On Gandhi Jayanti, October 2, the Vaikom Group in Delhi organised a program to commemorate the centenary of Vaikom Satyagraha, a significant event in Kerala's history. The highlight of the evening was a captivating theatrical presentation of this historical episode, which was both entertaining and educational.

Remarkably, the drama commenced with the lesser-known Dalavakulam episode. In 1806, the Dalavakulam massacre occurred when approximately 200 unarmed Ezhava men, leading a peaceful protest against untouchability and demanding the right to walk on public roads, were brutally killed by the Travancore Diwan Velu Thampi Dalava's Nair brigade. Their bodies were then disposed of in the temple's eastern pond.

Interestingly, today, the very pond where this tragic incident unfolded is used as a bus stand. While political leaders such as Shashi Tharoor write extensively about the tragic Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi eloquently addresses it, the Dalavakulam incident tends to be overlooked for political convenience.

Notably, the Travancore Maharaja failed to provide any compensation to the families of those who were laid to rest in the pond. In contrast, the British government paid substantial compensation, amounting to Rs 5000 for each person killed, during the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919 – a significant sum for that era. Unfortunately, this important contrast is conveniently disregarded.

There's an anecdotal story about India’s first foreign secretary KPS Menon meeting Winston S. Churchill. When Menon mentioned he was from Travancore, Churchill inquired, "Is Travancore in Vaikom?" Menon clarified that Vaikom is a part of Travancore. To smooth over the moment, Churchill humorously remarked, "The confusion arises when the son becomes more famous than the father."

This story, though possibly apocryphal, underscores the significance of the Vaikom Satyagraha, which was a pivotal event. Contrary to popular belief, the protest was not about gaining entry to the Shiva temple at the heart of Vaikom; rather, it sought permission to walk on the roads surrounding the temple.

There were five such roads -- two inside the temple compound and three outside it. Even on the outer roads, lower-caste individuals, including the predominant Ezhavas, were barred from walking. 

The agitation, led by the Congress, persisted for 603 days, eventually resulting in lower-caste people being granted the right to walk on the outermost two roads. Notably, figures such as Dravidian leader Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy (EVR) were among those arrested during this movement.

Mahatma Gandhi had reservations about fully supporting the satyagraha at Vaikom. He viewed it as a Hindu-centric issue that he believed should be resolved by Hindus themselves. He did not fully appreciate the secular nature of the agitation, which led to some controversial actions on his part.

For instance, he advised the Akalis to discontinue the langar (free kitchen) they had established at Vaikom. Additionally, Gandhi attempted to dissuade Barrister George Joseph, the KPCC chief, from participating in the movement.

When Gandhi's telegram arrived, denying Joseph's involvement, it was already too late, as the KPCC chief was already in jail. This experience left Joseph deeply disappointed, and he eventually withdrew from politics. 

Indeed, Mahatma Gandhi himself experienced humiliation at the hands of the Brahmin priest who had authority over the temple. Due to his low-caste Bania background, Gandhi was denied entry into the priest's house. 

The incident I've shared here highlights an important point -- caste practices were not introduced from elsewhere but were indigenous to India. If there was any influence, it was brought into the country by the Aryans who settled along the banks of the Indus.

I mention this to counter the theory propagated by some that casteism was introduced and exacerbated by the Mughals and the British. In the pre-Independence period, significant conversions to Islam and Christianity occurred in states like Kerala and Kashmir, both of which were under the rule of Hindu orthodoxy. 

In Travancore, the privileged castes were the Brahmins, and even the Nairs faced difficult conditions, as depicted in O. Chandu Menon's novel "Indulekha." The Brahmins held significant influence over the Nairs. Their men could marry any Nair woman but the children born out of such arrangement had no right even to touch the body of their “father”.

Back then, as it is now, the Ezhavas were the predominant community in Kerala. An example illustrates this point: A wealthy Ezhava individual, the first to own a car in Travancore after the Maharaja, faced discrimination when visiting a temple. 

Guards allowed the Nair driver to enter the temple compound in the car, while the owner was directed to take a longer route and enter through a rear gate for worship. 

A small minority held sway over the social, political, and economic systems during that period. It's true that the British were pioneers in implementing a formal census in the country. The practice of conducting censuses dates back to the time of Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem, where His parents went to be counted.

The most recent caste census took place in 1931. Following Independence, when equality became a foundational principle of the Constitution, such censuses were discontinued. Political leaders contended that caste censuses were a driving force behind caste-based discrimination. Figures like Sri Narayana Guru exhorted people: Don’t ask a person about his caste.

Alas, in successive elections since 1952, political parties fielded candidates based on the caste population in the constituency. A Yadav was fielded from a Yadav-majority constituency. So much so that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who considered himself first a Congressman then a Muslim, was fielded from a Muslim-dominant constituency. 

He would have been happier contesting from a Hindu-majority seat to prove the point that Pakistan was constituted on a fallacious ground. But in the end, he was treated as just a Muslim. 

