8.11 The Political Rise of OBCs — A Long-Term Development

One of the most important long-term developments of the post-1989 period was the rise of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) as a political force. The term 'OBC' refers to the administrative category for communities, other than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who suffer from educational and social backwardness — also called 'backward castes'. As you read in Chapter 6, support for the Congress among many sections of the backward castes had been declining since the late 1960s. This created a political vacuum that non-Congress parties, drawing more support from these communities, moved to fill.

The first national expression of this rise came with the Janata Party government of 1977. Many of its constituents — like the Bharatiya Kranti Dal and the Samyukta Socialist Party — had a powerful rural base among sections of the OBC. In the 1980s, the Janata Dal brought together a similar combination of political groups with strong support among the OBCs. The decision of the National Front government in 1990 to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission then accelerated this process and gave OBC politics a national stage.

8.12 The Mandal Commission — From 1979 Recommendation to 1990 Implementation

Reservations for OBCs had existed in southern states since the 1960s, but were not operative in the north. During the tenure of the Janata Party government in 1977–79, the demand for OBC reservations in north India and at the national level was strongly raised. Karpoori Thakur, then Chief Minister of Bihar, pioneered a new policy of OBC reservations in his state. Following this, the central government appointed a Commission in 1978 to look into and recommend ways to improve the conditions of the backward classes. This was the second time since Independence that such a commission had been constituted, so it was officially called the Second Backward Classes Commission; popularly, it became known as the Mandal Commission, after its chairperson, Bindeshwari Prasad Mandal (1918–1982), an MP from Bihar.

The Mandal Commission was set up to (i) investigate the extent of educational and social backwardness among various sections of Indian society, (ii) recommend ways of identifying these 'backward classes', and (iii) suggest how this backwardness could be ended. The Commission gave its recommendations in 1980, by which time the Janata government had fallen.

8.12.1 The 1990 Decision and the Anti-Mandal Protests

In August 1990, the National Front government of V. P. Singh decided to implement one of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission — reservations for OBCs in jobs in the central government and its undertakings. The announcement triggered a wave of agitations and violent protests in many cities of north India. University campuses witnessed sit-ins and self-immolations; cities saw bandhs and rail rokos. Some sections coined the slogan "Mandal vs Mandir" to argue that two political projects — OBC reservation and Ram Janmabhoomi — were now competing for the same political space.

8.12.2 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — The Supreme Court Settles the Law

The decision was challenged in the Supreme Court in what came to be called the Indra Sawhney case^?, after the name of one of the petitioners. In November 1992, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court gave its ruling upholding the decision of the government to provide 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in central government jobs. The Court, however, also introduced the creamy layer^? doctrine — under which the better-off sections among the OBCs would be excluded from the benefit of reservations — and capped overall reservations at 50 per cent. Once the Supreme Court had spoken, there were some differences among political parties about the manner of implementation, but the policy of reservation for OBCs now had the support of all major political parties.

8.13 Political Fallouts — Dalit and OBC Parties

The 1980s also saw the rise of an organised politics of the Dalits. In 1978, the Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF) was formed. BAMCEF was no ordinary trade union of government employees — it took a strong position in favour of political power for the 'bahujan' (the SC, ST, OBC and minorities). It was out of BAMCEF that the Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti and later the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) emerged, under the leadership of Kanshi Ram (1934–2006). The BSP began as a small party supported largely by Dalit voters in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. In the elections of 1989 and 1991, it achieved a breakthrough in Uttar Pradesh — the first time in independent India that a political party supported mainly by Dalit voters had achieved that kind of political success.

Kanshi Ram envisaged the BSP as an organisation based on pragmatic politics. It drew confidence from the fact that the Bahujans (SC, ST, OBC and religious minorities) constituted the majority of the population, and were a formidable political force on the strength of their numbers. Since then the BSP has emerged as a major political player and has been in government in Uttar Pradesh on more than one occasion. Its strongest support still comes from Dalit voters, but it has expanded its support to other social groups as well. In many parts of India, Dalit politics and OBC politics have developed independently — and often in competition with each other, producing parties such as the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Janata Dal (United).

8.14 The Ram Janmabhoomi Movement — The Long Backstory

The other long-term development of this period was the visible rise of politics based on religious identity, leading to a wide debate about secularism and democracy. As Chapter 6 noted, in the aftermath of the Emergency, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh had merged with the Janata Party. After the fall of the Janata Party and its break-up, supporters of the erstwhile Jana Sangh formed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1980. Initially the BJP adopted a broader political platform than the Jana Sangh, embracing 'Gandhian Socialism' along with cultural nationalism as its ideology. It did not get much success in the elections of 1984. After 1986, the party began to emphasise nationalism as the core of its ideology and pursued the politics of 'Hindutva'^? for political mobilisation.

