Backward Classes and Dalit Movements

The Dalit movement in India is a historic struggle against entrenched systems of caste-based exploitation, discrimination, and humiliation, especially by the upper castes—most notably the Brahmins. Rooted in centuries of social exclusion and economic marginalization, the Dalit movement emerged as a protest aimed at transforming the socio-political status of Dalits. It was a direct challenge to the practices of untouchability, ritual purity-pollution, and the deeply embedded Brahminical hegemony that legitimized Dalit oppression through religion, custom, and tradition. The movement rejected the imposed isolation and social fragmentation of Dalits, asserting their rights to equality, dignity, and human development.

The evolution of the Dalit movement was significantly influenced by the arrival of modern political, administrative, and economic structures during British colonial rule. The introduction of a new polity emphasized liberty, equality, and justice—values antithetical to the traditional caste order. The judicial system introduced formal legal equality, offering Dalits a means to seek justice outside the customary Brahminical codes. Land tenure reforms and new taxation policies disrupted caste-based control over agrarian resources. Moreover, expanding trade and improved communication networks spread democratic and egalitarian ideals across social groups. The liberal education system, in particular, became a powerful tool to challenge the epistemological foundations of caste prejudice and ignited new aspirations among Dalits.

One of the key sociological interpreters of the Dalit movement, Ruman Sutradhar, considers it a social revolution. According to him, the movement goes beyond a mere political demand—it seeks to reconstruct Indian society on the principles of liberty, equality, and justice. However, Sutradhar also emphasizes that despite these efforts, Dalits continue to experience systemic oppression because Brahmanism is not merely a belief system but a hegemonic social order. Drawing on Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, Sutradhar argues that institutions such as schools, temples, and even state machinery subtly reproduce caste hierarchies, making the struggle for Dalit liberation an ongoing and unfinished project.

The achievements of the Dalit movement are significant and multifaceted. One of its most profound impacts has been the transformation of the caste structure in India. Although caste has not disappeared, its rigid boundaries have been challenged and blurred. The movement helped establish the idea of self-dignity and collective identity among Dalits, replacing the internalized shame of untouchability with pride in resistance and resilience. Perhaps its most concrete institutional achievement has been the establishment of the reservation system in education, employment, and political representation, which continues to serve as a mechanism of affirmative action for marginalized castes.

Understanding the Dalit movement also requires an exploration of the term “Dalit” itself. Derived from the Sanskrit root Dal, meaning “ground, suppressed, or broken,” the term conveys the historical experiences of oppression. It was first used by Jyotiba Phule, a 19th-century social reformer and founder of the Satya Shodhak Samaj, in reference to outcastes and untouchables. Later, biblical scholar Victor Premasagar interpreted “Dalit” as symbolizing the collective experiences of weakness, poverty, and humiliation inflicted by upper castes. Over time, various terms have been used to label this community—Depressed Classes during British rule (1919), Harijan by Mahatma Gandhi (later rejected by Dalits themselves), Scheduled Castes under the 1935 Government of India Act, and finally a reassertion of “Dalit” by the radical Dalit Panther movement in the 1970s, which infused the term with political agency and resistance.

In the traditional Varna system, Dalits were placed outside the four-fold hierarchy and were categorized as the “Panchama Varna.” They were assigned polluting occupations such as leatherwork, cleaning human waste, and disposing of dead bodies. This social role was enforced by strict codes of exclusion—they were denied access to temples, roads, schools, and other public facilities to “prevent pollution” of upper castes. These discriminatory practices institutionalized caste-based dehumanization for centuries.

As per Census 2011, Dalits—officially termed Scheduled Castes—constitute approximately 16.6% of India’s population. They are concentrated in several states including Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Odisha, and Maharashtra. In rural areas, Dalits often work as landless labourers, sharecroppers, or poor peasants. In urban areas, they make up a significant proportion of the manual labour force, often engaging in sanitation, construction, and other low-paying jobs. This economic role reinforces their caste status, making them both socially marginalized and economically disadvantaged—a phenomenon described as dual discrimination.

