There seems to be no data-based rationale behind Karnataka Cabinet’s decision to scrap reservation for Muslims under Category 2B in the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and distribute them among the two dominant communities of Vokkaligas and Lingayats under the two newly formed categories 2C and 2D.
It is learnt that Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes had not only not recommended these interventions, but had specifically recommended that no changes be effected in the reservation matrix till it submitted its final report. This could only create possibilities of legal challenges, argue legal experts.
In December 2022, acting on an interim report by Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes, the State Cabinet created two new categories 2C and 2D for Vokkaligas and Lingayats. Law Minister J.C. Madhuswamy had then said the quantum of reservation for these categories will be decided based on the final report of the commission. Days after commission Chairman K. Jayaprakash Hegde told mediapersons that the final report cannot be hurried, the State Cabinet on Friday made changes to the reservation matrix. A senior Minister in the government, on condition of anonymity, told The Hindu that the decision was “ad-hoc” and was borne out of “political compulsions.”
“On what basis did the government decide to hike reservation to Vokkaligas and Lingayats by 2% each? More significantly, why not hike reservation for other communities in Categories 1 and 2A that are more backward than the land owning communities?” questioned C.S. Dwarakanath, former chairman of the commission.
Benefit to community?
On moving Muslims from OBC list and classifying them under Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), the government argued that it would benefit the community, as it is a larger pool. However, experts argue that while backwardness is a socio-economic category, EWS is an economic category and the two cannot be easily interchanged.
“Muslims were included in the OBC list based on a study of their socio-economic conditions and recommendations by L.G. Havanur and Chinnappa Reddy Commissions. This has been further confirmed by the Sachar Committee Report. On what basis did the State government decide that Muslims were no longer “backward” and they were to be considered a “forward” community?,” asked political scientist Muzzafar Assadi, adding that this was a systematic attempt to “structurally weaken the community and marginalise it further.”
“Indira Sawhney judgment of the Supreme Court clearly says any addition or deletion of a community from the reservation matrix must be based on an empirical data-based study by the commission, said Mr. Dwarakanath.
Former Chief Minister and JD(S) leader H.D. Kumaraswamy on Saturday came down heavily on the decision to scrap reservation for Muslims, which was instituted by party supremo H.D. Deve Gowda in 1995. “The decision is against the principles of social justice,” he said.
Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah said taking away reservation from one community to give it to another would only provoke social disharmony and that was indeed the aim of the BJP.
Not religion-based
Experts have termed the Chief Minister’s argument that Muslims were removed from the OBC reservation matrix as the Constitution did not provide for reservation based on religion as “misleading.” Prof. Assadi said Muslims were categorised as backward class and not given reservation based on religion. “If that was the case and now the government has corrected the mistake, how come Christians, Jains, Buddhists still continue to be under the OBC list?” Mr. Dwarakanath asked.
