The mass agitation by Patels in Gujarat to demand caste-based reservations has been puzzling and surprising to most. Led by a young and little-known leader of the Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti, Hardik Patel, about five lakh Patels gathered on the streets of Ahmedabad on August 25 to attend a rally in support of this cause.
“Patidar” refers to holders of small strips of land or “pati”, many of whom adopted the last name Patel and benefited from the British colonial land revenue practices. Patels constitute nearly 15% of Gujarat’s population and have seven ministers in the current state government, including the chief minister. They constitute a visible presence in the industrial and professional sectors of Gujarat’s economy, and control 70% of United States’ motel industry. Indeed, nationally recognised brands, such as Nirma detergents and Zydus Cadilla pharmaceuticals, are owned by Patels.
Despite this conspicuous political and economic dominance, why are Patels asking to be counted as a “backward” group in need of help? For the rest of India, the question is this: If Patels are the brand ambassadors of the much-advertised “Gujarat model of economic development”, then what does this agitation tell us about this model and, correspondingly, India’s recent trajectory?
Protesters' doublespeak
Adding to the already-baffling Patel situation is the confusing nature of their demand, which is shrouded in political doublespeak. For instance, one placard at the rally on August 25 said: “I was born intelligent but reservation ruined me.” Another read: “Say no to caste based reservation.” Yet, Patels are demanding just this – that they be included in the list of castes that make up Other Backward Classes and are, therefore, entitled to 27% reservations in government jobs and higher academic institutions.
This demand of Patels for reservations has a subtext that points to important clues about the story of contemporary Gujarat. At the rally, Hardik Patel demanded that Patels be included in the existing 27% OBC quota identified by the state-appointed Bakshi Commission. If this is not possible, he said, the practice of caste-based reservations should be scrapped and replaced with an economic criterion for reservations. How should we understand this apparent doublespeak that demands caste-based reservations on the one hand but on the other suggests that economic reservations could also do the trick?
It is simplistic to dismiss this demand as an instance of cynical caste politics that ails Indian democracy. Nor do the host of conspiracy theories suggesting political machinations really get us far in making sense of what might be the most interesting dimensions of this unfolding mobilisation.
There are two facets of the Patel agitation that are worth noting: First, this unexpected movement suggests the possibility of intense competition experienced by Patels from the castes that are categorised as OBC and have benefited from reservation for over two decades. It is likely that Patels are experiencing a deep sense of insecurity and anxiety about being outperformed by OBC groups, who until recently lagged behind them in terms of education and socio-economic indicators. To be sure, of the key sub-castes within Patels, the Aanjana (Chaudhry) Patels are entitled to reservation as part of the Bakshi Commission OBC list. It is the relatively prosperous Leuva and Kadva Patels who are not on this OBC list and are now clamouring for a spot.
“It is injustice,” said an affluent Kadva Patel businessman from Mehsana, “that lower castes like Chaudhrys and Rabaris, who are parallel castes to Patels [meaning very similar in social status to Patels] are getting admissions into government medical and engineering colleges with lower scores and reaping the benefits of ‘sarkari’ or government jobs. It is this injustice that we are fighting against.” His lament may be read as a backhanded compliment to the logic of reservations, with all its deep flaws, that has produced a kind of social churning through the empowerment of previously marginalised groups in Gujarat such as the Thakores, Rabaris and Bharwads.
Economic desperation
Asking for reservations is the only way Patels believe they can compete with these other castes. This is an interesting historical twist from 1980, when Patels had come out on the streets of Ahmedabad to protest against the first recommendation for OBC reservations by the Bakshi commission. In three decades, Patels seem to have made an intriguing journey from confident domination to anxious emasculation. This journey needs an explanation.
