12 Caste and Educational Discourse

Dr. Nisha Jolly Nelson

Introduction

This module explores the complex relationship between caste and educational discourse in India. It examines the role played by education in perpetuating or changing caste relations in Indian society, besides analysing the impact of reservation policy on caste. It also tries to answer questions such as:

• Who had access to education during different periods of time in history? and
• What were the views of colonial officials, social reformers and national leaders about providing educational opportunities to groups placed lower in the caste hierarchy?

Caste is one of the basic institutions of Indian society since early ages and has engaged the attention of scholars, activists and politicians. There is voluminous literature on the nature and character of caste in its various aspects (see Beteille, 1965; Dumont, 1970; Gupta, 1991, 2000; Srinivas, 1996; Das, 2004; Thorat and Newman; 2010). The typical structure of caste with regional variations and the process of change and continuity has been described and analysed in detail by scholars in India and abroad.

The study of caste has also given rise to many controversies and debates. There are two arguments with regard to the role that caste plays in our society. Some argue that caste is growing stronger while others hold the view that modernisation and westernisation are weakening the caste system. There is evidence to support both arguments.

The manner in which caste defines the interaction between people in Indian society has changed significantly in recent times. One factor which brought significant changes in caste relations is education. Access to, and performance in education was for a long time determined not only by social conditions but also by the nature of education and social situations existing in educational institutions. As a result, most of the deprived sections of Indian society also remained educationally deprived (Wankhede, 2013). Before looking at how or to what extent caste is influenced by education or education is influenced by caste, let us try to understand some of the basic features of caste system.

Caste System in India: A Brief Overview

You already know that ‘caste’ is the name of an ancient social institution that has been part of Indian history and culture for thousands of years. Caste typically symbolises the nature of social stratification that is characteristic of Indian society. Although it is an institution that is considered unique to Hinduism, its impact is still felt among religious groups to which conversion from Hinduism has taken place. This is especially true of Muslims, Christians and Sikhs in India.

The English word ‘caste’ is borrowed from the Portuguese word ‘casta’, meaning pure breed. According to M.N. Srinivas caste is “a hereditary, endogamous, usually localised group, having a traditional association with an occupation, and a particular position in the hierarchy of castes. Relations between castes are governed, among other things, by the concept of pollution and purity and generally, maximum commensality occurs within caste” (Srinivas,1962:3).The Indian caste system is considered a closed system of stratification, which means that a person’s social status is determined by the caste into which he/she is born. In other words, caste’s status is ascribed.

Caste and Education

In the traditional social set up, groups that were placed in the lower strata of caste hierarchy were deprived of the right to education. Caste status is ascribed, and is a means of either conferring or denying privileges. Education is a privilege which was enjoyed only by upper castes.

Notions and practices associated with the caste system based on social differentiation, which considered access to education the prerogative of upper sections of the society have been largely responsible for educational backwardness of the under-privileged groups (Aikara, 2004). The positioning of dalit groups treated as ‘untouchables’ in the caste structure was the key factor that historically led to their exclusion from knowledge and education in traditional Hindu society. Though schools were legally opened for these communities in the mid-nineteenth century, attempts by dalits to get education met with considerable opposition (Nambissan, 2013). When we link caste system with the education system, we see that the relationship is very complex and often oppressive. This has been changing over a period of time but at a very slow pace.

Beginnings of Educational Reforms

As mentioned earlier a form of social stratification typical of Indian society, is the caste system, in which the lower sections of caste hierarchy have been educationally deprived. But with the advent of colonial powers, the proselytisation activities of the missionaries found their base in India and many Hindus in the lower rungs of the caste hierarchy converted to Christianity. When the British colonial power established its empire in India, the Queen of the Sea needed cheap labour. As a result British officials started imparting education to Indians (See Macaulay’s Minute on Education – Note -1). The imperial hegemony of the British coupled with the caste supremacy of the Brahmins did not really alter the situations of those placed in the lower rungs of the caste hierarchy.

