Amit Shah's fiery speech in the Rajya Sabha on December 18, 2024, stirred up the political climate, bringing the Kalelkar Commission report back into the limelight and accusing the Congress party of being “anti-reservation.” The Home Minister’s remarks centered on the argument that the Congress party had deliberately ignored the Kalelkar Commission’s findings, which had significant implications for backward classes in India. Shah's speech was part of a larger debate on the Constitution, but his references to the Kalelkar Commission carried deeper political undertones as he sought to draw a distinction between the BJP’s stance on reservations and the Congress’s historical record. Shah’s claim was that the Congress’s actions contradicted its current rhetoric on reservations, especially in light of their performance during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, where caste-based issues were central to political discourse.
The Kalelkar Commission, officially known as India's First Backward Classes Commission, was established in 1953 by President Rajendra Prasad under the chairmanship of Kaka Saheb Kalelkar. The commission was tasked with identifying socially and educationally backward classes and recommending policies for their upliftment. The report, which was submitted in March 1955, is of critical importance in the history of India's affirmative action policies. It proposed a radical system of caste-based reservations, recommending 70% of seats in higher education institutions for backward classes, as well as reservations in government jobs. The Kalelkar Commission also proposed that all women be categorized as backward, thus extending affirmative action measures to them as well. These recommendations aimed at addressing the deep socio-economic disparities within Indian society, which were largely defined by caste.
Shah's allegations, however, focused on the fact that, despite the importance of these findings, the Kalelkar Commission’s recommendations were rejected by the government in 1961, primarily due to disagreements within the commission itself. Shah pointed to this rejection as evidence of Congress’s historic reluctance to implement such progressive recommendations. He further claimed that if the Kalelkar Commission’s findings had been accepted, there would have been no need for the Mandal Commission, which brought caste-based reservations to the forefront of Indian politics nearly three decades later.
The Mandal Commission, established in 1979 under the Janata Party government, aimed to address the social and educational backwardness of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The commission's report, which was implemented by the Janata Dal government in 1990 under Prime Minister V.P. Singh, recommended providing 27% reservations in government jobs and educational institutions for OBCs. Shah's argument was that the Mandal Commission's 27% reservation could have been implemented much earlier, had the Congress accepted the recommendations of the Kalelkar Commission in the 1950s. By invoking the Kalelkar Commission's findings, Shah sought to frame the Congress as being inconsistent with its claims of championing social justice for backward classes.
The Congress, which had long been seen as the party advocating for affirmative action, was accused by Shah of failing to prioritize the upliftment of backward classes when the opportunity arose in the 1950s. He pointed to the fact that despite the detailed and far-reaching recommendations of the Kalelkar Commission, the report languished in obscurity, not even finding a place in the formal parliamentary records. Shah criticized the Congress for its failure to bring the report to Parliament, arguing that the commission’s findings were intentionally sidelined because they would have provided reservations for OBCs much earlier. This, according to Shah, was evidence of Congress’s real stance on reservation policies, which was in stark contrast to their public statements.
The rejection of the Kalelkar Commission's findings was rooted in several factors. Kalelkar himself had expressed reservations about the commission’s conclusions. While he acknowledged the need for affirmative action, he also worried about the implications of using caste as the sole basis for determining backwardness. In his correspondence with the president in 1955, Kalelkar warned that caste-based remedies could have harmful effects, particularly for Muslim and Christian communities. He feared that such a system could deepen existing social divisions. Kalelkar believed that backwardness should be determined by broader socio-economic criteria, rather than caste alone, a perspective that was not fully embraced by the government of the time.
The government’s criticism of the report in 1961 further underscored the political and social complexity surrounding reservations. The memorandum laid before Parliament argued that the Kalelkar Commission had failed to establish an objective, workable definition of backwardness. The memorandum also criticized the commission for relying heavily on caste as the primary measure of backwardness, while overlooking economic and social indicators that could have provided a more nuanced approach. As a result, the Nehru-led government decided against adopting the recommendations and instead delegated the task of identifying backward communities to the states, encouraging them to use economic criteria in their assessments.
This failure to implement the Kalelkar Commission’s report marked a crucial turning point in India’s reservation policy, leading to the eventual creation of the Mandal Commission more than two decades later. Despite the rejection of the Kalelkar Commission's findings, its recommendations laid the groundwork for future discussions on caste-based reservations. The debate over the Kalelkar report was not only about its recommendations but also about the broader issue of social justice, equity, and the political dynamics that shaped India's affirmative action policies.
Shah’s reference to the Kalelkar Commission in the Rajya Sabha debate was a reminder of how political narratives around caste and reservations have evolved over time. By invoking the Kalelkar Commission's recommendations, Shah sought to highlight the historical context of caste-based affirmative action in India and challenge the Congress party's credibility on the issue. His speech was a strategic effort to position the BJP as the true defender of backward classes while accusing Congress of ignoring historical opportunities for social reform.
In the larger context, Shah’s remarks raised important questions about the effectiveness and impact of India’s reservation policies. While the Mandal Commission’s implementation of reservations for OBCs was seen as a significant step in addressing caste-based inequalities, questions remain about the adequacy of these measures in addressing the root causes of backwardness. The Kalelkar Commission's report, had it been implemented, might have paved the way for a more inclusive and equitable society much earlier in India’s post-independence history. The failure to act on the recommendations of the Kalelkar Commission also raises broader concerns about the challenges of translating visionary social reforms into policy, especially when political considerations and societal divisions complicate the process.
By drawing attention to the Kalelkar Commission’s report, Amit Shah has reopened a critical chapter in India's history of affirmative action, raising questions not only about the historical rejection of the commission's findings but also about the future of caste-based reservations in India. His speech serves as a reminder of the continuing debates over the efficacy and fairness of reservation policies, and the complex political dynamics that shape them. As India continues to grapple with issues of social justice, Shah’s comments invite a re-examination of the path taken since the Kalelkar Commission’s report and the potential for further reform in the future.
