• Indian politics is shaped by a complex socio-economic and politico-cultural texture, making it difficult to capture on a single axis.

• Major political issues vary regionally due to India’s multi-cultural character; issues important in one state may not be relevant in another.

• Example: Caste is less significant in West Bengal than in BIMARU states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh).

• Example: Special Economic Zone (SEZ) controversy, 2007 was significant only in West Bengal.

• Caste serves as a social marker and provides organizational structure critical for political mobilization.

• According to Nicholas B. Dirks, caste is a modern phenomenon, shaped by colonial rule rather than ancient tradition.

• Colonialism politicized caste for divide-and-rule, institutionalized through reservation schemes.

• Nationalists’ insistence on caste-based reservation provided legitimacy to colonial schemes benefiting marginalized castes.

• Post-colonial India: caste remains significant, contrary to Constituent Assembly expectations that democracy and modernization would reduce its influence.

• Caste continues to determine social privilege and shapes electoral politics; parties align with specific caste groups for political support.

• Backward castes (intermediate between Scheduled Castes and upper castes) have transformed India’s political landscape.

• Legally classified as Other Backward Castes (OBCs), distinct from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

• OBCs provided social base and leadership for parties that challenged Congress party dominance in 1967 state elections.

• In 1977 national elections, OBCs were crucial in sustaining opposition to Congress; Janata Party coalition depended on OBC-led Lok Dal and Socialist Party.

• OBCs gained economic power through land reforms and Green Revolution, and numerical strength translated into political power, though administrative power remained limited.

• Mandal Commission (1978) identified caste as the main determinant of backwardness, recognizing 3,743 backward castes underrepresented in administration.

• Mandal Commission recommended 27% reservation of Central Government jobs for OBCs to redress imbalance.

• Government service is a symbol of prestige and power; increasing OBC representation boosts psychological morale of backward communities.

• Even limited material benefits create a psychological spin-off, giving the community a sense of participation in governance and elevation in social status.

• Mandal Commission recommendations are central to understanding recent Indian politics, seen as a step toward deepening democracy.

• The report proposed quotas for OBCs, functioning as affirmative action for socially underprivileged groups.

• V.P. Singh government (1990) implemented the Mandal Report, representing 52% of India’s population belonging to OBCs.

• First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission, 1953–1955) identified 32% of population as backward and 2,399 castes, but was rejected because it focused on caste rather than principles of backwardness.

• States independently legalized reservation in public services and education.

• Mandal Commission (1978) revived national policy for OBCs, recommending special concessions to correct social imbalance.

• Supreme Court ruling limited reservations to 50%, leading to 27% quota for OBCs despite constituting more than half the population.

• Candidates from OBCs recruited on merit should not be counted against the reservation quota.

• Mandal formula rests on two premises: (a) OBCs are a large segment of the population, and (b) their representation in public sector is very low (5%).

• Mandal Commission shifted philosophy of reservations to caste as the sole criterion for backwardness, unlike Kalelkar Commission which included economic variables.

• Reservations aim to balance power between upper castes and neglected OBCs, but better-off OBCs benefit more, leaving genuinely backward sections marginalized.

• North India example: AJGAR group (Ahirs, Jats, Gurjars, Rajputs) gained materially post Green Revolution; intermediate castes (Kurmis, Koeris, Lodhas) benefited unevenly, showing social and economic heterogeneity.

• Mandal definition of backwardness ignores intra-caste disparities, allowing affluent OBCs to monopolize benefits.

• M.N. Srinivas argues politically powerful castes should be excluded from backward class list to prevent elite capture.

• Political motivation behind Mandal implementation: mobilizing OBC elite as a vote bank for V.P. Singh-led National Front.

• Caste increasingly used for electoral gains, influencing candidate selection, patronage, and public policy.

• Mandal formula has polarized political forces; caste remains a significant factor in elections and governance.

• Despite criticism and student protests, Mandal recommendations seek to redress historical injustices under the varna system.

• Benefits meant for genuinely backward OBCs often go to better-off sections, limiting effectiveness of the scheme.

• Mandal formula requires integration into a comprehensive development plan; otherwise, it is primarily used for electoral purposes.

• Political parties cannot oppose the reservation scheme due to adverse political consequences and costs.

MANDAL II: RESERVATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE OR APPROPRIATION BY THE CREAMY LAYER?

• Reservation in educational institutions (Mandal II) refers to extension of OBC quotas to higher education.

• August 2005: Supreme Court abolished caste-based reservations in unaided private colleges.

• 21 December 2005: Lok Sabha passed Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005, allowing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private unaided educational institutions (excluding minority institutions).

• 2006: UPA government introduced 27% OBC reservations in Central Government-funded higher education institutions like IIMs, IITs, AIIMS, and Central Universities.

• Proposed 27% quota applies to all higher education institutions, contradicting 1992 Supreme Court judgement (Indira Sawhney vs Union of India).

• 1992 judgement: upheld 27% reservation subject to exclusion of socially-advanced persons (creamy layer) among OBCs and directed government to define creamy layer criteria.

• Government committee recommended exclusion of children of constitutional position holders, class I officers, defence personnel (colonel and above), and persons with annual income above Rs 100,000 (later revised to Rs 250,000 in 2004).

• Recommendations were circulated in September 1993, allowing reservations to come into force.

• April 2008 landmark judgement (Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India): Supreme Court validated Ninety-third Amendment, endorsing OBC reservations in higher education while excluding creamy layer.

• Court reiterated Indira Sawhney judgement: reservation denied to those with economic well-being or educational advancement, to prevent reverse discrimination.

• Ninety-third Amendment (2005) culminates process initiated by Mandal recommendations (1990) under V.P. Singh-led National Front, despite opposition from non-OBC caste groups.

• Mandal II extends social and political power transfer to majority communities, continuing the dynamics started by Mandal I.

• V.P. Singh described Mandal as a macro-process with its own dynamics, continuing regardless of ruling party.

• Indian politics increasingly defined by quota politics, where protective discrimination is implemented through quotas and lower eligibility criteria.

• Contrast with US: Indian system combines quotas and reduced criteria, translating affirmative action into protective discrimination.