— ✍️ Dundra Kumara Swamy

Every election in India produces a familiar scene: political leaders travel to the homes of Other Backward Classes (OBCs), seek their support, speak of social justice and promise representation. Yet, once the election is over, a more difficult question emerges: how much of that electoral strength is translated into participation in the institutions where decisions are actually made? This is not merely a question about the number of legislators from OBC communities. It is about who shapes public policy, influences political agendas, controls institutions, produces knowledge and determines the allocation of public resources. Communities whose labour sustains large parts of India’s agricultural economy, artisanal occupations, small enterprises, services and informal economy have acquired considerable electoral importance. But electoral significance does not automatically produce institutional power. The gap between the two deserves closer examination.

The term “OBC” itself covers a remarkably diverse social landscape. It includes communities with different histories, occupations, levels of education, economic circumstances and degrees of political influence. Some groups have made substantial progress in education, government employment, business and politics, while others continue to face serious disadvantages. Any serious discussion of OBC politics must therefore acknowledge another uncomfortable reality: historical disadvantage does not make every group within the OBC category equally disadvantaged. In some contexts, relatively better-positioned communities have also exercised social dominance over more vulnerable groups. Recognising this does not weaken the case for social justice; it makes the case more credible. The objective cannot be to replace one form of dominance with another. It must be to create a system in which representation and opportunity reach those who have historically received the least access to them.

For decades, India has struggled with fundamental questions about social representation: How large are different communities? What is their share in education, employment, assets and public institutions? Who reaches positions of decision-making power? The decision to include caste enumeration in the second phase of Census 2027 is therefore significant. The Union government has announced that caste-related questions will be notified before the commencement of the second phase. But counting a population cannot be the destination; it can only be the beginning. The real value of such data will lie in understanding disparities in education, employment, economic resources and institutional representation. Without credible data, public policy risks being shaped by assumptions and political claims. With reliable data, governments can at least begin to measure the distance between constitutional promises and social realities.

The political significance of OBC communities is undeniable, but electoral importance should not be confused with institutional power. A large electorate can remain fragmented across parties, regions and communities. Political diversity itself is not a weakness; a democratic society does not require every member of a social category to vote for the same party. The deeper concern is the absence of durable institutional capacity that can survive changes in governments and electoral alliances. Political influence requires research institutions, policy expertise, legal knowledge, professional networks, financial capacity, media presence and leadership development. Voting is an act that occurs on polling day; political power is accumulated over years. The challenge, therefore, is to move from electoral mobilisation to institution-building, so that numerical strength becomes a sustained capacity to influence public policy.

The OBC political leadership must also undertake an honest process of introspection. It is easy to blame political parties for seeking votes without ensuring adequate representation, but community leaders and organisations must also be accountable. What happens after a leader obtains office? Does representation produce measurable policy outcomes? Do community organisations retain enough independence to question governments irrespective of political affiliation? Are resources being invested in education, research and leadership development, or does mobilisation remain centred on personalities and elections? A movement that produces office-holders without building institutions remains dependent on individuals. Durable social power comes from institutions that survive elections, leaders who can be replaced, research that informs policy and citizens who demand accountability regardless of who occupies office.

There are encouraging signs of social mobility among sections of the OBC population. Doctors, engineers, lawyers, civil servants, academics, entrepreneurs and other professionals have entered fields that were once considerably less accessible to them. The recommendations arising from the 2025 Civil Services Examination, in which 306 of the 958 recommended candidates were from the OBC category, illustrate the importance of expanding access to competitive opportunities. Yet individual success cannot by itself measure collective institutional advancement. The questions must extend to Parliament and State legislatures, senior public institutions, universities, the legal system, policy research, media, business and other centres of influence. The Justice G. Rohini Commission’s examination of the distribution of reservation benefits within the OBC category also underlines the need to understand internal inequalities. Social justice must address not only exclusion from the outside, but unequal access within the category itself.

The experience of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh also demonstrates why the debate should not be reduced to competition between social groups. Historically influential communities have accumulated political, economic and institutional resources over generations. But the answer to such patterns cannot be hostility towards another community or the substitution of one social dominance for another. The larger objective must be the democratisation of opportunity and decision-making. This requires greater attention to OBC women and young people, who are often counted as voters and political workers but remain under-represented in leadership and policy-making. Young people should not be confined to campaign mobilisation; they should be trained as researchers, administrators, lawyers, entrepreneurs, policy thinkers and political leaders. Similarly, OBC women must be recognised not merely as an electoral constituency but as participants in political and institutional decision-making. Changing leaders is not enough; the system that produces leaders must also change.

The OBC question, ultimately, is larger than reservation percentages. It is about representation in education, employment, legislatures, institutions, knowledge production and policy-making. Caste data should be credible and publicly useful; educational and employment outcomes should be studied across communities; political parties should be encouraged to provide greater transparency on social representation; governments should assess whether public programmes are reaching different groups equitably; and community organisations should retain the independence necessary to question governments of every political affiliation. The fundamental question for Indian democracy should no longer be merely, “How many votes can a community deliver?” but, “How many people from that community participate in making the decisions that affect their lives?” The votes are already there. The unfinished task is to ensure that the voices behind those votes are also present where decisions are made. That is not merely an OBC question. It is a test of the depth and credibility of Indian democracy itself.

- The author is a High Court advocate, National President BC Dal and Chairman of National BC Reservation Struggle Coordination JAC.