Mandal Commission & Kaka Kalelkar: Understanding OBC History & Rights

The Mandal Commission and the Kaka Kalelkar Commission represent pivotal moments in the history of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in India. These commissions addressed the social, educational, and economic disparities faced by these communities. Consequently, they paved the way for affirmative action policies. This article delves into the details of these commissions. It explores their recommendations and their lasting impact on Indian society.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The discourse around social justice and equality in India invariably leads to the discussion of the Mandal Commission and the Kaka Kalelkar Commission. These commissions were established to identify and address the plight of backward classes. Their work continues to shape the socio-political landscape of India. This article explores the historical context, recommendations, and impact of these commissions on the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

OBCs in the Brahminical System

In the traditional Brahminical social hierarchy, the OBCs, historically referred to as Shudras, occupied the lowest rung. This system dictated their primary role as serving the upper three Varnas: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas. This division of labor and social standing led to significant disparities in access to education, economic opportunities, and social mobility.

Historically, the Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishya communities enjoyed unrestricted access to education and resources. This advantage allowed them to progress consistently, solidifying their dominance across various societal domains. In contrast, the Shudra community faced numerous restrictions, limiting their potential for advancement and perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage.

If access to education and resources is the bedrock of societal progress, how could communities systematically denied these opportunities ever truly advance? Was true equality ever a possibility under such a system?

The Mahabharata Reference: Kshatriya Origins

Some individuals from the Shudra community have attempted to claim Kshatriya status. However, Hindu scriptures like the Mahabharata present a different narrative regarding the origin of Kshatriyas. According to the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata, Parashurama, a Brahmin, eradicated the Kshatriya race 21 times.

Subsequently, Kshatriya women sought refuge with Brahmins to bear children, suggesting that present-day Kshatriyas are descendants of Brahmins. This narrative, found in various પ્રકાશનો of the Mahabharata, particularly Chapter 64, verses 5, 7, 8, 9, and others, serves to diminish the Kshatriya lineage and highlight the dominance of the Brahminical order.

It is written that in ancient times, Parashurama made the earth devoid of Kshatriyas twenty-one times and then performed penance on the excellent mountain Mahendra. At that time, when Bhrigunandana had made this world devoid of Kshatriyas, Kshatriya women, desiring sons, took refuge with Brahmins. Verse 301 of Mahabharata mentions Kshatriya women seeking refuge with Brahmins, further emphasizing a narrative aimed at undermining the Kshatriya community.

Vedic Knowledge and Shudras

Hindu scriptures explicitly prohibited Shudras from accessing Vedic knowledge. Chapter 56 of the Mahabharata states that Brahmins were not to recite Vedic mantras in the presence of Shudras. This denial of education further marginalized the OBCs. It prevented them from intellectual and spiritual growth. Consequently, many OBC communities still do not practice Vedic rituals. Instead, they engage in practices like Satyanarayan Katha and Krishna Bhakti.

Even historical figures like Shivaji Maharaj were denied Vedic rituals during his coronation, as he was considered a Shudra. These historical and scriptural references underscore the systemic discrimination faced by OBCs. They highlight the need for affirmative action to address these long-standing inequities.

Denied access to Vedic knowledge and rituals, how could the Shudra community break free from the shackles of social and economic stagnation? Was true equality ever a possibility under such a system?

The First Backward Class Commission: Kaka Kalelkar

These historical and scriptural references underscore the systemic discrimination faced by OBCs. Therefore, to address these long-standing inequities, the Indian government established the first Backward Class Commission. This commission was headed by Kaka Kalelkar in 1953. This commission aimed to identify backward classes and recommend measures for their upliftment. The commission submitted its report on March 30, 1955. The report provided a comprehensive analysis of the socio-economic conditions of backward communities in India.

The terms of reference and structure of the commission are detailed in Appendix 1 and Part 2 of its report. The commission conducted extensive surveys. It also collected data to determine the extent of backwardness and the factors contributing to it. The commission played a crucial role in highlighting the need for affirmative action and social justice for OBCs.

