| Revision as of 10:27, 5 May 2021 edit49.207.220.111 (talk) →ImpactTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:18, 23 December 2024 edit undo2409:40f4:3044:efc0:8000:: (talk) →Present Reservation Scheme DetailsTags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit | ||
| (143 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{short description|System of affirmative action in India}} | |||
| {{Multiple issues| | |||
| {{confusing|date=June 2011}} | |||
| {{moresources|date=August 2020}} | |||
| {{Original research|date=October 2018}} | |||
| {{Essay-like|date=October 2018}} | |||
| {{Rewrite|date=October 2018}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2020}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2020}} | ||
| {{Use Indian English|date=August 2020}} | {{Use Indian English|date=August 2020}} | ||
| '''Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu''' is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education |
'''Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu''' is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education and employment. Reservations in the state rose from 41 percent in 1954 to 69 percent in 1990.<ref name="thewiretnrq" /> | ||
| == History == | == History == | ||
| Tamil Nadu has long struggled for equal educational opportunities and government jobs dating back to the pre-independence period. Reservation was especially believed by the oppressed classes as a successful mechanism for ] against discrimination.<ref name=" |
Tamil Nadu has long struggled for equal educational opportunities and government jobs dating back to the pre-independence period. Reservation was especially believed by the oppressed classes as a successful mechanism for ] against discrimination.<ref name="frontline30191114">{{Cite web|last=VISWANATHAN|first=S.|title=Proven success|url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/article30191114.ece|access-date=2021-04-18|website=Frontline|date=19 April 2007 |language=en}}</ref> | ||
| === Before independence === | === Before independence === | ||
| The Madras Presidency was the very first presidency in ] to use reservation as a means of ensuring justice for the disadvantaged. There were complaints about ] dominance in the government, where they overshadowed others by numbers and held senior roles. The Brahmin hegemony in the administration was owing to their better educational opportunities as a result of their superior position in |
The Madras Presidency was the very first presidency in ] to use reservation as a means of ensuring justice for the disadvantaged. There were complaints about ] dominance in the government, where they overshadowed others by numbers and held senior roles. The Brahmin hegemony in the administration was owing to their better educational opportunities as a result of their superior position in the ].<ref name="frontline30191114"/> | ||
| ] and ] established the South Indian Liberal Federation, |
], ] and ] established the South Indian Liberal Federation, popularly known as the ] in 1916 to advocate for non-Brahmins in government workforce in the Madras Presidency.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/other/article30217714.ece | title=Letters | date=3 July 2003 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|date=2019-07-28|title=Sir Pitti Theagaraya Chetty – the man who helped mould the Presidency's politics|url=https://www.dtnext.in/News/City/2019/07/28051910/1168569/Sir-Pitti-Theagaraya-Chetty--the-man-who-helped-mould-.vpf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418162219/https://www.dtnext.in/News/City/2019/07/28051910/1168569/Sir-Pitti-Theagaraya-Chetty--the-man-who-helped-mould-.vpf|url-status=dead|archive-date=18 April 2021|access-date=2021-04-18|website=dtNext.in|language=en}}</ref> ], ], acted in 1921 with a Government Order setting up reservation. The Government Order was met with immediate opposition and had to be put on hold. The social reformer ] who was a member of the Congress at the time, pushed his party to endorse reservation.<ref name="frontline30191114" /> He resigned after the party declined, and rallied all over Tamil Nadu to gain support for the Government Order's implementation. The Government Order known as the 'Communal Government Order' was only implemented in 1927 by ], a Chief Minister of Madras Presidency. According to the Governmental order, Non-Brahmin ] were to receive 44% of all posts, while Brahmins, ], ] and ]s were to receive 16% each, and ] were to receive 8%.<ref name="frontline30191114" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Quota Rules - Indian Express|url=http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/quota-rules/648361/|access-date=2021-04-18|website=archive.indianexpress.com}}</ref> Although, these numbers did not accurately represent their population share, Periyar pointed to it as a 'compromise' and accepted it. This order, which was based on English literacy, which was just about 7% at the time. The order remained in effect from then until 1950, and it was applied in employment and admissions to educational institutions.<ref name="frontline30191114" /> | ||