The introduction of protective discrimination policies, particularly post-Independence, created some pathways for Dalits to break through the cycle of deprivation. Reservation policies in education and employment opened access to new opportunities. Over time, this gave rise to a small but visible Dalit middle class, consisting of professionals, bureaucrats, and academics. Sociologist D.L. Sheth observes that the middle class, once exclusively composed of upper castes, now includes sections of Dalits who benefited from state-led affirmative action. However, this group remains numerically small and often distanced from the grassroots struggles of the wider Dalit population.

Political Mobilization of Dalits in Pre-Independence India: A Sociological Analysis

The political mobilization of Dalits in the pre-Independence period was a long, complex, and multifaceted struggle rooted in centuries of caste oppression. While Dalits were historically excluded from mainstream political and social processes, various religious, reformist, and regional movements slowly laid the foundation for their awakening and assertion. The process evolved from spiritual equality to organized resistance aimed at political representation and structural transformation. This essay traces the key phases of Dalit political mobilization before 1947, highlighting both the ideological shifts and organizational strategies that shaped the Dalit movement.

One of the earliest indirect sources of political consciousness among Dalits was the Bhakti Movement, which began in the 15th century. At its core, the Bhakti tradition emphasized spiritual equality and devotion to a personal god, irrespective of caste or gender. Saints like Kabir, Ravidas, and Chokhamela voiced resistance to Brahminical orthodoxy and opened a discursive space where Dalits could claim spiritual dignity. However, despite its inclusive ethos, most Bhakti leaders did not explicitly reject the Varna system. As noted by anthropologist C.J. Fuller, the devotional ethic was later reinterpreted by marginalized groups as a “charter of egalitarianism,” giving hope for salvation and social dignity even to the oppressed. While the Bhakti movement was not political in the modern sense, it created a cultural and psychological base for future Dalit assertion.

The Neo-Vedantic Reform Movements of the 19th century, particularly the Arya Samaj founded by Dayanand Saraswati, took a more critical approach toward caste discrimination. These reformers denied that untouchability had any theological basis in Hinduism and saw caste not as divine will but as a historical and political institution. Though aimed at Hindu reform, these movements had contradictory effects: while they brought upper-caste support to anti-untouchability initiatives, they also triggered sharper Dalit consciousness in some regions, where Dalits began distancing themselves from Hinduism altogether. In many cases, the realization that caste could not be reformed from within led to more radical and separatist strands of Dalit politics later.

A more direct form of political mobilization came through the Non-Brahmin Movements, particularly in western and southern India. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, a social reformer from Maharashtra, founded the Satya Shodhak Mandal in 1873 to liberate non-Brahmins from the religious, educational, and political monopoly of the Brahmins. Phule’s pioneering work laid the foundation for a broad anti-caste coalition, which was continued by Shahu Maharaj of Kolhapur, a progressive king who revived the Mandal in 1912 and introduced reservations in education and jobs. These leaders framed caste as a system of inequality that needed to be dismantled through state intervention and grassroots mobilization. For the first time, Dalits were seen not just as victims but as agents of transformation.

Simultaneously, Dalit communities in various parts of India undertook Sanskritisation as a strategy to improve their social standing. Inspired by the theory of emulating upper-caste practices to gain respectability, Dalit leaders and communities adopted symbols of higher castes—such as vegetarianism, sacred threads, and religious rituals. Leaders like Swami Thykkad in Kerala, Pandi Sunder Lai Sagar in Uttar Pradesh, Muldas Vaishya in Gujarat, and Moon Vithoba Raoji Pande in Maharashtra exemplified this trend. While some scholars view Sanskritisation as a form of internalized hierarchy, others interpret it as a tactical move to claim equality in a stratified society. It was a form of “status politics” meant to challenge caste subordination within the Hindu fold.

The 1920s marked a significant shift from cultural resistance to organized Dalit political movements across different regions. In Punjab, the Adi-Dharm Movement (1926) emphasized spiritual and cultural autonomy. In Maharashtra, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar mobilized the Mahars through the Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha (1924), demanding educational and civic rights. Bengal witnessed the Namashudra Movement, while Tamil Nadu saw the rise of the Adi-Dravida Movement. In Karnataka, the Adi-Karnataka Movement emerged, and in Kanpur, the Adi-Hindu Movement took shape. In Kerala, communities like the Pulayas and Cherumans organized themselves for rights and dignity. These movements emphasized identity, self-respect, and representation, laying the foundation for a pan-Indian Dalit political consciousness.

