Introduction

India has recently seen a new census, not the awaited national one, but a caste-based census from the state of Bihar. As expected, the data was collected based on 17 indicators, one of which was caste. The key takeaway is that two groups—Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Extremely Backward Classes (EBCs)—make up 63% of Bihar’s population. Censuses aren’t done merely to gather numbers; they inform policy decisions. In this case, the goal seems to be expanding reservations and welfare schemes, a topic that has become politically charged. Opposition parties are calling for a nationwide caste census, while the ruling party is currently uninterested and wants to avoid the politics involved. This raises key questions: Why is a caste census important? When was it last done in India, and has it been effective?

Caste-based politics has been a defining feature of Indian democracy since independence in 1947. The intricate relationship between caste identities and political processes has significantly influenced elections, often reinforcing social hierarchies instead of breaking them down. This essay delves into the role of caste-based politics in Indian elections, exploring its historical background, effects on political mobilization, and the broader consequences of democratic practices. While caste politics has allowed marginalized communities to gain representation, it has also deepened divisions, weakened national unity, and occasionally sparked violence and instability.

Historical Context

To grasp the current dynamics of caste-based politics, it's crucial to consider its historical context. The caste system has been a fundamental aspect of Indian society for centuries, dictating social hierarchies and access to resources. British colonial policies, particularly through the census and administrative classifications, intensified these divisions by formally recognizing caste identities. For instance, the 1931 Census identified 1,262 distinct castes, highlighting the British effort to classify and codify social structures.

Following independence, despite the Indian Constitution's goal of promoting equality and justice through affirmative action and reservations, caste still dominates the political landscape. According to the 2011 Census, about 16% of the population identifies as Scheduled Castes (SC), while around 52% belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC). Political parties have adeptly utilized caste identities as a means of mobilization, often prioritizing caste-specific agendas over national concerns. This manipulation has resulted in a political culture where caste identities overshadow vital issues such as economic development, education, and healthcare.

Now, let’s take a step back and clarify what caste is. Simply put, it’s a system of social hierarchy in which individuals are ranked based on their birth. Hindu texts categorize society into four major groups: at the top are the Brahmins, who serve as priests and teachers; next are the Kshatriyas, the warriors, and rulers; followed by the Vaishyas, who are farmers, traders, and merchants; and finally, the Shudras, who are laborers and service workers. Beyond these four groups lies another category, the Dalits, historically referred to as the untouchables, who operated outside the caste system and often performed menial jobs.

Caste has long been a reality in India, and in many regions, it still is. When the British arrived, they formalized these divisions, believing that to govern effectively, they needed a clear understanding of the social landscape. They attempted to categorize India's diverse Hindu population into four main classes, only to find a much more complex reality. For example, in Banaras in 1834, there were 107 different Brahmin castes. This illustrates that the British-imposed four-category system was not the norm. W.R. Cornish, a British official overseeing the 1871 Madras census, remarked, “Whether there was ever a period in which the Hindus were composed of four classes is exceedingly doubtful.” Nevertheless, the British persisted, and from the 1880s onwards, they began collecting caste data, continuing this practice until the 1941 Census—the last time caste data was gathered in India. However, this data was not published, deemed "enormous and costly," leaving the last published estimates from 1931, which are now around 93 years old.

Reservations existed in some regions during this time. The princely state of Mysore, for example, began reserving seats for backward communities in government jobs and education as early as 1921. This trend was soon adopted by Madras and Bombay in the 1930s. However, it wasn’t without contention; in 1932, the British proposed separate electorates for backward communities, which differed from reserved seats where everyone voted for candidates from backward communities. Separate electorates would mean that both candidates and voters would come from these communities. This proposal sparked a significant conflict between two prominent figures: Mahatma Gandhi opposed it, while Dr. B.R. Ambedkar supported it. To persuade Ambedkar, Gandhi resorted to a fast unto death, ultimately leading Ambedkar to concede to reserved seats instead.

After independence, the Indian Constitution established quotas and reservations, but only for two marginalized groups: SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Reservations can be classified into two categories: political and social. Political reservations, which are temporary, allocate quotas in elected bodies like Parliament and state assemblies, intended to be reviewed every ten years. However, extensions have become the norm, with the latest extension occurring in 2019. In contrast, social reservations—about jobs and educational seats—lack a defined timeframe. Many believe the founding fathers intended these to be temporary, yet the Constitution does not explicitly state this.