How did politicians ascertain the population of different castes? They lacked scientific data and, instead, estimated the sizes of various castes using the 1931 census as a reference point. 

The belief that casteism would vanish upon abolishing caste census was misplaced. People could discern a person's caste through various means, such as their names or surnames; for example, ‘Kovind’ rather than ‘Govind’ was a clear indicator of Dalit identity.

The necessity for caste data became evident when Prime Minister V.P. Singh chose to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations. The report had been lying dormant in the Central Secretariat until he resurrected it and put it into action. Consequently, the Other Backward Classes, officially referred to as the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, were granted a 27% reservation in government jobs.

There was a lack of scientific data concerning the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Manmohan Singh government attempted to tackle this by commissioning a separate caste census, not directly integrated into the decennial census. Unfortunately, there were several shortcomings in the resulting report. The Narendra Modi government chose not to divulge the specifics of the report.

Against this backdrop, the Nitish Kumar-led government in Bihar initiated a caste survey. During that time, he was leading a government with the support of the BJP, and this survey garnered unanimous support from all political parties in the Assembly. It's worth noting that Prime Minister Modi cannot shy away from the survey’s paternity.

Kumar made a significant announcement on Gandhi Jayanti when he unveiled the report's findings. It revealed that the OBCs, including the Extremely Backward Classes, made up 63 percent of the population. Among these castes, the Yadavs stood out as the single largest group.

However, when examining the list of Congress chief ministers of Bihar, it becomes apparent that an overwhelming majority of them hailed from the Upper castes, which represent just 11 percent of the population. 

The crucial point to highlight is that political power hasn't shifted to the broader populace. Kanshi Ram, the founder of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), envisioned a future where the majority of people governed the country, and this majority wasn't limited to Hindus but included OBCs, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and more.

In Bihar, approximately 85 percent of the population qualifies for reservation, yet the Supreme Court has imposed a 50 percent cap on reservations. This limitation is likely to spark demands for an increase in the reservation percentage, along with other requests inspired by the findings of the report.

When the Mandal Commission report was put into action, the BJP aimed to counter it by advocating for the construction of a temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood. This move was an attempt to combat caste-based issues with communalism, and it achieved some success. 

Otherwise, an individual who identifies as a descendant of Lord Shiva, often referred to as a so-called Yogi, wouldn't have risen to the position of Chief Minister.

One immediate consequence of the survey report is the likelihood of similar demands for such surveys in other states. The initiation of the Bihar survey has not caused any catastrophic outcomes. Instead, it's likely to inspire calls for similar surveys elsewhere. 

In Bihar, political parties are now well-informed about the numerical strengths of various castes in different constituencies, aiding them in candidate selection.

The broader question is whether this selective fielding of candidates serves the state's best interests. Additionally, there will likely be increased demands for sub-categorisation within reservation. For instance, the most marginalised within the OBCs are more numerous. They may question why more advanced OBCs should receive the majority of reservation benefits.

Considering the political, economic, and educational disparities between groups like Yadavs and Telis, there may also be debates about who should receive the majority of reservation benefits. These are complex issues, difficult to address.

During his participation in the no-confidence motion against the Modi government, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi highlighted the stark fact that, out of 90 Joint Secretary-level officers in the Central government, only three hail from the OBCs. This is a glaring reality that cannot be ignored, and it is likely to spur further demands for increased OBC representation in the list of civil servants recruited by the UPSC.

It's widely acknowledged that the BJP government has faced criticism for its stance on reservation. However, due to electoral considerations, it refrains from openly opposing reservation policies. 

Nonetheless, there have been concerns about the government's commitment to implementing reservation effectively, as it has also been exploring avenues like lateral entry of experts at the Joint Secretary level, often carried out with minimal public attention.

In discussions about caste, a common argument put forth by those who benefit from the current system is that they oppose casteism. For example, the role of priests is predominantly reserved for a specific caste, although this isn't typically classified as reservation. Conversely, jobs as janitors and cleaners are often reserved for Dalits.

Another argument often raised is that reservation undermines merit. However, the reality is that in a state like Tamil Nadu, where reservation has a long history, there is minimal disparity in the performance benchmarks between the general and reserved categories.

Most of those who have looted banks and escaped the country are not from the reserved categories. In the nineties, the Press Information Bureau found that there was no journalist accredited to the government of India who belonged to a SC or ST category. Even OBCs were few and far between.

In the whole process the real sufferers are Christians and Muslims. Though they suffer from deprivations, except in Kerala and some Northeastern states, they are denied the benefits of reservation because theirs are egalitarian religions. They realise the fact that when more and more seats and jobs are reserved for the Hindus, they will have to compete with the privileged castes for a job or two. 

The revelation of caste statistics will shed light on how certain castes have monopolised benefits in the guise of merit and by fostering divisions among castes. The Bihar survey's impact is poised to reshape the political landscape in ways that may be hard to fully grasp. In essence, what Nitish Kumar unveiled is indeed a game-changer! 

ajphilip@gmail.com