Our society has denied opportunities to some while providing them to others due to historical, economic, social, cultural, and political reasons. Only through detailed, nuanced field research, discussions, and deliberations can this complex issue be genuinely resolved.
Published Apr 18, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 18, 2025 | 8:00 AM
Our society has denied opportunities to some while providing them to others due to historical, economic, social, cultural, and political reasons. (Representational image/Wikimedia Commons).
Synopsis: The current law treats each group as a homogeneous block, but fails to offer any strategy to address disparities between castes within the same group. Some castes may still lack access to basic opportunities in education and employment, while others within the same group may dominate the available benefits.
The Telangana government issued four Government Orders on 14 April after the Governor, on 9 April, had given assent to the Telangana Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Bill, 2025.
Will these developments resolve a complex and persistent issue that has plagued the erstwhile united Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for over three decades? Or will the problem merely take a new form and continue unabated?
Although the Scheduled Castes (SCs) had been granted 15% reservation in education and employment opportunities in united Andhra Pradesh, a strong criticism emerged by the 1990s: Only one or two relatively developed castes within the SC category were benefiting from the policy, while the very purpose of reservations — to address inequality — was being defeated. Several sub-castes continued to suffer from deprivation and a lack of opportunities.
In response, the Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti (MRPS) was founded on 7 June 1994, at the Eedumudi village in the Prakasam district, demanding the sub-categorisation of SC reservations to redress historical injustices.
Led by Madiga leaders such as Manda Krishna Madiga, Ponugoti Krupakar Madiga, Dandu Veeraiah Madiga, and Mary Madiga, this 13-member organisation evolved over the next three decades into a powerful movement capable of influencing political parties, developments, and history itself.
As a result of the movement, the Justice P Ramachandra Raju Commission was appointed in 1997 to examine the feasibility of categorisation and submitted a report on 28 May supporting it. The government accepted the report and issued a GO classifying the SCs into A, B, C, and D categories.
However, the Mala Mahanadu challenged the GO in the high court, which suspended it on technical grounds. Subsequently, the government issued an ordinance in October 1998. This ordinance, which also received the President’s assent, was later issued by the Governor on 12 December 1999 and led to the enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000.
The Mala Mahanadu then approached the Supreme Court, which struck down the law on 5 November 2004. The verdict argued that the state government had no authority to categorise SCs—only Parliament could. It also argued that such categorisation violated the principle of equality.
Following this, all political parties in Andhra Pradesh called for a constitutional amendment to bypass the Supreme Court ruling. The Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed a unanimous resolution to that effect and sent it to the central government. The MRPS continued its protests across the state, demanding the resolution of the issue.
In May 2007, the central government appointed the Justice Usha Mehra Commission to suggest solutions. The Commission submitted its report on 1 May 2008, recommending categorisation and calling for an amendment to Article 341 of the Constitution.
However, the central government failed to act on these recommendations, and its attempt to solicit opinions from political parties also yielded no results.
This long-dormant issue resurfaced unexpectedly in 2024. In a 2014 verdict on the sub-categorisation of SCs in Punjab, a three-judge Supreme Court bench suggested reviewing the 2004 judgement that had struck down the Andhra Pradesh law. A five-judge bench later opined that the matter was too complex for them and needed to be addressed by a larger bench.
Finally, on 1 August 2024, a seven-judge constitutional bench ruled 6-1 in favour of the validity and acceptability of sub-categorisation of SC reservations and affirmed that state governments do have the authority to make such classification.
Following this historic verdict, Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy immediately announced in the Telangana Assembly that Telangana would be the first state to implement SC sub-categorisation. A cabinet subcommittee was appointed to ensure that the new legislation would be free of legal and constitutional hurdles.
Based on the subcommittee’s recommendations, a one-member commission headed by Justice Shameem Akhtar was set up in November. This commission submitted its report in February, which was placed before the legislature. The resulting Bill was passed on 18 March and became law on 9 April. Four GOs were issued on April 14 to implement the new law.
There are 59 SC sub-castes in the state (though this number is now itself contentious, with claims that some of these groups are not present in Telangana) and were categorised into three groups based on levels of social, economic, and educational development. Group 1, comprising the 15 most backward and neglected castes, was allotted 1% of the 15% SC reservation.
Group 2, with 18 moderately benefitted castes, received 9%, and Group 3, with 26 relatively better-off castes, was allocated 5%. One-third of the reservations in each group are reserved for women.
The population basis for these allocations is unclear, as the 2021 census was not conducted. Moreover, while the 2000 law divided the SCs into four groups, the current law divides them into three; the rationale and differences between the two approaches are not clarified.
Beyond these technicalities, a deeper issue remains — the internal inequalities within each group. The current law treats each group as a homogeneous block, but fails to offer any strategy to address disparities between castes within the same group. Some castes may still lack access to basic opportunities in education and employment, while others within the same group may dominate the available benefits.
Without safeguards and checks and balances, there’s no guarantee that dominant castes in each group won’t marginalise the rest.
For instance, within Group 1, castes like Jangam, Dakkali, and Matangi are said to have benefitted more than Pambala and Samban castes. In Group 2, Arundhatiyars and Madigas have seen more advancement than Dandasis and Yatalas. In Group 3, Adi Andhra and Mala castes have outpaced others. A Dalit researcher pointed out that while the current law commendably addresses inter-group inequality, it lacks a roadmap to tackle intra-group disparity.
Unless that clarity emerges, the SC categorisation movement may seem to have achieved its goal, but a decade down the line, discontent over intra-group disparities could lead to fresh protests and demands for re-categorisation.
Just as SCs were identified based on untouchability, objective criteria must be evolved to determine deprivation and exclusion from educational and employment opportunities. These should not be limited to visible, quantitative factors like poverty, education, and employment, but also include invisible, qualitative ones such as social humiliation and discrimination. Thorough research must be conducted to identify the right criteria and determine which caste needs reservations most urgently.
The Dalit scholar mentioned above proposed three new metrics:
Other indicators can also be suggested. Our society has denied opportunities to some while providing them to others due to historical, economic, social, cultural, and political reasons. Only through detailed, nuanced field research, discussions, and deliberations can this complex issue be genuinely resolved. A law alone cannot solve such a deeply rooted social problem. Nor can it be resolved by communities abusing each other based on caste lines.
What matters is not just any solution, but a meaningful, permanent, and non-repeating one.
(The writer is the editor of an independent, small Telugu monthly journal of society and political economy, running for the past 23 years. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
