Patels should learn from Jats and Gurjars: Government can't allot quota to whoever it pleases

The irony of an affluent community of an equally affluent and vibrant state, hailed for its growth model, seeking benefits of reservation for survival and sustenance may have confounded analysts. But, the agitation by Patels of Gujarat isn’t without precedence or history; it is almost replica of similar protests by Jats and Gurjars of Rajasthan.

The idea of a mob demanding policy changes by coming out on to the streets, resorting to violence, blackmailing politicians and getting the government genuflect to it, was implemented with varying degrees of success in Rajasthan.

It would be worthwhile to revisit the inclusion of Jats among OBCs and the ramifications of the decision to understand why the Patels have taken recourse to political heft and violence. This will show how the recent agitation is an unavoidable outcome of the process set into motion by VP Singh, Inder Kumar Gujaral, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Rajasthan chief minister Vasundhara Raje and her predecessor Ashok Gehlot.

Jats, like Patels, are an influential community in Rajasthan. Though they are believed to be around 15 percent of the state’s population, their importance is exaggerated by their heavy concentration in a few districts of western Rajasthan and their ability to vote as a single political entity.

When the Mandal Commission report was implemented by the VP Singh government, Jats were not part of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Soon, they starting demanding their inclusion in the category and reservation benefits. Their demand was a perfect opportunity for the government to reconsider the reservation policy and the claim of various castes and communities to quota benefits. But, instead of looking at the policy afresh, the government decided to consider the claims of the community and referred their case to the National Commission for Backward Castes (NCBC).

The NCBC examined the claims of Jats of Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, Western Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh for OBC status. But it found only the demand of the Jats of Rajasthan, excluding those of Bharatpur and Dholpur, valid.

More politics followed. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, the then chief minister of Rajasthan, was not in favour of tinkering with the OBC list. So, he ignored the recommendations of the NCBC. At the Centre, the Gujaral government refused to act on them, citing its care-taker status.

In 1999, while addressing an election rally in Rajasthan’s Sikar district, Vajpayee promised inclusion of Jats among OBCs. Just a year ago, the Congress had won 18 out of the 25 Lok Sabha seats in Rajasthan. But in 1999, in the elections that followed Vajpayee’s promise, the Congress tally was reduced to nine. Convinced that its quota politics had turned the tide, the Vajpayee government that took over included Jats among OBCs in the Central list. The then chief minister of Rajasthan, Gehlot, also succumbed to the demand of Jats for quota benefits in the state.

The success of the Jat stir is an important milestone on the continuum of quota politics. One, it established the template for future agitations by demonstrating that the political might can be used successfully to arm-twist governments. And two, it established that the quota pie can be redistributed even in the absence of new data and statistics. (The OBC list are based on the 1931 census but the Jats based their claim on post-Independence socio-economic changes).

We can see an echo of the Jat stir when Hardik Patel, leader of the Gujarat agitation, threatens to uproot the Lotus from his state in the next election if his community is not included in the OBC list, or economic status doesn’t replace caste as the basis for reservation. Patels are anywhere between 15 to 20 percent of the Gujarat population. Like the Jats who kept Congress in power in Rajasthan, they are believed to be the BJP’s loyal vote bank. Aware of their importance, Hardik thinks he can make the government bend in front of the Patel mob.

But, tinkering with the OBC pie could be disastrous. It can set off a chain of events that has the potential to stoke unrest in every caste and community, leading to more violence and agitations. Moreover, it can create legal problems that would challenge the Indian Constitution.

When Jats were included in the OBC category in Rajasthan, it set off another round of agitations, leading to violence and social upheaval.

In 2007, Gurjars, part of OBCs, intensified their demand for being categorised as Scheduled Tribe. Their claim was triggered by the fear that Jats, who are economically, socially and financially more resourceful than other backward classes, were usurping all the quota benefits.

But, the Gurjars, who are nearly 5 percent of Rajasthan’s population, were denied ST status, primarily because of the presence of the powerful Meena community, the major beneficiaries of reservation extended to tribes. Frustrated by the logjam, the Gurjars turned violent in 2007, and then once again a year later, leading to police firing and violent clashes that claimed more than 100 lives.

This is what is boiled down to ultimately: Gurjars did not want Jats as competitors; but the Jats were against bifurcation of the OBC list. The Gurjars wanted to be recognised as Scheduled Tribes; but the dominant tribe of Rajasthan, the Meenas, was opposed to it. And the Rajasthan government did not have the courage to upset any of these powerful communities.

So, it resorted to the charade of creating a separate category for Gurjars and giving them five percent reservation. But this ran into legal trouble since in announcing reservation to this new category of backwards, the government exceeded the 49 percent limit on quota set in the Constitution.

Apart from inviting legal trouble, the government also annoyed the general category, which protested additional reservation in the state. Since then, there have been demands for either scrapping of the existing system, or extension of benefits to Brahmins and Rajputs on economic basis. The simmering caste volcano is waiting to erupt.

What are the lessons for the government from the experience in Rajasthan? One, it can’t resort to ad-hocism while apportioning quota benefits. The policy of addressing the claims of one community can lead to dangerous consequences. The government needs to look at the entire system of reservation and the criteria for inclusion afresh.

Two, politics has to be kept out of the social justice system. Traditional definitions of backward and forward are in a flux because of socio-economic changes since Independence. There are creamy layers and deprived sections in almost every community. The traditional method of classifying people will only contribute to rising disparity, and, thus, resentment and anger.

Hardik Patel has given us an opportunity to re-examine the reservation system afresh. We should be wary of his dangerous demand for inclusion of Patels among OBCs, but grateful for suggesting that everybody be given an equal opportunity to succeed in India.