| === After independence=== | === After independence=== | ||
| In 1950, India's Constitution went into effect. The Communal governmental order was shortly annulled by the Madras High Court on the basis that it was unconstitutional. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. A Statewide protest against the court judgment was led by Periyar. The Congress also backed the reservations. Chief Minister ] brought the matter to Prime Minister ], who helped amend Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which enable states to have |
In 1950, India's Constitution went into effect. The Communal governmental order was shortly annulled by the Madras High Court on the basis that it was unconstitutional. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. A Statewide protest against the court judgment was led by Periyar.<ref name="frontline30191114" /> The Congress also backed the reservations. Chief Minister ] brought the matter to Prime Minister ], who helped amend Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which enable states to have quotas in educational institutions and public service for educationally and socially backward classes.<ref name="frontline30191114" /> | ||
| ==Present Reservation Scheme Details== | ==Present Reservation Scheme Details== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 28: | ||
| | value1 =30 | | value1 =30 | ||
| | color1 = blue | | color1 = blue | ||
| | label2 =Most Backward Communities (MBC)( |
| label2 =Most Backward Communities (MBC)(13+7(MBC and DNC)) <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/dispatches/reservation-for-vanniyars-only-a-temporary-measure-until-caste-census-report-becomes-available-says-tamil-nadu-chief-minister-edappadi-palaniswami/article33943644.ece|title = Reservation for Vanniyars 'only a temporary measure' until caste census report becomes available, says Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami| date=26 February 2021 }}</ref> | ||
| | value2 =20 | | value2 =20 | ||
| | color2 = green | | color2 = green | ||
| Line 55: | Line 50: | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |rowspan=2| ] | |rowspan=2| ] | ||
| | |
|BC - General | ||
| |26.5% | |26.5% | ||
| |rowspan=2| 30% | |rowspan=2| 30% | ||
| |rowspan=4| ] | | rowspan="4" | ] | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |BC Muslims | |BC - Muslims | ||
| |3.5% | |3.5% | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |rowspan=2 |
| rowspan="2" |] | ||
| |Most Backward Communities (MBC) | |Most Backward Communities (MBC) | ||
| | | |13% | ||
| |rowspan=2|20% | | rowspan="2" |20% | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |Denotified Community (DNC) | |||
| | | |7% | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |rowspan=2 |
| rowspan="2" |] | ||
| | |
|Scheduled Castes (others) | ||
| |15% | |15% | ||
| |rowspan=2 |
| rowspan="2" |18% | ||
| |rowspan=3 |
| rowspan="3" |] | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| |only for ''Arunthathiyar'') | |only for (''Arunthathiyar'') | ||
| |3% | |3% | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 91: | Line 86: | ||
| ! | ! | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == Impact == | |||
| Tamil Nadu's reservation policy is successful. It has democratized the public workforce, which had higher representation from Brahminical communities. Reservations have a major effect in Tamil Nadu's successful results on ].<ref name="thewiretnrq" /> | |||
| ==Timeline== | ==Timeline== | ||
| Line 99: | Line 91: | ||
| === 1920 – 1979 === | === 1920 – 1979 === | ||
| the Communal government order was brought into effect by the Chief minister of the Madras Presidency. The reservation gave 44% to non-brahmin Hindus, 8% to scheduled castes and 16% to Brahmins, Christians and Muslims. Although, these numbers did not accurately represent their population share, Periyar pointed to it as a 'compromise' and accepted it.<ref name="frontline30191114"/> | |||
| In 1950, the reservation was removed because it was considered unconstitutional by the Madras High court and was upheld by the Supreme court.<ref name="frontline30191114" /> | In 1950, the reservation was removed because it was considered unconstitutional by the Madras High court and was upheld by the Supreme court.<ref name="frontline30191114" /> | ||
