In October 2017, the NDA government constituted a commission to work out a method of sub-categorisation among castes in the central Other Backward Classes (OBC) list. The commission’s term has been extended six times and last week the Union Cabinet decided that its term would end on 31st July. JK Bajaj, a member of the commission who is also director of Centre for Policy Studies, speaks to Subodh Ghildiyal on the subject.

What has been the most striking finding of your study of OBC reservations in recruitment and admissions over the last few years?

From our data, we have found that 27% Mandal quota is being strictly adhered to. Wherever there is recruitment, the 27% quota is filled. People who talk about unfilled quota, or backlog, view the cadre as a whole. The so-called backlog has accumulated over 60 years of recruitment while Mandal reservations have been in force for only 25 years. The OBC share is lagging in Groups A or B because there is no reservation in promotion for OBCs. So, it will take time. But the fact is that 27% Mandal quota is being implemented in good faith. If Kaka Kalelkar report (submitted in 1955), which spoke about sub-categorisation of OBCs, was accepted at the start, the picture would have been better. But it is still good.

So, you think implementation of reservations has been satisfactory?

It is not a minor achievement. Our reservation system and recruitments are a huge operation. 50% of all vacancies are filled through reservations. If nothing else, this exercise to compile a report on sub-categorisation is giving us a peek into what reservations have led to. What we find is worth celebrating. In the admissions to IITs, IIMs and AIIMS, we have found that there are individuals belonging to castes that would have never imagined entry into these institutions.

If so, why do you need sub-categorisation?

While quota implementation has been good, we have to do a little more. Kaka Kalelkar report had raised the issue of giving separate quotas to large castes and smaller castes. It was not accepted. But Kalelkar had divided the report into two lists. This question arose again in the Mandal Commission and its member LR Naik said there should be two groups, else only some castes will benefit. He gave a dissenting note and divided the Mandal list into two. We are continuing from there. In Mandal, the same argument was made.

Won’t the dominant OBC castes lose from the sub-division of quota?

It is being said that large, dominant castes would be angry with sub-categorisation. We don’t think so. Most of the delegations from the so-called dominant castes who met us said that it should be done. They themselves said there are other castes who should not be made to compete with them. A group of Gounders (from Tamil Nadu) said so. We don’t agree that this process will make the better-off castes unhappy. They have been universally saying that “we will take care of smaller castes”. This is one way of doing it. The result of sub-categorisation will be that the process of bringing extremely deprived castes into the mainstream will become stronger. We would like to see many more from the lower end of metal workers like Sikkaligars, Ghisadi, Sarania, Otari, Bilapatar, Nyaria, in the IITs. They have engineering skills and it will only add to the engineering value of India. Besides the known groups like “Vishwakarma”, there are a large number of petty artisans – like those who sharpen knives and stone masons – who will come up. All of them have engineering skills with them.

Critics say sub-categorisation may be desirable but it cannot be done without a census of OBC castes.

We have collected caste data from the last five years of affirmative action. We have used the pre-independence censuses (the last that enumerated OBCs) for caste population but we have used it in different ways, with improvisation, to reach the closest possible to the real situation. We have used various contemporaneous caste surveys conducted by states to confirm the pre-independence census figures. The population data we have of a category of OBCs (like the deprived ones or the most deprived or the so-called dominant castes) is fairly good. I can say with authority that there would not be a big variation from the real situation.

Would sub-division of OBCs follow the “proportionate quota” principle?

It is certain that sub-categorisation will be done in proportion to the population share of a category in the total OBC population. Our endeavour is that nobody loses much and those who gain, gain.