Why a Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes may not achieve the objective of a Social Endosmosis

Mumbai- Recent debates on sub-classification judgement and the fact that Scheduled Castes do not form a homogenous group has been in the current discourse for some time. The state of Bihar, meanwhile, also came up with the caste census that has furthered the discussion about homogeneity of social groups and also how certain social groups have different experiences in economic and social sphere. There is also a larger public debate on whether certain sections of Scheduled Castes who have reaped the benefits of reservation have now formed a creamy layer as a result of it. However, apart from legal intricacies, there are larger social and economic issues that must also be looked upon.

The origin of the current discourse on sub-classification has its roots in the E.V. Chinaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) judgement which said that the Scheduled Castes form a homogenous group. This judgement, with a 6:1 majority was overruled in Davinder Singh vs The State of Punjab  by the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. One of the questions was whether scheduled castes form a homogenous group. Whether it amounted to tinkering with article 341 since it argues to subclassify the Scheduled Castes and regarding what is called a “deeming fiction" which means that whether mentioned or not, it can be treated as a homogenous group were some of the questions that the judgement dealt with. Justice Bela Trivedi, however, had dissented on the point that providing a preferential treatment to certain groups within Scheduled Castes amounts to tinkering with article 341 even if it is about including or excluding certain groups that rests on the parliament. The question of substantive equality also came up. The legal dimensions of the sub-classification judgement has been talked about and the fact that states are now open to sub classifying the Scheduled Castes that could possibly help in the targeted policy is something that is debatable.

There are, however, social dimensions to sub-classifying the Scheduled Castes. In a recent article, Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat argued that for Ambedkar, Scheduled Castes had both homogeneity and heterogeneity within it since the common thread of untouchability runs amongst all of the scheduled caste communities and that untouchability also runs between them. Because of which, Ambedkar called for a dual-policy in this regard which was social and economic in nature. Also, in the Note on the Depressed Classes, Ambedkar argued that untouchability is faced by all those who form the Depressed Classes and that the rigidity of untouchability faced by them does not eliminate the notion of such practice.

What was indeed emphasised by Ambedkar was the notional aspect of it which was uniform across everyone who faced untouchability amongst the Depressed Classes. The uniform group focuses on the policy of legal safeguards in legislature, public services and education for all SC groups and the policy of economic and education empowerment of those individuals who are assetless/landless and less educated within sub-castes. Ambedkar did not propose a reservation within sub-castes. With respect to creamy layer among the scheduled castes, Yogendra Yadav argues that there is no sociological evidence that finds that SCs have formed a creamy layer that entails intergenerational transfer of privileges, social networks and assured social status.

The question that Yagati Chinna Rao and Priyadarshni Joshi in the light of creamy layer among the SCs ask is what is the proportion of creamy layer to the SC population and is the creamy layer always a pernicious agent and scourge of the Dalit community? They argue that to reduce the Dalit issue to creamy and non-creamy layer obscures and deftly deflects the attention from more critical issues.

The social reality of Indian society is indeed caste and as historian Uma Chakravarty argues in her essay on Brahmanical Patriarchy, one of the ways in which the caste system is maintained is through endogamy i.e., marriage between the members of the same caste. The empirical evidence on the number of intercaste marriages also support this fact (according to the India Human Development Survey 2011-12, 5.4 percent of marriages in India are inter-caste marriages).

Ambedkar in Annihilation of Caste and Hindu Social Order mentioned the importance of intercaste marriages as a means to breaking caste hierarchies. Endogamy leads to reproduction of caste hierarchies which in turn doesn't break the caste system but rather solidifies it. Caste, as Sociologist Surinder Jodhka argues, continues to matter “not merely because it persists as an abstract cultural value but also because it shapes social relations on the ground.” Scheduled Castes are discriminated against in groups and that emerges from our social reality of the practice of untouchability.

Untouchability is practiced in varied magnitudes and that can range from not sharing home utensils to not allowing dalits into the kitchens amongst many others. In the matters of discrimination as a group, this is also supported by the atrocities that happen to the Scheduled Castes. In a reply to the unstarred question in the Lok Sabha, the data by the Home Ministry shows that there has been an 18 percent rise in the cases registered for crimes against Dalits between 2018 to 2021. There are numerous atrocities that take place on an almost daily basis.

What sub-classification does is that it attempts to create a new class within the Scheduled Castes. The creation of a new class does not take into account the fact that the remedy is not in the further classification of Scheduled Castes but rather in looking into the fundamental question of how social discrimination can be addressed since the problem is largely social. Secondly, sub-classification assumes that social discrimination happens within Scheduled Castes and not across castes.

The practice of untouchability therefore finds its way only through the very heterogeneous nature of the Scheduled Caste group and therefore the solution lies in classifying it. Thirdly, Sub-Classification in this sense obscures the larger social reality which does not take into account the fact that an economic remedy to a social problem cannot be a solution. The fact that historically discriminated castes have been those who faced discrimination collectively by the upper castes in their society is what should have been the fundamental question.

Finally, a dual policy as Ambedkar envisaged can be the way forward that rests on two footings ie., social and economic which entails group and individual remedy. What we need, in Ambedkar’s parlance, is social endosmosis. Any classification of any kind must look into whether it is leading us into that path or diverting away from it.

The author Shivashish Shanker is currently pursuing a PhD in Development Studies at TISS, Mumbai.