To understand Indian society, persons like William Jones and British administrators sought help from the Brahmins. Making use of their upper caste status and the education they already had, the Brahmins only turned this opportunity to their advantage. The upper castes were getting educated both in English and other elite languages. On the other side of the coin those placed in the bottom rungs of the caste hierarchy were toiling themselves hard and literally lived in a state of servitude. Colonial rule did not really open up opportunities for those lower down in the caste hierarchy to achieve social mobility. On the other hand, it reinforced the hierarchies already inherent in Indian society. It also needs to be mentioned that the main objective of colonial education was not to create a class of leaders but followers who took orders and served their masters.

It was not until the country became independent and adopted the Constitution that was committed to the concept and practice of social justice that the subject of bridging social and economic gaps created by caste inequalities through education received serious attention.

History of Caste based Reservations within the Framework of Education

Special provisions and concessions for promoting the educational advancement of backward classes were introduced by the British Government. This was later converted into caste reservations in educational institutions and in employment. Let us now look at the issue of caste based reservations in India within the framework of education.

Social reform movements supported by liberal Englishmen during 19th century helped Sudras, women and scheduled castes and tribes in this country to enter the portals of institutions of learning. The entry of a person from a scheduled caste into an educational institution in the country was first recorded in the year 1856. It was in June 1856 that a scheduled caste boy applied for admission into a government school in Dharwar (now in Karnataka) in Bombay Presidency. The incident had created a furore in the administration which ultimately attracted the attention of the rulers. The Board of Directors was then forced to formulate an educational policy which stated that as long as schools are maintained by the government the ‘classes of its subjects’ are to be given admission without any distinction of caste, religion or race. This policy was further strengthened with the enactment of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1872, which removed social and legal inequalities suffered by weaker sections. This was how a small beginning was made in the educational development of marginalised sections in India. This was later supported by legislations. The demand for entry into educational institutions and for equality of opportunity was first started in the south. The southern states including parts of Maharashtra have witnessed movements for ushering social justice due to the pioneering work done by Brahma Naidu, Sri Narayana Guru, Jyotiba Phule, Savitri Bai Phule and Ayyankali among others (Chalam, 1990: 2333).

Savitri Bai Phule (1831-1897)-Savitri Bai Phule was the first headmistress of the country’s first school for girls in Pune. She devoted her life to educating Shudras and Ati-Shudras. She started a night school for agriculturists and labourers. She died while serving plague patients.

Ayyankali (1863-1914) – Ayyankali, born in Kerala, was a leader of the lower castes and Dalits. With his efforts, dalits got the freedom to walk on public roads, and dalit children were allowed to join schools

Source: Indian Society .Text book for Class XII Sociology NCERT pages 43 and 45

The first government circular reserving certain posts in favour of backward castes was issued between June 19 and 21, 1895 by the Mysore Government (See Chalam, 1990, Government of Karnataka 1975: 100). On July 25, 1921 D D Gholap, a member in the Bombay Legislative Council moved a resolution for free and compulsory education for caste groups that were treated as untouchables. The most important of the early dalit movements were: “the Ad-Dharm movement in Punjab organised in 1926; the movement under Ambedkar in Maharashtra mainly based among Mahars which had its organisational beginnings in 1924; the Namashudra movement in Bengal; the Adi-Dravida movement in Tamil Nadu; the Adi-Andhra movement in Andhra which had its first conference in 1917″(Patanakar and Omvedt, 1979: 415).

In the history of caste reservation policy, the approach of the Justice Party (1926) was considered a pioneering venture. It was for the first time that the Justice Party had laid down caste-wise reservations for matters of public appointment in 1926. In August 1943 B. R. Ambedkar had secured 8.3 per cent reservations for untouchables (Chalam, 2007). B. R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution played a seminal role in opening up educational opportunities for vulnerable groups such as SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes.

