Harshita Rai
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 2nd May: The political landscape is witnessing a fascinating role reversal as the Narendra Modi government announces the inclusion of caste data in the upcoming Census, a move touted as crucial for affirmative action. Almost immediately, Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has stepped forward, claiming credit for compelling the Centre to adopt this decision. This development throws a sharp light back on the Congress party’s vehement opposition to a similar move 35 years ago – the implementation of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations.
On September 6, 1990, the then VP Singh-led National Front government took the bold step of implementing the Mandal Commission’s report, introducing a 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), pushing the total reservation quota to 49.5 per cent. This decision was met with stiff resistance from none other than Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, and father of Rahul Gandhi. As the ruling BJP and the Opposition Congress now jostle for ownership of the caste census narrative, this exclusive report delves into the Grand Old Party’s response to the Mandal Commission’s report and the fundamental grounds on which it mounted its opposition.
A Kashmir Parallel Then and Now?
The Modi government’s decision to incorporate caste data into the Census comes at a sensitive juncture, merely days after a horrific terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam claimed the lives of 25 tourists and a local pony ride operator. Tensions between India and Pakistan are palpably high, and the nation awaits a decisive response to this shocking act of terror.
Intriguingly, the 1990 decision by the VP Singh government to implement the Mandal Commission’s recommendations also unfolded against a volatile Kashmir backdrop. Militancy was raging in the Valley, and the early months of 1990 witnessed the brutal killings of numerous Kashmiri Hindus, triggering a mass exodus of the minority community. VP Singh’s government was under immense pressure to address the deteriorating situation in Kashmir and the forced migration of Kashmiri Pandits, an issue that would later become a significant political flashpoint.
The Genesis of the Mandal Commission and the Decade of Silence
The Mandal Commission was established in 1978, following the Janata Party’s resounding victory over Indira Gandhi’s Congress in the aftermath of the Emergency. Headed by BP Mandal, its core mandate was to identify socially and educationally backward classes across the nation. The commission submitted its comprehensive report in 1980. However, by then, the political winds had shifted again, with the Janata Party out of power and Indira Gandhi back as Prime Minister. The subsequent decade was marked by critical national events, including the rise of the separatist movement in Punjab, the controversial Operation Bluestar, and ultimately, Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her own security personnel.
Following his mother’s tragic death, Rajiv Gandhi ascended to the Prime Minister’s office with an overwhelming mandate. Yet, despite the comprehensive recommendations of the Mandal Commission lying dormant for a decade, there was no discernible movement on its implementation during his tenure. It was only after the 1989 Lok Sabha elections, which saw the Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress suffer a crushing defeat, paving the way for VP Singh to become Prime Minister with the crucial support of the Left and the BJP, that the Mandal Commission’s report finally saw the light of day. In 1990, VP Singh’s decision to implement the recommendations unleashed a political firestorm that swept across the nation.
Mandal’s Recommendations, Singh’s Implementation, and the Nation’s Agitation
The Mandal Commission’s central recommendation was a 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in government jobs and admissions to technical and professional institutions, both at the central and state levels. In 1990, the VP Singh government acted on this, implementing the quota specifically in government employment. This move ignited widespread protests, primarily from students and upper-caste groups who viewed it as an affront to meritocracy. The agitation was tragically embodied by Rajiv Goswami, a Delhi University student who self-immolated on September 19, 1990, becoming the poignant face of the anti-reservation movement. He succumbed to complications from his severe burns a decade later.
Interestingly, sixteen years later, the Congress-led UPA government, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, took a further step towards implementing the Mandal Commission’s vision by reserving 27 per cent seats for OBCs in higher education institutions, including prestigious establishments like AIIMS, IITs, and IIMs. This decision, too, triggered significant protests from so-called upper castes, who echoed concerns about the erosion of merit and accused the government of pandering to vote-bank politics.