The second facet of this agitation relates to the nature of development in Gujarat, whereby relatively well-off Patels are surprisingly driven to clamour for government jobs through the old route of OBC reservations. A newspaper report profiled several participants at the rally, which included a middle class farmer, a pharmacist, an engineer and a dentist. These profiles fit neatly into our received notions of the prosperous Patels who can hardly be considered subaltern. But, according to Hardik Patel, they do not represent the vast majority of Patels, 90% of whom are facing intense economic hardships as reflected in farmers suicides, low yielding land holdings, and missed opportunities in government jobs.
Whatever be the real statistics of poverty among Patidars, the subtext of this agitation reflects a deep sense of economic desperation in post-liberalisation India where Gujarat’s economy seems unable to fulfil the new economic aspirations of the Patel youth.
The lack of economic opportunities for otherwise educated Patidars is likely the reason for their belief that should there be an economic, instead of a caste-based, criterion for reservations, they will be sure to qualify. Upper castes and merit-loving members of the Indian middle class have latched on to this idea of economic reservation for obvious personal benefits, even as some commentators have shown the eerie resonances of this demand with the Hindutva vision. In so many words, the Patels are telling us that the relentless pursuit of big industrial development and pro-business land policies by the Gujarat model has come at the cost of small- and medium-sized businesses dominated by Patels. The stagnation in the rural economy resulting from low procurement prices for farm produce, a cut in farm-related subsidies, and a sharp downturn in the diamond processing businesses dominated by Patels have all exacerbated the situation.
It seems that the anthropologist Alexei Yurchak’s description of the sudden and unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union – “Everything was for forever, until it was no more” – may ring true for the claims of the Gujarat model, which have been laid bare and unravelled by the Patidar agitation. Ironically, it is not the voice of the marginalised groups but the historically dominant Patels, which may throw light on the underbelly of Gujarat’s lopsided growth story. Perhaps in the Patel call for a helping hand is a hidden call to attend to the contradictions ailing the so-called Gujarat model. The 2014 parliamentary election was strangely heralded as a “post-caste” election where development and nothing but development mattered. We were told that Gujarat’s golden journey to development could be India’s in the future. This is why India should take solemn note of what is happening in Gujarat: it may be a sign of things to come in the rest of the country.
Mona G. Mehta is Assistant Professor of Political Science at IIT, Gandhinagar.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
“Patidar” refers to holders of small strips of land or “pati”, many of whom adopted the last name Patel and benefited from the British colonial land revenue practices. Patels constitute nearly 15% of Gujarat’s population and have seven ministers in the current state government, including the chief minister. They constitute a visible presence in the industrial and professional sectors of Gujarat’s economy, and control 70% of United States’ motel industry. Indeed, nationally recognised brands, such as Nirma detergents and Zydus Cadilla pharmaceuticals, are owned by Patels.
Despite this conspicuous political and economic dominance, why are Patels asking to be counted as a “backward” group in need of help? For the rest of India, the question is this: If Patels are the brand ambassadors of the much-advertised “Gujarat model of economic development”, then what does this agitation tell us about this model and, correspondingly, India’s recent trajectory?
Protesters' doublespeak
Adding to the already-baffling Patel situation is the confusing nature of their demand, which is shrouded in political doublespeak. For instance, one placard at the rally on August 25 said: “I was born intelligent but reservation ruined me.” Another read: “Say no to caste based reservation.” Yet, Patels are demanding just this – that they be included in the list of castes that make up Other Backward Classes and are, therefore, entitled to 27% reservations in government jobs and higher academic institutions.
This demand of Patels for reservations has a subtext that points to important clues about the story of contemporary Gujarat. At the rally, Hardik Patel demanded that Patels be included in the existing 27% OBC quota identified by the state-appointed Bakshi Commission. If this is not possible, he said, the practice of caste-based reservations should be scrapped and replaced with an economic criterion for reservations. How should we understand this apparent doublespeak that demands caste-based reservations on the one hand but on the other suggests that economic reservations could also do the trick?
It is simplistic to dismiss this demand as an instance of cynical caste politics that ails Indian democracy. Nor do the host of conspiracy theories suggesting political machinations really get us far in making sense of what might be the most interesting dimensions of this unfolding mobilisation.