Mahatma Gandhi’s role in the upliftment of Dalits was both influential and controversial. He denounced untouchability as inhuman and spiritually immoral, famously asking, “If we are the children of the same God, how can there be any rank among us?” While imprisoned in 1932, Gandhi established the Harijan Sevak Sangh to promote the social upliftment of Dalits, whom he called Harijans (children of God). His moral appeal helped bring national attention to the issue, but his paternalistic tone and refusal to support separate electorates for Dalits put him at odds with Ambedkar, who argued for political power and autonomy rather than mere social goodwill.

A critical insight that emerged during this phase was the necessity for Dalits to acquire political power as a precondition for meaningful social change. Leaders like Phule and Ambedkar believed that the caste system could not be dismantled through appeals to morality or religious reform alone—it required institutional and structural transformation. Ambedkar’s advocacy for separate electorates and later, for the annihilation of caste, was rooted in the belief that Dalits needed control over their own political representation, education, and resources. This marked a decisive departure from earlier, more conciliatory approaches to caste reform.

Ambedkar’s Contributions and the Evolution of Dalit Political Mobilization

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, a towering figure in modern Indian history, played a seminal role in shaping the political and social consciousness of Dalits before and after India’s independence. His multifaceted contributions spanned activism, political organization, intellectual critique, and mass mobilization. Ambedkar’s work fundamentally challenged the entrenched caste system and sought to secure social equality and political rights for the oppressed Scheduled Castes. This essay traces the key dimensions of Ambedkar’s contributions and the subsequent developments in Dalit political movements.

Ambedkar’s activism began in the 1920s with the launch of several publications aimed at raising Dalit awareness and social equality. Bahiskrit Bharat (1927), a Marathi fortnightly, and Janta (weekly from November 1927) served as platforms for voicing Dalit grievances. The Samaj Samta Sang (1927) was especially significant as it explicitly demanded social equality between untouchables and caste Hindus, challenging the prevailing social hierarchy. These publications were instrumental in spreading Dalit consciousness and critiquing Brahminical dominance.

Ambedkar’s direct action campaigns further cemented his leadership. The Mahad Satyagraha of 1927 was a landmark protest asserting Dalits’ right to draw water from the public tank in Mahad (Chavadar Talen). Despite facing severe opposition, Ambedkar’s legal struggle culminated in a 1937 Bombay High Court victory, affirming Dalits’ right to public resources. Similarly, in 1930, Ambedkar led the Temple Entry Movement at the Kalaram Temple in Nasik, demanding Dalit access to places of worship, a radical challenge to religious and social exclusion.

Politically, Ambedkar institutionalized Dalit representation by founding the Scheduled Castes Federation (SCF) in 1942, marking the first national-level organization dedicated to Dalit interests. As a member of the Governor General’s Executive Council between 1942 and 1946, Ambedkar championed the welfare of Dalits and scheduled tribes, securing education funds and reservations in government posts. His writings, notably Annihilation of Caste and Riddles of Hinduism, were critical intellectual interventions that exposed caste as a system upheld by religion and tradition to perpetuate upper-caste dominance. Ambedkar’s sharp critique emphasized that superficial social reforms served more to retain power than to bring genuine equality.

The broader Dalit literary movement also grew from this foundation, with early pioneers like Baburao Bagul expressing Dalit struggles in Marathi literature. Bagul’s Jevha Mijat Chorali (1963) provided a raw narrative of Dalit exploitation. Later, Namdeo Dhasal, founder of the Dalit Panthers (1972), expanded Dalit literature and activism, channeling Ambedkarite philosophy into a more radical, militant form inspired by the African American Black Panther movement.

After independence, Dalit political mobilization faced new challenges. The All India Scheduled Castes Federation (AISCF), despite Ambedkar’s efforts, suffered electoral defeats in 1946 and 1951, leading to calls for a stronger political platform. Post-Ambedkar, the Republican Party of India (RPI) was founded in 1957, adopting constitutional and parliamentary methods to pursue Dalit empowerment. The RPI’s base was largely concentrated in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, with key leaders winning parliamentary seats. The party organized agitations for land redistribution in the late 1950s and mid-1960s, reflecting its commitment to economic justice alongside social equality.

