logo
Tumble after Mandal: How VP Singh's caste gambit cost him PM's chair

Tumble after Mandal: How VP Singh's caste gambit cost him PM's chair

India Today05-05-2025

The Narendra Modi-led Centre's announcement that caste will be counted as part of the nationwide population Census, a first since 1931, has political pundits trying to gauge the potential implications of the move. The announcement has started heated debates on caste-based politics, policies and their ramifications. Could the upcoming National Census bring the next big rejig in India's political sphere, like the Mandal Commission implementation by then Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh in 1990? With the move, VP Singh attempted to counter the temple politics of a rising BJP and change the caste arithmetic in the Janata Party's favour. However, he ended up unleashing a political storm that threw him off the PM's chair.advertisementVP Singh's decision to implement the Mandal Commission report can be called the biggest step in caste politics in Independent India. It reserved 27% of central government jobs and seats in public universities for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).Singh's move triggered nationwide protests against quotas, with Delhi student Rajiv Goswami setting himself on fire, and a string of such self-immolation bids, and protesters consuming poison and hanging themselves.
The Mandal move soon alienated key constituencies of VP Singh, and fractured his already shaky government. It cut short his term to just less than a year (December 1989 to November 1990).This is how the biggest caste move on the national stage before the announcement of a caste census shaped politics and brought the downfall of the then prime minister, VP Singh.VP SINGH'S MANDAL MOMENT: OBCs GET 27% RESERVATIONadvertisementOn August 7, 1990, PM VP Singh, leading the National Front coalition government, announced the implementation of the Mandal Commission's recommendations, which proposed a 27% reservation of seats in public universities and central government jobs and public sector undertakings (PSUs).The National Front government, formed in 1989, comprised parties like the Janata Dal, AGP, DMK, and TDP, and was running with the outside support of the BJP and the Left Front.
Vishwanath Pratap Singh's Janata Dal government, with Devi Lal (L) as Deputy Prime Minister, was also supported by the Telugu Desam Party led by NT Rama Rao (R). (India Today Archives)
VP Singh was leading a non-Congress government, and it was, in fact, the first non-Congress government that commissioned a study on OBCs.The commission, chaired by BP Mandal, was formed in 1979 on the orders of PM Morarji Desai of the Janata Party. The Mandal Commission identified OBCs as comprising 52% of India's population and suggested affirmative action to address historical caste discrimination.The Mandal Commission submitted its report in 1980.advertisementSingh's decision to implement the recommendations, increasing total reservations to 49.5% (including SCs and STs), was seen as a historic step toward social justice."Caste, for 5,000 years, has been the basis of unbridled torture and ostracisation. Now, it has become the basis of justice," VP Singh said.BEHIND VP SINGH'S MANDAL IMPLEMENTATIONHowever, Singh's monumental step, aimed at uplifting OBCs, was seen more as an attempt at political survival. Singh was not only leading a minority government but also faced opposition from within his own party and the coalition he led.Facing tensions with his deputy, Devi Lal, Singh sought to neutralise the Haryana leader's influence among backward castes of North India.Lalu Prasad Yadav, then a key ally, soon claimed credit for pushing Singh toward this decision.The RJD supremo, in his memoir, Gopalganj to Raisina: My Political Journey, co-authored with journalist Nalin Verma, claimed that he had advised VP Singh to implement the Mandal Commission report."There is a way out... The Mandal Commission gave its report in 1983, recommending a 27% quota for the backward classes in government jobs. The recommendation is gathering dust in your office. Implement it with immediate effect," Lalu claimed he told VP Singh, the then PM.
Vishwanath Pratap Singh, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, IK Gujral, Devi Lal, LK Advani and Atal Vihari Vajpayee during an all-party rally in Ludhiana. (India Today Archive)
