மார்க்சிஸ்ட் டூட்ஸ்Jan 20, 2019
Ten Per Cent Reservation: Who Will Benefit? http://www.anticaste.in/prakash-karat-on-ten-per-cent-reservation/ #Marxistviewonreservation #Communistviewoncaste #Marxistviewoncaste #AffirmativeAction #People'sDemocracy #EMSNamboodiripad #CasteandClass #PrakashKarat #CreamyLayer #Reservation #CPI(M) #Essay #EMS
Ten Per Cent Reservation: Who Will Benefit?

Prakash Karat (Article published in People’s Democracy, January 20, 2019.) The Modi government has got a Constitutional amendment adopted in Parliament providing for 10 percent reservation for economically weaker sections in the general category, i.e., those who are not in the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), or, Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Election Ploy The Constitutional Amendment Bill was passed in great haste – in a span of three days beginning from the union cabinet decision to its adoption by both the houses of parliament.  This has, no doubt, been done with an eye to the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections which is just a few weeks away. The step also smacks of desperation.  The defeat in the assembly elections of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh has obviously unnerved the BJP and it is looking for ways to retrieve lost ground.  The deepening agrarian crisis and growing unemployment has led to an increasing number of caste groups demanding reservation.  The Modi government hopes to appease such demands with the new provision  of 10 percent jobs for the economically weaker sections. The question of providing a quota for jobs and education for the poor of the general category is not a new issue. It came up when the National Front government under V P Singh decided to implement the Mandal Commission recommendation for reservations in jobs for the OBCs in 1990.  This decision led to a sharp division and virulent agitation, particularly in North India, against the reservation for OBCs by upper castes. The CPI(M) upheld  reservation for the OBCs on the grounds that they had suffered social discrimination which had, as per the constitution, made them “socially and educationally backward”.  Hence, just like the SCs and STs, the OBCs also require reservation. However, differing from the Mandal Commission, the CPI(M) held that there should be an economic criteria within the OBC reservation.  This is because, within the OBCs, there is greater differentiation with some sections being better off with land and other resources.  If the genuinely needy in these communities are to benefit from reservations, then the economic criteria is essential to differentiate them from those well off. In the case of SCs and STs, the CPI(M) has consistently supported reservations for them without any economic criteria as they are sections who have been subjected to centuries of vicious social oppression under the caste system which continues to this day. Karpoori Thakur Formula This was not a stand taken newly by the CPI(M)  at that time.  Earlier, the United Front government headed by EMS Namboodiripad in Kerala had set up a commission headed by Nettur Damodaran to look into the question of reservations.  This commission had submitted a report which recommended that an economic criteria be introduced within the OBC reservation.  At that time, only the CPI(M) had supported the report when it was discussed in the state assembly. In 1978, when the Karpoori Thakur government in Bihar announced reservations for the OBCs, there was a strong anti-reservation movement.  At that time, talks were held between the then CPI(M) general secretary, EMS Namboodiripad, and Karpoori Thakur, who was a Lohiaite socialist.  The outcome of these talks was a formula for reservation which was known as the Karpoori Thakur formula. The pattern of reservation introduced in Bihar provided for the economic criteria within the reservation for certain backward classes by having two lists.  The first annexure provide for 12 percent reservation without the economic criterion for the most backward classes and annexure II provided 8 percent reservation with economic criterion for other backward classes.  Further, there was three percent reservation for women and three percent for the poor of the forward classes. This system was working in Bihar for more than a decade when the V P Singh government announced reservation for OBCs. CPI(M) Stand The CPI(M) formulated its stand on reservation for OBCs in 1990 as follows: a) There should be 27 percent reservation for OBCs, with an economic criteria to exclude the better off sections.  If the posts are not filled from the poorer sections, it must revert back to within the OBC category. b) There should be some quantum of reservation (5 to 10 per cent) for the poorer sections within the general category. c) The CPI(M) also stated that reservation can provide only some limited relief and it is not a solution to the basic problems of backwardness and unemployment.  There has to be radical land reform, break-up of the concentration of wealth, and balanced economic development to generate employment to cater to the all-round progress of the people. d) The CPI(M) also had a class standpoint on dealing with caste discrimination, exclusion and reservation as a form of affirmative action.  The bourgeois parties seek to utilize reservation as an instrument for perpetuating caste divisions and identity politics based on caste.  Some of the organisations of the oppressed castes also seek to confine the issue of social justice narrowly to reservation in jobs. For the CPI(M), the question of uniting the working people and poor of all castes and communities is paramount.  