Ambedkar and Other Backward Classes

The Other Backward Classes (OBCs) constitute about 52% of the Indian population as per the 1980 Mandal Commission report. They are considered above the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and below the upper castes in the varna hierarchy, and have neither embraced nor acknowledged the efforts and sacrifices of the saviour of all the marginalized sections and key architect of the Indian Constitution, Dr B. R. Ambedkar. OBC, a constitutional category, encompasses many communities, including peasant, artisanal, service castes, pastoral and nomadic tribes, lower caste Christians and Muslims. This makes OBC a diverse and multifaceted group, unified by social, educational, and economic disadvantages. This article specifically focuses on peasant and artisanal castes within the OBC category, without delving into other groups. In terms of tracing history, one can largely agree with T. K. Oommen, who writing in the book Social Inclusion in Independent India: Dimensions and Approaches suggests:

The category of OBCs was first formulated by the Depressed Classes and Aboriginal Tribes Committee constituted by the Government of Bombay. The report of the committee published in 1930 listed some 125 of them belonging to depressed classes and aboriginal tribes, and in 1942, 228 “intermediate communities” consisting of peasant and artisan groups were identified and added to the list. Depressed Classes thus constituted the SCs, DTs, and OBCs — the last being castes intermediate to the twice-born upper castes and those below the pollution line. The specificity of the OBCs can thus be traced to their occupational background — peasants and artisans. (p. 99)

The case of the OBCs is drastically different because boundary demarcation cannot be done easily and because the sources of exclusion differ from those that exclude the SCs and STs. The OBCs are above the ritual pollution line within the caste hierarchy, and unlike the SCs, they are not excluded from village social life, nor are they culturally distinct like the STs. The OBCs participate in the collective life of the village community without much restriction and share a common culture (language and religion) along with the twice-born caste groups. Despite this, elite formation among the OBCs was slow, and the size of their elite category is disproportionately smaller compared to their numbers within the total population.^[1] Oommen, T. K. (2014). Social Inclusion in Independent India: Dimensions and Approaches. India: Orient Blackswan.

Caste, being a hierarchical system, ensures that each caste looks upwards with reverence and downwards with contempt, finding a sense of validation in its relative position. This structure has fragmented the OBCs, who lack the binding factor present among Dalits — united by the shared experience of untouchability; or Adivasis, a diverse group of Indigenous communities in India, with some traditionally living outside mainstream society in harmony with nature, while others reside in rural areas, blending traditional practices with contemporary influences. Consequently, OBCs lack the collective consciousness necessary to mount a united fight for their rights against Brahmanism. Instead, they have become deeply embedded within and actively engaged in the very system that perpetuates their oppression, through a process described by M.N. Srinivas as Sanskritisation. This concept refers to Hindu OBCs adopting the cultural practices, rituals, and social behaviors of dominant upper-caste groups, particularly Brahmins, as a means of social mobility within the caste hierarchy.

OBC Reservation, Constitution, and Dr Ambedkar

OBC reservations were not initially included in the Constitution, as no Central OBC list existed at the time. In an answer to this lacuna, Dr. Ambedkar, through Article 340, has vested the President with the power to constitute a commission to inquire into the plight of socially and educationally backward classes. The commission is mandated to find problems with which these communities struggled and to propose solutions for them, such as affirmative policies. The President shall be obliged to submit the commission report in addition to a memorandum of actions taken before the two Houses of Parliament.

Despite this provision, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru showed little interest in establishing such a commission, even after repeated appeals by Dr. Ambedkar. Frustrated by Nehru’s reluctance to act on this critical issue, Dr. Ambedkar eventually resigned from the cabinet, citing several reasons, one of which was the lack of progress on forming an OBC commission.

Dr. Ambedkar was later invited to a Backward Classes meeting by an OBC leader, R. L. Chandapuri. This move highlighted the potential for unity among SCs, STs, and OBCs, which concerned Nehru. Under pressure, Nehru finally established the Kaka Kalelkar Commission to investigate the conditions of OBCs. However, the commission’s report was neither accepted nor discussed in Parliament. Instead, Nehru directed state governments to form their commissions to address the needs of OBCs. Many states took the initiative and introduced reservations in state-level jobs and educational institutions long before the Central government acted. As a result, OBC representation in state-level employment and educational institutions saw a notable increase.