This framework remained largely unchanged until 1979, when the Second Backward Classes Commission, known as the Mandal Commission, was established under B.P. Mandal, a former chief minister of Bihar. The Commission's report, submitted in December 1980, recommended a 27% reservation for OBCs in jobs and colleges. However, the report remained unaddressed for a decade due to a change in government. It wasn’t until August 1990 that Prime Minister V.P. Singh revived the Mandal report, leading to widespread protests across India. Many students demonstrated in major cities, with some tragically resorting to self-immolation. Nonetheless, the 27% OBC quota was implemented, resulting in a reservation distribution of 15% for SCs, 7.5% for STs, and 27% for OBCs, totaling 49.5%.

However, the Mandal report marked the beginning of a new era in politics, where leaders began to exploit reservation as a political tool. To gain support from specific communities, they would offer quotas, leading to a trend of politically motivated reservations. The Supreme Court intervened in 1992, ruling that reservations could not exceed 50%. Recent developments have introduced more flexibility to this limit, further complicating the landscape of caste-based politics in India.

Caste as a Political Mobilizer and The Dynamics of Electoral Behavior

Caste identity plays a significant role in shaping electoral behavior in India. Voters often align themselves with candidates and parties that represent their caste interests, leading to voting patterns that mirror established social hierarchies. Research shows that caste-based voting is widespread, with approximately 45% of voters in Uttar Pradesh and 60% in Bihar considering their caste a critical factor in their voting decisions.

Voting Patterns

Caste-based voting fosters an environment where electoral success often depends on a party's ability to secure support from dominant castes. For example, in the 2019 general elections, the BJP received substantial backing from upper castes, who account for about 20% of the population, winning 303 out of 542 Lok Sabha seats. This dynamic not only marginalizes voices from less powerful communities but also cultivates a political culture where policy-making is secondary to caste loyalty. As a result, governance suffers; parties may overlook essential development issues in favor of catering to their caste constituencies.

A new challenge has arisen: there is an increasing demand for quotas from various communities. Initially, dominant groups opposed the idea of reservations, but with their persistence becoming evident, many are now pushing for their quotas. This trend is apparent across India, with communities such as the Patels in Gujarat, Marathas in Maharashtra, Lingayats in Karnataka, and Jaats in Haryana—all politically significant in their states—seeking reservations. This situation raises critical questions about where these demands will ultimately lead.

The Supreme Court has offered some thought-provoking views on reservations. Last year, it indicated that the 50% cap on quotas is flexible. Justice Bela M. Trivedi stated, “After 75 years of independence, we need to revisit the reservation system for the larger good of society.” Justice P.B. Pardiwala echoed this sentiment, saying, “Reservation is not an end, but a means to secure social and economic justice; it should not become a vested interest.” Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened—reservations have become a political instrument.

While reservations have made important strides toward social justice in India, they have not resolved the underlying issues. Caste continues to be a potent tool for political mobilization, especially at the state level, where parties design their campaigns to resonate with specific caste groups. This strategy is particularly evident in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu.

Case Studies

1. Uttar Pradesh: 

The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), led by Mayawati, exemplifies caste-based mobilization. Initially focused on representing Scheduled Castes (SCs), the BSP successfully attracted support from other marginalized groups, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and even some upper castes. In the 2007 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, the BSP secured 206 out of 403 seats, demonstrating its electoral strength. However, this focus on caste has not only consolidated power but also deepened divisions among communities, resulting in a fragmented society where caste loyalty often overshadows national interests.

2. Bihar: 

The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) has adeptly navigated caste dynamics, primarily appealing to the Yadav community while forming alliances with other OBCs and SCs. In the 2020 Bihar Assembly elections, the RJD emerged as the largest party, despite not forming the government. This strategy has led to electoral victories but has also exacerbated inter-caste rivalries, causing violent confrontations and social unrest. The 2016 violence in Bihar's Arrah district, for example, highlighted the tensions between different caste groups, illustrating the risks tied to caste-based mobilization.