Ambedkar’s strategic break from Hinduism culminated in his historic conversion to Buddhism in 1956, along with half a million followers, symbolizing a decisive rejection of the caste system rooted in Hindu social order. This mass conversion, preceded by the formation of the Bharatiya Bauddha Mahasabha (1955), represented both a religious and political act of emancipation.

Economic justice was another core concern for Ambedkar. He emphasized the economic deprivation of Dalits and other marginalized groups and called for protective measures against exploitation. This economic perspective complemented his social and political activism, emphasizing a holistic framework for Dalit upliftment.

In the 1970s, the Dalit Panthers movement emerged as a militant offshoot of Ambedkarite activism. Founded by Namdeo Dhasal and J.V. Pawar, it adopted revolutionary tactics and proletarian identity politics, linking Dalit struggles with global oppressed movements. Despite its energetic activism, the movement struggled due to lack of a cohesive ideology and organizational coherence.

Dalit political parties of the time faced internal weaknesses. Their reliance on specific caste groups, like the Mahars in Maharashtra and Chamars in Uttar Pradesh, alienated other Dalit communities. Fragmentation was aggravated by disputes over alliances with mainstream parties and organizational deficiencies, limiting their broader political appeal and effectiveness.

A transformative chapter in Dalit politics began with the rise of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), founded by Kanshi Ram in 1984. Rooted in the organizational groundwork of BAMCEF and the Dalit Shoshit Sangharsh Samaj Samiti (DS4), the BSP united Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and religious minorities under the “Bahujan” identity. This inclusive category enabled a wider social coalition that propelled the BSP to electoral success, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, where it formed governments through strategic alliances.

Under the leadership of Mayawati, the BSP focused explicitly on social transformation through political power. Drawing on Ambedkar’s legacy, the party aimed to dismantle the caste system by gaining state power, a strategy endorsed by scholars like Gail Omvedt. The BSP’s rise represents the culmination of Ambedkarite political mobilization, emphasizing political representation as the key to ending caste oppression.

Dalit Women's Movement

The Dalit Women’s Movement represents a crucial chapter in the broader struggle against caste-based and gender oppression in India. Its origins can be traced back to 1928 when the Women’s Association in Bombay was founded with Ramabai Ambedkar, wife of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as its president. This early organization laid the groundwork for addressing Dalit women’s concerns within the larger Dalit movement. A major milestone came in 1942 with the All India Depressed Classes Women Conference, which gathered 25,000 women and emphasized a collective identity for women of all castes under the Dalit banner, highlighting the shared experiences of oppression across caste divisions.

The movement gained renewed vigor in the 1990s, with the formation of the National Federation of Dalit Women (NFDW) by Ruth Manorama in 1993. The NFDW notably compelled mainstream women’s movements in India to seriously confront caste issues, particularly the rampant violence faced by Dalit women. Two years later, the Dalit Mahila Sanghatana was established in Maharashtra, aiming to amplify Dalit women’s voices internationally, such as at the 1995 International Women’s Conference in Beijing. Throughout this history, figures like Ramabai Ambedkar, Anjinibai Deshbhratar, Gitabai Gaikwad, Kirtibai Patil, and Sulochanabai Dongre played vital roles in advocating for Dalit women’s rights and empowerment.

Dalit women experience a triple burden of oppression: caste-based discrimination, economic exploitation due to their class status, and patriarchal gender oppression within both Dalit and broader society. This intersectional marginalization severely limits their social mobility and access to cultural capital, reinforcing their vulnerability. The current goals of the Dalit Women’s Movement focus on transforming local caste dynamics, empowering Dalit women by addressing their specific intersectional struggles, and raising awareness about the urgent need for caste-based reforms that uplift Dalit women socially, economically, and politically.

Overall, the Dalit Women’s Movement is an essential force working to dismantle layered systems of discrimination and empower one of India’s most marginalized groups, highlighting the importance of intersectionality within social justice movements.

Reasons for Dalit Consciousness

Scholars have analyzed the evolution of Dalit consciousness from multiple perspectives. S.C. Dube (1958) observed that Dalit consciousness has shifted from outright opposition to Brahmanism and Hindu values toward a modern quest for rights, justice, and equality. Early mobilizations in the 1920s to 1950s focused on symbolic acts like forcibly entering temples, burning Manusmriti copies, rejecting Brahmin priests, and producing Dalit literature. Today, the emphasis is less on rebellion and more on seeking legal and social recognition within modern India.