Mandal Commission 

In 1978, Prime Minister Morarji Desai established the Mandal Commission for backward classes, with B.P. Mandal serving as its chair. The commission conducted extensive research and submitted its report in 1980, which included 40 recommendations. However, only two of these recommendations were implemented: the 27% reservation in union government jobs in 1993, and the reservation in higher educational institutions in 2008. The report remained in cold storage for a decade until VP Singh, for various reasons, revived it in 1990. Subsequently, VP Singh announced the implementation of 27% reservations for Other Backward Classes in union government jobs.

The reservation for OBCs was made possible by two key provisions in the Constitution: Article 15(4) for higher educational institutions and Article 16(4) for union government employment. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. However, Article 15(4) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, as well as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 15 and 29. Similarly, Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in public employment, but Article 16(4) permits the state to reserve appointments or posts for any backward class of citizens who, in the State’s opinion, are inadequately represented in public services.

The implementation of OBC reservations sparked widespread protests across the country. In response, the BJP withdrew its support from the government and launched a campaign against the Mandal Commission, which became known as “Kamandal politics.” The Supreme Court initially issued a stay order on the implementation of reservations, but in the landmark 1993 judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, it lifted the stay. In 2006, the United Progressive Alliance government introduced reservations for OBCs in higher educational institutions. However, the Supreme Court once again stayed the implementation, only to lift the stay two years later in the 2008 Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India case.

All the progress made so far is a direct result of the foresight of Dr. Ambedkar and the provisions he helped enshrine in the Constitution, particularly Article 340, along with Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The limited representation achieved by backward classes today owes much to these constitutional provisions. The upward mobility and improved living conditions of OBCs are largely due to Ambedkar’s tireless efforts, despite limited support and facing hostility from conservatives in an environment where OBC concerns were scarcely addressed in the Constituent Assembly. Without dedicated OBC leadership in the Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar took on the mantle of championing their cause. However, backward classes have often failed to recognise Ambedkar as their leader, mistakenly viewing him only as the voice of Dalits. This neglect has had significant consequences, contributing to cultural and social backwardness, while their radical potential has been stifled by reactionary forces and ideologies. Ambedkar’s vision and the Constitution he crafted remain the only viable path forward for the nation. Backward classes must engage with Dr. Ambedkar’s work, which was aimed at the welfare of all oppressed sections of India, and fight for their rightful entitlements as enshrined in the Constitution.

At present, the backward classes are entitled to only 27% reservation for a population that constitutes 52% of the nation. They must advocate for proportional representation in reservations, including in promotions and other areas recommended by the Mandal Commission. For years, governments have cited the Supreme Court’s 50% cap on reservations as a barrier to increasing the percentage. However, with the introduction of reservations for Economically Weaker Sections, this cap has now been surpassed, prompting OBCs to intensify their demands for a fair share of reservations.

Ambedkar authored a significant work titled Who Were the Shudras, which explores the history of the Shudras, many of whom are present-day OBCs. He dedicated this book to Mahatma Jotirao Phule, referring to him as “the Greatest Shudra of Modern India.” In his writings, Ambedkar praised Phule for raising awareness among the lower classes of Hindus about their oppression by the higher classes. He emphasised that social democracy was more critical for India than independence from foreign rule. Despite Ambedkar’s unwavering commitment and dedication to the upliftment of backward classes, his efforts remain largely unrecognised by these very communities.

B.P. Mandal rightly observed that OBCs must first fight the battle within their minds. Manyawar Kanshi Ram once declared, “The problems of the OBCs are the problems of India.” How can a nation progress if half its population remains educationally, socially, and economically marginalised? As Dr. Ambedkar said, “Let the slave know that he is a slave, and he will break the chains of slavery.” To achieve true liberation, OBCs must free themselves from the influence of Brahmanical traditions that perpetuate social hierarchies, through a process of de-Brahmanisation, while recognising that OBCs are not exclusively Hindu and include individuals from diverse religious backgrounds, such as Muslims and Christians, and by embracing Ambedkar’s egalitarian philosophy. This transformation is essential to advance the cause of the annihilation of caste and to realise the visions of Babasaheb’s prabuddha Bharat, Phule’s Baliraj, and Ravidas’s Begumpura.

Sai Ganesh Akarapu is an OBC researcher and was an Urban Fellow at the Indian Institute for Human Settlements. He holds a master’s degree in sociology from the University of Hyderabad.