Dr Govind Dhaske
After the Supreme Court’s judgment last year, the creamy layer concept has gradually been extended to the reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Originally, the creamy layer concept was introduced for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) following the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, mainly to respond to the massive upper-caste backlash. In its roots, it was not a pro-social justice measure but a compromise meant to pacify elite caste interests. Instead of helping poor OBCs, it ended up restricting the number of OBC beneficiaries under the pretext of balancing economic justice with merit, using obscure economic criteria. The current caste census debate is evidentiary enough to demonstrate how OBCs have been historically alienated. In the Indira Sawhney case (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that the creamy layer should apply to OBCs but explicitly exempted SCs and STs. However, three decades later, this logic has shifted; a similar instrumental policy function of the creamy layer has been extended to SC and ST reservations.
Applying economic class-centric concepts like the creamy layer prioritizes financial parameters over fundamental social justice. Such policy shifts risk diluting the caste-based structural discrimination that reservations were originally designed to address. The Supreme Court’s ruling is legally binding within the framework of constitutional governance. However, it is critical to assess how the concept of a creamy layer reshaped social justice narratives and what political forces have driven this transformation.
Dr. Ambedkar’s Vision vs. The Class Politics of the Left
Although often framed as a rational approach, the expansion of the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs makes a strong case for imposing class politics on the upward mobility of marginalized caste groups. This broad shift in welfare approaches is often attributed to the right-wing ideology. However, a deeper examination reveals that the core theoretical framework that fuels the creamy layer comes from left-liberal politics. At the root of it is the Marxist left’s rigid focus on class struggles which centers economic determinism as the basis for all forms of oppression. It has directly influenced the framing of caste-based affirmative action policies in class-centric economic terms.
The caste bias within leftist political assertions is not merely a matter of the limited representation of Dalits and Adivasis. It extends to an ideological refusal to acknowledge caste as an autonomous structure of oppression. The occasional confessions about the caste bias have remained as political gimmicks to reduce the solidarity dropout of Dalits and Adivasis. The left-liberal establishment, married to economic materialism, has consistently sought to reinterpret caste oppression through the lens of class struggle. As a result, it justified the application of economic filters like the creamy layer to caste-based reservations. It is evident in how the creamy layer is framed within a left-liberal language of “class-based economic justice,” rather than social justice, revealing who played a major role in shaping these policy narratives.
Dr. Ambedkar’s vision for social justice was qualitatively different from both Marxist economic redistribution and right-wing majoritarian politics. Within his policy-centric actions, there were well-articulated objectives to tackle all forms of untouchability through legal-political mechanisms, operationalizing economic redistribution, if not retribution. Ensuring political representation for Dalits within the discriminatory political structure was a priority in Dr. Ambedkar’s vision. However, despite a well-organized and visionary framework, the Ambedkarite movement has struggled to retain its space and influence over the historic and contemporary social justice discourse and advocacy. The creamy layer debate is a symptom of this decline, demonstrating how the prioritization of class-based logic over caste realities impacts the foundation of caste-based affirmative action. The missing piece of the puzzle is understanding how this ideological shift was engineered and who benefits from its implementation.
The Manufactured Narrative of “Rich SC/STs” and Internal Divisions
Most of the arguments for applying a creamy layer to SC/STs do not originate from marginalized communities. They come from upper-caste think tanks, media houses, and policymakers who frame them as an issue of fairness. Elite policy groups and mainstream media repeatedly push the narrative that “rich SC/STs” are monopolizing reservation benefits at the expense of poorer Dalits and Adivasis. However, this is a manufactured discourse designed to create internal divisions within SC and ST communities, diverting attention from the realistic structural caste barriers that persist across all economic classes. If Dalits and Adivasis start fighting among themselves over who is “really deserving,” it weakens their collective assertion and solidarity. In statistical terms, the implications of these internal divisions will shrink the total number of SC/ST beneficiaries, reducing the effectiveness of reservations.