The BJP, then in the Opposition, offered conditional support to the reservations. While backing the principle of affirmative action for OBCs, the party argued for extending reservation benefits to economically weaker sections within the so-called forward castes and vehemently stressed the crucial need to exclude the “creamy layer” – those relatively affluent and privileged individuals within the backward communities – from availing the reservation benefits.
Rajiv Gandhi’s Fiery Opposition: Timing, Preparedness, and Societal Rift
Rajiv Gandhi’s address to the Lok Sabha on September 6, 1990, as meticulously recorded in parliamentary archives, provides a compelling insight into the Congress party’s rationale for opposing the Mandal Commission’s implementation at that juncture. He pointedly questioned the timing of the government’s decision, arguing that the nation was grappling with a confluence of severe crises.
“This is a time when the nation is going through a number of very serious, perhaps even severe problems. The situation in Kashmir is worse than it has ever been since independence. The situation in Punjab is again perhaps worse than it has ever been. Assam has joined that list. Tamil Nadu is drawing very close to that. In fact, the Prime Minister, if I remember correctly, speaking in this very House, had asked the nation to be prepared for war… Then, apart from that, we already have North-South tension brewing on the question of language…,” Rajiv Gandhi stated, highlighting the striking parallels between the national challenges of 1990 and the complex situation prevailing in 2025, with renewed tensions in Kashmir and a simmering language row with southern states.
Rajiv Gandhi argued that the “ground has not been prepared” for such a significant societal shift. “…the proof that the ground has not been prepared is that the people are getting killed outside, buses are getting burnt, trains are getting burnt and buildings are being destroyed. That is the proof.” He contended that while the Prime Minister was urging the nation to psychologically brace for potential war, his government’s decision on Mandal was simultaneously “causing a rift in our society.”
Outlining the Congress party’s stance, Rajiv Gandhi asserted, “The fact is that you need a comprehensive plan. You need a comprehensive vision, you cannot look at these things in an isolated manner. We, the Congress, are in favour of a comprehensive action plan, an affirmative action plan for the backward communities. We need that. The problem cannot be solved by playing politics or by limited politically motivated manipulations.”
The “Creamy Layer” Argument: A Matter of Equity
A key pillar of Rajiv Gandhi’s opposition was his forceful argument for the exclusion of the “creamy layer” within the backward communities. He insisted that the government must acknowledge the existence of individuals who, while belonging to socially and educationally backward groups, had attained a level of privilege that rendered them no longer truly backward.
“I will give an example. Supposing we have a person who has been a Supreme Court judge for a number of years, say 10 or 15 years and then joins politics and becomes a Cabinet Minister, is he socially backward? Is he educationally backward? Do his children need help?” Rajiv Gandhi questioned pointedly.
When an MP inquired about the number of such individuals, Rajiv Gandhi responded, “I am not saying how many. Even if there is one, that assistance should go to somebody else rather than to him. This is the point. For example, do we want the benefit that the government is giving to be cornered by the Ministers or the sons of Ministers? Do we want the benefits that are being given by the government to be cornered by big landlords and people who have a lot of property?”
The Minority Question: An Inclusive Vision?
In his Lok Sabha address, Rajiv Gandhi also raised a crucial question about the inclusivity of the reservation policy, questioning why the government had not aimed to extend its benefits to backward sections within the minority communities. “Sir, it should go not only to such underprivileged groups and many others like them, but to people from all religions who are underprivileged and this is where I have a grave difference with what the government is bringing in. They are looking almost entirely at caste.”
He elaborated, “If you look at the Muslims, the vast majority of the Muslim community in India is backward, educationally, socially, economically everywhere. The same thing is true for Christians. The same thing is true even for Sikhs who are by and large okay, but there are still groups who are not all right. It is true for almost every religion as groups who are socially and educationally backward. Why should they not be included? The government must explain this; the country wants to know,” advocating for a more comprehensive approach that transcended the boundaries of caste and encompassed socio-economic backwardness across all religious communities.
