BC organisations fighting for political, social, and economic empowerment must introspect about their own limitations. They must build relentless political pressure on all dominant parties that hide behind constitutional and judicial excuses.
Published Oct 14, 2025 | 4:00 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 14, 2025 | 4:50 PM
Political parties often glorify lofty ideals without any real intent to execute them, deceiving both themselves and the people with illusions of change.
Synopsis: Before the Telangana Assembly elections, the Congress made much noise about its “BC Declaration,” but failed miserably to deliver. Though Revanth Reddy announced that 34 BC candidates would be fielded, the number stopped at just 23—including in a few unwinnable Old City seats.
Among the many deceptions that dominate Indian politics, symbolism stands foremost.
Political parties often glorify lofty ideals without any real intent to execute them, deceiving both themselves and the people with illusions of change. Believing that they are hearing ideas that might improve their lives, people innocently accept these parties.
Of all such deceptive games, the Congress seems to have mastered the art of fooling people for decades.
The recent Telangana High Court stay on G.O. No. 9—which sought to provide 42% political reservations for BCs—has angered BC communities across the state. There is mounting criticism at several levels: against the Congress Party’s sincerity, against the judiciary for issuing the stay, and against the opposition from dominant castes to the cause of social justice.
Though the present situation appears to arise from constitutional and legal complexities, the real reason lies in the lack of political will.
Leaders who claim helplessly that “we want to do it, but our hands are tied” should not be trusted.
It is ironic that the very issue Congress leaders have been highlighting nationwide—particularly in Bihar elections—has backfired in their own turf.
Rahul Gandhi proudly touted Telangana as the state that conducted caste enumeration.
Even A Revanth Reddy, despite belonging to an upper caste, was praised for undertaking reforms that curtailed his own community’s dominance.
Rahul Gandhi cited Telangana’s political reservations based on caste census results as proof of his commitment.
But, while the rhetoric sounded glorious in public, the reality on the ground was far from it—neither the caste census nor the political reservations made any progress.
Before the Telangana Assembly elections, the Congress made much noise about its “BC Declaration,” but failed miserably to deliver. Though Revanth Reddy announced that 34 BC candidates would be fielded, the number stopped at just 23—including in a few unwinnable Old City seats.
Even that figure was achieved only because the BRS had already given tickets to 22 BC candidates.
In the present Congress government, out of 15 ministers, eight belong to the dominant castes and only three are BCs, merely 20%.
Taking a BC as the PCC chief was notable . The controversial caste census and failed reservation promises helped the party in diverting the attention of the people from Revanth Reddy’s administrative lapses and even strengthened his position in the national leadership.
Historically, during the national movement and in the early years of independent India, caste alliances played a decisive role.
After 1952, the Congress maintained a coalition of dominant castes, Dalits, and Muslims— where welfare was extended to the latter two, while upper-caste landlords continued to enjoy power and property.
The assumption that the Shudra castes could never unite politically also benefited the Congress.
Despite receiving significant BC votes, the Congress never took meaningful steps for their advancement and even rejected the Kalelkar Commission’s recommendations outright, enjoying uninterrupted power for 15 years.
Its first major setback came from the political awakening of those very communities.
In Tamil Nadu, the rise of Dravidian parties and, later in 1967, Congress’s defeat in northern India, were both powered by backward castes.
Yet the party learned nothing.
Even though the Mandal Commission submitted its report in 1980, neither Indira Gandhi nor Rajiv Gandhi implemented it. It was only under VP Singh’s Janata Dal government that it became policy—despite Rajiv Gandhi’s fierce opposition at the time.
Ironically, the BJP, which had opposed the Mandal recommendations back then, now projects itself as a champion of BCs.
While the Janata Dal and other BC-based parties weakened or remained regional, both the BJP and Congress are now competing to inherit the legacy of Lohiaiite politics.
Through a mix of local caste strategies and Hindutva consolidation, the BJP has successfully turned several BC groups—especially the most backward—into its base.
For a weakened Congress and Rahul Gandhi, the demand for a nationwide caste census has become the only rallying point. Their slogan of “reservations based on population” forced even the BJP to concede the inclusion of caste data in the upcoming census.
In the former undivided Andhra Pradesh, the dominance of upper Shudra castes created a distinct dynamic. During the freedom movement, Brahmins held leadership in Congress, but later lost ground to Reddys.
The rivalry between them opened limited political space for other Shudra castes.
To check the dominance of Shudra landlord classes, PV Narasimha Rao pushed for land reforms and, in the 1972 elections, proposed more seats for BCs—a move Indira Gandhi approved at the time.
As Prime Minister and AICC chief in 1994, Narasimha Rao again tried to change the social composition of Congress candidates.
Today, it is unfortunate that Congress-ruled states show little enthusiasm for Rahul Gandhi’s caste census proposal. Though the Telangana initiative is highlighted as a Congress achievement, Rahul Gandhi never mentions Karnataka’s earlier caste enumeration—perhaps because its findings were inconvenient for dominant communities, prompting a new census there.
The Telangana exercise too has faced criticism, with the BRS pointing out inconsistencies compared to earlier household surveys conducted under K Chandrashekar Rao.
Even so, the BRS itself failed to initiate reforms based on those numbers.
And despite the Telugu Desam Party branding itself as a BC-friendly outfit, legislative representation for BCs remained limited.
Rahul Gandhi’s expression of regret for Congress’s past neglect of BC issues may be genuine. But the grip of dominant castes within his party is far stronger than his reformist intent. Transforming entrenched social hierarchies cannot be done through speeches or slogans—it requires deep structural reform, which faces institutional resistance beyond party lines.
While the Congress may not be in a position to corner the BRS for not fielding enough BC candidates, the truth is that neither party truly intends to change the status quo. Even as Revanth Reddy’s government is being questioned on its sincerity, the BRS itself has shown little commitment to BC empowerment.
If these parties were truly serious, they could easily nominate deserving BC candidates without waiting for court orders or constitutional amendments. All-party meetings could identify BC-majority constituencies and ensure BC candidates contest from them. Unless such measures become the norm, their claims of helplessness merely sustain existing caste hierarchies.
Even so, BC organisations fighting for political, social, and economic empowerment must introspect about their own limitations. They must build relentless political pressure on all dominant parties that hide behind constitutional and judicial excuses.
They need to craft a unifying political vision that can bring together the innumerable BC sub-castes under one banner. Leaders and associations that submit to the agenda of parties that offer them patronage or favours must realise they harm collective interests. Only strong democratic movements can compel fair representation. Recognising that all major parties are, in essence, instruments of upper-caste dominance, it would be naïve to expect those very leaders to dismantle their own privileges.
(Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