The term 'Hindutva' was popularised by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar as the basis of Indian nationhood. It meant, in his formulation, that to be an Indian one must accept India as one's fatherland (pitrubhu) as well as one's holy land (punyabhu). Believers of Hindutva argue that a strong nation can be built on the basis of a united national culture and that, in the case of India, Hindutva can provide that base.

8.14.1 Two Catalysts Around 1986 — Shah Bano and Ayodhya

Two developments around 1986 became central to the politics of the BJP. The first was the Shah Bano case of 1985: a 62-year-old divorced Muslim woman had filed a case for maintenance from her former husband, and the Supreme Court ruled in her favour. Some orthodox Muslims saw the order as interference in Muslim Personal Law. On the demand of some Muslim leaders, the government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which nullified the Supreme Court's judgement. This action of the government was opposed by many women's organisations, many Muslim groups and most intellectuals. The BJP criticised it as an unnecessary concession and an 'appeasement' of the minority community.

The Ayodhya issue, the second significant development, was deeply rooted in the socio-cultural and political history of the country, with different perspectives offered by various stakeholders. It involved contentions regarding the birthplace of Shri Ram, one of the most holy religious sites for Hindus, and its legal ownership.

8.15 The Ayodhya Issue — From 1528 to 1949

The significance of the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi site can be judged by the fact that a 500-year-long history, starting from 1528, is marked by numerous conflicts, also documented in Lucknow, Barabanki and Faizabad district Gazetteers. A three-dome structure was built at the site of Shri Ram's birthplace in 1528, but the structure had visible display of Hindu symbols and relics in its interior as well as its exterior portions. Therefore the Ayodhya issue got linked to questions of national pride in ancient civilisation. Over the years, the issue evolved into a prolonged legal battle. In 1949, the structure was sealed by the local administration following the onset of court proceedings.

8.16 1986 to 1992 — From Locks to Demolition

In 1986, the situation regarding the three-dome structure took a significant turn when the Faizabad (now Ayodhya) district court ruled to unlock the structure, allowing people to worship there. The dispute had been going on for many decades, as it was believed that the three-dome structure had been built at Shri Ram's birthplace after the demolition of an earlier temple. Although a Shilanyas (foundation-stone laying) for a temple was performed in November 1989, further construction remained prohibited.

The Hindu community felt that their concerns related to the birthplace of Shri Ram were being overlooked, while the Muslim community sought assurance of their possession over the structure. Subsequently, tensions heightened between both communities over ownership rights, resulting in numerous disputes and legal conflicts. In September–October 1990, BJP leader L. K. Advani launched a Rath Yatra^? from Somnath to Ayodhya to mobilise public support. Advani's arrest in Bihar by Lalu Prasad Yadav's government precipitated the BJP's withdrawal of support to V. P. Singh and the fall of the National Front government.

On 6 December 1992, the disputed structure was demolished by a large gathering of kar sevaks. The demolition was followed by communal riots in several parts of the country. The central government, then under P. V. Narasimha Rao, dismissed the BJP-ruled state governments and set up the Liberhan Commission to investigate the events. In 1992, following the demolition, some critics contended that the event presented a substantial challenge to the principles of Indian democracy.

8.17 From Legal Proceedings to Amicable Acceptance — The 2019 Verdict

It is important to note that in any society, conflicts are bound to take place. However, in a multi-religious and multi-cultural democratic society, these conflicts are usually resolved following the due process of law. Through a number of democratic and legal procedures — including court hearings, mediation attempts, popular movements, and finally with a 5–0 verdict of a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on 9 November 2019 — the Ayodhya issue was resolved. The verdict sought to reconcile the conflicting interests of the various stakeholders.

The verdict allotted the disputed site to the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust for the construction of a Ram temple, and directed the concerned government to allot an appropriate site for the construction of a mosque to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. In this way, democracy gave room for conflict resolution in a plural society, upholding the inclusive spirit of the Constitution. The issue was resolved following the due process of law based on evidence such as archaeological excavations and historical records. The Supreme Court's decision was widely welcomed. The Ram Mandir at Ayodhya was consecrated on 22 January 2024.

8.18 Memorise These Dates & Names — Part 2