigala 0.5 0.4 0. Pategar. Devadasi.1 0.6 0. and Ambalavasi.8 1.1 0. Gondali.3 0.4 2.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.3 0.6 15.2 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.4 0. Gatti.2 0.1 18.8 0.3 0. Gondali is not classified.5 0. Malava.5 1. 1988 SN Caste/ Community Population Per Cent 3 Employments Per Cent AB C D Higher SSLC EducaPass tion Per Cent Per Cent 7 8 Col 4 9 Access Index of Col 7 Col 8 Average Recommended of Cols Classification 9 and 10 12 13 1 2 4 5 6 10 11 I Very Low Access 1 Kuruba 6.5 3 Bestha 4 Uppara 1.5 0.4 0.2 1.3 .8 1.7 1.6 2.9 0.4 100.0 0.2 0.1 13.4 0.1 15.2 1.3 2.2 0.1 3.2 5 Agasa 0.* „ 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.5 100.4 0.5 2.7 0.8 3. Rayaramath.0 1.1 38.3 2. 24.2 1. the rest are classified as backward 1.9 1.2 0.3 0.1 0. Hawadiga.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.4 1.6 0.2 1.6 0. Siddi.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 61.3 2.5 1.0 1.1 «.7 0.5 0.1 1.0 2.9 1.8 5.9 1.5 0. and (b) castes not known.1 12.8 0. Vols 1 and 2.2 0.2 14.4 0.7 0.0 0. Baandhi.0 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.1 1.1 2.3 100.2 0.9 5.2 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.3 2 Maratha 2. Kashikapadi.9 9.4 1.1 0.0 0.1.1 6.2 0. Others! in the last category (SN 49) are (a) groups whose population was not ascertained.9 Total II Low Access 11.3 1.3 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.6 0.4 2. 1752 Economic and Political Weekly August 11. 1.1 0. and Tewar (SN 15). classified as backward 2.1 12 Bavaji 0.1 0.S 0.2 0.7 1.6 04 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 ai 0.1 0.0 0.2 43.2 0.2 2.0 0.9 1.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 2.6 0.8 13.7 Total III High Access 25 Lingayath 26 Vokkaliga 27 Brahmin 28 Christian 15.8 1.7 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.3 5. and Buddhist.3 0.1 0.7 1.9 <S X 0.2 0.1 0. Jatti.4 0.7 16 Muslim 17 Beda 2.5 2.8 3.8 1.9 0.1 0.0 1. and Ladara (SN 24).8 1.4 0.3 0.6 0.9 2.3 Backward 2 Advanced Backward 1 Backward 1 Backward 2 Backward 2 Backward 2 Backward 2 Backward 1 Backward 1 Backward 1 Backward 1 Backward 1 Backward 1 See note Backward 2 Backward 2 Backward 2 Backward 2 Backward 2 Backward 2 Advanced Backward 2 See note 29Balija 30 Jain 31 Bunt 32 Vysya 33 Devanga 34 Neygi 35 Ganiga 36 Kshatriya 37 Darji 38 Kodagaru 39Katik 40 Nayar 41 Rajput 42Urs 43 Kotekshatriya 44Sadaru 45 Jogi 46 Others Total IV Others 47 SC 48ST 49 Others Total Note: 1.0 0.1 13.2 4.9 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.8 3. In category I Gudigara is classified as advanced.2 3.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.7 20.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.O 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.8 5. 1990 .0 0.5 ' 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.9 2.0 0.2 0.7 1.7 V 0.7 0.2 57.7 0.1 0.9 0.TABLE 1: CASTES/COMMUNITIES BY ACCESS TO EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION.5 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 20 Golla 21 Kunbara 0.0 2.9 1. Otari.8 100.1 4.1 1.4 19.9 3. The former are Parsi and Sikh (both classified as advanced).9 2.3 0. and Sikkaligara (SM46).2 0.6 1. 1.5 7 Nayinda 8 Devadiga 0.6 8. 4 0.3 0.5 per cent in higher education.4 0.6 15.0 0. and 62 per cent in the zilla parishads.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.9 0. groups. about 46 per cent in the legislative assembly.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 MLAs 5. still harking back to their traditional importance as militia.0 0. better access (almost very close to their population percentage) to higher employment and education.0 2.0 0.2 2.3 10.5 2. and Sadarus are higher agriculturists.0 0. and 15 per cent in the zilla parishads.3 5. Source: Tabulated from Keport oftheKamataka Third Backward Classes Commission. and Jogis as wandering minstrels and mendicants.0 0. Therefore.0 0.4 61. 100.0 57.0 0.0 U 0.5 0.9 1. Vol 1.0 35.0 0.5 0. in the traditional society they are still ensconced at the summit of the social hierarchy.0 0.6 21. 