In a varna-caste-based discriminatory system where exclusions are primarily an identity-based phenomenon, how does one objectively determine who deserves reservation benefits? The bureaucratic machinery will make that determination, adding to the institutional gatekeeping of caste-centered affirmative policies and actions. The creamy layer debates expose the historic convergence of left- and right-wing political interests, highlighting how both factions operate within the varna-caste hierarchical systems.
In the current creamy layer debate, it is evident how class politics has systematically reduced reservations to a tool for the economic upliftment of marginalized groups. At the same time, it is evident how the evolved and modified forms of casteism and social injustices in workplaces, universities, and social spaces adversely impact the handful of economically advanced individuals from marginalized communities. In the deeply embedded caste-based structural society of India, even a wealthy member from a reserved community remains vulnerable to discrimination and humiliation due to their caste-based identity. This reality alone is enough to discredit the Marxist notion that class struggle is the primary axis of social injustice in India.
The Left-Right Convergence in Maintaining Varna-Caste Power
Historically, left-liberal movements have branded themselves as the moral and humanistic opposition to the establishment with a unique selling proposition of a “culture of friction,” making them guardians of the poor and marginalized. In India, there is a widespread assumption that leftist parties in India are pro-Dalit and pro-social justice because they talk about equality, economic justice, and workers’ rights. However, this is a misleading half-truth that hides the deeper contradictions of leftist class politics when it comes to caste, reservations, and Dalit assertion.
The creamy layer concept is the culmination of the historic upper-case-dominated class politics rubric that assumes caste oppression disappears with wealth. These flawed assumptions ignore the inherent social, political, and cultural aspects of caste oppression, and further reduce caste-based discrimination to an economic phenomenon. With its version of social justice, the left has long been controlled by upper-caste privileged populations, with Dalits and Adivasis being underrepresented. Interestingly, the so-called right-wing is also dominated by the same privileged upper castes, enabling them to maintain a firm grip on the country’s politics and policymaking. Simultaneously, pro- and anti-narratives, along with academic analyses of these policies are crafted – again by the same elite circles in universities, journalism, media businesses, and think tanks. This hegemonic universe of knowledge and power, built on historic varna and caste-based hierarchies, demonstrates how the left- and right-wing political machinery operates. More importantly, it reveals how caste privilege is deeply embedded within leftist movements as well, despite their rhetoric of class equality and economic justice.
The creamy layer debate has further exposed the deceptive ideological differences between oppositional left- and right-wing factions. In reality, beyond political ideology, their varna-based mindsets and hegemonic instincts drive their agendas. The engineered political narrative suggests that the economic progress achieved by reserved caste groups through reservation policies has led to the emergence of the so-called “reserved privilege class.” Excluding the creamy layer to prevent the monopolization of benefits by wealthier SC and ST individuals has been the central argument in these debates. This is precisely where the concept of the creamy layer becomes contradictory. It displaces the original footing in social justice that united SCs and STs in their fight against age-old oppression regardless of class status.
The roots of this strategic dilution of caste-based reservations can be traced back to the Poona Pact of 1932. This was when Ambedkar was pressured into accepting joint electorates, weakening the Dalit political assertion. It became evident that left-leaning political forces have been singularly focused on class politics and framing social justice within their Marxist rubrics. Dr. Ambedkar recognized this early and remained deeply skeptical of Marxism’s ability to address caste oppression rooted in religious-based social hierarchy. On the other hand, the privileged intelligentsia relentlessly promoted Marxism as a progressive-secular alternative, while conveniently bypassing the ground reality of hierarchical varna and caste-based socio-economic structures.
The Disillusionment of Left-Liberal Solidarity
Historically, Ambedkarite youth volitionally aligned with left-liberal movements. The intent behind this action was genuine solidarity in their fight against caste oppression. But, when rational voices within the Ambedkarite circles questioned the diminishing focus on caste discrimination in leftist political discourses, they were either ignored or systematically silenced. Simultaneously, privileged-caste academics within leftist spaces tactfully introduced abstract intellectual frameworks like ‘Samatavad’ and ‘Decasting.’ Such rhetorical tools have been repeatedly used to block critical internal debates and create an illusion of progressive engagement to ensure that leftist class politics remained the dominant paradigm.