Social inequalities were deep rooted and would not be automatically eliminated with political independence. Provision of equal opportunities does not ensure equal utilisation of these opportunities because of the play of such factors as caste, gender and class. In such a situation reservation emerged as a means of bridging the gaps that existed in utilisation of the benefit of ‘equal educational opportunities’ given by the Constitution. Ambedkar believed that those groups which had suffered deprivation for centuries needed to be given special spaces in opportunities for upward social mobility. It was this thinking that led to the provision of reservation in education, through a policy of ‘protective discrimination’, now being increasingly referred to as ‘positive discrimination’. Today the notion of ‘inclusive education’ has taken central stage in the discourse on caste and education.

The constitutional commitment to equal educational opportunities for all sections of Indian society recently found expression in the RTE Act implemented in 2010. The right to universal education which was enshrined in the Constitution of India was further reinforced by the ‘Right of Children to

Free and Compulsory Education Act’, which was passed in 2009 and implemented from April 1, 2010. This Act which made education a fundamental right of every child between the ages of 6 -14 years had also laid down that every school and local administration had to reserve 25 % of seats for children belonging to socially disadvantaged sections (Section 8 and Section 9 of the RTE Act). Section 12 of this Act clearly states that 25 % of the seats in private schools have to be set apart for children of disadvantaged groups. Even today there are reports of violation of the RTE Act by some private institutions which are not ready to open up their schools for children from marginalised groups.

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956) was one of the pioneers of the movement for emancipation of backward classes through education. He was of the view that “The backward classes have come to realize that after all education is the greatest material benefit for which they can fight. We may forego material benefits, we may forego material benefits of civilization, but we cannot forego our right and opportunities to reap the benefit of the highest education to the fullest extent. That the importance of this question from the point of view of the backward classes who have just realized that without education their existence is not safe.”

(Government of Maharashtra (1982), Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 2, p.

It was the Jammu and Kashmir government, which for the first time after independence adopted a communal reservations policy in 1952. It had reserved 50 per cent to Dogra Hiigus of Jammu and 10 per cent was left to the pandits. The first all- India effort to recommend reservations on caste basis, other than those for SCs and STs was attempted by Kaka Kalelkar Commission in 1953.

Kaka Kalelkar Commission

Kaka Kalelkar Commission was appointed by the Government of India to uphold the provisions of Articles 15(4) and 340(1) of the Indian Constitution. It was appointed in 1953 with a respected Gandhian Kaka Kalelkar, as Chairman. The report was submitted in 1955. It listed 2399 communities as backward, with 837 of them being classified as most backward (Srinivas, 1996: XXVI). The Commission recommended reservation of jobs in government and educational institutions for the backward classes. This Committee however was a failure due to disagreement between the members of the Committee. This led to individual state governments appointing their own Backward Class Commissions under the Commission of Enquiry Act and drawing out lists of backward castes for reservation in educational institutions and public appointments. This was followed by the setting up of the Mandal Commission.

The Mandal Commission

In 1978, the Janata Government had appointed the second All-India Backward Classes Commission under the chairmanship of Bindheshwari Prasad Mandal. Popularly known as Mandal Commission, the Commission was appointed under the primeministership of Morarji Desai with the objective of identifying the OBCs. In 1980, it published its findings, placing a total of 3,428 communities in the OBC category, comprising 54.4% of the country’s population (Bayly, 1999). The Mandal Commission recommended that there should be employment quotas in public sector organisations (including nationalised banks and private sector undertakings which received financial assistance from the government in one form or the other) and reserved places in higher educational institutions. According to the Commission’s report reservations were to the tune of 27% for the OBCs, in addition to 22.5% job quotas and seats in higher educational institutions that were already in place for SCs and STs (Ramaiah, 1992). The figure of 27% was arrived at as the Supreme Court limited total reservations to a proportion lesser than 50%. Due to a change in the government in 1979, the Mandal Commission’s report could not be implemented. In 1989, Janata Dal came to power as the leading party in a national coalition government during the term of Prime Minister V P Singh. He announced plans to implement the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, significantly increasing quotas in public sector employment and in university admissions for the communities which had been classified as OBCs by the Mandal Commission (see Mandal Commission Report.pdf.-Simply Decoded-ttp://www.simplydecoded.com).