1988 Population Per Cent 11. Thus.1 0.1 0.6 17.5 0. it is only this caste in category 2 which justice Reddy has treated as advanced.0 18 Lingayath 19 Vokkaliga 20 Brahmin 21 Maratha 22Balija 23 Jain 24 Bunt 25 Vysya 26 Devanga 27Neygi 28 Mudaliyar 29 Oaniga 39 Kshatriya 31 Darji 32 Kodagaru 33 Nayar 34 Rajput 35Urs Total 35. For a population of about SN Caste/ Community I Backward 39 per cent. 78 per cent in the legislative council.5 0. a high caste of landowners and higher agriculturists from Tamil Nadu.2 0.3 0. they virtually constitute the establishment.4 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 13. and the lower stratum of Christians (SC/ST converts) who have a low social status.0 0.4 26.1 0.0 5.0 0.9 3.0 0.9 7.0 39.2 MLCs 5.0 0. For.0 0.7 1. Kumbaras are potters.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 100.7 6.0 0. Ganigas are oil-pressers and oilmongers. 54 per cent each in parliament and the legislative council.0 0. POLITICAL REPRESENTATION TABLE 2: CASTES/COMMUNITIES BY POLITICAL REPRESENTATION. Rajputs and Nayars are landowners and higher agriculturists.0 0. Vysyas.9 0.6 4. Viswakarmas are the smiths. from this category these groups alone have been classified as backward.3 0.00 100.5 0. Though the Brahmins rank only next to these two groups in the power structure. the access of the castes/communities in category 3 is high.0 77. Gollas are cowherds.0 0.5 10.0 0.0 14.5 1.1990.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 14.0 0. (3) In contrast to the above two categories.0 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.7 18.0 0.0 1. Having regard to this.0 0. 9 per cent in the legislative council.0 0.7 3.7 12 Tlgala 13 Nayinda 14 Devadiga IS Halwakki Wakkal 16Katik 17 Others Total II Advanced 0.0 0. as.0 0.3 19. and are top most of all communities. It is.8 1. there ZPMs = zilla parishad members. About 63 per cent o f the presidents of the zilla parishads are also from these communities. For a population of just 3. Idigas are toddy-tappers.5 29.1 0.0 0. and about 13 per cent in higher education.4 5.0 0.0 ZPPs 0.. their representation is only about 11 per cent in higher employment.0 0. Virtually all (90 per cent) the presidents of the zilla parishads are also from this category.9 1. while for a population of about 13 per cent the Vokkaligas control as much as 28 per cent. the numerically preponderant Lingayaths and Vokkaligas who dominate the political scene.6 15.0 100.3 0.0 100.0 0.5 0.0 0. though in some respects better than that of the groups in category 1: Bedas are hunters.2 0.8 3.3 0.0 0. Their performance in the SSLC examination is also mostly well above the state average.0 mothers 36 SC 37 ST 38 Others Total Note.6 31.3 0.0 ZPMs 2.4 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. What is more. socially and educationally.9 2.1 61.0 0.6 0.1 7.9 1.0 89.9 0. along with the other ad August 11.7 21.1 1.0 1 Muslim 2 Kuruba 3 Bestha 4 Beda 5 Idiga 6 Christian 7 Viswakarma 8 Golla 9 Uppara 10 Agasa 11 Kunbara 2.9 0. Balijas.0 0.5 0. their power rests elsewhere. this political dominance is a reflection of the economic dominance of the two groups.4 0. Kotekshatriyas. with their dominance in higher employment and higher education and with about 41 per cent of all the secretaries to government from their community. 21 per cent in parliament.0 0.4 0.3 5.5 0. their representation is about 68 per cent in higher employment and 61 per cent in higher education. The rest.1 10. In this category it is only the Khatiks.7 6.0 0.0 0.5 16.1 10.0 0. however.0 0. and Satanis are priests of the village (non-Brahmin temples).0 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.0 3.0 0. 57 per cent in parliament.0 2. For their combined population of about 26 per cent they have a representation of.2 0. also have a low social status.1 0.4 0.0 8.7 1.5 31.8 Percentage of MPs 7.1 0.6 0. The rest.0 3.0 0. 1990 Economic and Political Wwkly .0 0. Kodavas.0 0. all classified as backward. The performance of'most of them in the SSLC examination is also below the state average. Lingayaths and Vokkaligas are predominantly landowners and higher agriculturists.2 0. as butchers and sellers of meat and animal skin.5 per cent in higher employment.5 0.0 100.