advertisementYet the timing of Singh's announcement, made just before Devi Lal's kisan (farmers') rally, was initially hailed as a masterstroke. Aimed at consolidating the backward castes into a new vote bank, but the lack of broader consultation ultimately proved fatal.Singh informed allies like the BJP's LK Advani and the Left's Harkishan Singh Surjeet only after the decision was finalised, alienating crucial supporters.150 STUDENTS TRIED TO SELF-IMMOLATION, PROTESTS RAGEDThe implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations sparked immediate and ferocious opposition, particularly in northern and western India, where upper-caste youths saw their job prospects threatened.Anti-Mandal protests became a norm on the streets. Students blocked roads, shut down schools and colleges. Things got extreme when Rajiv Goswami, a 19-year-old Delhi University student, set himself on fire on September 19, 1990. He became the face of the agitation. Hundreds of others, like Monica Chadha, followed suit.advertisement"Today, I want to teach a lesson to VP. Singh. I am proud of what I have done [this]", 19-year-old student, Chadha, who was one of the 150 students and teenagers who, since the Mandal implementation, attempted to kill themselves by immolation, consuming poison or by hanging, was quoted as saying in The Los Angeles Times.These acts galvanised upper-caste resentment, with protests marked by bandhs, hartals, and dharnas. Public life took a hit. The backlash wasn't just societal, it turned political, given PM VP Singh's shaky government and some hostile allies.
The October 1990 cover of India Today Hindi featured Rajeev Goswami, the student who attempted self-immolation against the implementation of Mandal Commission recommendations. (India Today Archive)
The BJP (with 85 Lok Sabha seats), a key supporter of Singh's minority government, withdrew support, citing the divisive nature of the decision.The BJP was growing with its Ayodhya Ram Mandir movement and seeking to unite its vote base under the bigger Hindutva umbrella. The Mandal move has also been seen by experts as Singh's bid to counter the BJP's Mandir politics.advertisementLK Advani's Rath Yatra intensified communal tensions. Following Advani's arrest on October 23, 1990, in Bihar by the Lalu Prasad Yadav's Janata Party government prompted the BJP to withdraw support from VP Singh's government. The CPI(M), a natural champion of affirmative action for the backwards, said it chose class-based struggles over caste-based mobilisation.Within the Janata Party, factionalism, led by Devi Lal and Chandra Shekhar, weakened Singh's position further. Chandra Shekhar was eyeing the prime minister's chair, and became the next PM.By November 1990, Singh's government collapsed after a no-confidence vote (142–346). The government led by VP Singh, which had a term till 1995, collapsed in just 343 days.After VP Singh resigned, PM Chandra Shekhar's short-lived government kept the reservation issue on hold. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court paused OBC reservations after a challenge by advocate Indira Sawhney in 1990. By 1991, PV Narasimha Rao's Congress government continued the Mandal policy but tried to pacify upper castes by adding a 10% quota for the economically weaker among them.
After VP Singh resigned as prime minister, Chandra Shekhar (right) became the PM with the support of Rajiv Gandhi's Congress, despite leading a breakaway Janata Party faction with just 64 MPs. (India Today Archive)
In November 1992, the Supreme Court upheld the 27% OBC reservation but struck down the 10% upper-caste quota. It also capped total reservations at 50% and excluded the "creamy layer" from quota benefits.Although VP Singh's Mandal moment lit a fire for social justice, it burned his political fortunes in the process.The agitation empowered OBC leaders like Lalu Yadav in Bihar, and Mulayam Singh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh.Regional caste-based parties, with entrenched identities that we see to this day, gained a great deal. Despite fulfilling a bold promise to the OBCs that no other leader dared touch, VP Singh was never fully embraced by the castes he gave benefits to. He was also abandoned by the upper castes.The 2025 caste census announcement signals the BJP's bid to reclaim the caste narrative from the opposition, which revived it in 2023 and used it in the 2024 general election to dent the ruling party's electoral fortunes. VP Singh's Mandal moment is a reminder of the unintended consequences of big caste moves, some of which came at a steep cost.Tune InMust Watch

