Kaka Kalelkar Commission (1955): The Forgotten Milestone of India’s Social Justice Journey

India’s quest for social justice, deeply rooted in its Constitution, has seen numerous commissions and committees striving to bridge societal divides. Among these, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission or the First Backward Classes Commission (1955), led by Kaka Kalelkar, holds a significant place.

This commission, though underappreciated, laid the foundation for the debate on backward class welfare, reservation policies, and affirmative action that persists in Indian politics and governance today. Its findings, recommendations, and eventual rejection by the government reveal the complexities of addressing entrenched inequalities in a diverse society.

Background: A Nation Striving for Equity

Post-independence India inherited a deeply stratified society marked by caste-based discrimination and economic inequality. Recognizing the need for an egalitarian society, the framers of the Constitution incorporated provisions aimed at uplifting historically disadvantaged groups.

Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution empower the state to take affirmative action in favor of socially and educationally backward classes, while Article 340 specifically mandates the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of these classes and suggest measures for their advancement.

In this context, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission was established in January 1953, with the visionary social reformer Kaka Saheb Kalelkar as its chairperson. Its mandate was to identify socially and educationally backward classes and propose remedies for their upliftment.

Kaka Kalelkar, was an Indian independence activist, social reformer, journalist and an erdent follower of Gandhi.

Mandate and Objectives of the Commission

The commission’s primary objectives included:

• Identifying Backward Classes: Determining the criteria for identifying “socially and educationally backward classes” distinct from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Using above criteria to prepare a list of such classes setting out also their approximate members and their territorial distribution.
• Assessing Social and Economic Conditions: Evaluating the extent of backwardness among various communities.
• Recommending Remedial Measures: Steps that should be taken by the union or any state to remove such backwardness and difficulties or to improve their economic condition. Suggesting steps, including reservation in education and employment, to promote the welfare of these classes.
• Framework for Inclusion: Creating a sustainable model for periodic review and reassessment of backwardness.

Methodology and Findings

The commission adopted a comprehensive approach, conducting field surveys, public hearings, and consultations across the country. Its criteria for backwardness encompassed social, educational, and economic indicators, with a strong emphasis on caste as a marker of social disadvantage.

The commission identified 2,399 castes as socially and educationally backward, based on indicators such as:

• Low social position in the traditional caste hierarchy of Hindu-Brahmin society.
• Lack of general educational advancement among the major section of a caste or community.
• Inadequate or no representation in government services.
• Inadequate representation in the field of trade, commerce and industry
• Low educational attainment.
• Occupational patterns linked to caste.
• Economic deprivation.

Key Recommendations

In its report submitted in March 30, 1955, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission proposed several path-breaking measures.

1. Caste Census: Undertaking caste-wise enumeration of the population in the census of 1961. It had prepared a list of 2,399 backward castes or communities for the entire country and of which 837 (* starred communities) had been classified as the ‘most backward’.
2. Social Backwardness: Relating social backwardness of a class to its low position in the traditional caste hierarchy of Hindu-Brahmin society.
3. Reservations: Minimum reservation of vacancies in all government services and local bodies for other backward classes on the following scale: Class I = 25%; Class II = 33½%; class III and IV = 40%. Further, a reservation of 70% seats in all technical and professional institutions for qualified students of backward classes.
4. Economic Reforms: Special economic measures to uplift backward regions and communities. That special economic measures be taken to uplift the OBCs economically through such programmes as extensive land reforms, reorganization of the village economy, Bhoodan movement, development of livestock, dairy farming, cattle insurance, bee-keeping, piggery, fisheries, development of rural housing, public health and rural water supply, adult literacy programme, etc.
5. Skill Development: Establishing vocational training centers to enhance employability.
6. Promotion of Education: Scholarships, fee waivers, and hostel facilities for backward class students. The commission underscored the role of education as a transformative tool and recommended prioritizing its accessibility for backward classes.
7. Creation of a Permanent Backward Classes Commission: To periodically review and address issues of backwardness.
8. Women: Treating all women as a class as ‘backward’;

Government’s Rejection: A Controversial Decision

Despite its groundbreaking recommendations, the Government of India rejected the report in 1956, for several disclosed and undisclosed reasons:

• Overemphasis on Caste: The government argued that the commission’s reliance on caste as the primary criterion for backwardness was inconsistent with the vision of a caste-neutral society envisioned in the Constitution.
• Practical Challenges: Implementing such widespread reservations and economic measures was deemed impractical in a resource-constrained economy.
• Lack of Consensus: The commission’s recommendations faced criticism from various quarters, especially upper caste political leaders who feared that caste-based reservations could deepen societal divides.

However, one must also not foreget the class and caste background of those politicians who rejected the report and its recommendations.

Noteworthy Observations of Kaka Kalelkar Commission

Duty of Privileged Classes

• The privileged classes must voluntarily renounce their privileges and their claims to social superiority and must work wholeheartedly for the eradication of social evils.
• The ultimate solution seems to be that all production and distribution should be on a socialistic basis and that people should be encouraged to establish the necessary moral basis and to train themselves for the change over.

Economic Backwardness result of Social Evils

• In India, economic backwardness is often the result and not the cause of social evils.

Why Caste Criteria used in Classifying Backward Classes? Using the Thorn to remove a Thorn

The commission noted that “according to the terms of reference to the commission, we were asked to consider whether any sections of the people of the territory of India, in addition to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes.

The word specifically used are classes and sections of the people and not castes; and yet, as explained in the body of the report the word ‘sections and classes’ can in the present context mean nothing but castes, and no other interpretation is feasible.

It must be admitted, however, that, taking the wording of terms of reference, we are not precluded from interpreting the words ‘sections and classes of the people’ in their widest significance even excluding the idea of caste. We feel we were justified in accepting the traditional interpretation.