| Line 105: | Line 97: | ||
| From 1951, the backward classes were given a 25% allocation.<ref name="rediff30spec">{{Cite web|last=Chennai|first=Shobha Warrier in|title=Evaluating Tamil Nadu's 69% quota|url=https://www.rediff.com/news/2006/may/30spec.htm|access-date=2021-04-16|website=Rediff|language=en}}</ref> | From 1951, the backward classes were given a 25% allocation.<ref name="rediff30spec">{{Cite web|last=Chennai|first=Shobha Warrier in|title=Evaluating Tamil Nadu's 69% quota|url=https://www.rediff.com/news/2006/may/30spec.htm|access-date=2021-04-16|website=Rediff|language=en}}</ref> | ||
| In 1970, the first backward classes commission of Tamil Nadu, led by ] and assigned by ], alleged in its report that |
In 1970, the first backward classes commission of Tamil Nadu, led by ] and assigned by ], alleged in its report that a higher class inside that backward class termed as the "]" had been exploiting huge advantages of reservation and preventing the growth of the actual backward classes (BC). The Commission proposed that a separate group of "Most backward class" (MBC) be created, as well as an expansion in quotas to aid everyone. The Commission further proposed imposing certain economic requirements to exclude the Creamy layer from gaining all advantages of reservation.<ref name="thewiretnrq">{{Cite web|last=S.|first=Venkatanarayanan|title=It's High Time Tamil Nadu Rationalises Its Quota System|url=https://thewire.in/uncategorised/tamil-nadu-reservation-quota|website=The Wire}}</ref> The Commission proposed a separate quota of 16% for the MBC and 17% for the BC.<ref name="rediff30spec" /> The overall reservation rate in Tamil Nadu was 41%.<ref name="newsminute6950" /> | ||
| In 1971, The ] (DMK) government increased reservation for BC from 25% to 31% and the reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) from 16% to 18%. Karunanidhi established a separate Ministry for the Welfare of the backward |
In 1971, The ] (DMK) government increased reservation for BC from 25% to 31% and the reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) from 16% to 18%. Karunanidhi established a separate Ministry for the Welfare of the backward class during the DMK's rule from 1971 to 1976, the first such in the country.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Doyen of social justice|url=https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/article24705057.ece|access-date=2021-04-16|website=Frontline|date=17 August 2018 |language=en}}</ref> The state's total reservation stood at 49 percent.<ref name="newsminute6950" /> | ||
| The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, headed by M.G. Ramachandran, decided to implement the creamy layer principle based on the recommendations of Sattanathan Commission in 1979. In 1979, Ramachandran set up an economic criteria of Rs. 9,000 annual income limit for reservation eligibility.<ref name="TheHinducsjca">{{Cite news|last=Venkataramanan|first=K.|date=2018-08-07|title=Karunanidhi — a champion of social justice, caste amity|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/championing-social-justice-caste-amity/article24548715.ece|access-date=2021-04-17|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> There was strong political opposition against this policy.<ref name="thewiretnrq" /> | The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, headed by M.G. Ramachandran, decided to implement the creamy layer principle based on the recommendations of Sattanathan Commission in 1979. In 1979, Ramachandran set up an economic criteria of Rs. 9,000 annual income limit for reservation eligibility.<ref name="TheHinducsjca">{{Cite news|last=Venkataramanan|first=K.|date=2018-08-07|title=Karunanidhi — a champion of social justice, caste amity|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/championing-social-justice-caste-amity/article24548715.ece|access-date=2021-04-17|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> There was strong political opposition against this policy.<ref name="thewiretnrq" /> | ||
| === 1980 – 1989 === | === 1980 – 1989 === | ||
| In 1980, the AIADMK under M. G. Ramachandran reversed his decision of economic criteria after the AIADMK faced a close defeat in the ].<ref name="TheHinducsjca" /> He further raised the quota for the Backward Classes from 31 percent to 50 percent making the total reservation to 68%.<ref name="newsminute6950">{{Cite web|date=2021-03-29|title=How Tamil |