Andre Beteille (1969, 1991) highlighted that Dalit mobilization has become politically oriented, moving beyond cultural discrimination alone. He pointed to occupational liberty, constitutional protections against untouchability, and social change driven by improved communication and transportation as key factors reducing caste-based discrimination. Gail Omvedt (1999) stressed the multidimensional nature of Dalit mobilization, involving economic discrimination, cultural isolation, and alienation from decision-making, noting the historical significance of Ambedkar’s leadership and the Republican Justice Party.

M.S.A. Rao (1979) drew parallels between the Dalit movement and the American Black civil rights movement, suggesting global influences shaped Dalit ideology. Yogendra Singh equated Dalit consciousness with class consciousness, arguing that Dalit mobilization exemplifies how modernization challenges and weakens the caste hierarchy by emphasizing equality and social justice.

Dalit Movements and Ideologies

Ghanshyam Shah classifies Dalit movements into reformative and alternative categories. Reformative movements seek change within the caste system, combating untouchability through social reforms. Alternative movements aim to build new socio-cultural structures, often involving religious conversion (notably to Buddhism), education, economic empowerment, and political participation. Both streams commonly use political engagement as a strategy for empowerment.

Post-independence, four ideological platforms have influenced Dalit politics:

1. Gandhian Ideology aimed at integrating Dalits into Hindu society, reflected in Gandhi’s term “Harijan” and support for temple entry. However, many Dalits rejected this as assimilation rather than empowerment.

2. Hindutva Ideology sought to incorporate Dalits into mainstream Hinduism but faced limited acceptance among Dalits due to ideological conflicts and unmet needs.

3. Communist Ideology united Dalits with Left-wing groups, emphasizing state intervention and class struggle to fight caste and economic oppression, attracting support particularly among younger Dalits and tribal groups.

4. Ambedkarite Ideology centers on political empowerment and assertion of Dalit identity, with the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) as its most successful embodiment. The BSP’s rise in Uttar Pradesh marked a significant political breakthrough rooted in Ambedkar’s vision.

Together, these ideological currents continue to shape the trajectory of Dalit movements, balancing reform, identity assertion, and political empowerment to combat centuries of caste-based oppression.

Backward Class Movements in India

The Backward Class Movements in India have developed within a complex socio-political framework, shaped by the diverse and often ambiguous nature of caste identities positioned below the upper castes. Marc Galanter, in his influential book Competing Equalities, points out that the concept of Backward Classes remains vague and loosely defined, complicating political strategies aimed at addressing their issues effectively. These backward classes occupy an intermediate position in the caste hierarchy, situated above the Scheduled Castes (SCs) but below the upper castes. Sociologically, they include primarily cultivating castes engaged in agriculture as well as artisan and service castes who provide skilled labor, such as blacksmiths, carpenters, and barbers.

A significant category within this group is the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), which refers to all backward castes distinct from SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The OBCs form a substantial segment of India’s caste-based social order. Among them, the dominant or intermediary OBCs—primarily agriculturists, traders, and landowners—hold considerable political and economic influence at the village level. These dominant backward castes vary regionally: in North India, prominent groups include Yadavs, Kurmies, Koeris, Gujjars, and Jats; in South India, key OBCs include Kappus, Kammas, Reddies, Vokkaliggas, Lingayats, and Mudliars; while in Western India, Patels, Kolis, Kshatriyas, and Marathas are influential.

In contrast, the Most Backward Classes (MBCs) represent those castes within the backward category that are more socially and economically disadvantaged compared to the dominant OBCs. These often include service castes and artisans such as carpenters, blacksmiths, barbers, and water carriers. Despite their crucial role in providing essential services, the MBCs have remained largely excluded from political empowerment and economic progress. Historically, they were integrated into the jajmani system, a traditional arrangement of reciprocal interdependence where service castes offered labor and services in exchange for food and protection from higher castes, reinforcing social hierarchies and limiting upward mobility.