The announcement led to violent resistance in many parts of India, including a series of widely publicised self-immolations by upper caste students (Bayly, 1999). With the coming to power of the Congress-led government of Manmohan Singh in 2004, there were also proposals to extend the quotas to private sector jobs and to certain privileged institutions of higher education. In April 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the Mandal Commission recommendation that 27% of seats in government-funded institutions (including the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institutes of Management) be reserved for OBCs. However, the Supreme Court did not agree to extend reservations for OBCs to educational institutions in the private sector.

Criticism faced by Mandal Commission

The Mandal Commission’s findings and recommendations faced severe criticism from different quarters. The main criticism that it faced was related to the method and criteria it adopted for defining a group as backward class. The parameters were widely regarded as flawed, raising scepticism about whether the communities determined to be OBC by the Commission were truly socially disadvantaged or deserving of the massive welfare programmes subsumed under the reservation policy (Beteille, 1992; Radhakrishnan, 1996). Second, several observers felt that the reasons as to why successive governments tried to implement the Mandal Commission recommendation had more to do with political factors than economic and social, as several of the communities included in the Mandal Commission’s OBC list formed important vote banks for political parties both in power and in the opposition (Sivaramayya, 1996; Bayly, 1999; Gang et al, 2011). Also see A Reflect on Mandal Commission and its Response- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhXEgMGm5N0).

The opponents of the Mandal Commission recommendations saw only one side of the coin, this being the supposedly unjust treatment meted out to upper castes. But the truth remains that more than half a century after the adoption of the policy of positive discrimination there is a predominance of Hindu upper castes in higher education. Lower castes and Muslims are still significantly under represented. As observed by Deshpande “because higher education is inherently an exclusive field, modes of exclusion are built into its fundamental structure as a matter of principle. Discrimination in the sense of principled exclusion is thus a defining feature of higher education” (Deshpande, 2006).

Impact of Caste Reservation on Social Groups

Reservations were introduced in the last decade of the 19th century in the Indian education system, with a view to bringing about over all social development. The policy of reservation /affirmative action/ protective discrimination/positive discrimination/compensatory discrimination, does lead to some indisputable changes. Access to education for lower caste groups can lead to both social mobility and sanskritisation. However, it is not easy to assess the exact impact of the changes and difference in society brought out by this policy (Weisskopf, 2004).

One of the reasons for this difficulty is the scarcity of detailed data on the composition of higher educational enrolments (Weisskopf, 2004; Aikara, 2004; Ghosh, 2006; Velaskar, 2013). India’s reservation policies in the educational sphere are structured and administered in an overly complex manner. Based on the nature of the institution, both the central and state governments oversee the implementation of reservation policies. The national policy for the reservation of seats in higher educational institutions for SC and ST students was established in the early 1950s. However, its actual implementation was delayed by a decade or two in various regions and institutions, and even now it is not fully established everywhere. The number of seats meant to be reserved in all centrally controlledhigher educational institutions is 15 per cent for SCs, 7.5 per cent for STs and 27 per cent for the OBCs. Similarly, state controlled higher educational institutions determine the proportion of seats to be reserved based on the proportion of these groups in the state population. In the case of seats reserved for SC and ST students, in spite of having differential cut off scores and relaxation of age limits, in some courses, a few seats may still remain unfilled. This is also true of some groups among the OBCs. Poverty coupled with lack of educational opportunities hinders the utilisation of the reservation policy in such cases.

