Three identities that shape Indian politics: caste through reservation and the vote-bank debate, language through states and minorities (with Bihar’s provisions), and religion and culture through the debate on Hindutva and secularism.
Origins1902Shahu’s reservation50% reservation for backward communities in Kolhapur.
Courts50%The quota capSet by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992).
Reservation10%EWS reservationExtended to Economically Weaker Sections by the 103rd Amendment.
Language22Eighth Schedule languagesA sign of the Constitution’s respect for Indian languages.
BiharUrduBihar’s 2nd official languageAlongside Hindi, for the state’s linguistic minorities.
Hindutva1995‘A way of life’The Supreme Court’s reading of Hindutva.
Reservation and social justice
Reservation in India is a system of affirmative action that provides representation in education, employment and politics for groups that have been, and still are, disadvantaged in Indian society.
Enshrined in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, it allows the government to set quotas to ensure that any “socially and educationally backward classes of citizens” are properly represented in public life. It is meant to realise the promise of equality in the Constitution of India.
Reservation was originally given only to SCs and STs.
It was later extended to OBCs in 1987, after the implementation of the Mandal Commission report.
Recently, the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act extended it to the Economically Weaker Sections.
In some states, like Bihar, it has also been extended to women.
There are income caps for the EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) and OBCs (Other Backward Classes), while no income limits exist for members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Reservation for consolidation of vote banks
Why critics say reservation has become a tool to capture caste votes rather than a measure of social justice.
Reservation was started to improve the lives of the backward classes, mainly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, through an amendment in 1951 for only ten years, but it has since been extended by ten years at a time. Not only this, it was later extended to the OBCs after Mandal.
Reservations have ensured that voters increasingly vote their caste when they cast their vote. Caste reservations have created captive vote banks. In fact, it can be and has been argued that by creating captive vote banks, caste-based reservations have hijacked democracy.
Reservations in India have become a political necessity. Reservation is seen as a tool to gain access to the vote bank.
It is considered a convenient instrument of political mobilisation. Historically, in Indian politics, it has made the fortunes of many regional parties — e.g. the politics on the Mandal issue in the 1990s.
Affirmative action was designed for those who suffered social discrimination and the historical wrong that certain caste or tribal groups experienced for centuries — not as a poverty-alleviation or employment measure.
Even affluent communities demand reservation (e.g. the Patidars in Gujarat, the Kapus in Andhra Pradesh, the Jats in Haryana). Political parties often concede such demands to secure their vote bank.
Sometimes regional parties extend reservation to the local population. This is an obstacle to national integration and against the idea of single citizenship.
e.g. the law for a 75% quota for locals in private industrial jobs in Andhra Pradesh. The Karnataka government is also considering 75% reservation for locals.
Political parties also extend reservation to the original inhabitants of a region — e.g.:
The Marathas were given 16% reservation in jobs and education by the Maharashtra government.
The Marathas were classified as a forward caste by the Mandal Commission. In 2018, they were classified as Socially and Educationally Backward (SEBC) and granted 16% reservation.
The Bombay High Court upheld reservation for Marathas in the state but quashed the 16% quota, calling it “not justifiable”. The court said it should not exceed 12% in education and 13% in jobs, as recommended by the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission (MSBCC).
It creates enmity and competition between communities — e.g. the Gurjars’ demand for reservation was resented by other communities.
It furthers caste-based politics, dividing society along caste lines instead of creating the more egalitarian and integrated society envisaged by the Constitution.
Government jobs make up only around 2.3% of all jobs, so reservation has only a negligible impact on the employment of any caste. Thus, it is largely a tool to fetch more votes.
Relative to population, public employment in India is only one-tenth of that in Norway, only 15 per cent of that in Brazil, and much less than a third of that in China.
Some experts believe it can affect the efficiency of administration and governance.
While reservation is an effective tool for social mobility, we cannot ignore that it has strengthened and institutionalised caste-based identity. Dr. Ambedkar himself said that reservation cannot be for an unlimited time, but because of vested interests, no authority or organisation has been willing to judge how well reservation delivers its intended benefits, or to examine how far it reaches the marginalised. The “monopolisation” of reservation has not been looked into.
Example: The Supreme Court’s ‘creamy layer’ rule (Indra Sawhney, 1992) is one attempt to tackle this: better-off OBC families above an income limit are excluded from OBC reservation.
Rather than doing something better, like providing quality education or building infrastructure, parties rely on these backward tactics of “divide and rule”. Political parties exploit casteism in the reservation scheme.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court capped quotas at 50%. However, political parties conveniently ignore this while making provisions for reservation.
Some parties favour expanding reservation into the private sector without considering its impact on private investment and the business environment in the country.