In 1980, the AIADMK under M. G. Ramachandran reversed his decision of economic criteria after the AIADMK faced a close defeat in the ].<ref name="TheHinducsjca" /> He further raised the quota for the Backward Classes from 31 percent to 50 percent making the total reservation to 68%.<ref name="newsminute6950">{{Cite web|date=2021-03-29|title=How Tamil Nadu's reservation stands at 69% despite the 50% quota cap|url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/how-tamil-nadu-s-reservation-stands-69-despite-50-quota-cap-146116|access-date=2021-04-17|website=The News Minute|language=en}}</ref> The forward castes filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court opposing this move.<ref>{{Cite web|title=When MGR came up with economically weaker sections quota|url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/jan/12/when-mgr-came-up-with-ews-quota-1924056.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190203071117/http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/jan/12/when-mgr-came-up-with-ews-quota-1924056.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=3 February 2019|access-date=2021-04-16|website=The New Indian Express}}</ref> The Supreme Court ordered the government to form a commission to investigate the real state of backward classes in Tamil Nadu.<ref name="thewiretnrq" /> | ||
| In 1982, the Second Backward Classes Commission assigned by the MGR government and headed by J.A. Ambasankar found that about 11 castes, accounting for about 34.8 percent of the backward classes, represent 50.7 percent jobs in public service commission, 62.7 percent seats in professional courses, and 53.4 percent scholarships. The Commission determined that the backward class population was about 67 percent and requested that 17 forward caste groups be added to the list while 34 caste groups be removed. The government added 29 new caste groups to the list of backward classes but did not exclude any and kept the same 68 percent quota for SCs, and STs and backward classes.<ref name="thewiretnrq" /> | In 1982, the Second Backward Classes Commission assigned by the MGR government and headed by J.A. Ambasankar found that about 11 castes, accounting for about 34.8 percent of the backward classes, represent 50.7 percent jobs in public service commission, 62.7 percent seats in professional courses, and 53.4 percent scholarships. The Commission determined that the backward class population was about 67 percent and requested that 17 forward caste groups be added to the list while 34 caste groups be removed. The government added 29 new caste groups to the list of backward classes but did not exclude any and kept the same 68 percent quota for SCs, and STs and backward classes.<ref name="thewiretnrq" /> | ||
| In 1987, Vanniar Sangam, the Parent Body of ], conducted statewide road blockades, vandalized public |
In 1987, Vanniar Sangam, the Parent Body of ], conducted statewide road blockades, vandalized public property, committed arson on Dalit settlements and fell trees seeking 20% reservations in state government and 2 percent reservations in the federal government for the ] Caste. 21 Vanniyars were killed in Police firing. MG Ramachandran convened a meeting with the community's leaders. He soon became ill and died without making a decision.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Vasudevan|first=Lokpria|title=Has AIADMK gambled the Tamil Nadu election on the Vanniyar quota?|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/03/22/has-aiadmk-gambled-the-tamil-nadu-election-on-the-vanniyar-quota|access-date=2021-04-17|website=Newslaundry|date=22 March 2021 }}</ref> | ||
| In 1989, after Vanniyar protests, the DMK government under split the 50 percent BC quota into a 30 percent for Other Backward Class (OBC) and 20 percent for MBC. The Vanniyars were qualified for reservation under the MBC quota, along with 106 other caste groups.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-10-24|title=TN bye-polls: Lackluster alliance, caste votes cost DMK-Congress|url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/tn-bye-polls-lackluster-alliance-caste-votes-cost-dmk-congress-111144|access-date=2021-04-17|website=The News Minute|language=en}}</ref> | In 1989, after Vanniyar protests, the DMK government under split the 50 percent BC quota into a 30 percent for Other Backward Class (OBC) and 20 percent for MBC. The Vanniyars were qualified for reservation under the MBC quota, along with 106 other caste groups.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-10-24|title=TN bye-polls: Lackluster alliance, caste votes cost DMK-Congress|url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/tn-bye-polls-lackluster-alliance-caste-votes-cost-dmk-congress-111144|access-date=2021-04-17|website=The News Minute|language=en}}</ref> | ||
| === 1990 – present === | === 1990 – present === | ||