The Kaka Kalelkar Commission was formed following the establishment of the Constitution. Articles 340 and others in the constitution aimed at safeguarding the interest of backward community. The Commission’s work laid a foundation for future policy interventions aimed at addressing social and economic disparities.

Imagine a race where some runners start miles ahead. The Mandal Commission and Kaka Kalelkar Commissions aimed to level the playing field – but did they succeed fully?

Criteria for Identifying Backwardness

The Kalelkar Commission adopted several criteria to identify backward classes. These included:

Social Status

The commission assessed the social standing of various communities based on their position within the traditional Hindu caste hierarchy. Communities facing social stigma and discrimination were considered backward. The commission examined social status within the Hindu caste system to identify communities that faced discrimination and were considered backward.

Educational Advancement

The commission evaluated the educational attainment of different communities. It noted the lack of access to education among backward classes. The commission noted educational backwardness by comparing the educational attainment of various communities. It identified those with significantly lower levels of literacy and access to higher education.

Representation in Government Services

The commission analyzed the representation of various communities in government jobs. It found a significant underrepresentation of backward classes. The commission analyzed the representation of different communities in government jobs, revealing a stark underrepresentation of backward classes in public services.

Participation in Commerce and Industry

The commission examined the participation of different communities in trade, commerce, and industry. It found a lack of representation among backward classes. The commission also considered the representation of different communities in trade, commerce, and industry, noting a significant lack of participation among backward classes.

These criteria provided a multi-faceted approach to identifying backwardness. They formed the basis for the commission’s recommendations.

Recommendations of the Kalelkar Commission

The Kalelkar Commission proposed comprehensive recommendations for the upliftment of backward classes. These recommendations encompassed various aspects of social and economic life. Key recommendations included:

Land Reforms

Implementing extensive land reforms to address economic disparities and empower marginalized communities. The commission suggested comprehensive land reforms to address economic inequalities. It empowered marginalized communities.

University Education

Promoting university education among backward classes to enhance their intellectual and social capital. Promoting university education among backward classes was seen as crucial for enhancing their intellectual and social capital.

Representation in Government Services

Ensuring adequate representation of backward classes in government services to provide employment opportunities and social mobility. Ensuring adequate representation of backward classes in government services was a key recommendation. This aimed to provide employment opportunities and social mobility.

Reservation of Seats

Given the significant underrepresentation of backward classes, the commission proposed reserving 70% of seats in professional and technical institutions for students from these communities.

Minimum Reservation in Government Services

The commission proposed implementing minimum reservation quotas in all government services. The percentage varied based on the class of service.

Dissenting Voices within the Commission

Despite the comprehensive nature of the Kalelkar Commission’s report, it faced significant dissent from within. Five members of the commission submitted notes of dissent. They raised concerns about the criteria used to identify backwardness and the recommendations proposed.

Dr. Anup Singh opposed reservations based on caste. This position was contrary to the commission’s core objective. Similarly, P.G. Shah opposed linking backwardness to caste. He argued against the commission’s fundamental premise. These dissenting voices reflected the deep-seated resistance to affirmative action. They underscored the challenges in achieving consensus on addressing caste-based inequalities.

Shri D.S. Chaurasia, on the other hand, strongly supported using caste as a criterion for identifying backward classes. He submitted a 67-page note of dissent in support of this view. The chairman of the commission, Kaka Kalelkar, adopted an ambiguous stance on the issue. This further complicated the matter.

Government’s Response to the Kalelkar Report

The Indian government’s response to the Kalelkar Commission’s report was lukewarm. The report was presented to both houses of Parliament in 1956. However, it was not followed by any concrete action. The government sought alternative criteria for identifying backwardness, other than caste. This effectively undermined the commission’s recommendations.