Reservation goes against the idea of open competition and a merit-based system.
The Supreme Court recently said that reservation is not a fundamental right, and that Article 16(4) only creates an enabling provision. This caused some political alarm and a blame game among parties.
The current generation of the general category also feels discriminated against because of wrongs committed by their ancestors, to which they did not contribute.
The other side
However, reservation cannot be reduced only to vote banks:
The origin of the reservation system lies in pre-democratic India.
For example, in 1882 and 1891, Shahu, the Maharaja of the princely state of Kolhapur, introduced reservation in favour of non-Brahmins and backward classes, much of which came into force in 1902. His 1902 measures created 50 percent reservation for backward communities.
Provisions for reservation are constitutionally guaranteed. They are in line with the vision of a just society in the Constitution.
Article 15 empowers the government to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Article 16(4) states that nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.
Article 46 directs the government to take steps to promote the educational and economic interests of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.
Article 330 provides for reservation in the House of the People.
The Supreme Court has upheld the policy of reservation in various judgments. In the Nagaraj case, it also laid down the conditions for extending reservation to any community.
There is no evidence of a negative impact on governance due to reservation.
It is an effective tool to ensure fair participation in public office by different sections.
The conditions because of which reservations were introduced still persist in India. So reservation should also persist.
In the US, African Americans were oppressed for centuries on the basis of their race. Today, affirmative action gives them opportunities for advancement on the basis of the same race.
However, over time, the efficacy of reservation is being questioned by many. To ensure social justice, we cannot rely solely on reservation.
Methods other than reservation
Laws enforced, benefits that follow need rather than birth, equal schools and health, entrepreneurship, changed attitudes and quicker justice.
Effective implementation of laws like the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
We have to develop a system that automatically takes care of the upward or downward movement of a person’s status.
The present reservation system in India is based solely on caste, which you can’t change. You can change your religion, but you can’t change your caste. So even if you become prosperous, powerful and well known, and actually face no discrimination in society, you continue to enjoy the benefits of reservation.
The better-off are now cornering most of the benefits, leaving hardly anything for the rest of their caste.
So we need to prevent the monopolisation of reservation by the affluent sections of castes.
Bring awareness among the depressed classes about their rights.
Ensure that education and health of equal quality are available to all.
Graduated education vouchers (GEVs) can be an option: all parents would get a voucher covering most of the cost of educating their children, but for the poor, the value of the voucher would be increased, perhaps significantly, depending on the state and circumstances.
Provide economic benefits and promote entrepreneurship among them.
e.g. Stand-Up India, the Mudra scheme, Van Dhan Yojana, etc. have such provisions.
The recommendations of the national commissions for the different depressed classes should be taken seriously.
Bring attitudinal change in society against practices of exclusion. Appropriate education can take us a long way in this direction.
Promote inter-dining and collective games among children of all social groups.
Local leaders and bureaucrats should take the lead — e.g. Gopalganj DM Rahul Kumar ate a mid-day meal cooked by a widow to prove she was not a bad omen.
Political participation and representation also have a positive influence on the social status of the depressed classes.
Special fast-track courts can be set up for cases of atrocities against the depressed classes, for quick justice.
A minimum basic income can also be tried.
More industrialisation and urbanisation also bring more rationality to society.
To conclude, reservation in the present situation is justified. It is a necessary measure to ensure representation and recognition, to democratise public institutions, and to fight the malaise of caste discrimination. But it should not last forever.
We should keep looking for other methods to ensure social justice for the depressed classes, while continuously assessing reservation policies and approaches. The ultimate solution lies in economic advancement and education.
Role of language in Indian politics
Language is an inseparable part of human life and identity. It is the tool with which humans interact with the world.
While listing the characteristics of the nation-state, Machiavelli said that a common language is one of its cornerstones.
Because of the diversity of languages, language becomes an important political issue in India. Language, more than anything else except religion, excites the deepest emotion.
During the freedom struggle, national leaders always promised the masses that Indian languages would be fully developed in free India, and that states would even be reorganised on the basis of language, so that each language got full opportunity to develop and grow.
But when the Constituent Assembly discussed the problem of a national language for India, it found the task was not easy.
In the early years after independence, political issues largely revolved around language. Large-scale political mobilisation took place on the issues of a national language and state reorganisation.
Such mobilisation is more visible at election time and during campaigns — e.g. in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.
Andhra Pradesh was the first state to be reorganised on the basis of language.
After the recommendations of the Fazal Ali Committee, states were reorganised on a linguistic basis.
The recent demand for a separate state of ‘Gorkhaland’ outside West Bengal is because of the alleged imposition of the Bengali language on the Nepali-speaking Gorkha people.