This is the only way the existing oppressive socio-economic order can be fought. It is with this approach to forge the unity of the poorer sections of all castes and to overcome  the  divisions perpetuated by the issue of reservation that the CPI(M) advocated providing some quantum of reservation for the poorer sections within the general category. Earlier Efforts In the aftermath of the implementation of the Mandal Commission report, several political parties accepted the stand that the poor in the upper castes should also be provided some relief. In fact, V P Singh had proposed such a measure while announcing the implementation of the reservation for OBCs. The Narasimha Rao government, in 1991, issued an order for 27 percent  reservation for OBCs within which an economic criteria was laid out;  10 per cent was set apart for the economically weaker sections in the general category.  This was broadly in conformity with the approach of the CPI(M). However, the Supreme Court in 1992 set aside reservation  for the general category while upholding the 27 percent reservation, after excluding the creamy layer. The CPI(M) had welcomed the judgement upholding 27 per cent reservation, excluding the creamy layer.  It also stated that the government must devise a method whereby the poor and needy of the non-reservation communities get some relief. The CPI(M) has also consistently maintained that any such relief to the general category cannot be at the expense of, or, by diluting the statutory reservation provided for SCs, STs and OBCs. The above background is necessary to understand the CPI(M)’s position regarding the step taken by the Modi government.  After having miserably failed in creating two crore jobs a year, as promised, and unable to tackle the agrarian crisis, the Modi government was looking for some election ploy before the general elections. False Criteria There was an urgent need for the BJP government to divert the attention of the  people from the dismal fact that,  in the year 2018 alone, nearly 11 million existing jobs were lost.  But the manner in which the Modi government has devised the 10 percent reservation for “economically weaker sections”  is fraudulent.  The way in which the criteria has been fixed for deciding who are economically deprived shows that it is not meant for the genuinely deprived and poorer sections. As per the criteria set out, those having family income of less than Rs 8 lakh per annum, or, who have less than five acres of agricultural land, or, have a residential flat of less than 1,000 square feet, or, a residential plot of less than 100 yards in notified municipalities, or, 200 yards in non-notified municipalities will be eligible for reservation.  This would mean 95 percent of the general category of people will come under the purview of reservation.  This would defeat the very purpose of giving reservation for the poorer sections. The CPI(M) is strongly opposed to extending reservation on the basis of this criteria to the general category.  There is another point which needs to be clarified.  The constitutional amendment, as adopted, only provides for 10 per cent reservation for economically weaker sections in the general category. The amendment does not set out the criteria referred to above.  The CPI(M) MPs in parliament voted for the constitutional amendment as the Party supports such reservation in principle. But the Party will oppose any legislation, or, notification setting out the above criteria. Dismal Record in Quotas The opposition to this measure also stems from the fact that the existing quotas for SCs, STs and OBCs in government posts and higher educational institutions are not being filled up.  The latest figure show that only 21.7 percent of the posts reserved for OBCs have been filled up as compared to the quota of 27 percent.  In both SC and ST categories, there is shortfall in group A and B and a large number of posts are lying vacant. In the case of higher education admissions, the enrollment of SCs, STs and OBCs are lagging behind.  In the case of OBC reservation in private educational institutions, the 93rd constitutional amendment of 2006, which provided this, remains unimplemented since there has been no enabling legislation.  The CPI(M) has demanded that immediate steps should be taken to fill up the quotas for SCs, STs and OBCs in all government sectors and in higher education. The Modi government’s dismal record on this front gives rise to the suspicion that the latest 10 percent reservation for the general category is a ruse to dilute the reservation for the oppressed castes.  This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that the RSS is against caste based reservations. Private Sector Reservation The other vital issue which has been studiously avoided by the Modi government is the extension of reservation  to the private sector.  After nearly three decades of neo-liberal policies and privatization, the scope for reservation in the government and public sector is getting severely limited.  Without having reservation in the private sector, reservation as affirmative action is getting increasingly eroded. The Modi government’s hypocritical stance is exposed by the fact that quotas for SCs, STs and OBCs remain unfulfilled in the central government jobs and its failure to extend reservation to the private sector. There is a standing limit of 50 percent reservation for all categories set out by the Indra Sawhney judgement of the Supreme Court in 1992.  The way in which the Constitutional amendment was introduced and adopted in haste shows that the Modi government is only interested in short term electoral gains.  It has not put in place a well-thought out measure which can meet the legal-constitutional challenge.  It may end up as another election jumla.   (The author is a member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).)