There are two facets of the Patel agitation that are worth noting: First, this unexpected movement suggests the possibility of intense competition experienced by Patels from the castes that are categorised as OBC and have benefited from reservation for over two decades. It is likely that Patels are experiencing a deep sense of insecurity and anxiety about being outperformed by OBC groups, who until recently lagged behind them in terms of education and socio-economic indicators. To be sure, of the key sub-castes within Patels, the Aanjana (Chaudhry) Patels are entitled to reservation as part of the Bakshi Commission OBC list. It is the relatively prosperous Leuva and Kadva Patels who are not on this OBC list and are now clamouring for a spot.
“It is injustice,” said an affluent Kadva Patel businessman from Mehsana, “that lower castes like Chaudhrys and Rabaris, who are parallel castes to Patels [meaning very similar in social status to Patels] are getting admissions into government medical and engineering colleges with lower scores and reaping the benefits of ‘sarkari’ or government jobs. It is this injustice that we are fighting against.” His lament may be read as a backhanded compliment to the logic of reservations, with all its deep flaws, that has produced a kind of social churning through the empowerment of previously marginalised groups in Gujarat such as the Thakores, Rabaris and Bharwads.
Economic desperation
Asking for reservations is the only way Patels believe they can compete with these other castes. This is an interesting historical twist from 1980, when Patels had come out on the streets of Ahmedabad to protest against the first recommendation for OBC reservations by the Bakshi commission. In three decades, Patels seem to have made an intriguing journey from confident domination to anxious emasculation. This journey needs an explanation.
The second facet of this agitation relates to the nature of development in Gujarat, whereby relatively well-off Patels are surprisingly driven to clamour for government jobs through the old route of OBC reservations. A newspaper report profiled several participants at the rally, which included a middle class farmer, a pharmacist, an engineer and a dentist. These profiles fit neatly into our received notions of the prosperous Patels who can hardly be considered subaltern. But, according to Hardik Patel, they do not represent the vast majority of Patels, 90% of whom are facing intense economic hardships as reflected in farmers suicides, low yielding land holdings, and missed opportunities in government jobs.
Whatever be the real statistics of poverty among Patidars, the subtext of this agitation reflects a deep sense of economic desperation in post-liberalisation India where Gujarat’s economy seems unable to fulfil the new economic aspirations of the Patel youth.
The lack of economic opportunities for otherwise educated Patidars is likely the reason for their belief that should there be an economic, instead of a caste-based, criterion for reservations, they will be sure to qualify. Upper castes and merit-loving members of the Indian middle class have latched on to this idea of economic reservation for obvious personal benefits, even as some commentators have shown the eerie resonances of this demand with the Hindutva vision. In so many words, the Patels are telling us that the relentless pursuit of big industrial development and pro-business land policies by the Gujarat model has come at the cost of small- and medium-sized businesses dominated by Patels. The stagnation in the rural economy resulting from low procurement prices for farm produce, a cut in farm-related subsidies, and a sharp downturn in the diamond processing businesses dominated by Patels have all exacerbated the situation.
It seems that the anthropologist Alexei Yurchak’s description of the sudden and unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union – “Everything was for forever, until it was no more” – may ring true for the claims of the Gujarat model, which have been laid bare and unravelled by the Patidar agitation. Ironically, it is not the voice of the marginalised groups but the historically dominant Patels, which may throw light on the underbelly of Gujarat’s lopsided growth story. Perhaps in the Patel call for a helping hand is a hidden call to attend to the contradictions ailing the so-called Gujarat model. The 2014 parliamentary election was strangely heralded as a “post-caste” election where development and nothing but development mattered. We were told that Gujarat’s golden journey to development could be India’s in the future. This is why India should take solemn note of what is happening in Gujarat: it may be a sign of things to come in the rest of the country.
Mona G. Mehta is Assistant Professor of Political Science at IIT, Gandhinagar.
