Explained | The T.N. experience on caste survey

Tamil Nadu's past shows that a caste census alone may not lead to increased OBC reservations. The First BC panel (1969-70) suggested raising BC reservations, but the idea of a creamy layer hasn't gained political backing. The Second BC panel (1982-85) recommended a reduction in reservation percentages. The State govt. then hiked BC reservations to 50%, but the decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Socio-Educational-cum-Economic Survey was conducted in 1983-84. The panel drew up a list of 298 communities, classified under main groups. In 1989, an exclusive quota of 20% was provided for MBCs & DNCs. In 2012, the State BC Commission estimated the population of MBCs & DNCs. In 2021, the AIADMK govt. got a bill adopted for 10.5% reservation for Vanniyars. However, the SC struck down the law.

The story so far: The Bihar caste-based survey has spurred nationwide calls for a similar census and discussions about exceeding the 50% reservation limit. However, looking at Tamil Nadu’s past, a caste census alone may not lead to increased other backward class (OBC) reservations. The Second Backward Classes Commission (1982-85) in Tamil Nadu even recommended a reduction in reservation percentages. The First BC panel (1969-70), led by A.N. Sattanathan, suggested raising BC reservations, but the idea of a creamy layer hasn’t gained political backing.

In January 1980, smarting from a severe drubbing in the Lok Sabha election, the then AIADMK regime, headed by M.G. Ramachandran, announced the hike in the share of reservation for BCs from 31% to 50%, taking the total quantum to 68% that included 18% for Scheduled Castes (SC) & Scheduled Tribes (ST). (After STs got one per cent exclusive reservation in June 1990, the overall tally went up to 69%). Once the decision became a subject matter of litigation in the Supreme Court, the State government gave an undertaking in October 1982 that it would set up a panel to review the existing enumeration and classification of BCs. Two months later, the panel was constituted with the former Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission, J.A. Ambasankar, as the head. The BC panel submitted its report to the government in February 1985.

The Socio-Educational-cum-Economic Survey was conducted in two stages during 1983-84. In the first stage, a cent per cent door-to-door enumeration was conducted for the enumeration and classification of BCs. This was decided as the Ambasankar Commission found that the previous panel - one headed by Sattanathan - took into account only the 1921 Census, when 88 communities were enumerated as against 31 in 1931, and projected it over 50 years to arrive at the caste-wise population. Estimating the total population of the State as 4,99,90,743, the Second BC panel drew up a list of 298 communities, classified under main groups such as BCs, Most BCs, Denotified Communities (DNCs), SCs, STs and others. The panel confined itself essentially to the BCs, without giving an exhaustive break-up of all the communities. The Commission had worked out that the population of the BCs was 3,35,70,805, accounting for 67.15% of the State’s overall population. In respect of SCs, the figure was 92,08,917; STs - 5,54,918 and others - 66,56,103. In March 1989, an exclusive quota - 20% - was provided for MBCs and DNCs within the total share of BCs of 50%. Based on the Ambasankar panel’s workings, the State Backward Classes Commission, in May 2012, arrived at the figure of 1,23,17,745 as the population of the MBCs and DNCs.

The Commission held a 5 per cent random sample survey of students in 37,000 schools along with a survey of students in all 232 colleges and seven universities. Finally, to ascertain the representation of BCs in public services, it arranged a full-scale survey of ‘public servants’ in each grade as of July 1, 1983. 

Even as the panel was in the last leg of its work, differences erupted between a majority of members and the Chairman, Ambasankar. While the latter wanted the quantum of reservation for BCs to be brought down to 32% so that the overall figure did not exceed the 50% ceiling, the dissenting members had argued that as the population of BCs was about 67%, the quantum should be at least 50%.

Another area of difference was the coverage of reservations. The Chairman had insisted that all those found eligible for quota under Article 15(4) (which deals with special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the SCs and STs) “will not be automatically entitled” to reservation in appointments under Article 16 (4) (which talks of making reservation in jobs for any backward class that is “not adequately represented” in public services). So, he was for two separate lists of BCs, one under Article 15(4) and another under Article 16(4). But, the members had all favoured only one list. They asserted that “social backwardness and educational backwardness are inseparable and intertwined. From seeing certain families in certain Backward Classes occupying jobs and employment cannot mean educational advancement of their respective communities. Educational benefits contemplated under Article 15(4) are the means and the benefits under Article 16(4) to get [a] job is the end.” 

Two sets of recommendations, one from the Chairman and another from the members, were furnished to the government, which, however, chose not to disturb the status quo with regard to the quantum of reservation - 50% for BCs. The government also did not agree with the recommendation of deletion of 24 communities even though it toed the line of the panel for the inclusion of 29 communities.