OBC Subcategorisation as a path to substantive equality

Concerns have grown that the benefits of the reservation policy for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) have not been evenly distributed. Many argue that only a handful of dominant OBC communities have been able to take advantage of the reservation system, while smaller and more marginalised groups remain underrepresented. Given that the Central List of OBCs includes over 2,600 communities, this uneven access has fueled demands for subcategorisation — a move aimed at ensuring a fairer and more inclusive allocation of reservation benefits.

Indian society has long been shaped by the caste system, a deeply entrenched hierarchy that continues to influence access to education, jobs, and social mobility. The OBCs, comprising approximately 41% of the population (NSSO, 2006), occupy a complex space within this framework. OBCs participate fully in the village life, sharing religious customs with dominant caste groups, yet their representation in elite spaces remains disproportionately low (Oommen, 2014).^[1]Oommen, T. K. (2014). Social inclusion in independent India: Dimensions and approaches. Orient BlackSwan.  

Urban life offers OBCs new opportunities, yet caste barriers still shape their access to jobs, housing, and social circles. Many find themselves pushed forward by ambition yet held back by subtle exclusions, with first-generation migrants facing economic struggles, while others still hit with invisible ceilings in elite spaces. Even as cities promise mobility, caste remains a quiet force shaping who rises and remains on the margins.

As India grapples with caste-based inequalities, the OBC experience underscores the need for data-driven policies, inclusive representation, and equitable opportunities. Their identity is not static but shaped by historical marginalisation, economic aspirations, and evolving social mobility, making their trajectory central to broader discussions on caste and social justice.

OBC reservation, subcategorisation and substantive equality

Indian democracy, in search of both formal and substantive equality, had to address the cause of the historically disadvantaged groups on an urgent basis. Whereas the requirements of formal equality meant the equal protection of law against discrimination on morally invidious grounds, the requirements of substantive equality meant recognising the needs of the more disadvantaged. Both of these commitments run parallel in the Constitution.

Reservation is one of the means to attain substantial equality. Because the unequal cannot be treated equally, the Indian Constitution allows for positive discrimination to foster equality.  Equality of opportunity is the essence of democracy, and reservation is a means to it.

In societies with structural injustices that socially, economically, and politically marginalise some groups, fairness and inclusion generally require taking special measures to encourage the representation of members of marginalised groups in decision‐making bodies. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) provide for reservations in education and employment, respectively.

Subcategorisation involves dividing castes within the broader OBC category into smaller subgroups. The primary goal is to structure quotas within the existing 27% OBC reservation, ensuring historically marginalised and underrepresented communities receive better access to affirmative action. This approach aims to promote equitable distribution of reservation benefits, preventing dominant OBC groups from monopolising opportunities.

Nine states in India and one union territory, including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Puducherry, Karnataka, Haryana, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Bihar, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu, have already implemented subcategorisation within OBCs at the state level.

In Telangana, OBCs are categorised into five groups — Group A (Most Backward Classes), Group B, Group C, Group D and Group E (Muslims) — ensuring that the most marginalised communities receive priority access to affirmative action. Andhra Pradesh follows a similar classification, grouping OBCs into five subcategories (A, B, C, D and E) to address varying levels of socio-economic disadvantage.

Maharashtra’s reservation policy is structured to address the diverse socio-economic disadvantages faced by multiple marginalised communities. It provides 19% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and 2% for the Special Backward Category (SBC). Additionally, Nomadic Tribes (NT) receive 11% reservation, which is further divided into NT-A, NT-B, NT-C, and NT-D categories, while Denotified Tribes (DNT) are allotted 3% reservation. This layered approach reflects Maharashtra’s commitment to affirmative action, ensuring that historically excluded groups receive equitable access to education and employment opportunities.

Kerala’s reservation system allocates 40% among eight subgroups, including Ezhava/Thiyya/Billava (14%) and Muslims (12%). The Kerala model, along with Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, has been critiqued for grouping Muslims as a single bloc, ignoring internal caste and occupational hierarchies. The concern is that a peasant caste Muslim faces different socio-economic challenges compared to a barber Muslim, yet both are treated identically under the same category, potentially leading to unequal access to reservation benefits.