Communists Against Caste
மார்க்சிஸ்ட் டூட்ஸ்Dec 26, 2018
The Marxist Definition: Class and Caste in ‘Creamy Layer’ Controversy http://www.anticaste.in/ems-on-class-caste-and-creamy-layer/ #Marxistviewonreservation #EMSNamboodiripad #CasteandClass #CreamyLayer #Reservation #Essay #EMS
The Marxist Definition: Class and Caste in ‘Creamy Layer’ Controversy

EMS Namboodiripad [caption id=attachment_450 align=alignright width=195] EMS in 1963 (Photo courtesy: Frontline & The Hindu Photo Library)[/caption] Marxism is allegedly incapable of subjecting caste to scientific analysis. This is stated to be the reason why the Marxist political movement has 'failed' to strike deep roots in India's socio-political life. A convincing answer is given to this question by the way in which the Marxist political movement, ever since its inception, has attempted to relate the question of caste and communal disruption to the developing class struggle in the country. In the early 1920s, when India witnessed the eruption of communal riots all over the country, the then young Communist Party of India and its global leader, the Communist International, analyzed the problems of communal disruption, relating it to the developing militant class movement. In several official pronouncements of the Communist International and of the Communist Party of India, the idea was set forth that the communal divide could be bridged not through the liberal notion of ‘unity between the communities’. The real solution lay in the militant unity of the working people belonging to various castes, religious communities, tribal societies, linguistic-cultural groups, and so on. In other words, class unity of the working people against the oppressing and exploiting groups at the top was the real solution for the communal problem. The bourgeois leadership of the national freedom movement naturally refused to subscribe to this idea or to implement it. Their way was either to preach abstract ‘communal unity’ or to deny the very existence of the communal problem. The result was the vertical division of the country into two on the eve of and during the attainment of the national objective of complete independence. What is worse, the communal passions roused in the process culminated in the most tragic communal riots in the two parts of the once-united India – the killing of tens of the thousands of men, women and children belonging to both communities, the looting of property and destruction of houses belonging to one community by another, and so on. This broke the heart of Mahatma Gandhi who refused to join the festivities connected with the dawn of freedom. Ironically, the Mahatma was assassinated by a fanatical anti-Muslim Hindu. It is, therefore, clear that the Marxist assessment of the communal problem was one hundred per cent correct: communal unity cannot be forged except on the basis of class unity bringing together various sections of the working people belonging to both the communities on the basis of a united militant struggle waged by the people against the oppressing classes. This is as true of the caste question as of the communal question. I may illustrate this by the way in which the Marxist movement in Kerala assessed and sought to solve the question of the demand raised by the backward castes for reservation in government service. The realists that they were, the Marxists refused to join the rest of the national movement in denying the caste factor operating in society. They recognized caste divisions and caste feelings as a reality to be reckoned with. But they refused to join the leaders and spokesmen of caste organizations and political parties based on them. The latter considered caste oppression as nothing but the subjugation of the majority of a particular caste by the minority of some other castes. The Marxists, on the other hand, traced the division between castes and the discrimination against the majority of castes at the hands of a minority to the existence of the socio-economic and cultural domination of big feudal landlords and their political representatives, feudal chieftains and ruling families. The all-round struggle against the socio-cultural, economic and political oppression of the ruling classes against the majority of the people is the reality of which caste oppression by a minority of castes against the majority is only a part. The Marxist movement in Kerala in its early days, therefore, did two things: first, it supported the demand of the oppressed castes for full equality with the oppressing castes. That is why it extended full support to the demand of the backward castes for reservation in government jobs and in educational institutions. Second, it refused to join the caste leaders who were mobilizing their supporters as oppressed castes against the oppressing castes. It, on the other hand, organized the working people (belonging to all castes and communities) on class basis. Trade unions, kisan sabhas, agricultural labourers’ organizations, organizations of other oppressed classes on the basis of their class demands were the real alternative to the backward caste leaders’ attempt to organize caste organizations/political parties on the basis of caste