However, the academic capabilities of students from vulnerable groups cannot be questioned, once they find a place within these educational institutions. Patwardhan and Palshikar’s (1992) study on the impact of reservation policies found that roughly 1/6th of a sample of SC and ST students who were admitted against reserved seats scored high enough in the qualifying entrance examination to have been admitted as general category students. In the case of OBC students in reserved seats, the corresponding figure was roughly 5/6th (Patwardhan and Palshikar, 1992:44).

The exact level of the impact of these policies is hard to ascertain, but certain conclusions about the overall impact of reservation policies on the representation of SC and ST students in Indian higher educational institutions can be obtained from different studies.

The provision of reserved seats has made a significant difference in the representation of SC and ST students in Indian universities and other educational institutions. The absence of educational and economic opportunities and benefits since childhood makes it difficult for many SC and ST students to succeed in open competition for general entry seats at prestigious institutions (Velaskar, 2013). It is much harder to estimate the number of SC and ST enrolments attributable to reservation policies in the vast majority of Indian higher educational institutions, where admission requirements are much less demanding than those prevalent in the case of elite schools. A considerable number of SC and ST applicants score high enough in the relevant examinations to qualify for general entry admission to some non-elite institutions. In many cases, the effect of reservation policies is simply to redistribute students from socio-economically deprived groups upward in the hierarchy of institutional selectivity and quality.

Reserved seats not only provide students from marginalised groups suffering from the burden of lifetime differential access, opportunities for securing admissions, but also help them confront a number of other social and economic challenges. For one thing, a reserved seat provides improved education, which in turn is both helpful and useful when entering the job market. Second, admission to a reserved seat enhances the ability of a large number of SC, ST and OBC students to gain access to financial and other forms of government support, without which staying in school may prove very difficult. Government provision of scholarships, special hostels, food, supplies and book loans have enabled many students from marginalised communities to enter and continue in higher education. Though such support is usually inadequate to meet all the economic and social needs of such students, it often becomes a decisive factor in determining whether a student decides to continue his/her education or drop out of school (Mendelsohn and Vicziany, 1998; Weisskopf, 2004).

Reservations and Merit

The reservation versus merit debate has been going on for years. Both have their supporters and critics. Let us look at the issue in detail. The most common argument against reservations is that it affects quality and undermines ‘merit’ (Chalam, 1990; Ghosh, 2006).The arguments advanced against the continuation of reservations on the grounds of justice to individuals in the non-reserved categories and on grounds of social inefficiency require careful and critical examination.

There is an argument that merit is being ignored in a system that permits reservations based on non-academic characteristics. It is flawed because it accepts the point of view that merit is the prerogative of only those who possess academic competence. The flaws in the argument that unequal access to higher education could be explained as being determined only by merit by the opponents of reservation are too obvious to need much rebuttal. As Marc Galanter has pointed out, three broad kinds of resources are necessary to produce the results in competitive exams that qualify as indicators of merit: (a) economic resources (for prior education, training, materials, freedom from work, etc); (b) social and cultural resources (networks of contacts, confidence, guidance and advice, information, etc); (c) intrinsic ability and hard work. It is some combination of these that allows people to “acquire merit” (see Deshpande, 2006). This clearly points out to the need to revisit the entire argument (for and against) caste based reservations in education and seek empirical answers to the debate.