A more nuanced approach, similar to Maharashtra’s subcategorisation model, could ensure affirmative action reaches the most disadvantaged within OBC Muslims. By prioritising social and occupational marginalisation over broad religious identifiers, Kerala and other states’ system could better reflect intra-group disparities and facilitate more equitable distribution of resources.

Recognising the need for subcategorisation at the national level, the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment directed the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) on February 13, 2023, to examine the subcategorisation of OBCs in the central list. This issue had previously been raised in March 2015 when Justice V. Eswaraiah, then head of the NCBC, recommended dividing OBCs into three subcategories: Extremely Backward Classes, More Backward Classes, and Backward Classes.

To further institutionalise this effort, the government established the Justice G. Rohini Commission on October 2, 2017, under Article 340 of the Constitution to study and propose a framework for the subcategorisation of OBCs.

The findings of the data analysis conducted by the Rohini Commission were startling. It revealed that a staggering 97% of all jobs and educational seats had gone to a mere 25% of OBC castes. Even more concerning was the fact that 24.95% of these jobs and seats were secured by just 10 OBC communities. Equally troubling, 983 OBC communities, comprising 37% of the total, had zero representation in both jobs and educational institutions. Additionally, 994 OBC sub-castes had a meager representation of only 2.68% in recruitments and admissions. However, it’s important to note that this analysis faced limitations due to the absence of updated population data. 

OBC reservation has disproportionately benefited dominant subgroups, leaving the most marginalised behind. Christophe Jaffrelot, in his article “The Rise of the Other Backward Classes in the Hindi Belt,” highlights how political prominence has not translated into fair representation, as dominant groups continue to monopolise benefits.^[2]Jaffrelot, C. (2000). The rise of the Other Backward Classes in the Hindi Belt. The Journal of Asian Studies, 59(1), 86-108.  Similarly, Surinder S. Jodhka, in “Ascriptive Hierarchies: Caste and Its Reproduction in Contemporary India”, reinforces that caste inequalities persist within OBCs, with upward mobility favouring a select few while many remain excluded.^[3]Jodhka, S. S. (2016). Ascriptive hierarchies: Caste and its reproduction in contemporary India. Current Sociology, 64(2), 228–243.  Without subcategorisation, these disparities deepen, making targeted policy interventions crucial to ensuring that historically disadvantaged OBCs receive equitable representation.

Many well-known OBC leaders have voiced their support for subcategorising reservation benefits to ensure a fairer distribution. Nitish Kumar, the Chief Minister of Bihar, has been a strong advocate for conducting a caste-based census and breaking down the OBC category further. He believes this is essential to make sure the most marginalised groups within the OBCs get proper representation. After Bihar released its caste survey showing that OBCs and Extremely Backward Classes make up over 63% of the population, Kumar emphasised the need to use this data to create inclusive policies that truly help those who have been left behind. Overall, the idea of subcategorisation seems to have wide political support, as it aligns with the broader goal of promoting social justice and addressing inequalities within the OBC community.

True equality is not merely about treating everyone the same but about recognising that individuals start from different positions and encounter unique challenges. Sandra Fredman, in “Substantive Equality Revisited,” argues that substantive equality extends beyond formal equality and requires redressing disadvantage, addressing stigma, enhancing participation, and achieving structural change, emphasizing that no single formula — such as dignity or equality of opportunity — is sufficient for true equity.^[4]Fredman, S. (2016). Substantive equality revisited. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 14(3), 712-738.  

Similarly, John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, articulates the Difference Principle, asserting that inequalities in society are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged, stating: “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged.”^[5]Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. This perspective highlights that justice is not solely about fairness in distribution but about structuring society to maximise opportunities for those historically marginalised.

In the context of OBC reservation, justice is not merely about distributing quotas equally but about ensuring that the most marginalised within the category receive the greatest possible benefit through subcategorisation, reinforcing the need for targeted policies that address intra-group disparities and advance substantive equality.

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.