Politically, the backward class movements have been largely driven by the upper backward or intermediate castes who possess greater economic resources and social influence, allowing them to dominate rural politics. Conversely, the MBCs have been marginalized and overshadowed within the broader backward class category, their concerns often neglected. This internal hierarchy presents a significant challenge for backward class movements, which must balance addressing disparities within their own ranks while collectively striving for social justice and equality in a stratified society.

OBCs: Educational and Social Backwardness vs. Economic and Political Status

The Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in India represent a complex and heterogeneous group marked by varied social, educational, economic, and political conditions. While OBCs are often broadly categorized as educationally and socially backward, this characterization masks significant internal differences, especially in terms of economic power and political influence. Many OBC communities suffer from social exclusion and limited educational access, which hinder their social mobility. However, some dominant castes within the OBC category, such as Jats, Gujjars, and Marathas, have historically held considerable economic strength due to their status as landowners and agriculturists. This agrarian dominance has allowed these groups to wield political influence, particularly in rural areas, distinguishing them from the more marginalized artisan and service castes, who have traditionally faced economic exploitation and social marginalization.

The agrarian history of the OBCs reveals important internal distinctions. Transitional castes like the Jats, who are classified as OBCs, were not socially inferior in the rural caste hierarchy; rather, they were independent peasant-proprietors with significant autonomy. Their social and political power was maintained through traditional caste councils, such as the khap system, which governed local affairs. This independence contrasted sharply with other OBC groups, especially service castes and artisans, who were often dependent on absentee landlords, subject to exploitation, and lacked land ownership. This disparity led to differing economic statuses within the OBCs, with independent agriculturalists enjoying greater economic and political autonomy.

Despite these economic differences, many OBCs continue to face educational disadvantages. Limited access to quality education, social discrimination, and exclusion from mainstream institutions contribute to their lower educational attainment. Service castes and artisans, in particular, remain vulnerable to social ostracism, even if some OBC groups possess economic power. This social exclusion complicates their ability to advance economically and socially, reinforcing caste-based stratifications.

Politically, the OBCs have become an important force in recent decades, with many political parties mobilizing these groups for electoral gains. Yet, the internal diversity of the OBCs complicates efforts to form a unified political front. Dominant castes like the Jats and Marathas have leveraged their economic strength for political power, while less influential groups, including many artisans and service castes, struggle for representation and political voice. Thus, political power within the OBCs does not always correlate with economic or social status, leading to uneven political empowerment across the community.

The socio-economic conditions of backward classes have also been shaped by state policies, especially land reforms and welfare initiatives. The abolition of landlordism, land ceiling laws, and consolidation of landholdings have empowered many backward class tenants to become landowners, enhancing their economic and political standing. The Green Revolution further affected these groups differently: upper backward classes benefitted as self-cultivators adopting modern farming techniques, while lower backward classes often became wage laborers or migrated to urban areas for employment.

This internal differentiation within the backward classes has resulted in a widening divide. The upper backward and intermediary castes have increasingly controlled village affairs and local institutions, while the artisan and service castes remain marginalized, often joining the ranks of poor farmers and wage laborers. Amidst this stratification, a small but emerging educated middle class among the OBCs has taken on the role of community spokespersons, advocating for rights and representation. Leaders like Charan Singh and Chaudhry Brahm Prakash symbolize this political awakening, although their numbers remain limited compared to middle classes in higher castes.

Finally, despite the economic and educational disparities among OBC groups, the upper backward and intermediary castes have often united politically to form a cohesive front. This political unification has allowed them to enhance their influence at regional and national levels, shaping the contours of India’s caste-based politics. However, challenges persist in ensuring that the less privileged sections of the OBCs receive equitable opportunities for social, economic, and political advancement.

Major Backward Class Movement

The history of backward class movements in India is marked by a long struggle for social justice, educational empowerment, and political recognition. The mobilization of backward classes began as early as the late 19th century, with significant activity in regions like the Madras Presidency in 1872, Mysore in 1918, and Bombay Presidency in 1925. These movements sought to address the historical discrimination faced by these communities and to demand greater access to education, social equality, and political rights. Organizations such as the United Provinces Hindu Backward Classes League and the All-India Backward Classes Federation played pioneering roles in organizing and voicing the concerns of backward classes during the colonial period.