Language also plays a great role in the phenomenon of regionalism.
Constitutional provisions on language
Recognising the importance of language, the makers of the Constitution made several provisions:
Example: Two further safeguards help linguistic minorities directly: Article 350A asks states to provide primary education in the mother tongue, and Article 350B creates a Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities, appointed by the President.
Provisions for linguistic minorities in Bihar
In Bihar, apart from Hindi and Urdu, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Angika and Magahi are also widely spoken. Hindi and Urdu are the official languages of Bihar.
Languages of Bihar
Example: Maithili, spoken in north Bihar, was added to the Eighth Schedule in 2003 by the 92nd Constitutional Amendment.
Like other regions, Bihar also has linguistic minorities, such as Urdu and Bangla speakers. Around 4 lakh Bangla-speaking refugees have been permanently settled by the central government in different districts of Bihar, especially West Champaran.
Urdu has been recognised as the second official language. The status of Urdu is much better than in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh.
Bihar has recognised two official languages: Urdu and Hindi.
Provides for the appointment and functions of a Commission to investigate, ensure and safeguard the rights given to the religious and linguistic minorities of the state by the Constitution of India, and other connected matters.
An exclusive cell has been set up within the Minorities Welfare Department to hear the grievances of linguistic minorities like Bengalis and others.
The new cell is known as the ‘Linguistic Minorities Grievances Cell’.
Children of linguistic minorities who pass the matric examination in the first division get a stipend of Rs 10,000, just like children of religious minorities.
Assists with vocational training for people from minority communities, to develop skills and knowledge for wage employment and self-employment.
Bangla refugees still face various problems, like getting caste certificates issued and land registered in their name.
“The Centre had earlier ordered that refugees be given ‘raiyati’ (ownership) rights on the land officially allotted to them. But this has not been done so far.” So refugee families cannot sell their land even in dire situations.
An insufficient number of Bangla teachers has been appointed in the state government’s schools.
Some others, like the Marwaris and Rajasthanis settled in Bihar, are yet to be recognised as linguistic minorities.
Examine the concept of Hindutva
The concept of Hindutva is very complex, and there are divergent views about its exact meaning. Hindutva literally means ‘Hinduness’, i.e. the quality of being Hindu.
It refers to the ideology of Hindu nationalists, stressing the common culture of the inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent. Since the 20th century, as V. D. Savarkar defined it, it has been seen as the ideological basis of Indian (in his language, also Hindu) nationhood.
The term “conflates a geographically based religious, cultural, and national identity: a true ‘Indian’ is one who partakes of this ‘Hinduness’.” It is championed by the Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other organisations, collectively called the Sangh Parivar.
Savarkar’s three essentials of Hindutva
Is Hindutva against secularism?
The Supreme Court’s reading of the term, the arguments of its defenders, and the political uses of Hindutva.
In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled: “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism … it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption … that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion … It may well be that these words are used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticise the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant.”
According to Jethmalani, the Supreme Court has properly explained the “true meaning” of the term, and “Hindutva is not hostility to any organised religion nor does it proclaim its superiority of any religion to another”.
According to him, it is unfortunate that “the communal propaganda machinery relentlessly disseminates ‘Hindutva’ as a communal word, something that has also become embedded in the minds and language of opinion leaders, including politicians, media, civil society and the intelligentsia”.
Hindutva leaders have sought a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens of India, under which the same law applies to all citizens irrespective of religion. Followers of Hindutva have questioned the differential religious laws in India that allow polygamy and “triple talaq” divorce among Muslims, which compromise the status of Muslim women and “marginalise” them.
Supporters of Hindutva sought to protect native Hindu culture and traditions, especially those that symbolise Hindu culture. They believe Indian culture is identical with Hindu culture. These include animals, language, holy structures, rivers and medicine.
Some political parties began to emphasise the Hindu nationalist element in their ideology. The BJP pursued the politics of ‘Hindutva’ and adopted the strategy of mobilising Hindus.
Thus, different views exist about the meaning of the term Hindutva. Some think of it as a threat to secularism, while others see it as a broad ideology that can unite India as a nation, and as the epitome of secularism because it accepts everyone living in India. The Supreme Court of India has also given the term a benign meaning.
So whatever the origin of the term, it should now be understood in a broad sense that accepts all and excludes no religion. At the same time, people should be aware enough to question those who use the term for political mobilisation based on religion.
Exam preparation
Every question this page prepares you for, with the parts that answer it.
“The ultimate solution lies in economic advancement and education.”
Curated for BPSC, UPSC & State PCS Civil Services Aspirants | Indian Polity Master Module
