The fundamental premise for creating Schedule Caste (SC) lists (state-wise) was the deprivation and marginalisation due to the practice of ‘untouchability’. However, various Dalit organisations in Karnataka are now demanding a re-categorisation of SCs in the state. They claim that certain ‘touchables’ were included in the SC list, resulting in them cornering reservation benefits. This has led to a demand for the removal of these castes from the SC list.
The recent seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has reignited the debate on backwardness and marginalisation with its sub-categorisation ruling. Justice Gavai stated in his judgement that “hardships and the backwardness which these categories have suffered historically would differ from category to category.” The judgement recognises the historical differences in suffering among various categories and is a significant step towards understanding the nuances of marginalisation.
Also read: Sub-Categorisation Debate: Unanswered Questions
In this context, it becomes crucial to re-evaluate the creation of the SC list, especially in Karnataka, to address the demand for the exclusion of certain castes from the SC list.
Evolution of the Scheduled Castes list
The genesis of the terminology of Scheduled Castes can be traced back to British India when it was decided to conduct the Census, and the authorities then could not categorise a specific section of the community. The Census Commissioner 1911 carried out the first attempt to enumerate the ‘untouchables’. The Superintend commissioner made the following criteria for the enumeration:
- Those who do not receive a Mantra or are served by the Brahmin.
- Those who do not accept the supremacy of Vedas.
- Those who are not allowed to worship Hindu gods and whose entry into temples was prohibited.
- Those who do not worship cows, eat beef and bury their dead.
In the 1931 Census, survey appendices used the term ‘exterior castes’. According to this, the following criteria for the enumeration were used:
- Those whose contact leads to the purification rituals by the upper caste Hindus.
- Those with separate wells are not allowed to enter temples or schools, and are excluded in such a fashion.
Caste composition was different in different provinces. Therefore, preparing a detailed central list with all the enumeration criteria was impossible as the caste composition varies, as did the criteria. Consequently, it was decided that the enumeration with the above broad guidelines will be carried out at the provincial level with the proper investigation at the local level. The castes that fulfilled the above criterion were categorised as the ‘depressed class.’
According to the Government of India (Scheduled Castes) Order released in 1936, castes holding the above criterion were declared Schedule Castes for the first time. However, the Schedule caste term was first used in the Government of India Act 1935. Article 341 of the Indian constitution speaks of the Schedule Castes. The constitution of India borrowed the term Scheduled Caste for official and legal use from the Government of India Act 1935.
Touchables in the SC category
The state of Karnataka came into existence in 1956 with the integration of certain parts of five States – Madras, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Maharashtra and Kodagu with the former State of Mysore. The former State of Mysore ruler, Sri Krishna Rajendra Wodeyar, was considered a benevolent king who cared for the development of the oppressed and suppressed class.
In 1921, he categorised a separate class called the depressed class, including seven castes: Adi Andra, Adi Dravida, Adi Karnataka, Lambani, Bhovi, Koracha and Korama, among Hindus. After the constitution came into force, the President of India notified the Scheduled Castes order in 1950.
The castes included in the SC list were based on the recommendation of then Raja Pramukh of the State of Mysore. Therefore, the four castes, namely Lambani, Bhovi, Koracha and Korama, who were absent from the Scheduled Caste list in other parts of Karnataka or States like Andhra Pradesh or Maharashtra, found themselves in the Karnataka SC list.
Later, the Karnataka Backward Classes Commission established in 1976, under the chairpersonship of L.G. Havnur, recommended that,
“The Lamanis and Voddars, who are now Scheduled Castes under Article 341, in so far as the Old Mysore area is concerned, do not suffer from the stigma of untouchability, nor their occupations considered unclean.”
The commission further states,
“Their grievance is that if in the enumeration of Scheduled Castes untouchability was the sole criterion, the inclusion of touchable castes like Lamanis and Voddars has resulted in the deprivation of their (other SC castes) legitimate share in all fields. Our Commission feels that the grievance of the untouchable Scheduled Castes is not without reason. And their grievance is legitimate.”
In 2006, the Karnataka government formed the AJ Sadashiva Commission in 2006 to examine the reservation among SCs in Karnataka. The commission recommended sub-classifying SCs into four sub-categories: Right, Left, Touchables, and Other Dalits. The Sadashiva Commission’s use of the term ‘touchable’ to sub-classify a section of SCs is an oxymoron!
Various Dalit organisations in Karnataka – Karnataka Asprushya Samaj Mahasabha, Ambedkar People’s Party (APP) and All-India Ambedkar Kranthi Dal – have been opposing the inclusion of these castes in the SC list and have already taken legal recourse. They claim that the inclusion of Lambani, Bhovi, Koracha, and Korama in the SC list in Karnataka was a bureaucratic error, and it was not based on deprivation due to the practice of untouchability.
Conclusion
The creation of the SC category distinct from the ‘Savarnas’ was based on ‘untouchability’. The underlying principle was that the untouchability and hierarchical dominance of Savarnas had led to social, religious, professional and occupational backwardness of the SCs.
As per various Dalit organisations in the case of Karnataka, this essential premise of ‘untouchability’ and ‘backwardness’ was not followed when creating the SC list. They claim touchables enjoy reservation benefits and do not face deprivation due to ‘untouchability’. The inclusion of touchables in the SC list is a clear violation of the very foundational premise of the SC list.
In its recent judgement, the Supreme Court acknowledged that SCs are not a homogeneous group and that state governments can sub-classify and give more consideration to marginalisation. This opens the door for the Karnataka state government to revisit the SC list.
The state government can form an independent committee to scientifically assess whether ‘touchables’ are included in the SC list. If the committee concludes the inclusion erroneous, then the state government should revisit its SC list and ensure the exclusion of ‘touchables’ from the SC list.
Akshay Joshi is a public policy practitioner.
