Call for sub-classification: Data shows uneven development within SCs and STs

A look at socio-economic differentials within SCs/STs. Read the full data here

A common critique of the group-based approach to affirmative action policies is that it treats the potential beneficiary group as a homogenous class. In reality, as critics argue, rarely does a group turn out to be a homogenous class. Even within an identified disadvantaged group, families are often found to be placed poles apart in terms of access to material as well as symbolic resources. Therefore, group-based affirmative action policies are seen as benefiting relatively advantaged families from the beneficiary group. An inevitable consequence is widening intra-group inequality. This, in a way, goes against the very purpose of affirmative action, which is, achieving greater equality in society.

Also Read : Allies divided over Supreme Court ruling on Scheduled Caste sub-categorisation leave BJP in a tough spot

Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in educational institutions, public employment, and legislative bodies is constitutionally mandated. These two historically disadvantaged categories consist of a large number of subgroups of different ethnic origins, living in different spatialities and social relations. The outcomes of the reservation policy have generated discontent and dissension within. It has been asserted that the benefits of the reservation have accrued to a few subgroups within SCs/STs. This has led to the demand for a more equitable distribution of benefits by creating sub-classification within SCs/STs based on degrees of disadvantage and deprivation.

Click to subscribe to our Data newsletter

This demand has also reached the Supreme Court. In 2004, a five-member Bench of the Supreme Court (in E.V Chinnaih vs State of Andhra Pradesh) affirmed SCs/STs as a homogenous class and, ruled against sub-classifications within these umbrella categories, horizontally or vertically. However, in a landmark judgment on August 1, 2024, the apex court allowed sub-classification and paved the way for sub-quotas within the SC/ST quota. While the Court has endorsed the existence of socio-economic differentials within SCs and STs and the idea of substantive equality over nominal equality, little analysis is available to get a sense of the extent of inequalities characterising these categories. This is even though India’s population census collects and duly publishes data on socio-economic indicators for individual sub-groups within SCs and STs.

Here, we highlight socio-economic differentials within SCs/STs based on data from the 2011 population census. Owing to the space constraints, our analysis is confined to a few large States. Because the number of sub-groups comprising SCs and STs is too large in these States, we pick up two numerically important sub-groups (one being well-off and the other relatively deprived) to reflect the extent of socio-economic disparities.

Census data show that different sub-groups continue to have uneven exposure to urbanisation. Across States, while some sub-groups are marked by a decent level of urbanisation, others are overwhelmingly rural-based. Differential urban exposure shows a high correlation with opportunities for life chances. Invariably, sub-groups with higher urbanisation demonstrate higher levels of educational attainment and lower level placement in precarious forms of employment.