The Deputy Registrar General conducted a pilot survey to explore alternative criteria. But, it proved unsuccessful. A conference of state representatives in 1959 also failed to reach a consensus on the issue. Ultimately, the central government decided against creating an all-India list of backward classes. This effectively shelved the Kalelkar Commission’s report and its recommendations.

The central government communicated in 1961 that state governments are open to defining the backward community. But, reservation would not be provided. Thus, despite the Kalelkar Commission’s efforts, the OBCs remained largely marginalized. They were awaiting future interventions to address their grievances.

Conclusion

The Mandal Commission and the Kaka Kalelkar Commission represent significant milestones in the struggle for social justice and equality in India. While the Kalelkar Commission’s recommendations were largely ignored, it laid the groundwork for future affirmative action policies. The Mandal Commission, implemented in the 1990s, brought about significant changes in the representation of OBCs in government services and educational institutions.

However, challenges remain in achieving true social and economic equality for OBCs. It is imperative to continue advocating for policies that address systemic inequalities and promote inclusive growth. Share this article to raise awareness about the history and ongoing struggles of OBCs in India. Let’s work together to build a more just and equitable society.

To delve deeper into the complexities of caste and inequality, consider researching related topics. Engage in community discussions and support organizations working towards social justice.

Legal Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is intended for educational and awareness purposes only. It aims to promote scientific temper and critical thinking. The interpretations and opinions expressed are based on available data and historical context. It’s essential to consult multiple sources and conduct independent research for a comprehensive understanding.

Common terms used in the context

Below are some common terms used in the article and what it means in the context:

• Brahmin: Implies Brahminism ideology
• Shudra: Refers to the backward class
• Kshatriya: The warrior class
• Vaishya: The merchant class

Read more about the Mandal Commission and OBC Reservation.

You can read the book here for free!!

You can also buy the book from here!!

Mandal Commission

भारतीय समाज और राजनीति को जिन घटनाओं ने सबसे ज्यादा बदला, उनमें मंडल कमीशन की रिपोर्ट का स्थान बहुत ऊपर है. भारत में आज़ादी के बाद के इतिहास को ‘मंडल कमीशन के पहले का भारत’ और ‘मंडल कमीशन के बाद का भारत’ जैसे कालखंडों में बांटा जा सकता है. यह आश्चर्यजनक है कि जिस रिपोर्ट का इतना असर है, उसे बहुत कम लोगों ने पढ़ा है. यह रिपोर्ट सरकारी दफ्तरों में सिमटकर रह गई. इस रिपोर्ट का सरकार ने हिंदी में अनुवाद तो कराया, लेकिन उसकी भाषा इतनी सरकारी और कठिन है, कि उसे पढ़ना और समझना मुश्किल है. यह किताब उसी कमी को पूरा करने की कोशिश है. इस किताब को पढ़ने से ही पता चलेगा कि मंडल कमीशन की अब तक सिर्फ दो सिफारिश लागू हुई हैं. 38 सिफारिशें लागू नहीं हुई हैं. आपको पता होना चाहिए कि वे 38 सिफारिशें कौन सी हैं. इस किताब से आपको पता चलेगा कि OBC को भी प्रमोशन में आरक्षण और निजी क्षेत्र में आरक्षण की सिफारिश मंडल कमीशन ने की थी, जिसे कभी लागू नहीं किया गया. यह किताब बताएगी कि मंडल कमीशन ने यह कहा था कि भारत में जातिवार जनगणना होनी चाहिए ताकि नीतियों को आंकड़ों और तथ्यों का आधार मिल सके. ‘देश के हर नागरिक के लिए एक बेहद जरूरी किताब.’ — दिलीप मंडल

Buy Now

Do you disagree with this article? If you have strong evidence to back up your claims, we invite you to join our live debates every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday on YouTube. Let’s engage in a respectful, evidence-based discussion to uncover the truth. Watch the latest debate on this topic below and share your perspective!