Dalit History Month | Ambedkar Wanted Reservations Only For 10 Years? They Lied to You. Read The Truth

As Bahujan communities worldwide celebrate Dalit History Month, we are recollecting the incidents from Babasaheb Ambedkar's life that continue to shape our present realities. One of the most contentious and ongoing debates-both in courts and in public discourse-revolves around whether Dr. Ambedkar endorsed a time limit for reservations.

The controversy has often been weaponized to argue that reservations were meant to expire after ten years, with many misusing Babasaheb's own name to attack the very safeguards he fought for. In this context, here is an article that sets the record straight.

This article is a chapter taken from Senior IRS officer Nethrapal's book 'The Inspiring Ambedkar' (2024), and The Mooknayak will be publishing a series from the book during Dalit History Month.

Did Ambedkar Endorse Time Limit for Reservations?

The controversy started when one of the supreme court judges made a comment that Dr B.R. Ambedkar wanted reservations only for 10 years. The argument takes a ugly turn when many use Dr Ambedkar to abuse the scheduled castes, stating that including Ambedkar never wanted reservations beyond a time limit of 10 years. But the evidences now clearly show that Ambedkar was forced into accepting the 10 years limit by Sardar Patel. We need to go back to Poona Pact discussions in 1932.

Ambedkar’s demand was never for joint electorates with reserved seats. But his demand was for separate electorates for scheduled castes. He finally got a communal award from Ramsay MacDonald approved after intense fights at the Round Table Conference in 1932. But to his utter surprise, Gandhiji went on fast to death till the said provision was not rolled back. The 1932 Poona Pact was the result of this, where Ambedkar conceded the idea of separate electorates. As per clause 2 of the Poona Pact, the depressed classes will vote first to elect a panel of four candidates belonging to the depressed classes, and then the joint electorate will choose one among the four.

A careful examination of clause 5 of the Poona Pact clearly shows that the review of the primary election for choosing through a separate electorate would be reviewed by mutual agreement at the end of 10 years. The words used are mutual agreement, and it is clear that only if there is a clear agreement between both groups can the separate electorate be removed and replaced by joint electorates. Again, it is clear that it is only through mutual agreement that the political reservation can be removed. The 10-year clause is only for separate electorates and not for reservations.

The pact clearly shows that reservations would continue even under joint electorates and could be removed only by mutual agreement. In the constituent assembly, a 2/3 majority as well as state approval of the proposal served to replace this mutual agreement. However, in recent times, the courts have entered the arena of determining whether the 10-year reservation can be ended. In this background, it is evident that only parliament can end this reservation and the judiciary has no role in this. Many legal pandits have also told that since it was part of Poona Pact, until and unless there is mutual agreement between scheduled castes/tribes and other Hindu communities, these provisions cannot be struck down. In a sense, it is a basic structure of the constitution.

In the constituent assembly, a minority committee under Sardar Patel was formed. Ambedkar submitted an exhaustive note on the subject of minorities and fundamental rights on February 27, 1947. He proposed political reservations by separate electorates, educational reservations, and public service reservations for all minorities. He also proposed safeguards, “provided that all concessions in privileges given to minority communities should be effective for a period of thirty years, after which the communities should be consulted as regards their modification.” However, this was defeated in the constituent assembly, which stated that there should be a joint electorate with reserved seats and that reservations should be for a period of ten years.

Initially, Scheduled Castes were included as minorities along with Muslims and Sikhs. The recommendations were also included in the draft constitution, which was published in February 1948. However, some Congress leaders became very skeptical about this and started mentioning that Sikhs and Muslims should not be given any reservations. A committee consisting of five members was formed. The members were Vallabhbhai Patel (as Chairman), Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, K.M. Munshi, and B.R. Ambedkar. In this report, the committee decided against political reservations for Sikhs and Muslims. Some members also suggested that scheduled castes also do not have political reservations. Ambedkar mentioned his famous speech at Ramdaspur Jullundar, Punjab, during the election campaign.

Ambedkar’s stand made the members of Advisory committee to reconsider its position. As a result of a strong opposition from Ambedkar, on 11th May 1949, the proposal for reservations for scheduled castes and tribes was approved. However Muslims and Sikhs did not get any political reservations. However the ten years clause for political reservation was introduced. Now again one can see that this clause is only for political reservations and does not apply to public services reservations and reservations in educational institutions. This is only for political reservations. However there is some catch in this, since Ambedkar was very sure that is 2/3rd majority would be a herculean task for any government.

Ambedkar was not happy with this provision and he mentioned that “ I personally was prepared to press for a larger time, because I do feel that so far as the Scheduled Castes are concerned, they are not treated on the same footing as the other minorities… it would have been quite proper I think, and generous on the part of this House to have given the Scheduled Castes a longer term with regard to these reservations... For the Scheduled tribes I am prepared to give far longer time. But all those who have spoken about the reservations to the Scheduled Castes or to the Scheduled tribes have been so meticulous that the thing should end by ten years. All I want to say to them in the words of Edmund Burke, is “Large Empires and small minds go ill together”

Ambedkar did not stop here and he mentioned that political reservations will not expire at the end of the 10 years. It can be still extended. He said:

Thus it becomes clear that Ambedkar never visualized the concept of fixed ten years and also demanded a larger time. One more important thing is that the discussion pertains to only political reservations and does not pertain to educational or public employment reservations. The latter two are permanent in nature, and there is no time limit for them. The extension of time is only for Political representation under Article 334, where the time limit was initially fixed at 60 years. However, by the 95th Amendment, this 60-year period was extended to 70 years. Article 334 is only for Political representation and not for the other two types of reservations.

To summarize this,

1) Political Reservation: Time limit is applicable.

2) Educational Reservation: No upper limit of 10 years prescribed.

3) Public Services Reservation: No upper limit of 10 years is prescribed.

Now regarding Political Reservation, it’s a mathematical impossibility to achieve 2/3 rd. majority.

For any constitutional amendment, 2/3 rd. of 542 MPs=361 votes are required.

Currently, SC + ST + OBC representation is 258 MPs more than the Upper Caste representation of 232 MPs , so it’s a mathematical impossibility for any amendment to be carried out.

It is very important to introduce 27% for the OBC in the parliament. So that after that, For every 100 MPs, General = 50 MPs and SC/ST/OBC = 50 MPs It will be a mathematical impossibility to get a 2/3rd majority to remove political reservations.

This is the single reason why the OBC reservation in Parliament is resisted. Once this is done, it is almost impossible to remove political reservation through the constitutional route.

Political Parties should take this up and ensure mandatory 27% reservation for OBC in Parliament is introduced so that a minimum representation of 50% for SC+ST+OBC in Parliament is ensured.

Gratitude: The Mooknayak extends its deepest gratitude to Senior IRS Officer Nethrapal for his rigorous scholarship and for granting us permission to serialize his book The Inspiring Ambedkar. His forensic dissection of the Poona Pact, the constituent assembly debates, and the Patel-Ambedkar dynamic has given our readers an invaluable weapon against the distortion of Babasaheb’s legacy.