One of the earliest and most influential reform movements was the Satya Shodhak Samaj, founded by Mahatma Jotiba Phule in 1873. Phule’s movement was revolutionary in its critique of the Brahminical caste hierarchy and its emphasis on liberating the Shudras and Ati-Shudras from religious and social oppression. He challenged orthodox Hindu practices and advocated for rationality, equality, and education as means for emancipation. Phule’s work laid the ideological foundation for later social reformers and political leaders who continued to fight for the rights of marginalized communities. His commitment to education and social welfare, especially for women and lower castes, was groundbreaking, and his influence extended to leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Following this, the efforts of Shahu Maharaj, the Maharaja of Kolhapur, further advanced backward class empowerment by instituting affirmative action policies in the early 20th century. He actively challenged Brahmin dominance by promoting education and employment reforms, including free primary education and reservation in government jobs for backward classes. These measures helped institutionalize social justice within the framework of state governance, serving as a model for subsequent affirmative action policies across India.

In Kerala, the Shri Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) movement led by Sri Narayana Guru offered another powerful example of social reform aimed at dismantling caste discrimination. Narayana Guru’s philosophy of social and spiritual equality sought to uplift oppressed castes through the establishment of temples and religious institutions accessible to all, fostering a sense of community and resistance against untouchability. The SNDP movement expanded beyond Kerala, influencing other marginalized groups and contributing to significant socio-political changes in the region.

The Self-Respect Movement, founded by E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker (Periyar) in 1925, emerged as a radical force in Tamil Nadu, directly challenging Brahminical social order and religious orthodoxy. Periyar’s emphasis on rationalism, gender equality, and the abolition of caste-based discrimination manifested in reforms such as self-respect marriages, which rejected Brahmin priestly authority and promoted inter-caste unions. The movement also evolved into a political campaign for Dravidian identity and autonomy, leading to the formation of the Dravida Kazhagam and later the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which have been central to Tamil Nadu politics and the empowerment of non-Brahmin communities.

Sociologist M.N. Srinivas noted that the Non-Brahman movements of the 20th century differed from earlier caste-based mobilizations in their ideological intensity and scale, influenced heavily by Western ideas of equality, liberalism, and anti-colonialism. These movements asserted the equal worth of non-Brahmin communities, challenging traditional hierarchies and demanding equitable access to education, government jobs, and social mobility. This marked a significant shift from localized social reform efforts to more organized and politically charged movements that sought to reshape Indian society.

Together, these movements illustrate the multifaceted and evolving struggle of backward classes in India, blending social reform, political activism, and cultural assertion to confront centuries of caste-based oppression and exclusion. They have collectively contributed to the gradual transformation of Indian society by expanding the rights and opportunities of historically marginalized communities.

The Politics of Backward Classes and Reservation

The politics of backward classes in India, particularly the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), is a significant chapter in the country’s socio-political history. Their empowerment has reshaped electoral politics, caste relations, and policy-making, especially through the mechanism of reservations in education and employment. This essay explores the historical evolution of backward class politics, the role of reservation policies, regional variations between North and South India, current relevance, and the inherent challenges faced by these movements.

Empowerment of Backward Classes (OBCs)

The growing political participation of OBCs in state legislatures and Parliament reflects their increasing empowerment. This rise is closely linked to caste-based mobilisation and the establishment of political bases that represent backward caste interests. As early as the 1930s, in Bihar, backward castes such as the Yadavs, Kurmies, and Koeries organised themselves through the Treveni Sangh to contest the dominance of upper castes like Brahmins, Bhumihars, and Rajputs in electoral politics. Similarly, peasant alliances in Haryana and Punjab, involving Ahirs, Jats, Gujjars, and Rajputs under leaders like Chotu Ram and Charan Singh, challenged entrenched high-caste hegemony.

In the post-Independence period, backward caste political parties like the Janata Dal and the Samajwadi Party emerged prominently in states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The 1990s marked a turning point, with the 1995 Bihar assembly elections exemplifying the political maturity of backward castes—Yadavs predominantly backed Janata Dal, while Kurmies and Koeries supported the Samata Party. This polarisation demonstrated an evolved political consciousness within OBC communities, as noted by political analysts such as Sanjay Kumar.

