In 2021, Subhash C. Kashyap, former secretary-general of the Lok Sabha, said, “It would have pained Dr BR Ambedkar to see that people are increasingly wanting more reservation for their castes.” After the insertion of Articles 342 and 366(25) into the Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar agreed only to the Constituent Assembly’s condition that “it will not be extended to any other group of people.” However, Ambedkar was against the perpetuity of reservations. He said, “I would not want that symbol to continue in Indian society forever.” He aimed to create a casteless and classless society.
In the last parliamentary session of 2024, the BJP government passed the Constitution (J&K) ST Order (Amendment) Bill 2024, in which they added the “Pahari ethnic group, Koli, and Gadda Brahmin” communities. This had been a longstanding demand since the 1990s when Gujjar and Bakarwal were granted ST status based on an extensive study and recommendations from a commission. That commission excluded the now-included communities because their socio-economic status was found to be above the criteria for ST. However, in 2022, the G.D. Sharma Commission’s findings made these groups eligible. The history of reservations in Indian politics is so long and intricate that it cannot be summed up in one piece.
However, since the 1980s, different castes, classes, and subsections of society have demanded quotas. For example, at the central level, Mandal politics (SEBC 1979) for OBC was based on the caste system. At the state level, different communities and their governments reserved spaces for unprivileged groups in education and government jobs based on population ratios (e.g., Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra). In some cases, the reservation quotas crossed the 50% mark for electoral purposes. In J&K, various reservations emerged, like PSP, ALC, and RBA, most of which have been merged into ST II. The Modi government also made provisions for EWSs under the 103rd Constitution Amendment Act of 2019.
Even this year, when ST reservation was extended to the Pahari ethnic group, Koli, and Gadda Brahmin, the BJP also amended the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, to modify the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Odisha. Communities added to the list of Scheduled Tribes include (i) Muka Dora and Nuka Dora (for the districts of Koraput, Nowrangapur, Rayagada, and Malkangiri), and (ii) Konda Reddy. The bill also removed the Tamadia and Tamudia communities from the list of Scheduled Castes in Odisha and added them to the list of Scheduled Tribes. The bill further adds synonyms or phonetic variations for certain communities to the list of Scheduled Tribes in Odisha. The Meitei-Kuki dispute and the PVGT amendment in Andhra Pradesh are other examples of reservation politics in India. So, would these communities be expected to feel obliged, like in the manner of “Ehsan ka Badla Ehsan” (favour for favour) toward the BJP? Should different reserved communities under various categories be obliged or feel indebted to the political parties that extended these reservations to them? People of SC/ST should not feel indebted to Ambedkar’s affiliated parties, which introduced this idea and spoke against the Varna system and Manusmriti, which form the core of BJP and RSS ideology. The answer is no! Getting reservations or any other form of affirmative action is a fundamental right of the unprivileged, not a charity or favor from privileged or dominant powers.
Congress vs. BJP Reservation Policies
Congress, since its formation, has been an inclusive party where people from the extreme left to the extreme right, and from the most communal to the most secular, from the lowest castes to the dominant classes, were adjusted, heeded, and tolerated—until the 1980s. The 1980s were a pivotal decade in Indian politics for many reasons, but Mandir-Mandal is especially significant, as it paved the way for identity politics in India. The Mandir-based BJP’s majoritarian identity politics, and the Mandal-based BSP, SP, JDU, RJD, and many others, developed a sense of caste and class consciousness among their respective communities, raising the question of ‘Bhageedaari’ (proportional representation based on population). The Congress-led INDIA alliance’s demand for a caste-based revised survey (arguing that the OBC population estimate of 52% is based on a 1931 survey, which needs updating from the latest census) can be understood in this context. Regionalism, which had been splintering away from Congress, is once again finding its place within the party’s fold in the INDIA Alliance. On the other hand, the BJP’s ideology opposes reservations (as it refrains from discussing the caste survey), which have raised the status of lower castes to be equal to that of Brahmins, something that the Hindu Varna system and Manusmriti historically did not allow.
The recent amendments to reservation policies under the BJP go against its core ideology, though they seem to have been made for political purposes. For example, in Jammu and Kashmir, the BJP has its strongest grip on the Jammu region but holds very few seats in Pir Panjal due to various local factors. Pir Panjal has become a politically significant battleground for both the BJP and the INDIA Alliance. Local electoral factors in Pir Panjal include poor infrastructure development, and inadequate healthcare, and educational facilities—issues that both state and central governments have neglected since independence. Yet, no political players from either side have seriously considered addressing these problems.
The BJP think tank devised a strategy to win some seats in Pir Panjal, which could help form a single-party government in J&K, thereby legitimizing all post-Article 370 developments. A dormant demand for ST status among Paharis provided the BJP with an entry point into the region. The party polarized the Muslim-majority area by granting ST status to the Pahari ethnic group. Some Gujjar leaders also aligned with the BJP, but questions remain. If the BJP’s priority in J&K and Pir Panjal was to include the Pahari ethnic group in the ST category, why did it not act during the 1990s, when the demand was at its peak and the government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1998–2004) was in power?
The welfare of the people and the state should always be the core priority of any government. The ST reservation for the Pahari ethnic group, whether under the BJP or Congress, is, of course, a right that is yet to be scrutinized by the honourable courts. However, framing it as a form of charity, and implying that it is a special favor to a community in exchange for votes, raises serious ethical questions about the values of politics, democratic processes, and fair elections. Moreover, the Paharis’ slogan “Ehsan ka Badla Ehsan” demands further scrutiny regarding the validity of the reservation itself.
Ghulam Server Shaheen is a research scholar of Modern Indian History at Aligarh Muslim University and hails from Surankote, Poonch, Jammu, and Kashmir.
 ST Order (Amendment) Bill 2024, in which they added the “Pahari ethnic group, Koli, and Gadda Brahmin” communities.){kind=link}