First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission)

The First Backward Classes Commission, popularly known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, was the first national-level constitutional body established to examine the condition of socially and educationally backward classes in India, apart from the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Its work marked an important phase in India’s post-Constitution efforts to address social inequality and achieve substantive equality as envisaged under the Constitution of India.

Constitutional Basis and Formation

The Commission was constituted under Article 340 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the President to appoint a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and recommend appropriate measures for their advancement.

In exercise of this power, a Presidential Order dated 29 January 1953 established the First Backward Classes Commission. The Commission was chaired by Kaka Kalelkar, a noted journalist, freedom fighter, social reformer, and a member of the Constituent Assembly. Owing to his leadership, the Commission came to be widely known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission.

The Commission submitted its report on 30 March 1955, making it one of the earliest attempts by the Indian State to identify backward classes at the national level.

Objectives and Terms of Reference

The terms of reference assigned to the Commission were wide and comprehensive. The Commission was required to:

• Determine the criteria for identifying socially and educationally backward classes, other than SCs and STs.
• Prepare a list of such classes along with estimates of their population and territorial distribution.
• Investigate the social, educational, and economic conditions under which these classes lived.
• Recommend measures to remove difficulties faced by these classes and improve their conditions.
• Suggest the nature of grants to be provided by the Union or the States and the conditions attached to such grants.
• Examine any other matter referred to it by the President.
• Submit a detailed report to the President setting out findings and recommendations.

These terms reflected the constitutional intent of addressing backwardness in a structured and evidence-based manner.

Criteria Adopted by the Commission

One of the most debated aspects of the Commission’s work was the criteria adopted for identifying socially and educationally backward classes. The Commission relied primarily on social backwardness, particularly a community’s position in the traditional caste hierarchy of Hindu society.

The main criteria included:

• Low social position in the traditional caste hierarchy.
• Lack of general educational advancement among the majority of a caste or community.
• Inadequate or no representation in government services.
• Inadequate representation in trade, commerce, and industry.

While these criteria attempted to combine social, educational, and economic factors, caste played a dominant role in the Commission’s assessment.

Classification of Backward Communities

Based on its inquiry, the Commission identified various categories of communities as socially and educationally backward. These included:

• Communities suffering from untouchability or near-untouchability.
• Tribes not sufficiently assimilated into the general social order.
• Denotified and ex-criminal tribes affected by long neglect.
• Nomadic communities lacking social respect and a settled way of life.
• Agricultural and landless labourers.
• Tenants without secure land tenure.
• Small landholders with uneconomic holdings.
• Communities engaged in cattle breeding, fishing, or similar occupations on a small scale.
• Artisans and occupational groups whose traditional occupations had become unremunerative.
• Communities with low levels of education and poor representation in public employment.
• Socially and educationally backward groups among Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs.

This broad classification showed the Commission’s attempt to capture multiple forms of disadvantage existing in Indian society.

Findings and Data Collected

The Commission prepared a nationwide list of 2,399 backward castes or communities, out of which 837 were classified as “most backward”. These communities were marked with a star in the report, indicating extreme deprivation and social marginalisation.

The Commission observed that backwardness in India was largely social in nature and that economic backwardness was often a consequence, not the cause, of social discrimination. It also noted that dominant communities in rural areas often controlled land, money, and political power, resulting in continued exploitation of weaker sections.

Major Recommendations of the Commission

The Commission made several far-reaching recommendations aimed at achieving social justice and equality. Some of the most important recommendations were:

• Conducting caste-wise enumeration in the 1961 Census to obtain accurate data on backward classes.
• Treating social backwardness as closely linked to caste hierarchy.
• Treating all women as a backward class, recognising gender-based disadvantages.
• Reserving 70 percent of seats in technical and professional institutions for students belonging to backward classes.
• Introducing minimum reservations in government services:
  • Class I services: 25 percent
  • Class II services: 33½ percent
  • Class III and IV services: 40 percent
• Implementing special economic upliftment measures, including land reforms, village economy reorganisation, rural housing, livestock development, fisheries, public health initiatives, and adult literacy programmes.

These recommendations reflected an expansive vision of affirmative action that went beyond reservations to include economic and social reforms.

Views of Kaka Kalelkar

Although Kaka Kalelkar chaired the Commission, he expressed serious reservations about some of its recommendations in his forwarding letter to the President. He did not record a formal dissent but raised concerns about excessive reliance on caste as a criterion.

Kalelkar emphasised the need for a social order based on mutual respect, trust, and service rather than caste identity. He warned that caste-based classification could increase caste consciousness and social divisions, even though he acknowledged that caste realities could not be ignored in Indian society.

Observations in the Report

The Commission made several important observations, including:

• Backwardness could persist even in the absence of untouchability or tribal characteristics.
• Tribal development policies should be uniform across states to prevent unequal treatment.
• Privileged classes had a moral responsibility to voluntarily surrender social advantages.
• True social justice required breaking monopolies of power and leadership.
• Social reform was essential for long-term economic development.

The report reflected a blend of sociological analysis, ethical reasoning, and constitutional philosophy.

Recommendations on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

In addition to examining other backward classes, the Commission reviewed the existing lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It recommended certain additions and deletions, which were later accepted by the Government.

These recommendations were implemented through The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956, showing that parts of the Commission’s work did influence policy despite the overall rejection of the report.

Rejection of the Report and Aftermath

Despite its extensive findings, the Central Government rejected the report in 1961. The primary reason cited was the absence of objective and uniform criteria for identifying backward classes. The heavy reliance on caste was considered problematic and potentially divisive.

This rejection highlighted the need for a more data-driven and objective approach, ultimately leading to the establishment of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) in 1979.

Conclusion

The First Backward Classes Commission represented an important early attempt to translate constitutional commitments to equality into concrete policy measures. 

While its reliance on caste attracted criticism and led to its rejection, the Commission played a foundational role in shaping future discussions on backwardness, reservation, and social justice in India. Its legacy continues to inform debates on affirmative action, inclusion, and constitutional equality in contemporary India.