Yuppies vs. Bhaiyas, and Desiring Lower Caste Status

I came across an article on Kafila by Shivam Vij, in response to Hindol Sengupta's on CNN-IBN about Mayawati's election victory in Uttar Pradesh. Politics is, for the most part, dirty business in India and is not something that I follow. Sengupta writes about how there are no longer any leaders who represent the "middle-class, educated, metro-bred, Christian-education raised, young" people like him, while leaders of the likes of Mayawati, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav, etc, hailing from uneducated, rural backgrounds have taken over politics.

Vij fires back by claiming that Sengupta and others like him (he uses the term "yuppies") are what they are since they belong to a higher caste, while Mayawati and team indeed represent the rise of the lower castes and the shifting of the tide towards equality for all.

But no one can dispute that the Indian middle class is composed of the upper castes. Yet they choose not to admit this. Sengupta honestly admits that his convent education, metropolitan upbringing, class status are the causes of his dismay (and ‘fear’!) over Mayawati’s victory. I wish he’d extend this honesty to admitting that his caste is responsible in the first place for his MEMCRY yuppie status.

He detests the heartland politicians because they don’t speak his idiom. But the heartland politicians are who they are largely because of their caste.

Though Vij claims it as being debateable, his general tone suggests an overall favoring of caste-based reservations - a form of affirmative action - which is currently a heated debate in India as the Congress-led government proposed to not only increase reservations, but also extend them to include many more institutions. It might be notable to mention that as of now, the form of reservations in India provided is possibly like none other anywhere else in the world. There are reservations in all government jobs and institutions; they are allowed to taken the Civil Service Exam (one of the most competitive exams in the world) seven times as opposed to three; and much more. But then, the caste system is also like nowhere else in the world, though discrimination of some sort has existed in every society.

As a result of this, there are candidates who gain admission or secure jobs based on caste as opposed to merit. And it puts forward the general argument as to whether affirmative action ultimately serves the purpose or works against it in the long run. In India, where the ratio of the number of quality institutions to that of students is very low, resulting in cut-throat competition, such measures are disastrous and provoke extreme reactions (like self-immolation).

But perhaps Vij is correct in stating that most of the urban "yuppie" groups that denounce reservations are generally unaware of what a lower caste distinction really is like, though his use of the term 'objectivity' seems to mean much more.

When Youth for Equality / United Students / other ‘anti-reservationists’ oppose reservations, and speak about Dalits/OBCs, they claim to be doing so with a claim to ‘objectivity’, that is, they do not admit that the viewpoint(s) they are putting forward are of a certain section of society that is influential in shaping public opinion despite being in a minority.

But the middle-class is expanding. Is it better to squash it by artificially thrusting forward the lower class, or waiting for an economy to shape itself (though where that is heading and how long it will take is again debatable).

On the other hand, there is currently a protest by the Gujjar community in Rajasthan demanding Scheduled Tribe (ST) status. Meanwhile, the army has been called in to confront a raid by a rival Meena community against them. Whereas this might be a genuine concern, especially because Gujjars are classified as ST in some other states of India, it could also point at a deliberate attempt at hogging the benefits of reservations, and vote-bank politics. The BBC article explains it well enough.

The Gujjars are currently classified as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and are entitled to quotas in state-run education centres and in government jobs.

But the community wants to be listed under the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category.

In states such as Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh they have been given ST status.

But in western Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat they are more settled on the land and more involved in agriculture, which is why they have been categorised as OBCs.

The Indian government offers places in jobs, educational institutes and other privileges to people in three categories, as part of its affirmative action policy.

[...]

In 1999, the government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) included the Jat community on its OBC list. The Jats are a relatively prosperous community in Rajasthan who form nearly 15% of the state's population.

Some allege that the real reason why the BJP made such a move was because it wanted to win their support in state elections in Rajasthan. The community had traditionally backed the Congress party.

"Once Jats were identified as OBCs , the Gujjars who were already placed in the OBC category felt threatened. They felt the better-off Jats would corner the benefits of reservation," said Professor Sheth.

The demand by the Gujjars is also fuelled by the success of the Meenas, a large community in the state who were granted ST status in 1954.

"The Meenas were basically a borderline case who used their political influence to be classified as STs.

"The community has benefited immensely in the last 50 years under the reservation policy.

"The Gujjars are now trying to put pressure on political parties to allow them to reap similar benefits," said Dr Sheth.

It doesn't look very good right now, and events like these could turn easily turn into bloody massacres - Bihar being an example.