We were warned by well-wishers of the country that investigations into caste may encourage people to be caste-conscious, and thus increase the atmosphere of communalism. Following the analogy if the proverb, viz. ‘using the thorn to remove a thorn’, we held that the evils of caste could be removed by measures which could be considered in terms of caste alone.

Those who create Quarrels and Factions amongst the People

The commission noted that “It can be safely said that those who possess large tracts of land; those who have enough money to lend, those who have brains to create quarrels and factions amongst the people, and those who have the tradition of wielding governmental power, are all dominant people in the rural areas.

I did not succeed in the effort of classifying the backward classes because I could not carry conviction to my colleagues that these dominant communities must be segregated if the victims of domination have to be saved.

Who are the Backward People

Who, then are the backward people? Evidently those who do not command adequate and sufficient representation in government service, those who do not command a large amount of natural resources like land, money and industrial undertakings; those who live in ill-ventilated houses; those who are nomadic; those who live by begging and other unwholesome means; those who are agricultural laborers or those who practice unremunerative occupations without any means to enter better-paying professions; and those who on account of poverty, ignorance and other social disabilities are unable to educate themselves or produce sufficient leadership, are all backward.

The communities, classes or social groups who occupy an inferior social position in relation to the upper castes and who also answer the above description, naturally come under the category of other backward classes.

Self-empowerment of Weaker Sections, no Patronage Culture

The commission noted that “It is therefore, essential that no dominating community should be allowed to claim to be the protectors of the weaker sections. It is only the good men from every community, men who are imbued with a sense of social justice, who can forget caste prejudices, are prepared to surrender their privileges and who can combine to usher in a new era of social justice and universal familyhood, that can be natural leaders and protectors of the helpless, mute and suffering masses.

It is much better if new communities are allowed to try their hands at leadership.Only those like Nehru, are above communal considerations and even nationalistic considerations, should be allowed, to formulate the policy of the nation.

It is no use challenging the leadership of the best in the land by searching out the community to which they belong, and then accusing them that they are monopolizing leadership for the upper classes. All monopoly must be broken even of it is fully justified and opportunities for service must be assured to all sections of the population.

Critique

While the commission’s report was pioneering, it was not without its shortcomings.

The Term “Backward”

Since the social and economic disabilities faced by these communities labelled “backward classes” are the result of historical subjugation by Brahmanical classes, they should have been termed as “Other Oppressed Castes or Tribes”. Since the caste also has a negative connotation, and limits the scope to the Hindu-Brahman yardstick of India, the word tribe should be used instead of caste.

Also, since the tribal system prevail all over the world including in Muslim world, so using the world “tribe” will instill a sense of global unity and symathy amongst these classes and tribes that have faced similar oppression at the hands privileged and elite classes.

Thus, Scheduled Castes of Mainland should be termed as “Oppressd Tribes” or Oppressed Tribes in Mainland; Scheduled Tribes in Remote Areas as “Oppressed Tribes Remote Areas”; Other Backward Classes as “Other Oppressed Tribes”. For sub classifications, other terminologies should be added accordingly.

The term “Reservation”

Representation is a more dignified term than resevation. Reservation connotes patronage culture and is also a colonial legacy. Proportional Representation based on share of population seems more dignified.

Inadequate Reservation Proposal

The communities it recognised as backward classes constitute over 60% India’s population. Hence their representation or reservation in socio-economic institutions must be commensurate with their population share. The commission recommended a meagre share of 25-40% not proportionate to their actual share in population.

Ambiguities in Definitions

The lack of a clear definition of “backwardness” led to confusion and left its recommendations open to interpretation.

Nonetheless, the commission deserves credit for initiating a structured conversation on backward class welfare in independent India.

Aftermath: Paving the Way for Future Commissions

The rejection of the Kaka Kalelkar Commission’s recommendations did not mark the end of the backward class discourse. Instead, it catalyzed further efforts to refine the criteria and mechanisms for affirmative action.

1. Mandal Commission (1979): The Second Backward Classes Commission, chaired by B.P. Mandal, drew heavily from the groundwork laid by Kaka Kalelkar’s team. Unlike its predecessor, the Mandal Commission focused more comprehensively on socio-economic and educational indicators and its recommendations were implemented in 1990, sparking nationwide debates.
2. Judicial Interventions: The debates initiated by the Kalelkar Commission laid the foundation for judicial scrutiny of affirmative action policies. Landmark judgments, such as Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992), further refined the understanding of backwardness and upheld the validity of caste-based reservations.
3. Evolving Policies: Successive governments revisited the issues raised by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, leading to targeted interventions such as the establishment of Other Backward Classes (OBC) quotas, scholarships, and economic empowerment schemes.

Legacy and Relevance Today

The rejection of the Kaka Kalelkar Commission’s report highlights the complexities of addressing inequality in a pluralistic society. Yet, its enduring relevance is evident in contemporary debates on reservations, affirmative action, and caste-based disparities.

Today, the challenges identified by the commission—educational backwardness, lack of economic opportunities, and caste-based exclusion—persist. However, the framework it proposed continues to inform policy discussions, making it a critical milestone in India’s social justice journey.

Conclusion

The Kaka Kalelkar Commission of 1955 stands as a testament to India’s commitment to social justice and the challenges of achieving it in a diverse democracy. While its recommendations were rejected, the commission set the stage for subsequent efforts to address backwardness and inequality, shaping the contours of affirmative action policies in modern India.

Its legacy lies not just in its report but in the debates it initiated debates that remain central to India’s socio-political discourse. As the nation grapples with new forms of inequality and exclusion, revisiting the principles of the Kaka Kalelkar Commission can offer valuable insights into crafting a more inclusive and equitable future.