| In 1990, the DMK government under Karunanidhi then divided reservation for SC and ST based on the decision of the Madras High Court. The 1% quota for STs brought the total reservation rate in Tamil Nadu to 69 percent.<ref name="newsminute6950" /> | In 1990, the DMK government under ] then divided reservation for SC and ST based on the decision of the Madras High Court. The 1% quota for STs brought the total reservation rate in Tamil Nadu to 69 percent.<ref name="newsminute6950" /> | ||
| In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the overall amount of reservations allowed should not exceed 50% as per Article 16(4).<ref name="newsminute6950" /> Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Madras High Court ordered the State to reduce it to 50% beginning in the academic year 1994-1995.<ref name="TheHindu16762726">{{Cite news|last=Ramakrishnan|first=T.|date=2016-12-06|title=The woman behind the 69% quota|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/The-woman-behind-the-69-quota/article16762726.ece|access-date=2021-04-17|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> | In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the overall amount of reservations allowed should not exceed 50% as per Article 16(4).<ref name="newsminute6950" /> Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Madras High Court ordered the State to reduce it to 50% beginning in the academic year 1994-1995.<ref name="TheHindu16762726">{{Cite news|last=Ramakrishnan|first=T.|date=2016-12-06|title=The woman behind the 69% quota|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/The-woman-behind-the-69-quota/article16762726.ece|access-date=2021-04-17|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> | ||
| In 1993, the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes Bill, 1993 was passed by the Assembly (Act 45 of 1994).<ref>{{Cite news|last=Correspondent|first=Legal|date=2014-11-06|title=69% quota: SC notice to Tamil Nadu|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/69-quota-sc-notice-to-tamil-nadu/article6568342.ece|access-date=2021-04-17|issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref name="TheHindu16762726" />The Bill was sent to the President for his approval. J Jayalalithaa's AIADMK government led a cross-party committee of Tamil Nadu politicians to Delhi to meet with the Central government. She also demanded that the Tamil Nadu government's Act be placed in the Constitution's Ninth Schedule, ensuring that it cannot be contested in any court. The President's signature was received, confirming the 69 percent reservation for Tamil Nadu. |
In 1993, the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes Bill, 1993 was passed by the Assembly (Act 45 of 1994).<ref>{{Cite news|last=Correspondent|first=Legal|date=2014-11-06|title=69% quota: SC notice to Tamil Nadu|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/69-quota-sc-notice-to-tamil-nadu/article6568342.ece|access-date=2021-04-17|issn=0971-751X}}</ref><ref name="TheHindu16762726" /> The Bill was sent to the President for his approval. ]'s ] government led a cross-party committee of Tamil Nadu politicians to Delhi to meet with the Central government. She also demanded that the Tamil Nadu government's Act be placed in the Constitution's Ninth Schedule, ensuring that it cannot be contested in any court. The President's signature was received, confirming the 69 percent reservation for Tamil Nadu.<ref name="newsminute6950" /> | ||
| In 1994, an Advocate K. M. Vijayan was viciously assaulted and maimed on his way to New Delhi to file a complaint in the Supreme Court challenging the addition of 69 percent reservation in the 9th Schedule.<ref>{{cite news|last=Doraiswamy|first=P K|date=6 Sep 2006|title=Why no resistance in Tamil Nadu ?|work=Industrial economist|url=http://www.indeconomist.com/15thsep06p1_4.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061017205325/http://www.indeconomist.com/15thsep06p1_4.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=17 October 2006}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Vijayan Attack Case: HC Dismisses CBI's Appeal|url=https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/vijayan-attack-case-hc-dismisses-cbis-appeal/772992|access-date=2021-04-17|website=outlookindia.com}}</ref> Later the 69% Reservation was included in 9th Schedule on the same year.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Tamil Nadu has 69 percent reservations but before Supreme Court put the cap|url=https://in.news.yahoo.com/tamil-nadu-69-percent-reservations-021118159.html|access-date=2021-04-17|website= |
