The report will help in giving reservation to smaller communities: Jayaprakash Hegde

Former chairman of the Karnataka State Permanent Backward Classes Commission K Jayaprakash Hegde’s report on the socio-economic and educational survey, commonly referred to as the caste census report, has stirred a hornet’s nest. Hegde fine-tuned the report prepared by his predecessor H Kantharaj, commissioned by chief minister Siddaramaiah during his first tenure. A decade later, the Siddaramaiah government is contemplating implementing the report, in the midst of several communities alleging their population has been under-reported. In an interview to HT, Hegde spoke on the “misconceptions” with regard to the report.

When you took charge as the chairman of the Karnataka State Permanent Backward Classes Commission in 2020, at what stage was the socio-economic and educational survey, which was done by your predecessor H Kanthraj?

The survey was completed by 2015. Kantharaj had written the report, but there were legal hitches as the Commission’s member-secretary had not signed it. Law says that the government cannot accept the report unless it is signed by the member-secretary.

I wrote to the member-secretary, but he declined to give reasons for not signing it. The data was ready and uploaded on the Bharat Electronics digital software and also certified by the Indian Institute of Management for its authenticity. I am told when Kantharaj went to submit the report to former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy, he refused to take it. When I took over, I wrote to then CMs BS Yediyurappa and Basavaraj Bommai to direct the Commission on what should be done as the report did not have the member-secretary’s signature. There was no response from both. In 2023, when Siddaramaiah became the CM, I went to congratulate him and also submitted my resignation as I had been appointed by the previous BJP government. Siddaramaiah asked not only me but also all the other members of the Commission to continue and submit a fresh report.

So,what was pending for you to do?

The data had been collated by the Kantharaj Commission based on the forms submitted by households that had been surveyed. The government had extended the deadline thrice after the survey was completed in 2015 for anyone to come and rectify the information furnished. Nobody came. During his second tenure, once Siddaramaiah gave the green signal to complete the report, the Commission appointed an expert committee to give indicators and weightages to the data on living conditions, education and employment of those surveyed. On the basis of the weightages, we decided which caste has to be put in what category.

You have said except for minor errors the report is perfect. Why are the two dominant communities in Karnataka, Lingayats and Vokkaligas, upset alleging injustice has been done to them?

Every community feels the Commission has not given the correct data. Lingayats feel their numbers should have been much more than what has been mentioned in the report. I have had discussions with their leaders and they agree that some of the Lingayats, went from Hinduism and became followers of social reformer Basavanna.They called themselves Veerashiava-Lingayats. Some sub-sects of the Lingayat community such as Sadar, Banajiga or Ganigas mentioned their castes as Hindu-Sadar or Hindu -Banajiga as they wanted to move up in the reservation category from 3B to 2A (relatively backward). For this the Commission is not responsible.

What is the Vokkaliga community’s concern?

Among the Vokkaligas, there are Bunts. Some Bunt families have migrated to Mumbai, the Gulf and the US. Even among the Bunts, there is a sub-sect called Buntar Yane Nadavara Sangha. These people have taken certificates as Nadavas, they will not be counted among the Bunts. They will go to 2A in the report. Besides there are Reddi Vokkaligas. All Reddis or Reddys have been classified in 3A list in the report as some Reddi Lingayats have just mentioned themselves as Reddys.

Another grouse is that the report has favoured the Kuruba community, represented by CM Siddaramaiah, with their numbers going up from 4.37% to 7.31%, with a recommendation to carve out a new OBC category for them.

The report recommendation to move the Kuruba community to one category above (most backward) is based on the data of their living conditions, education and employment. While giving weightage to the indicators that the commission found they ranked the lowest.

Some communities are upset over the Muslim reservation going up from 4% to 8% in the report?

The recommendation is based on their population. One should not just look at the 8% figure. Of the 5.98 crore population surveyed, the report says Muslims account for 7,699,425, which means the rest are all Hindus. Nobody is looking into this angle. They are comparing one caste with another. In fact, the LG Havanur commission report during the tenure of D Devaraj Urs as the CM had said that Muslims should be given a special category, while the Chinnappa Reddy report said that the condition of the Muslim community is pathetic and next only to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

With the Supreme court’s cap of 50% reservation, the report recommends increasing Karnataka’s reservation from 32% for backward classes to 51%. How will this be implemented?

The Supreme Court has said if states have empirical data, the reservation can exceed 50%. We have the data about the population and also of the castes. All these years the Commissions headed by either LG Havanur or O Chinnappa Reddy conducted only sample surveys of 10 lakh or 15 lakh of the population. It was the Venkataswamy Commission that did a comprehensive survey of the state’s entire population. But the government rejected it as the Commission did not give the Lingayats and Vokkaligas a backward classes tag.

Reports of all backward classes commissions in the past from LG Havanur to Venkataswamy to O Chinnappa Reddy were mired in controversies and some rejected. Will your report be implemented and will it not lead to dissections in the society?

I want this report to be accepted as it will benefit several small communities. Previous Commissions’ reports on giving reservation to smaller communities were not accepted by the governments of the day with the exception, when senior advocate Prof Ravi Verma Kumar headed it (1997-2000). Of the 71 reports he submitted, 69 were accepted. The objective is to provide a level-playing ground to all communities.