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 5.3 22. who have a high social status. His test survey of the 523 villages reveals that for a population of about 18 per cent the Lingayaths control as much as 27 per cent of the land held by all the communities together.0 0. have a comfortable social position ranging from the highest to the middle: The highest social status of Brahmins as priests.0 0.5 4.6 0.3 0.1 3. Kshatriyas. of all the castes/communities in the state they have the greatest access to higher employment and higher education.6 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.is still far from proportionate.0 0. Their performance in the SSLC examination is also well above the state average and of most other group's.1 0.9 2. and repositories of traditional learning and wisdom is well known.2 0. for a population of about 40 per cent.3 2. For a population of about 36 per cent.8 1.0 0.8 0.0 0. ZPPs = zilla parishad presidents. and their relatively.7 0.0 0. all classified as advanced. and 31 per cent in the zilla parishads.0 5.0 0.0 0.1 0. Bunts. Though justice Reddy has. Among these castes/communities it is only the Mudaliyars.0 The pattern of political representation of the different groups in the different bodies from the parliament down to the zilla parishad broadly corresponds to their access to higher employment and higher education (Table 2).0 0.0 0. Darjis are tailors and dyers.0 O.0 0. and 21. the representation of those classified as advanced is about 62 per cent in the legislative assembly.0 19. Devangas and Neygis are weavers.2 0.6 0. and Jains are respectable trading communities.0 0.6 0.6 0.3 0. Arasus (Urs) are a tiny ruling lineage.8 3.3 2.0 0. As justice Reddy has rightly noted.2 0.0 0.5 per cent their representation is as high as 19.1 0. For a population of about 21 per cent.0 3. In contrast to this.0 5. Percentages are rightly excluded from the BCs list thesr in the state totals.0 0.0 0.0 0. the representation of the castes/communities classified by justice Reddy as backward is only 22 per cent in the legislative assembly.2 0.0 7.0 0.2 1.5 2.0 0. A. 1986. Report of the Karnataka Backward Classes Commission. especially its methodology and rich data base. and in placing the report before the legislature. Rs. RECOMMENDATIONS Justice Reddy has made several important recommendations for the effective implementation of the reservation policy. CONCLUSION Justice Reddy's report. and the stemgths and weaknesses of the plans to re-induct them into a normal lifestyle. 23 cm 1990 THE UPROOTED Development. and state civil servljcesare combined in the table. the two major vote-banks of Karnataka. As a liny group of religious mendicants and wandering minstrels. rather than substituting such programmes by mere reservations from which in any case only a select few benefit. Sudarsen & M. Report of the Karnataka Second Backward Classes Commission. is an income-tax or sales tax assessee. Kalam Offers and indepth comprehensive study of the uprooted people. 1990 .3 The one. 1990. by deciding before February 15 every year whether the list needs any revision on a consideration of how each of them has fared in the SSLC examination. 3 Vols. and also all those whose parents are graduates. Ganigas. 160pp. This is precisely what the sceptics see in the government's action of consigning the decision on the report to a cabinet subcommittee headed by none other than Patil himself. At a time when quarrels over the constitutional provisions on reservations have almost set the states ablaze and torn the social fabric apart. for buying time for stalling a ticklish issue. educational and economic improvement programmes. engineer. monitoring and forecasting of the impact of scientific and technological developments and managerial assumptions. and forfeiture of all benefits secured through such certificates. by evaluating the progress of each of the castes/communities included in the BCs list. he has not overlooked the numerous subdivisions and the socio-economic and occupational stratification among the Lingayaths. presumably by also pushing him again into political wilderness. Its omission is apparently an error. 