The frustration and feelings of abandonment among Dalits often found expression in literature, poetry, and silent protests. All of which went unnoticed under the burdensome cover of so-called solidarity. This disillusionment was powerfully captured by Ambedkarite poet Namdeo Dhasal, who once questioned, “Where is my left-wing progressive politics? Where are those like-minded true leftists?” Dhasal, once a staunch Dalit Panther who pursued an Ambedkarite-Marxist alliance, saw firsthand inherent contradictions within left-liberal solidarity. His political trajectory shows the failure of Marxist movements to genuinely integrate caste realities, as upper-caste-dominated leftist structures consistently subsumed caste underclass while leaving real caste hierarchies intact.
The Dalit Panthers and other Marxist thinkers like Sharad Patil are cited as proof that the Left was successful in incorporating caste analysis into its framework of class. In reality, these attempts have failed due to the overpowering dominance of upper-caste leadership and their normative control within leftist political institutions. Such arrangements ensured that economic determinism remained the dominant interpretive framework. Even though the lived experiences of Dalits and Adivasis demonstrate that caste oppression persists despite economic mobility, the Marxist establishment never completely allowed caste to develop as an independent category of analysis. This is precisely why the creamy layer argument, though masquerading as an “equitable” policy, is a continuation of the leftist tendency to sideline caste realities in favor of economic stratification.
The Urgency of Reclaiming Ambedkar’s Vision
For Ambedkarite activists, participation in leftist movements often meant prioritizing Marxist class struggles over caste-based structural discrimination. Even today, caste representation within the left-liberal political institutions remains dismally low for Dalits and Adivasis. The Ambedkarite movement has lost its ability to assert comprehensive social justice as a large section of it was co-opted into a class-centric framework that never truly served its interests. The solidarity and merger of most Dalit intellectuals, academicians, politicians, and activists into Marxism’s class struggle have been self-defeating and further led to displacement from their historic fight against caste-based discrimination. The creamy layer policy is a direct outcome of this ideological hijacking.
Historically, class politics has been strategically weaponized to halt the social justice mission of Dr. Ambedkar, over time, it gradually reduced the reservation policy to a narrow economic upliftment program. If economic progress could eliminate caste oppression, as Marxists often argue, why do economically well-off Dalits and Adivasis still face systemic exclusion, housing discrimination, workplace bias, and everyday caste-based humiliation from villages to universities? The very existence of caste-based discrimination across all economic classes directly contradicts the Marxist assumption that class struggle is the universal key to justice.
In today’s India, where left-liberal political institutions are struggling for relevance, their uneasy relationship with caste-based policies has become more visible. They are no longer able to disguise their discomfort, and to get out of that left intelligentsia is offering more creative ways to apply class-based frameworks to apply creamy layer to the reservation of SCs and STs. The legal integrity of court orders must be acknowledged. But the Ambedkarite movement’s engagement with left-liberal politics needs to be assessed critically.
The goal of social justice envisioned by Dr. Ambedkar was never only economic redistribution. It was about dismantling the organized denial of knowledge, power, and dignity through caste-based discrimination. This is the fundamental distinction between Ambedkarism and Marxism. The time has come to re-evaluate self-sacrificing solidarity with left-wing movements, which have only led to class-based attacks on caste-based justice. The creamy layer debate stands as the most urgent warning sign—a clear indicator of how left-liberal political rationality has been used to systematically dilute the original caste-based framework of reservations. A return to Ambedkar’s vision, where caste, not class, is the central axis of oppression, must shape future social justice movements in India. (end)
~~~
Dr. Govind Dhaske is an activist scholar and social-cultural theorist. Currently, he is working as a social work educator in the USA. He can be reached at govind.dhaske@gmail.com