Opponents of the reservation policy argue that the less merited among the reserved categories are chosen in preference to the more merited among the non-reserved categories. Such an argument does not take into account the fact that children from reserved categories in general do not enjoy the same advantages as those from non-reserved categories. Thus, the acceptance of the ‘merit only’ principle is considered as a smoke-screen for the perpetuation of inherited privileges (Desai, 1981: 823). Further, it is incorrect to suggest that reservations violate the principle of merit. Ideally reserved and non-reserved categories should be considered non-competing groups and the principle of merit may be applied to each category separately. There is only one argument which pertains to individual injustice that needs to be considered. There may be cases where persons from non-reserved categories, have no inherited privileges, while those from the reserved category were able to gain a few privileges through some amount of social mobility. In such cases a more positive approach towards the problem is an appropriate increase in the intake in educational institutions and improvement in job opportunities. There could also be appropriate changes in the application of reservation principle, consistent with administrative feasibility, to ensure against glaring cases of individual in-justice. Further, the Constitution provides socialist measures for the economically backward groups under Articles 39, 41 and 43 which should take care of these groups. If it fails to provide opportunities to such people who are, in general a minority (among upper castes), it is a failure of the system and not the very existence of the system of reservations for backward castes. The replacement of the caste criteria with economic backwardness, as has been suggested by many, will simply open new avenues of corruption (Chalam, 1990). It must also be remembered that provision of equal opportunities does not automatically ensure equal utilisation of these opportunities.

The present measure of merit is generally taken as the numerical marks obtained by students in their annual examinations. Even if the numerical marks are used as the basis to measure merit, there is no empirical evidence to show that the performance of marginalised groups is less satisfactory as compared to that of upper caste students. It is possible that the failure rates among these groups may be initially higher. These are problems of adjustment of vulnerable groups who did not have access to social and economic privileges for generations. But no one has ever produced convincing evidence to show that engineers, doctors and administrators who have secured jobs on the basis of reservation have proved much worse than others. In fact, the records of some of the top administrators belonging to scheduled and backward castes are known to be superior to those of their counter-parts in non-reserved categories, who are known to have much better school records, having had all the advantages of an early start and excellent circumstances and an enlivening atmosphere conducive to good performance.

Similar evidence has been forthcoming in recent years to prove that the rate of growth of academic achievement (measured in terms of numerical marks) of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes is much faster than those in non-reserved categories in professional colleges and residential schools. There is some evidence to suggest that over a period of time the gap between the average marks of those selected from reserved categories and average marks of those selected under the non-reserved categories is reducing. Studies show that if students from deprived groups are provided with the necessary academic and social environment, the academic disadvantages faced by them may be countered and corrected (See Paramji, 1985).

Reservations and Efficiency

With regard to efficiency and reservations, there appears to be a great deal of confusion about the concept of social efficiency and the implications of reservations. Efficiency is generally considered as a relationship between inputs and outputs. In the case of education, the inputs of students are the home background, tradition of education in the family, language codes, etc, and the output is the IQ or achievement scores.

Further, there is very little discussion on how social efficiency is affected by capitation colleges in the case of children from rich families with poor school records and also the corrupting influence of money and power in manipulating academic merit (Chalam, 1990:2336).

Social efficiency is not independent of considerations of social objectives which should govern the principle of selection of individuals in educational institutions and in bureaucracy. Technical efficiency is one aspect of social efficiency. Even in this respect, the selection process is not neutral to the social background of groups in power. There are also other aspects of social efficiency which are often ignored in discussions on the question of reservations. These include the need for correcting the imbalances in the formation of elite class in a stratified society and issues of social justice.

A more important consideration pertaining to social efficiency is the need for political mobilisation for development. It may be further argued that the question of efficiency in the traditional refined jobs of the elite class cannot be taken as the criterion to judge social efficiency. Social efficiency must be judged in terms of the historical and social conditions of Indian society. It needs also to be remembered that reservations are limited only to the public sector, and the ‘social cost’ of reservations (even admitting that there is some social cost) is far less compared to the ‘social cost’ implied in the vast amount of subsidy given to both agriculturists and industrialists. Those who talk against reservations for socially backward groups do not have much to say against the latter types of reservations. If for long-term social gains, protection is required to sick industries, similar protection is required for socially backward groups (Chalam, 1990).