In 1994, an Advocate K. M. Vijayan was viciously assaulted and maimed on his way to New Delhi to file a complaint in the Supreme Court challenging the addition of 69 percent reservation in the 9th Schedule.<ref>{{cite news|last=Doraiswamy|first=P K|date=6 Sep 2006|title=Why no resistance in Tamil Nadu ?|work=Industrial economist|url=http://www.indeconomist.com/15thsep06p1_4.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061017205325/http://www.indeconomist.com/15thsep06p1_4.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=17 October 2006}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Vijayan Attack Case: HC Dismisses CBI's Appeal|url=https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/vijayan-attack-case-hc-dismisses-cbis-appeal/772992|access-date=2021-04-17|website=outlookindia.com}}</ref> Later the 69% Reservation was included in 9th Schedule on the same year.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Tamil Nadu has 69 percent reservations but before Supreme Court put the cap|url=https://in.news.yahoo.com/tamil-nadu-69-percent-reservations-021118159.html|access-date=2021-04-17|website=Yahoo News|language=en-IN}}</ref> | ||
| == Policy abuse == | |||
| The creamy layer principle has often been abused by removing the creamy section and transferring seats in the OBC section to general category in the excuse of not being able to find a suitable candidate within the OBC group.<ref name="thewiretnrq" /> | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| Line 144: | Line 133: | ||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| {{Reflist}} | {{Reflist}} | ||
| ==External links== | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Latest revision as of 10:18, 23 December 2024
System of affirmative action in India
Reservation policy in Tamil Nadu is a system of affirmative action that provides historically disadvantaged groups representation in education and employment. Reservations in the state rose from 41 percent in 1954 to 69 percent in 1990.
History
Tamil Nadu has long struggled for equal educational opportunities and government jobs dating back to the pre-independence period. Reservation was especially believed by the oppressed classes as a successful mechanism for affirmative action against discrimination.
Before independence
The Madras Presidency was the very first presidency in British Raj to use reservation as a means of ensuring justice for the disadvantaged. There were complaints about Brahmin dominance in the government, where they overshadowed others by numbers and held senior roles. The Brahmin hegemony in the administration was owing to their better educational opportunities as a result of their superior position in the caste hierarchy.
C. Natesa Mudaliar, P. Theagaraya Chetty and T.M. Nair established the South Indian Liberal Federation, popularly known as the Justice Party in 1916 to advocate for non-Brahmins in government workforce in the Madras Presidency. Chief Minister of Madras Presidency, Akaram Subbaroyalu Reddy, acted in 1921 with a Government Order setting up reservation. The Government Order was met with immediate opposition and had to be put on hold. The social reformer Periyar E. V. Ramasamy who was a member of the Congress at the time, pushed his party to endorse reservation. He resigned after the party declined, and rallied all over Tamil Nadu to gain support for the Government Order's implementation. The Government Order known as the 'Communal Government Order' was only implemented in 1927 by P. Subbaroyan, a Chief Minister of Madras Presidency. According to the Governmental order, Non-Brahmin Hindus were to receive 44% of all posts, while Brahmins, Muslims, Christians and Anglo-Indians were to receive 16% each, and Scheduled Castes were to receive 8%. Although, these numbers did not accurately represent their population share, Periyar pointed to it as a 'compromise' and accepted it. This order, which was based on English literacy, which was just about 7% at the time. The order remained in effect from then until 1950, and it was applied in employment and admissions to educational institutions.
After independence
In 1950, India's Constitution went into effect. The Communal governmental order was shortly annulled by the Madras High Court on the basis that it was unconstitutional. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. A Statewide protest against the court judgment was led by Periyar. The Congress also backed the reservations. Chief Minister K. Kamaraj brought the matter to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who helped amend Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which enable states to have quotas in educational institutions and public service for educationally and socially backward classes.