demands. There is thus a clear distinction between all-class and caste-based movements organized by the backward caste leaders and the independent class organizations without reference to castes and communities. Adopting as the Marxists did this approach to the caste question and caste demands from the class point of view, the first Communist Government in Kerala (1957-59) proceeded to apply concretely the principle of reservation for the backward castes and communities to the whole of Kerala, unifying the rules and methods of reservation existing in the Travancore-Cochin and Malabar parts of the newly-formed State of Kerala. It was the first Communist Government in the State which formulated and issued the rules according to which definite quotas were fixed for the backward Hindu castes as well as for Muslims and the Christian communities. This order was issued by the first Communist Government of Kerala in 1958. This, in fact, was quoted in the Bill adopted by the Kerala Assembly on August 31 this year. At the same time, as the head of that Government and as the Chairman of the Administrative Reforms Committee appointed by the Government, I felt that the majority of the offices and appointments reserved for particular castes and communities were being cornered by a minority of the affluent section of these communities. The result was that the overwhelming majority of those very castes and communities continued to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water. After discussing this question in detail, the Committee came to the conclusion that the reservation existing in the laws and regulations should be confined to the poor majority in the backward castes and communities, removing affluent families from the list of people who could avail of the reservation facility. This was hotly contested by the affluent sections of both the forward and backward communities. The former criticized it for continuing caste­ based reservation, demanding that the only basis for reservation should be the economic position and not the caste. The latter, on the other hand, criticized the same proposal for excluding the affluent sections in the backward communities from the benefit of reservation; they demanded that the sole basis on which the principle of reservation should be applied should be caste. I personally had the dubious distinction of being the butt of attack from both the sides. Thirty-five years later, however, the highest judicial authority in the country, the Supreme Court, endorsed the proposal made by the Kerala Administrative Reforms Committee chaired by me. 'The creamy layer' criterion laid down by the Supreme Court was virtually the same proposal made by my committee in 1958, the only difference was that, while I gave only the content, the Supreme Court gave it the new term of 'creamy layer'. I may, therefore, make the modest claim that I was the original author of the 'creamy layer' formula. Having made this claim, however, I must admit that the formula originally mooted by me and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court is defective in one respect: if the poorer sections in the backward castes and communities are unable to provide a sufficient number of candidates for particular posts, the posts will be transferred to the 'general pool', which means they will go to the forward castes. In order to meet this difficulty, the all-India leadership of my party has proposed that in such cases – only in such cases – the offices or the posts should go to the affluent section in the same caste or community . Furthermore, a small proportion of reservation should be provided for the poorer sections in the forward castes. Since both these proposals are opposed to the formula adopted by the Supreme Court, the Union Government and Parliament may have to step in, so that: (a) the posts reserved for backward castes and communities are not cornered by the affluent sections in the forward castes or communities; (b) a small percentage of posts are for the poor in the forward castes and communities. This, therefore, is an eminently reasonable formula which should meet the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of people in both the backward and forward castes and communities. Here, a serious attempt is being made to solve the question of caste -based reservation on class principles. Castes and communities which have remained oppressed for generations would continue to have caste-based reservation. But its benefits would go to the poor in the backward castes and communities, while a small proportion would go to the poor in the forward castes and communities as well. Seeing this, no opponent of the Marxist movement can claim that the Marxists do not have an understanding of the problem of oppressed castes and communities or of the oppressed sections within the forward castes and communities. October 17, 1995 (From The Frontline Years: Selected Articles (2010) by EMS Namboodiripad, published by Leftword Books, New Delhi. The book was published under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 India license. For details of the license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/in/)

Communists Against Caste