3. Tamil Nadu: 

The Dravidian parties, such as the DMK and AIADMK, have effectively leveraged caste identities to establish a distinct regional identity. While advocating for the rights of non-Brahmin castes, this often results in animosity toward perceived oppressors, fostering an "us versus them" mentality. The DMK, which has held power in the state multiple times, consistently emphasizes Dravidian identity, often at the expense of broader national unity.

Challenges of Caste-Based Politics

While caste-based politics has helped mobilize marginalized groups, it also brings major challenges to India's democracy. Focusing too much on caste can create divisive politics, weakening national unity and increasing communal tensions. This emphasis often distracts from critical issues like economic growth, education, and healthcare.

Regional Differences

The impact of caste politics differs across regions, with some areas being more affected than others. States like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have seen intense caste-based conflicts, often leading to violence and political instability. For example, the 2015 Jat reservation protests in Haryana resulted in riots, showing the volatile nature of caste-based politics. On the other hand, regions where caste is less prominent tend to focus more on issue-based politics. However, rising caste polarization threatens to spread even to these more progressive areas.

Violence and Instability

Despite the legislation in force, the registered crimes against Dalits in India increased by 7% from 2018 to 2019. Registered crimes against Dalits increased by 19% from 2015 to 2019. The number of registered rape cases against Dalit women rose by 37% from 2015 to 2019. Atrocities/Crimes against Scheduled Castes have increased by 7.3% in 2019 (45,935) over 2018 (42,793). Uttar Pradesh (11,829 cases) reported the highest number of cases of atrocities against Scheduled Castes accounting for 25.7%, followed by Rajasthan with 14.9% (6,794) and Bihar with 14.24% (6,544) during 2019. The next two states on the list are Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, accounting for 11.53% (5,300) and 4.68% (2,150) respectively. The aforementioned top five states reported 71.05% of cases of atrocities against Scheduled Castes. The recent incidents of atrocities against Scheduled Castes in Lakhim Pur Khiri, Hathras, and Balrampur reflect the harsh realities at the grassroots level. According to the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB), atrocities against Dalits show a rising trend. The caste-based crimes reported against Dalits are increasing at a rate of 6% to 7% each year. In 2016, a total of 40,081 crimes against Dalits were reported - that includes 2,541 rapes and attempted rapes of Dalit women . If 2017 and 2018 are taken together, there are around 86,000 crimes and atrocities recorded against Dalits. The overall rate of total crime against Dalits in India is around 21.3%, which is staggering when the overall Dalit population is taken into consideration.

The Future of Caste-Based Politics

As India progresses, the nature of caste-based politics is likely to change. Globalization, urbanization, and social media are reshaping how political mobilization occurs. Young generations, who are more educated and connected, may increasingly prioritize issues like economic opportunities, education, and healthcare over caste identity.

Emerging Trends

In urban areas, where diverse communities interact more often, there are signs of a decline in strict caste-based loyalties. However, in rural regions, deeply rooted caste dynamics are likely to persist. Political parties will continue to exploit these affiliations for electoral gain in such areas.

Risks of Reversion

There is a risk that caste politics could intensify due to economic inequalities and social unrest. As competition for resources grows, political parties might increasingly manipulate caste identities to consolidate power, which could escalate caste-based rivalries and conflicts. This could lead to a regressive political climate where caste becomes even more central to electoral strategies, endangering the stability of Indian democracy.

CONCLUSION

Caste-based politics has been a complex and powerful force in Indian elections, playing a key role in empowering marginalized communities and advocating for social justice. However, it has also deepened societal divisions, weakened national unity, and contributed to violence and instability. While caste politics has historically shaped voting patterns, changing trends like globalization, urbanization, and the priorities of younger, more educated voters are beginning to shift the focus toward economic opportunities, education, and healthcare.

Despite this shift, the influence of caste remains strong, especially in rural areas where identities are more entrenched. Political parties continue to leverage caste affiliations for electoral gain, risking further polarization. Additionally, economic inequality and social unrest could lead to an escalation of caste-based rivalries, reinforcing divisions.

The future of Indian democracy depends on balancing the recognition of caste identities with building a more inclusive, issue-based political environment. Without this balance, India risks further division and instability, threatening the foundations of its democratic governance.

.    .    .