2 Vols. are any indication. 1975. 1754 Though. 5 Castes/communities with population of less than 0. and by recommending measures for their overall advancement. if the stirrings in some of the excluded communities like. 125 200pp 23cm Rs. N e w Delhi 110002 Phone Economic and Political Weekly August-11. A Vols. 120 GIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE GIAN Road. which is also in a quandary now because of the promise on the implementation of the Mandal Commission report which it unwittingly made even before it could grapple with the imperfections and inadequacies of this teport. u a r y a q a n j .group left out. —. after cross-checking them in various ways justice Reddy has used these figures for making projections for 1988. public enterprises. Padmashalis. of all those who obtain false certificates and of all their accomplices including the issuing authorities. (4) Application of the reservation rule not only for the initial appointment but also for the first stage of promotion. (2) Eligibility for the reservation benefits by any member of the BCs only on production of a Tahsildar's certificate. the numerically strong Lingayaths and Vokkaligas. but not the bulk of the BCs. in a quandary. and in the admissions to higher employment and higher education during the preceding three years. the causes and consequences of their displacement. has left Veerendra Patil. References Government of Karnataka. like the Jogis this group should find a place in category 1. 4 For analytical convenience. the Congress(I) chief minister of Karnataka. Gondali. 2 Since the Venkataswamy Commission's figures were accepted by the government for their accuracy. occasional pronouncements on its implementation notwithstanding. Must Published! SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF TECHNOLOGISTS. —. Notes 1 The 207 pages of annexures are relegated to Volume 2 of the commission's report. These include: (1) Exclusion from reservations of all those either of whose parents is/was employed in higher grades (A or B). Keeping their peculiar problem of belonging to a sect (Veerashaiva) which has denounced caste distinctions and yet retain all the pernicious practices of the caste system. he has listed as backward those Lingayat subgroups which occupy the same position as the corresponding Hindu subcastes identified by him as backward. is a qualified professional as doctor. or is owner of more than eight hectares of rainfed dry land or its equivalent. issued on affidavits by parents and by a 'responsible resident' of the locality. Patil has repeatedly announced his government's commitment to implement the report. Patil's failure to honour his commitment may push the state and its reservation policy to an irrational dead end. etc.) Highlightsjjeveloprnent & growth of organisation and society through auditing. Displacement and Resettlement Edited by V. this commitment is a 'doublespeak'. and for the betterment of the really backward. and their demands for rejection of the report. apparently for debate in both the houses.groups. The centre. SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS Anuradha Sharma & Raka Sharan (Eds. as the Deccan Herald had rightly pointed out in one of its editorials. more so when the centre is also still sitting tight on the Mandal Commission report. and Catholic Christians. (5) Setting up of a permanent committee for making the reservation scheme selfmoderating and self-regulatory.1 per cent aregrouped together under 'others' in the table. . was provisionally listed as backward by justice Reddy. a legacy of the pusillanimous Janata government headed by Hegde. (3) Punishment. data on employmen|-m the four corresponding grades in the universities. and (6) Creating conditions for the advancement of the BCs through literacy and poverty eradication. by imprisonment up to six months. may also do well to have a close look at justice Reddy's report. and the less numerous Devangas. Report of the Karnataka Third Backward Classes Commission.