Present Reservation Scheme Details
Below are the details of Reservation followed in Tamil Nadu.
Reservation in Tamil Nadu
Backward Class (BC) (30%) Most Backward Communities (MBC)(13+7(MBC and DNC)) (20%) Scheduled Castes (SC) (18%) Scheduled Tribes (ST) (1%) General (31%)| Main Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu | Sub Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu | Reservation Percentage for each Sub Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu | Reservation Percentage for each Main Category as per Government of Tamil Nadu | Category as per Government of India |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backward Class (BC) | BC - General | 26.5% | 30% | Backward Class |
| BC - Muslims | 3.5% | |||
| Most Backward Class (MBC) | Most Backward Communities (MBC) | 13% | 20% | |
| Denotified Community (DNC) | 7% | |||
| Scheduled Castes | Scheduled Castes (others) | 15% | 18% | Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes |
| only for (Arunthathiyar) | 3% | |||
| Scheduled Tribes | 1% No Sub-Categories | 1% | ||
| Total Reservation Percentage | 69% |
Timeline
1920 – 1979
the Communal government order was brought into effect by the Chief minister of the Madras Presidency. The reservation gave 44% to non-brahmin Hindus, 8% to scheduled castes and 16% to Brahmins, Christians and Muslims. Although, these numbers did not accurately represent their population share, Periyar pointed to it as a 'compromise' and accepted it.
In 1950, the reservation was removed because it was considered unconstitutional by the Madras High court and was upheld by the Supreme court.
From 1951, the backward classes were given a 25% allocation.
In 1970, the first backward classes commission of Tamil Nadu, led by A.N. Sattanathan and assigned by M. Karunanidhi, alleged in its report that a higher class inside that backward class termed as the "Creamy layer" had been exploiting huge advantages of reservation and preventing the growth of the actual backward classes (BC). The Commission proposed that a separate group of "Most backward class" (MBC) be created, as well as an expansion in quotas to aid everyone. The Commission further proposed imposing certain economic requirements to exclude the Creamy layer from gaining all advantages of reservation. The Commission proposed a separate quota of 16% for the MBC and 17% for the BC. The overall reservation rate in Tamil Nadu was 41%.
In 1971, The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government increased reservation for BC from 25% to 31% and the reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) from 16% to 18%. Karunanidhi established a separate Ministry for the Welfare of the backward class during the DMK's rule from 1971 to 1976, the first such in the country. The state's total reservation stood at 49 percent.
The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, headed by M.G. Ramachandran, decided to implement the creamy layer principle based on the recommendations of Sattanathan Commission in 1979. In 1979, Ramachandran set up an economic criteria of Rs. 9,000 annual income limit for reservation eligibility. There was strong political opposition against this policy.
1980 – 1989
In 1980, the AIADMK under M. G. Ramachandran reversed his decision of economic criteria after the AIADMK faced a close defeat in the 1980 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu. He further raised the quota for the Backward Classes from 31 percent to 50 percent making the total reservation to 68%. The forward castes filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court opposing this move. The Supreme Court ordered the government to form a commission to investigate the real state of backward classes in Tamil Nadu.
In 1982, the Second Backward Classes Commission assigned by the MGR government and headed by J.A. Ambasankar found that about 11 castes, accounting for about 34.8 percent of the backward classes, represent 50.7 percent jobs in public service commission, 62.7 percent seats in professional courses, and 53.4 percent scholarships. The Commission determined that the backward class population was about 67 percent and requested that 17 forward caste groups be added to the list while 34 caste groups be removed. The government added 29 new caste groups to the list of backward classes but did not exclude any and kept the same 68 percent quota for SCs, and STs and backward classes.
In 1987, Vanniar Sangam, the Parent Body of Pattali Makkal Katchi, conducted statewide road blockades, vandalized public property, committed arson on Dalit settlements and fell trees seeking 20% reservations in state government and 2 percent reservations in the federal government for the Vanniyar Caste. 21 Vanniyars were killed in Police firing. MG Ramachandran convened a meeting with the community's leaders. He soon became ill and died without making a decision.