Political Influence and Backward Caste Parties

The political relevance of backward classes extends beyond mere vote banks to their increasing leadership roles within mainstream politics. Leaders such as Charan Singh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Lalu Prasad Yadav have built parties grounded in backward caste interests. Scholars like Sanjay Kumar and Ghanshyam Shah highlight that in states like Gujarat, OBC support for parties such as the BJP reflects political pragmatism rather than a wholesale endorsement of Brahminical dominance. Moreover, leaders like Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia championed the backward classes early on through socialist ideologies aimed at their empowerment, contributing to their greater presence in the political mainstream.

The Mandal Commission and Its Recommendations

A landmark in backward class politics was the establishment of the Mandal Commission in 1979 under B.P. Mandal. The commission identified over 3,200 castes as OBCs, comprising around 52.4% of India’s population, and recommended 27% reservations in government jobs for them. While initially resisted and legally challenged, the implementation of the Mandal recommendations in the 1990s triggered widespread political and social upheaval. The Mandal Commission built upon earlier efforts such as the Kaka Kalekar Commission’s report, but its acceptance marked a watershed in recognizing caste-based affirmative action. Despite the progress, debates on the scope and nature of reservations continue, as newer communities seek OBC status and the politics of identity remains highly fluid.

North vs South India: Comparison of Backward Class Movements

The trajectory of backward class mobilisation reveals stark regional contrasts between North and South India. South India witnessed earlier and more institutionalised mobilisation, beginning in the early 20th century. States like Mysore introduced reservations as early as 1921, breaking Brahminical monopolies in government jobs. This was accompanied by a broader social reform movement that emphasized political empowerment alongside caste-based affirmative action.

Scholars such as Christophe Jaffrelot explain that in South India, backward castes engaged in "ethnicisation," creating distinct identities and directly challenging Brahmin dominance, in contrast to the "Sanskritisation" seen in North India, where lower castes adopted upper-caste customs to elevate their social status. The Brahmin population in the South, though smaller, held disproportionate social power, intensifying the caste conflict.

Reservation policies also followed different timelines: Southern states implemented and institutionalised reservations earlier, while Northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar only began adopting OBC reservations in the 1970s. Additionally, the persistence of semi-feudal land relations in the North hindered backward caste mobilisation, unlike in the South where social mobility was relatively greater. Organisationally, South Indian backward classes built stronger political structures, whereas North India’s OBC movement remains fragmented despite leadership from certain dominant castes.

Present Relevance of Backward Class Movements

Today, backward class movements remain vital but have shifted in character. According to scholars like Manvendra Singh, these movements now primarily aim at political power acquisition. While many backward caste groups have legislative presence, they often lack bureaucratic control and thus demand greater influence over governance and policy. Economic distress due to stagnation in agriculture, historically the primary occupation of many backward classes, has intensified demands for education and job reservations.

Contemporary protests range from violent agitations like the Jat movement in Haryana and Patidar protests in Gujarat, to silent demonstrations such as the Maratha ‘Mook Morchas’ in Maharashtra. These movements directly challenge political elites, leveraging electoral influence to press demands. There is also a trend towards broader alliances with Dalits, Scheduled Tribes, and minorities, aiming for larger political coalitions.

Electoral politics heavily shape reservation policies, sometimes leading governments to bend constitutional limits to secure caste-based vote banks. A notable example is the 2021 Supreme Court striking down the Maratha reservation for breaching the 50% cap on quotas, underscoring the constitutional complexity of reservation politics.

Weaknesses of Backward Class Movements

Despite their achievements, backward class movements suffer from internal divisions and limitations. They often fail to unify all backward sections, with Most Backward Classes (MBCs) feeling marginalized. For example, during the Maratha agitation, poorer Marathas participated less in the silent marches. Scholar Sri Rupa Banerjee notes that caste movements frequently lack comprehensive inclusivity within their own groups.

Sectarianism further weakens these movements, as protests tend to serve the narrow interests of specific castes rather than promoting broader social justice. The Jats in Haryana and Patidars in Gujarat primarily agitated for their own community benefits, limiting wider solidarity.

Additionally, dynastic politics has undermined the democratic vitality of many backward caste-based parties such as the Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party, and Rashtriya Janata Dal. Leadership often remains confined to family networks, reducing grassroots participation and diluting the original spirit of empowerment.