Conclusion

The complex, diverse and hierarchical character of Indian society is strongly displayed through the caste system, which divides and excludes individuals and groups based on birth, occupation and income, besides ritual status. Social exclusion in its more specific manifestation is discrimination and refers to the process through which groups are wholly or partially restricted from full participation in economic and educational institutions that define social membership (Wankhede, 2013 p 193). So long as caste system exists, marginalised groups are likely to be discriminated on account of their birth. It is true that reservation has helped lower castes to gain their voices in the upper caste hegemonic scenario of the Indian society in education and other prominent areas. Thus, the idea of reservation has helped lower castes to have an equal chance in accessing opportunities. Many studies in the area of education show that inequality and discrimination still continue in educational institutions. For instance Nambissan’s study on Rajasthan’s scheduled castes revealed that caste based discrimination continues to exist in schools and it leads to denial of full access to cultural capital and symbolic resources and social relations, including dignity and self-respect (Nambissan, 2010:282). While referring to access to schooling for girls in Maharashtra, Valeskar (2005:479) revealed that the influence of caste has not disappeared and it persists in the educational exclusion of several dalit castes and reinforces discrimination. Deshpande and Newman (2007) in their comparisons of the dalit and non- dalit students in turning the educational achievements into job market outcomes found that the latter exploited their social networks well to benefit from such opportunities, whereas the former were not privileged with such a social capital. Apart from this, the dalits neither had the necessary financial strength nor were they able to access expensive loans. This also deprives poor students from utilising reservation-based admission options.

From the forgoing discussion, it can be concluded that although education is supported by various material and non-material incentives, prominently the reservation policy, these have not always been effectively implemented and legislation has proven to be controversial. Modernisation process and the constitutional provisions helped marginalised communities to access education but these were limited. Even if they were able to access education their performance and sustenance and utility of education are adversely affected due to the lack of social support (Velaskar, 1986; Aikara, 1980; Kirpal and Gupta, 1999) and socio-cultural handicaps acquired due to caste background. This is used by even teachers to discriminate against them (Rao, 2013; Wankhede, 2013; Manjrekar, 2013). Fellow students and administrative staff belonging to upper castes that generally form the majority in almost all educational institutions also tend to treat them differently. But according to Ghosh and many others we still need caste reservations for different groups in higher education, not because they are the perfect instruments to rectify long-standing discrimination, but because they are the most workable method to move in this direction. The nature of Indian society ensures that without such measures, social discrimination and exclusion will only persist and be strengthened (Ghosh, 2006).

Notes

1. The beginnings of policy formulation in education in India can be traced to the Charter Act of 1813.This Act created a provision for setting apart one lakh of rupees for promoting Indian education. Before this Act was passed education was mostly provided in the traditional indigenous system. The passage of Act was accompanied by a controversy between the classicists and Anglicists with regard to the nature of education that British should promote in India. The Anglicists wanted English education, while the classicists supported the revival of oriental literature in Arabic and Sanskrit. This was solved by T. B. Macaulay in his famous document known as ‘Macaulay’s Minute on Education’ (1835). He favoured the introduction of English education. This paved the way for the introduction of a policy of education in British India. As per the policy formulated on the basis of Macaulay’s Minute, the ultimate objective of education was to provide man-power for the British administration in India. The supremacy of western education and English was accepted. The Downward Filtration Theory based on the principle that education would be provided to the elites who in-turn would be expected to transmit it to the masses, was accepted. This approach in education resulted in the neglect of mass education. Those who got the benefits of western education used it for achieving occupational and social mobility in their lives rather than transmitting the knowledge that they had gained to others.
2. For a detailed understanding on basic education in India see the PROBE team Report (1999) and also World Bank paper on primary education in India (1997).

References

1.     Aikara, J. 2004. Education: Sociological Perspectives. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

2.      Bayly, S. 1999. Caste, Society and Politics in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3.     Beteille, A. 1965. Caste, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Social Stratification in a Tanjore Village. Berkeley: California University Press.

4.     Beteille, A. 1992. The Backward Classes in Contemporary India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

5.     Chalam. K. S. 1990. ‘Caste Reservations and Equality of Opportunity in Education’, Economic and Political Weekly, 25(41):2333-2339.

