Analysis of Mandal’s letter to the President : Mahesh Chandrasekaran

The great Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal whose invention called the Mandal Commission Report is now the Holy Bible for the nation’s caste-based social-justice loving politicians submitted his so-called report on 31.12.1980 to the then President of India Giani Zail Singh.

An analysis of just the letter accompanying the report the President Right confirms that the quota champions are suffering from an incurable “foot in the mouth” disease. The bloomers in the three page letter are indicative of the motivations and the pre-determined objective with which the work was carried out. The extraordinary casualness with which the entire matter was proceeded with comes out from the letter (which is analysed below) and the terms of reference of the commission.

(1) In the letter accompanying the Mandal Report to the President, BP Mandal thanks the former PM Mrs Indira Gandhi for extending and supporting the Commission’s work and complements her for the devotion and commitment to the cause of “suppressed, depressed & oppressed“. He uses all the three adjectives in conjunction without showing in his report in what way each and every citizen of the 3743 castes (declared backward and allegedly comprising 52% of the population) were “suppressed, depressed & oppressed“. Naturally, who and what “suppressed, depressed & oppressed” the SEBC is left unsaid. Certainly it could not be the SC/STs who were already considered “suppressed, depressed & oppressed”. By implication it is the non-reserved caste people. Thus one can see that in the letter itself, wild, wanton and vicious hate-filled allegations and imputations are made against a section of the society that he illegally and with mischievous intent described as ‘forward’. The legitimate question one can ask is – did Mandal not indulge in de facto criminalization of the ‘Other’ human beings of India in exactly the way the British criminalized certain tribes in 1871?

(2) In the letter, Mandal praises Mrs. Gandhi for her devotion and commitment to the 3743 castes whom he insists are “suppressed, depressed & oppressed”. However, on page 34 of the Volume I of the report he says “the abolition of all intermediaries has definitely helped the hard working peasant castes like Kurmis, Koeris and Yadavas (now classified as OBCs). These small peasant proprietors work very hard on their lands and also drive their labourers hard and any resistance by the agricultural labourers gives rise to mutual conflicts and atrocities on Harijans”. One fails to understand as to how a set of people who (by his own admission) are committing atrocities on the ‘Harijans’ can themselves be “suppressed, depressed & oppressed”

(3) Para 7 of the letter says our task was confined to our terms of reference according to which we had to “determine the criteria for defining the socially and educationally backward classes” and “to recommend steps to be taken for the advancements of the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens so identified”. However, instead of determining the criteria and identifying the socially and educationally backward classes of “citizens” based on that criteria, Mandal by a process of caste-based elimination of the imaginary ‘forwards’, ‘minorities’ and SC/ST from the total population, identified 3743 castes and not ‘citizens’ as backward. Mandal himself admits that “we have fixed the criteria for identification of such classes” and “recommended the steps to be taken for their upliftment”. However, the crucial task of “identifying’ the ‘citizens’” by measuring them against the criteria so framed was completely ignored. In other words, the SEBC citizens were never identified.

(4) In para 8, Mandal recommends 27% quota for the “socially and educationally backward classes” (SEBC) taking the total quantum of reservation including the SC/ST to 49.50% and in the process exhausted the maximum permissible quota fixed by Supreme Court decision in Balaji case, that “any special provision” should be less than 50%. Yet, the same para 8 of the letter dated 31.12.1980 to the President, says “our report… does not stand in the way of the States if they want to take any measure for the upliftment of the weaker sections of the people like the women and the poorer and other who are not covered by our terms of reference. It may be noted that there is no bar to make further reservation for them.” Throughout the report the need to confine the percentage of reservations under 50% is stressed, and having nearly exhausted the 50% with the 27% SEBC quota, Mandal’s letter proceeds to suggest that States are free to fix additional quota in excess of 50%, something not permitted by the Supreme Court. Since, this report is for SEBC who are called as “suppressed, depressed & oppressed”, how there can there be anything separate for other ‘weaker sections’ who in any case should also in the first place have been included in the ‘SEBC’? It is thus clearly a devious un-implementable suggestion.

(5) In para 10 of the letter he says, “we had to face enormous difficulties in the absence of caste enumeration figures after the 1931 census”. Yet he determined that SEBCs constituted 52% of the population, which included 8% of 16% non-Hindu groups, which had no caste system!

(6) Regardless of the fact that by mere conjecture and assumption that ‘caste’ alone should form the basis for determining the SEBC status plus the fact that no caste enumeration figures were available since 1931 as admitted by him, Mandal proceeds to deride LR Naik’s dissent (Para 14 of the letter) on the ground that the population figures of the so-called depressed backward classes worked out by Shri Naik are very arbitrary and based on pure conjecture!

(7) Para 16 of the letter says “The Commission consisted of members from Other Backward Classes and one Shri L.R.Naik from the Scheduled Caste”. The admission, that members of the Commission “consisted of Other Backward Classes” even before it could be determined as to who the socially and educationally backward classes were, is irrefutable evidence that the entire issue of who should be declared ‘backward’ was pre-decided and the process of constitution of the Commission and its report compilation was a huge charade and a fait accompli.

(8) Para 16 presents even more evidence that the Commission was set up with a pre-determined objective. This para, to thank the members of the Commission says “Shri LR. Naik, who was appointed in the Commission after a lapse of several months, was the most hardworking member of the lot. When other members were getting tired to continue the extensive tour of the country, he was ever unfatigued.” Yet, in para 14 of the letter Mandal ridicules Shri LR. Naik by proclaiming that the figures of “so-called” depressed BC worked out by Shri Naik are also very arbitrary and based on pure conjecture! Is it credible that a hardworking person would produce work that is “arbitrary and based on pure conjecture”? That too as a member of a national commission!

(9) In para 17 Mandal says, “I have the signal privilege of submitting this report to you and hope you will not hesitate in accepting our recommendations and redress the long felt grievance of the socially and educationally backward classes our country”. The so-called “long felt grievance” is a pure invention. By the time Mandal had submitted his report, a majority of States had implemented caste-based reservations. In some states, not only more than fifty years had passed since the ‘reservation’ system had been introduced, in fact in states (such as Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra, Maharashtra) an overwhelming majority of state-jobs had been captured by the people whom Mandal chooses to call “suppressed, depressed & oppressed “

If in just three pages, Mandal could project a situation that did not exist, repeatedly make contradictory statements and present conclusions that are thoroughly questionable, one can very well imagine as to what exists in the full report.

Terms of reference of the Second Backward Classes Commission (i.e Mandal Commission)
(i) to determine the criteria for defining the socially and educationally backward classes;
(ii) to recommend steps to be taken for the advancement of the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens so identified;
(iii) to examine the desirability or otherwise of making provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of such backward classes which are not adequately represented in public services and posts in connection with the services of the Union or of any State; and
(iv) present a report to the President a report setting out the facts as found by them and making such recommendations as they think proper.

*The Mandal Commission comprised of BP Mandal (chairman), RR Bhole (MP), DM Lal, K.Subramaniam and LR Naik. BP Mandal was a rich zamindar, but he was also “suppressed, depressed & oppressed”

From YFE Editor:

Also read how blatantly Mandal has violated its mandate and pursued the political agenda

Violation of Terms of References by Mandal Commission
ANNEXURE-I.doc
 

and

How Mandal reached to the figure of 52%? Read about the worst form of forgery, ever committed

The Magical 52%
ANNEXURE-III.doc