‘If we add claims of all communities, I wonder what the State’s population would be’

K. Jayaprakash Hegde, former chairman of the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes, submitted the Socio-Economic and Educational Survey (caste census) report to the State government in 2024. The report, now being debated in the Cabinet, has created a storm in Karnataka politics over the last week. The Hindu spoke to him about the issues being debated around the contentious report.

Edited excerpts:

The leaders of some communities have said that the survey is unscientific and not all houses were visited. How do you defend the survey?

The survey was conducted by over 1.3 lakh teachers of the State, overseen by the government machinery. There was a pro forma with 56 questions to collect socio, economic and educational details of each family, including their caste. These pro formas are still with the district administrations, including the signatures of the persons interviewed. Answers to 56 questions, with the signatures cannot be manufactured by teachers. This voluminous data was digitised by Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) and ratified by Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore. I don’t understand how it can be called unscientific. 

Not just Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas, several other communities have also disputed their population count. Many say surveyors had not visited every household.

It is true that we have not been able to cover every household. The projected population of the State in 2015 was 6.35 crore and we have covered over 6 crore, which is around 95% of the State’s population. It is a very good survey by any objective yardstick. Moreover, even among those 30 lakh-plus population not included in the survey, there is no way only some community households can be left out, when the survey itself is a decentralised activity by 1.3 lakh government teachers from all communities and regions. 

Every community seems to be inflating their numbers. If the claims of all the communities are considered, I wonder what the State’s population would be. Meanwhile, the government still has the option to get the survey updated, if it feels it needs to. 

But in the case of Veerashaiva-Lingayats, some members of their sub castes like Ganiga Lingayats, Banajiga Lingayats and Sadara Lingayats may have identified as belonging to their equivalent communities in the larger Hindus society to claim reservation under Category 2A. I don’t deny this. But the survey cannot be faulted for this. 

Coming to the recommendations by the commission you headed, one of the recommendations being opposed is applying creamy layer for even Category 1, which has most backward communities. Why was it introduced? 

Recently, even the Supreme Court has said creamy layer should be applied to all categories of reservation. This will prevent the same sections within a community from getting benefits of reservation over generations. It is a progressive step to ensure better distribution of reservation benefits. 

Many communities including the Kurubas, generally considered to be well off, have moved from more backward category to most backward category. What does this tell us of reservation as a tool of social upliftment over the past four decades? 

An expert committee was constituted for evaluating each community based on their socio-economic and educational indicators, found out from the survey. Each community was marked for 200 marks and depending on the marks awarded to each community and slabs chosen, communities have been categorised as most backward, more backward, and backward. This is not an ad hoc classification. It is based on data collected and the decision of the expert committee. 

Communities moving from earlier classification of more backward to most backward in our recommendation, doesn’t mean they have regressed. This is the first time this quality of socio-economic and educational data is available for each community. This reflects the reality as against earlier classifications, based on dipstick surveys and sometimes ad hoc decisions. For instance, the Kurubas are revealed to be more backward than what they are perceived to be. 

There are concerns that some communities like the Kurubas, who are considered to be relatively dominant and are in large numbers, will dominate a category, depriving other smaller communities in the same category of reservation benefits. Kurubas are now in Category 1B with 12% reservation, as per your recommendation, along with several other smaller communities. How to avoid such a scenario? 

Application of creamy layer should ideally prevent such misuse and protect smaller communities. 

The Panchamasalis have been demanding that they should be given reservation under a separate category and not along with Veerashaiva-Lingayats. Their demand has not been met as per your recommendations. What is the rationale behind this? 

Panchamasalis are a sub caste group of Veerashaiva-Lingayats and share the same characteristics. All sub castes of a community are kept under the same reservation category and hence Panchamasalis cannot be moved to another category.