6.     Chalam. K. S. 2007. Caste-Based Reservations and Human Development in India. Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

7.     Das. V. (ed.). 2004. Handbook of Indian Sociology. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

8.     Desai, I.P. 1981. ‘Anti Reservation Agitation and Structures of Gujarat Society’, Economic and Political Weekly, May 2:823.

9.     Desai, S. and V. Kulkarni. 2008. ‘Changing Educational Inequalities in India in the Context of Affirmative Action’, Demography, 45(2):245-270.

10. Deshpande, A. and K. Newman. 2007. ‘Where the Path Leads: The Role of Caste in Post-University Employment Expectations’, Economic and Political Weekly, 42(41):4135.

11. Deshpande, Satish. 2006. Exclusive Inequalities: Merit, Caste and Discrimination in Indian Higher Education Today. June 17, Vol – XLI No. 24, pp 2438.

12. Dumont, L. 1970. Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications. Delhi: Oxford India Paperbacks.

13. Gang, I., K. Sen and Myeong-Su Yun. 2011. ‘Was the Mandal Commission Right? Differences in Living Standards between Social Groups’, Economic and Political Weekly, 46(39):43-5.

14. Ghosh, J. 2006. ‘Case of Caste-Based Quotas in Higher Education’ Economic and Political Weekly, June, 2428-2432.

15. Ghurye, G.S. 1950. Caste and Class in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

16. Gupta, D. 2000. Interrogating Caste: Understanding Hierarchy and Difference in IndianSociety. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

17. Gupta, D. (ed.).1991. Social Stratification. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

18. Mendelsohn, O and M. Vicziany. 1998. The Untouchables: Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

19. Nambissan. G.B. 2013. ‘Opening up the Black Box/Sociologists and the Study of Schooling in India’ In Geetha Nambissan and S Srinivasa Rao (eds.).Sociology of Education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press

20. Paramji, S. 1985. Caste Reservations and Performance: Research Findings. Warrangal: Mamata Publications.

21. Patanakar. B. and G. Omvedt. 1979. ‘The Dalit Liberation Movement in Colonial Period’, Economic and Political Weekly, Special number: 415

22. Patwardhan, V. and V. Palshikar. 1992. ‘Reserved Seats in Medical Education: A Study’, Journal of Education and Social Change, 5:1-117.

23. Radhakrishnan, P .1996. ‘Mandal Commission Report: A Sociological Critique’ in M N Srinivas (ed.), Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar .Delhi: Penguin India.

24. Ramaiah, A. 1992. ‘Identifying Other Backward Classes in India’, Economic & Political Weekly, 27(23): 1203-07.

25. Sivaramayya, B 1996. ‘The Mandal Judgment: A Brief Description and Critique’ in M N Srinivas (ed.), Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar Delhi: Penguin India.

26. Srinivas M.N. (ed.).1962. Caste in modern India and other essays. Bombay: Media Promoter and Publishers.

27. Srinivas, M.N. 1991. ‘Varna and Caste’ in Gupta Dipankar (ed.), Social Stratification. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

28. Srinivas M.N. (ed.). 1996. Caste: Its Twentieth-Century Avatar. New Delhi: Penguin Books.

29. Thorat, S and Newman K.S. (eds.).2010. Blocked by Caste:  Economic Discrimination in Modern India. Delhi: Oxford University Press

30. Velaskar, P. 2013. ‘Sociology of Educational Inequality in India: A Critique and a New Research Agenda’, In Geetha Nambissan and S Srinivasa Rao (eds.). Sociology of Education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

31. Wankhede, G. G. 2013. ‘Caste And Social Discrimination: Nature Forms and Consequences in Education’ In Geetha Nambissan and S Srinivasa Rao (eds.). Sociology of Education in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press

32. Weisskopf, T.E. 2004. ‘Impact of Reservation on Admissions to Higher Education in India’ Economic and Political Weekly, 39(39):4339-4349.