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Congress names four nominees for legislative council; eyes Lakhan Jarkiholi's crucial vote
Congress names four nominees for legislative council; eyes Lakhan Jarkiholi's crucial vote

New Indian Express

time38 minutes ago

  • New Indian Express

Congress names four nominees for legislative council; eyes Lakhan Jarkiholi's crucial vote

BENGALURU: The Congress has announced the party's four nominees for the State Legislative Council. They are: Dinesh Amin Mattu, media advisor to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah; Arathi Krishna, deputy chairperson, Karnataka NRI Forum; Ramesh Babu, chairman, the party media cell; and Sagar, Dalit leader. The names were cleared by the party high command. They would be sworn-in after getting the assent of governor. With their swearing-in, Congress will have 37 members in the 75-member House, the same as the BJP-JDS combine. All eyes are now on the independent, Lakhan Jarkiholi, brother of minister Satish Jarkiholi. Lakhan's vote could shatter or solidify the balance of power in the House. If the Congress wins him over, the party will seize both the chairman and deputy chairman posts, currently held by the BJP. It was Lakhan's brother, Ramesh Jarkiholi, who toppled the Congress coalition by defecting to the BJP. Ramesh might yet convince Lakhan to back the BJP-JDS alliance, ensuring status quo. There has been a precedent of having a person from another party as chairman of the Upper House. When Ramakrishna Hegde was the CM, Congress member Rehman Khan was chairman for about two years. If the Congress does get Lakhan's vote, the question is who will become chairman and deputy chairman. Veteran BK Hariprasad was once seen as a frontrunner. Now he has been elevated as the party general secretary for Haryana. There is no clarity on what his next role could be. Minister Bose Raju, Chief Whip Saleem Ahmed and former minister Nasir Ahmed could emerge as choices, as sources say the party would assign roles according to its priorities.

AAP's Jain appears before ACB in classroom scam case
AAP's Jain appears before ACB in classroom scam case

New Indian Express

time38 minutes ago

  • New Indian Express

AAP's Jain appears before ACB in classroom scam case

NEW DELHI: Former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain on Friday appeared before the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) for questioning in connection with an alleged corruption case concerning the construction of classrooms in government schools. Jain had been summoned by the ACB to appear for questioning. Before heading to the ACB office, he maintained that the previous AAP government had prioritised education in the city, unlike the present BJP-led administration. 'The previous AAP government in the national capital worked towards improving the city's education, while the current BJP government is only doing politics,' Jain said. The ACB had earlier summoned AAP leaders, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and former PWD minister Satyendar Jain in connection with the case. Jain was asked to appear on June 6, and Sisodia has been summoned for June 9, according to officials. In April, the ACB registered a case against AAP leaders, alleging corruption in the construction of classrooms at inflated costs. The agency claimed that a scam worth Rs 2,000 crore had been uncovered in the construction of 12,748 classrooms and buildings during the tenure of the AAP government. The complaints were filed by Delhi BJP spokesperson Harish Khurana, BJP MLA Kapil Mishra, and Neelkanth Bakshi of the BJP's media relations department. They alleged corruption in the construction of approximately 12,748 school classrooms at an expenditure of Rs 2,892 crore. According to the ACB, the awarded tender cost for building a classroom was around Rs 24.86 lakh, while such a room could have been constructed for Rs 5 lakh. It was further alleged that the project was awarded to 34 contractors, many of whom are reportedly linked to the AAP. Joint Commissioner of Police (ACB) Madhur Verma said, 'It was decided in meetings of the expenditure finance committee for 2015-16 that the project would be completed by June 2016 at the sanctioned cost without any scope for future cost escalations. But not even a single work was completed within the prescribed time and significant cost escalations were observed.'

Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma

The Wire

timean hour ago

  • The Wire

Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma

Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store