Anbumani questions DMK’s failure to conduct caste survey

The recent criticism by Anbumani Ramadoss of the DMK government regarding its failure to conduct a caste-wise survey in Tamil Nadu brings to the forefront a deeply entrenched and politically charged issue in India: the role of caste data in ensuring social justice and effective governance. This isn't just a local Tamil Nadu issue; it reflects a broader national debate on affirmative action, reservation policies, and the fundamental need for accurate socio-economic data.

To understand the current discourse, one must delve into the historical context of reservations in India. Tamil Nadu has a pioneering history in this regard, with affirmative action predating independent India. The Justice Party, formed in 1916 in the Madras Presidency, was instrumental in advocating for communal representation. Post-independence, while the Constitution enshrined equality, it also made provisions for affirmative action for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution empower the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the SCs and STs. Article 340 further provides for the appointment of a commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes. The first Backward Classes Commission, led by Kaka Kalelkar, was set up in 1953, followed by the Mandal Commission in 1979, whose recommendations led to 27% reservation for OBCs in central government services and public sector undertakings, sparking widespread protests and legal challenges.

The landmark Supreme Court judgment in the Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India case (1992) upheld the 27% OBC reservation but introduced the 'creamy layer' exclusion and, crucially, stipulated a 50% cap on total reservations. Tamil Nadu, however, has maintained a unique 69% reservation, exceeding this cap. This was achieved through the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993, which was subsequently placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution by the 76th Constitutional Amendment Act in 1994. The Ninth Schedule was created to protect certain laws from judicial review, though its absolute immunity has been questioned by the Supreme Court in later judgments (e.g., I.R. Coelho case, 2007).

Anbumani Ramadoss's protest, therefore, highlights two critical concerns. Firstly, the demand for a caste-wise survey is seen as essential to legally buttress and 'protect' the 69% reservation from potential judicial challenges, especially given the 50% cap. Proponents argue that updated and comprehensive data on the socio-economic status of various castes is necessary to justify the existing reservation levels and demonstrate their continued necessity. Secondly, such a survey is deemed vital for the 'proper delivery of government schemes.' Without accurate, granular data on the population distribution and specific needs of different caste groups, welfare schemes risk being inefficiently targeted, potentially failing to reach the most deserving beneficiaries. This aligns with the broader push for data-driven policymaking and evidence-based governance.

Key stakeholders in this debate include various political parties like the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), led by Anbumani Ramadoss, which primarily champions the cause of the Vanniyar community and other OBCs. The ruling DMK government faces the challenge of balancing political demands with administrative feasibility and potential legal ramifications. Other political parties, various caste associations, and civil society groups also have vested interests, either advocating for or against a caste census, depending on their perceived benefits or disadvantages. The judiciary remains a crucial stakeholder, as any legislative or executive action on reservation beyond the 50% cap is likely to face judicial scrutiny.

This issue holds immense significance for India. Politically, caste remains a potent force, influencing electoral outcomes and policy decisions. Economically, reservations aim to bridge historical disparities, but debates persist about their impact on meritocracy and overall economic efficiency. Socially, the demand for a caste census reignites discussions about identity, equity, and the true extent of backwardness. The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act (2019), which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in general categories, further complicated the reservation landscape, pushing the total reservation beyond 50% in many instances and prompting calls for a review of the Indira Sawhney judgment.

The future implications are substantial. The demand for a caste census is gaining traction nationally, with states like Bihar having already conducted one. A comprehensive national caste census, if undertaken, could fundamentally alter India's social justice framework, leading to a re-evaluation of reservation quotas, criteria for backwardness, and the design of welfare programs. It could also intensify political mobilization along caste lines and potentially lead to new legal challenges regarding the reservation ceiling. The debate over the 69% reservation in Tamil Nadu, therefore, serves as a microcosm of the larger, complex, and evolving narrative of social justice in India, underscoring the enduring challenge of balancing historical disadvantage with contemporary realities and constitutional principles.