In 1989, after Vanniyar protests, the DMK government under split the 50 percent BC quota into a 30 percent for Other Backward Class (OBC) and 20 percent for MBC. The Vanniyars were qualified for reservation under the MBC quota, along with 106 other caste groups.
1990 – present
In 1990, the DMK government under Karunanidhi then divided reservation for SC and ST based on the decision of the Madras High Court. The 1% quota for STs brought the total reservation rate in Tamil Nadu to 69 percent.
In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the overall amount of reservations allowed should not exceed 50% as per Article 16(4). Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Madras High Court ordered the State to reduce it to 50% beginning in the academic year 1994-1995.
In 1993, the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes Bill, 1993 was passed by the Assembly (Act 45 of 1994). The Bill was sent to the President for his approval. J Jayalalithaa's AIADMK government led a cross-party committee of Tamil Nadu politicians to Delhi to meet with the Central government. She also demanded that the Tamil Nadu government's Act be placed in the Constitution's Ninth Schedule, ensuring that it cannot be contested in any court. The President's signature was received, confirming the 69 percent reservation for Tamil Nadu.
In 1994, an Advocate K. M. Vijayan was viciously assaulted and maimed on his way to New Delhi to file a complaint in the Supreme Court challenging the addition of 69 percent reservation in the 9th Schedule. Later the 69% Reservation was included in 9th Schedule on the same year.
See also
- Reservation in India
- Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India
- Reservation policy in Bihar
- Court Cases Relating to India's Reservation System
- Women's Reservation Bill
- Dhangar Scheduled tribe issue
- Socialism
- Caste politics in India
References
- ^ S., Venkatanarayanan. "It's High Time Tamil Nadu Rationalises Its Quota System". The Wire.
- ^ VISWANATHAN, S. (19 April 2007). "Proven success". Frontline. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
- "Letters". 3 July 2003.
- "Sir Pitti Theagaraya Chetty – the man who helped mould the Presidency's politics". dtNext.in. 28 July 2019. Archived from the original on 18 April 2021. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
- "Quota Rules - Indian Express". archive.indianexpress.com. Retrieved 18 April 2021.
- "Status of Reservation of OBC in Various States". Press Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. 14 August 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- "Reservation for Vanniyars 'only a temporary measure' until caste census report becomes available, says Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami". 26 February 2021.
- ^ Chennai, Shobha Warrier in. "Evaluating Tamil Nadu's 69% quota". Rediff. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
- ^ "How Tamil Nadu's reservation stands at 69% despite the 50% quota cap". The News Minute. 29 March 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
- "Doyen of social justice". Frontline. 17 August 2018. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
- ^ Venkataramanan, K. (7 August 2018). "Karunanidhi — a champion of social justice, caste amity". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
- "When MGR came up with economically weaker sections quota". The New Indian Express. Archived from the original on 3 February 2019. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
- Vasudevan, Lokpria (22 March 2021). "Has AIADMK gambled the Tamil Nadu election on the Vanniyar quota?". Newslaundry. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
- "TN bye-polls: Lackluster alliance, caste votes cost DMK-Congress". The News Minute. 24 October 2019. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
- ^ Ramakrishnan, T. (6 December 2016). "The woman behind the 69% quota". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
- Correspondent, Legal (6 November 2014). "69% quota: SC notice to Tamil Nadu". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
{{cite news}}:|last=has generic name (help) - Doraiswamy, P K (6 September 2006). "Why no resistance in Tamil Nadu ?". Industrial economist. Archived from the original on 17 October 2006.
- "Vijayan Attack Case: HC Dismisses CBI's Appeal". outlookindia.com. Retrieved 17 April 2021.
- "Tamil Nadu has 69 percent reservations but before Supreme Court put the cap". Yahoo News. Retrieved 17 April 2021.