Part 'cream' from Dalit quota mix: Why Chirag Paswan & Jitan Ram Manjhi are clashing over SC reservations

The fiercest defenders of social justice can become fierce defenders of inherited privilege once the privilege becomes theirs. That uncomfortable truth lies at the heart of the latest battle over scheduled caste (ST) reservations. A spat has broken out between central ministers Chirag Paswan and Jitan Ram Manjhi.

The former belongs to Bihar's politically powerful paswan caste, a.k.a. dusadhs. The latter from musahars, among the most wretched dalits. Manjhi wants sub-classification of dalits and elimination of the 'creamy' dalit layer to give the rest a better chance of getting prized educational and job quotas.

Paswan opposes the creamy layer principle, saying this will divide dalits when the need is for all dalits to pull together to protect affirmative action. He says successful dalits suffer caste discrimination by upper castes.


Data on sub-caste shares are devastating:

Bihar's caste survey uncovered 99,230 paswans in government jobs against 10,625 manjhis. An analysis of the proportion of each dalit sub-caste in reserved jobs showed that 3.14% of dhobis had benefited, 1.44% paswans, but just 0.26% musahars.

In Andhra Pradesh, an official commission found that the relatively advanced malas and adi-Andhras had a disproportionately high share of reserved jobs, while the less-advanced madigas and rellis lagged behind.

Supreme Court found in a major case that, of roughly 60 dalit sub-castes in the state, 4-5 hogged most jobs.

The Constitution says nothing about sub-classifying dalit castes, or removing a creamy layer. But when the top court okayed educational and job reservations for OBCs, it stressed the need to remove the 'creamy' layer to benefit others. The logic is surely applicable to dalits, too.

Reservations have created a significant, though not large, dalit middle and upper class. India today has dalit Cabinet ministers, IAS officers, judges, professors, doctors, engineers and corporate executives. But success is not uniform across sub-castes.

Imagine two candidates for a reserved IAS position. One is the son of a dalit IAS officer, educated at an expensive English-medium school, with educated parents, tutors, computers, and perhaps foreign holidays. The other is the daughter of an illiterate musahar farm labourer attending a village school where virtually no teaching takes place. Both may experience caste discrimination. But are they equally disadvantaged? Obviously not.

The 'creamy' dalits say upper-caste children have inherited advantages of generations of education, wealth and connections. True. But 'creamy' dalits want their own children to have not just the advantages of successful parents but also preferences that helped create that success. Apparently, inherited privilege is oppressive when somebody else gets it, but becomes social justice when you do.

In 2004, the apex court held that the Constitution did not provide for the sub-classification of dalit sub-castes, or elimination of a creamy layer. But this verdict was overturned by a 7-judge bench in 2024 in 'State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh'. It ruled 6-1 that states can sub-classify SCs. Several judges went further, advocating a 'creamy' layer principle for dalits. These are separate reforms, and India needs both.

Sub-classification will guide the sharing of quotas between sub-castes. The 'creamy' layer principle will exclude families that have attained substantial social and economic progress. Reform will neither abolish nor dilute the constitutional provision for reservations. It won't reduce dalit quotas by a single seat either. They will help apportion quotas to sub-castes most in need. That distinction demolishes much of the rhetoric against reform. Giving more reserved seats to musahars won't weaken dalit reservation. It will strengthen affirmative action.

GoI has recoiled from implementing Supreme Court's 'creamy' layer suggestion. Politically, that's understandable. Beneficiaries of 7 decades of reservation include an articulate establishment of politicians, bureaucrats, academics and professionals. They possess precisely what the poorest dalits lack - organisation, money, education, networks and voice.

The irony is exquisite. The groups most capable of cornering scarce opportunities are also best equipped to dominate the debate about how those opportunities should be distributed. Heads, I denounce inherited privilege. Tails, my children inherited privilege. The classic Marxist would recognise this. Every successful revolution creates a new establishment. That then discovers philosophical reasons why its privileges are indispensable to justice.

Paswan is wrong, and Manjhi is right. Every state should publish an annual reservation audit showing progress of different dalit sub-castes in getting educational and job quotas. This should help identify the creamy layer. Exact criteria will vary from state to state depending on history and caste composition.

The 'creamy' layer should be identified using not just income and assets, but also socially important criteria such as parents holding senior government posts, high professional status and repeated intergenerational use of reservations. Dalit quotas were designed to break India's ancient hereditary hierarchy. It will be a cruel joke if they end up creating a hereditary hierarchy within dalits.