The term ‘‘backward classes’’ first raised its head in Mysore state, where preferential recruitment of backward communities was introduced in 1921. They were defined as ‘‘all communities other than Brahmins, who are not adequately represented in public service’’.

The term subsequently found its way into the Indian Constitution. But while the Constitution recognises the existence of a category of people it termed as ‘‘socially and educationally backward classes’’ and ‘‘backward classes other than SCs and STs’’, it never attempted to define what is meant by these categories. When B.R. Ambedkar was asked about the criteria to be followed in determining social and educational backwardness, he said that this task had been left to local governments.

• What are the constitutional references to OBCs?

The Constitution clearly envisaged reservation only for the SC/ST communities, that too for 10 years only. However, successive governments — egged on by ruling parties — kept postponing the deadline for reservations and expanding the list of OBCs.

There were, however, some references to OBCs in the Constitution. Article 340 allows the President to appoint a commission to ‘‘investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove such difficulties and to improve their condition...’’

Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, also states that this shall not prevent the state from making special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Similarly, Article 16, which enjoins equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, says that this shall not prevent the state from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens.

Incidentally, Article 341 provides reservation for Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist Scheduled Castes but equivalent castes among Muslims and Christians have been left out. A PIL is pending before the Supreme Court on the question of granting the same benefit of reservation to SC/ST converts to Christianity and Islam.

• So which are the OBCs?

In order to identify OBCs, the government first set up the Backward Classes Commission under the chairmanship of Kaka Kalelkar in January 1953. In its report, submitted in March 1955, the Commission prepared a list of 2,399 backward castes or communities for the entire country, of which 837 was classified as ‘‘most backward’’. Interestingly, the Commission also treated all women in the country as ‘‘backward’’.

• How did the Mandal Commission come into being?

In January 1978 it was decided to set up a second backward classes commission, under the chairpersonship of B.P. Mandal. The Mandal Commission submitted its report in December 1980.

The Commission had four terms of reference, including determining the criteria for defining the socially and educationally backward classes, and recommending steps to be taken for their advancement. Eleven criteria were evolved to identify OBCs, under the three heads of ‘social’, ‘educational’ and ‘economic’.

• What were the Mandal Commission’s findings?

Using the 11 criteria, the Commission identified 3,743 caste groups as OBCs. Since population figures along caste lines were not available beyond 1931, the Commission used the 1931 census data to calculate the number of OBCs. The population of Hindu and non-Hindu OBCs worked out to about 52 per cent of the total population. The Commission could not, however, recommend 52 per cent reservations because of the legal constraint that the total quantum of reservations should not exceed 50 per cent. Since the already existing reservations for SC/ST was in tune with their proportion to total population — ie, 15 per cent for SCs and 7.2 per cent for STs (22.5 per cent taken together), OBCs were given a reservation of 27 per cent.

In order to update the classification of OBCs, the government also set up the National Commission for Backward Classes to examine the requests and recommendations for inclusion and complaints in the Central Lists of Backward Classes. (For a complete list refer to http://ncbc.nic.in). The list includes prominent castes such as the Yadavs in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Meenas of Haryana and Rajasthan, the Kurmis and Koeris of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

• What about OBCs who can no longer be considered part of the ‘‘backward classes’’?

In a decisive judgment in Indira Sawhney and Others vs Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the 27 per cent reservation for OBCs but subjected it to the exclusion of socially advanced persons/sections — termed as the ‘‘creamy layer’’ — from among the OBCs.

After this verdict, the government appointed a committee to evolve the criteria to arrive at this exclusion. The committee recommended that the rule of exclusion applies to the sons and daughters of persons holding constitutional positions; those whose parents (either of them) are Class I officers; those whose parents (either or both) are in the rank of colonel and above in the army, and equivalent posts in the navy, air-force and para-military forces. The committee also debarred children from families owning irrigated land as per state land ceiling laws, and persons having a gross annual income of Rs 1 lakh or above, or possessing wealth above the exemption limits prescribed by the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years, from taking the benefit of these reservations.

• Where do things now stand?

The Supreme Court, in the P.A. Inamdar and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Others verdict delivered in August 2005, abolished state quotas in private unaided professional colleges. This led to the political class striking back by passing the 104th Amendment Bill in Parliament, which mandated that all educational institutions — both government-run and private — will now have to reserve half their seats for SCs/STs and OBCs. Arjun Singh’s move to reserve 49.5 per cent seats in IITs, IIMs and central universities gets its raison d’etre from this legislation.