The “Casteless Society” Argument: A Fundamental Goal
Rajiv Gandhi articulated a fundamental ideological objection to the manner in which the Mandal Commission’s recommendations were being implemented, arguing that it would entrench caste further into Indian society, moving away from the cherished goal of a casteless society. “Do we still have that goal of a casteless society? … If you believe in a casteless society, every major step you take, must be such that you move towards a casteless society. And you must avoid taking any step which takes you towards a caste-ridden society. Unfortunately, the step that we are taking today, the manner in which it has been put, is a casteist formula. While accepting that caste is a reality, we must dilute that formula and break that formula by adding something on to it. So that at least we start inching away from the casteist formula. This is where I feel that the Leftists are not carrying out their responsibility. And you should do that. It is within your powers to do it, it is not within our powers to do it,” he said, directly addressing the Prime Minister.
In a pointed swipe at VP Singh’s aristocratic background, Rajiv Gandhi remarked, “Sir, Raja Sahib is putting the caste into our society, once again. He is ensuring that caste does not go out by this action… this Government is creating a vested interest in casteism and the country is going to pay a very heavy price for this,” underscoring his deep-seated concern about the long-term societal implications of the government’s approach.
Rajiv Gandhi reiterated his demand that the government must bring socially and educationally backward classes from other castes within the Hindu religion under the purview of reservation and also include backward sections from other religions within its ambit, advocating for a more inclusive and equitable framework.
In his response to Rajiv Gandhi’s “creamy layer” argument, then Prime Minister VP Singh countered that the issue at hand was about addressing the systemic backwardness of entire classes, not merely the upliftment of a few individuals. “When a class moves up, then, of course, weaning out can be there. But when the whole class is under just zero and one per cent, that is not the issue. The issue is whether the whole class has gone up or not. That is the issue.”
VP Singh also quoted Jawaharlal Nehru, highlighting the historical dominance of a few so-called superior castes and emphasizing the need to dismantle the hierarchical structure of casteism, not perpetuate existing classifications.
To this, Rajiv Gandhi sharply retorted, “Does the Prime Minister believe in a casteless society or not? I do not want to know what Panditji believed in,” underscoring the fundamental ideological divide on the approach to caste in Indian society.
From Opposition to Ownership: A Shifting Political Landscape
The chasm between Rajiv Gandhi’s determined opposition to the VP Singh government’s decision on Mandal and his son Rahul Gandhi’s current claim of credit for the caste Census move highlights the dramatic shifts in the Indian political landscape over the past three and a half decades. In 1990, the BJP, despite being part of the ruling coalition, held a relatively modest 83 seats. The Congress, though in opposition, was the single largest party after the 1989 elections.
The narrative is starkly different today. The BJP, despite experiencing a setback in the last Lok Sabha polls, is in its third consecutive term at the helm. The Congress, having plummeted to an all-time low of 52 seats in the 2019 general election, managed a partial recovery in the recent elections and currently holds 99 seats. Crucially, major players in the caste political landscape, such as Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party and Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Rastriya Janata Dal, who were central to the Mandal politics of the 1990s, are now key allies of the Congress.
The BJP, too, has evolved its strategy, becoming increasingly adept at navigating caste arithmetic in elections and reaping significant electoral benefits. Interestingly, the BJP, sections of which once advocated for a “creamy layer” classification, has seemingly backtracked on that stance. Following a Supreme Court judgment last year recommending a policy to identify the creamy layer, the government clarified that it had no such immediate plans.
With crucial Bihar polls on the horizon, the BJP’s move on the caste census appears to be a strategic attempt to turn the tables on the Opposition, particularly the RJD and the Congress, who have historically championed caste-based politics. The Congress, on the other hand, is portraying the census announcement as a victory, attributing it to Rahul Gandhi’s persistent advocacy.
However, the journey between 1990 and 2025 reveals a complex tapestry of evolving political stands and shifting ideological positions. In the current context, as party lines and historical stances appear to be somewhat inverted, the driving force seems to be less about rigid ideology and increasingly about political pragmatism in a rapidly changing India.
Comments are closed.