The proposed removal of exemption of creamy layer concept for “most backward classes” in Category 1-A has been termed “unfair” to the castes that have mostly remained outside the realm of public employment.
While currently the creamy layer concept is not applicable to Category 1, the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes headed by K. Jayaprakash Hegde in the backward classes classification report submitted as part of the Socio-Economic and Education Survey (caste census) report to the government has recommended removing this exemption.
Category 1-A has 46 castes/ sub castes from nomadic and semi nomadic castes identified by Karnataka in 1966. This category also proposes to provide reservation for orphan children. Similarly, some of the most Backward Classes have also been added in Category 1-B. Both Category 1-A and 1-B have been culled out of the current Category 1 and some castes from Category 2-A, including the Kurubas, the Madiwalas, the Savithas, and the Kumbaras, among others. They have been moved to Category 1-B by the Mr. Hegde-led commission.
Justification offered
Justifying the introduction of creamy layer concept to Category 1-A and 1-B, the commission has argued that some have become “crorepatis” through their business and others have identified themselves in politics. Besides there is intense competition intensifying among the castes in Category 1. The commission said that it is difficult for children of labourers and farmers in rural areas to compete with the rich, who are likely to corner all benefits of reservation.
However, K.N. Lingappa, who served as the member of H. Kantharaj Commission, said, “We found literacy level to be around 50% in some of these nomadic and semi nomadic castes. Since Independence, no MP or MLA have been elected from nomadic and semi-nomadic communities. Because the literacy level is low, posts, especially those that are technical in nature, cannot be filled owing to the absence of qualified personnel. By adopting creamy layer concept for this category, those qualified will end up being kept out.”
Political representation
He said that out of the 95 castes/ sub castes in the current Category 1, 46 nomadic and semi nomadic has had no political representation. “Even if one includes all backward classes in Category 1 and 2A, only 20 to 25 castes have or had elected representatives in Parliament and the Assembly.”
Mr. Lingappa said that the current 4% reservation extended to Category 1 that has 95 most backward castes itself is too meagre.
In fact, citing the recommendation of the earlier Ravi Varma Kumar Commission, he said that the creamy layer concept should be removed across all categories and prevent backlog posts.
A former Chairperson of the commission, who did not wish to be named, told The Hindu that the recommendation should have specifically identified the castes that have improved in terms of economic and political status, since the statute allows removal of castes that have overcome backwardness from the list.
On the question of removing creamy layer, he said, “The recommendation does not consider social backwardness, a crucial indicator in arriving at overall backwardness. A few individuals making a mark does not show the mobility of the entire caste. You cannot apply creamy layer concept on communities living in makeshift tents.”
Questions over classification
Some apprehensions have been expressed over the new classification proposed by the K. Jayaprakash Hegde Commission scattering sub castes between Category 1-A and 1-B instead of keeping them together.
Citing some examples, K.N. Lingappa, former member of Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes, argued, “Budu Budike, Vasudeva, Joshi and Gondaliga are the same caste by different names and should have been together. Similarly, Helava and Pichaguntla, and Gollas and Yadavas should have been clubbed together.”
The Commission has to consider provisions of both Article 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution to draw up the classification, he said, adding that the commission has considered only 15 (4). “Article 16 (4) speaks about adequate representation (in public employment), which has not been considered,” he argued.
Published – April 15, 2025 12:41 am IST
