Mandal Commission

The Mandal Commission, officially known as the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission, was constituted in India in 1979 to identify and recommend measures for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), commonly referred to as Other Backwards Classes (OBCs). Setup by the Janata Party government, the Commission was headed by BP Mandal , a Member of Parliament, to look at historical injustices due to the caste system and suggest appropriate suggestions to bridge the gap. It was implemented in 1990 by VP Singh ensuring 27% reservations for OBCs, which led to widespread protests. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case, which however, provided guidelines to be kept in mind so that reservations and merit based recruitment can be balanced.

Following India's independence in 1947, focus was on development and bridging socio-economic disparities inherited from the colonial era. This was also the objective of the Constitution of India which provided for affirmative action i.e. reservations for Scheduled Caste & Schedule Tribes and special provisions for women. However, certain communities continued to face systemic discrimination and were economically marginalized. The First Backward Class Commission, also known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, was set up by the Government of India in 1953 under the chairmanship of social reformer Kaka Kalelkar which submitted its report in 1955 stating that reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions should be added. Scholarships, special coaching centres and affirmative action for OBCs are needed to promote their social and economic development. However, this report was not implemented. The Mandal Commission was established against this backdrop to examine the status of socially and educationally backward classes again and suggest affirmative action policies.

The Second Backward Classes Commission was established under Article 340 of the Constitution by an order of the President. The implementation of the report faced several challenges due to political instability at the time and large-scale opposition.

It was submitted in 1980 revealing widespread social discrimination, economic inequity, and limited access to education and employment opportunities for OBCs.

• Population of OBCs: The Commission identified 3,743 castes as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) hence constituting 52% of the population, excluding SCs and STs.
  • This was based on the 1931 census, which was the last caste- enumerated census.
  • Identified "other backward classes" (OBCs) in India based on eleven criteria across social, educational, and economic aspects. These include factors like social stigma, dependence on manual labor, child marriage prevalence, low educational attainment, family asset value, and basic amenities access etc.
• Educational and Social Backwardness: The Commission found OBCs to be socially and educationally backward due to: Caste-based discrimination, Limited access to education and employment opportunities and Economic hardship.
• Job Reservation Recommendation: To address these inequalities, the Commission recommended 27% reservation in government jobs for OBCs. This would bring the total reservations (including SCs, STs, and OBCs) to 49.5%.
• Additional Findings:The report also identified backward classes among non-Hindus.

Of the report was delayed for 10 years due to political reasons.

• 1990: V.P. Singh's government announced implementation, sparking widespread protests. Nearly 200 students protested through self-immolation, 62 died from their injuries.
• 1991: Narasimha Rao government makes modifications:
  • Economic criteria: Preference for poorer sections within OBC quota.
  • 10% additional reservation: For poorer sections of higher castes who were not otherwise included in reservation.
• 1991: Indra Sawhney case filed in the Supreme Court, challenging implementation of reservation.
• 1992: Supreme Court upholds reservations for OBCs, citing caste as an acceptable indicator of backwardness. Finally, implementation of 27% reservation happened.
• 2006: Indian government passed the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 reserving 27% of seats in all central higher education institutions, including prestigious institutions like IITs and IIMs.

Supreme Court reviewed the order for implementing reservations and held the following: -

• Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs: The court recognized Article 16(4) allowing reservations for backward classes, but with conditions.
• Excluded "creamy layer" of OBCs from benefits: More affluent individuals within OBCs were deemed ineligible for reservations.
• No reservations in promotions: Reservation was confined to initial appointments only.
• 50% reservation cap: Total reserved quota couldn't exceed 50%, except in exceptional circumstances.
• Carry forward rule with limitations: Unfilled vacancies from a year could be carried forward, but not exceeding the 50% limit.
• Permanent statutory body for OBC list review: A dedicated body was established to address inclusion/exclusion issues.

The Government acted on these directions of the Supreme Court, even reversing some of them through its actions:

• Ram Nandan Committee: Identified the "creamy layer" among OBCs based on the court's directive.
• National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC): Established in 1993 to address OBC list issues i.e. addition or removal of castes from the List of OBCs.
• 81st Amendment Act (2000): Nullified the court's ruling on backlog vacancies, allowing them to be carried forward without exceeding the 50% limit.

• Incorrect Population Estimates: The Indian census lacks separate data on OBCs, hindering accurate population assessments and fueling doubts about reservation quotas which are based on 1931 estimates.
• Limited Upliftment: Reservations primarily benefit a small, educated elite within OBC communities, failing to reach the most disadvantaged and truly backward groups. L R Naik, the only Dalit member of the Mandal Commission, refused to sign due to this concern.
• Neglect of Broader Reforms: Focus on job reservations overshadows the Commission's other recommendations for social and economic upliftment, leaving these crucial areas unaddressed.
• Undermining Merit: Reservations unfairly disadvantage deserving candidates based solely on caste, compromising meritocratic principles and potentially placing unqualified individuals in critical positions.
• Perpetuating Caste Divisions: Reservations solidify caste identities and encourage inter-community competition, hindering national unity and social cohesion.
• Focus on Caste over Economics: Some argue that economic factors, not caste, should be the primary criterion for identifying backwardness, questioning the relevance of caste-based reservations.
• Alternative Approaches: Critics call for exploring alternative measures to address social and economic inequalities, such as universal access to quality education and healthcare, rather than relying solely on reservations.

• Article 15(4): Allows the state to make special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
• Article 16(4): Empowers the state to reserve appointments or posts in favor of SEBCs for ensuring they share proportionate representation in public services.
• Article 46: Requires the state to promote the educational and economic interests of SEBCs, protect them from social injustice and exploitation, and ensure their equal participation in national life.
• Article 338B: Establishes the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) to investigate and recommend improvements in SEBCs' educational and economic conditions.
• Article 340: Setting Up a Commission to investigate difficulties faced by SEBCs and recommendations to ameliorate their condition.

The Mandal Commission marked a significant step towards addressing historical injustices faced by OBCs. The commission's findings and recommendations, particularly the proposal for 27% reservation in government jobs, aimed at rectifying the systemic disadvantages faced by OBCs in education and employment opportunities.

The implementation of the Mandal recommendations by VP Singh, despite facing considerable opposition and social unrest, marked a turning point in affirmative action policies in India. Later, Supreme Court reviewed its implementation in the Indra Sawhney case and placed a limit that not more than 50% seats in total can be reserved. It also included the creamy layer rule. The Supreme Court struck a balance between the need for reservation and maintaining rights of other communities. Later, the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was setup by the 81st Amendment Act (2000) to refine and streamline the reservation system. NCBC also seeks to investigate the condition of Backward Classes in the country and take steps to improve their conditions.

However, the Mandal Commission and the subsequent reservation policies have not been without criticisms. Concerns about the accuracy of population estimates, limited upliftment reaching only a privileged few within OBC communities, and the potential compromise of meritocracy have been raised. Additionally, the focus on caste-based reservations has been criticized for perpetuating social divisions and hindering broader socio-economic reforms.

In the long run, the issue of discrimination and upliftment of the Backward Classes will only happen through ensuring welfare of all. Universal education, health and job opportunities will bring dignity to the life of all and enable fair competition, negating the need for reservation.