See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360132681

Backward or Forward? Examining the Contemporary Status of Marathas

Article in Economic and Political Weekly · April 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 243

2 authors:

Sumeet Mhaskar Rahul Sapkal

O.P. Jindal Global University Maharashtra National Law University Mumbai
11 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 103 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sumeet Mhaskar on 23 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPECIAL ARTICLE
Backward or Forward?
Examining the Contemporary Status of Marathas
Sumeet Mhaskar, Rahul Suresh Sapkal
In recent years, the Maratha community has mobilised
for reservations in employment and higher education,
claiming that the lack of reservations has resulted in
socio-economic backwardness. Their opponents have
largely highlighted the political and economic
dominance of the community. This paper examines the
income, education and occupational status of the
Marathas vis-à-vis non-Marathas while scrutinising the
statistical limitations of the Gaikwad Committee report
(2018). Compared to other castes and communities in
Maharashtra, the Marathas have a higher proportion of
the rich and wealthy and the lowest share among the
poorest and poor. It is only in comparison to the
Brahmins and other upper castes that the Marathas lag
behind in education and employment.
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and EPW
editorial team for their valuable contributions to improving the paper.
All potential errors in data interpretation or handling are authors’
responsibility.
Sumeet Mhaskar (smhaskar@jgu.edu.in) teaches at the Jindal School
of Government and Public Policy, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat.
Rahul Suresh Sapkal (rahuls@iitb.ac.in) teaches at the Ashank Desai
Centre for Policy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16
I
n November 2018, the Government of Maharashtra passed
the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act,
granting 16% reservation in higher education and public
sector employment to the members of the Maratha caste.1 The
report by the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission,
headed by M G Gaikwad, a retired additional judge of the
Bombay High Court, became the basis for the government in
granting reservation to the Marathas. Through large-scale survey
data and other evidence, the Gaikwad Commission demon-
strated that the Marathas are “socially, educationally and
economically backward and entitled for reservation benefits”
(Gaikwad et al 2018: 1034). The findings and interpretations
of the Gaikwad Commission mark a stark contrast to all the
previous backward class commissions (three national-level
and three state-level) that did not find social and educational
backwardness among the Marathas. On the contrary, they
found the Marathas to be a “socially advanced and prestigious
community” (Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v the Chief Minister and
Ors 2021: 16). Despite this widely acknowledged fact, the Bombay
High Court uncritically accepted the Gaikwad Commission’s
findings and upheld the constitutional validity of the SEBC
Act, 2018. However, this verdict, especially the reliability
of the survey data and other aspects, was challenged in the
Supreme Court.
The petitioners argued that the survey data is “skewed, un-
scientific and (therefore) cannot be taken as a representative
sample” (Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v the Chief Minister and
Ors 2021: 55). Moreover, the petitioners argued that “the
Commission picked up and chose certain parameters whereas
conveniently left out many of the parameters where (the)
Maratha Community is better off” (Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v
the Chief Minister and Ors 2021: 55). Scholars, too, have high-
lighted the non-transparent manner of establishing the back-
wardness of the Marathas (see, for instance, Palshikar 2019).
It has been argued that since the survey data gathered by the
Gaikwad Commission was not made public, its strengths,
weaknesses and biases cannot be fully examined. A five-judge
constitutional bench of the Supreme Court scrutinised the
data gathered by the Gaikwad Commission together with
other legal aspects. On 5 May 2021, the bench struck down
the high court verdict, rendering the SEBC Act and the Maratha
reservations invalid.
In delivering the judgment, the apex court bench stated
that they found “no extraordinary circumstances” (Dr Jaishri
Laxmanrao Patil v the Chief Minister and Ors 2021: 222) to
51
SPECIAL ARTICLE
grant separate reservations to the Marathas. It also noted that
the Gaikwad Commission wrongly interpreted the data on
employment in public services, where the representation of
Marathas is adequate and satisfactory (Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao
Patil v the Chief Minister and Ors 2021: 246–56). For instance,
of the total open category posts, the Marathas occupied 33.23%,
29.03%, 37.06%, and 36.53% positions in Grades A, B, C and D,
respectively. Of the total open category posts in the Mantralaya
(state secretariat), the Marathas occupy 37.5%, 52.33%, 52.1%,
and 55.55% positions in Grades A, B, C and D, respectively. As
for the prestigious positions in the bureaucracy in Maharashtra,
the share of the Marathas is 15.52% in the Indian Administra-
tive Services, 27.85% in the Indian Police Services, and 17.97%
in the Indian Foreign Services (Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v
the Chief Minister and Ors 2021: 250–55).
Besides employment in public services, there are other fac-
tors, such as income distribution, status of overall employment,
and educational attainment, reported in the Gaikwad Com-
mission that need to be critically examined. Since the survey
data gathered by the commission is not publicly available,
these aspects need to be examined with alternative informa-
tion. In the absence of caste census data, the Indian Human
Development Survey (IHDS) data of 2011–12, gathered by the
University of Maryland and the National Council of Applied
Economic Research, is the best available source of information
that provides evidence on the economic, educational, and
occupational status of various castes and communities across
India. This paper uses this IHDS data to investigate the socio-
economic status of the Marathas vis-à-vis non-Maratha sections
in Maharashtra. We also explore the claims of the Marathas
sharing similar socio-economic status as the Other Backward
Classes (OBCs). Likewise, we examine if economic resources
prohibit the Marathas from obtaining education or entering
well-paid occupations.
Scholarly literature has highlighted the dominance of the
Marathas in society, politics and the economy (Lele 1981;
Palshikar and Birmal 2007; Vora 2009; Waghmore 2013;
Deshpande and Ramachandran 2017). However, there remains a
gap in the literature that examines the overall position of the
Marathas vis-à-vis non-Marathas. This paper attempts to fill this
gap. In the following section, we begin by analysing the limita-
tions of the data gathered by the Gaikwad Commission. Then,
we analyse the income, educational and occupational patterns.
The results presented in this paper suggest that the members
of the Maratha caste exhibit similar patterns as the Brahmins
and other upper castes (OUCs), in terms of income distribution
and educational attainment. Within the Marathas, income has
a strong correlation with the occupational choices.
Limits of Gaikwad Commission Data
The Gaikwad Commission gathered survey data with the
assistance of three charitable trusts, a private consultancy,
and an academic institution. The primary data was gathered
at the individual level among the Marathas in comparison
with the OBC–Kunbis and Other Open Classes (Gaikwad Com-
mission’s term) to statistically document the incidence of
52
underdevelopment and backwardness.2 The report states that the
study gathered primary information from 43,629 individuals be-
longing to the Marathas, OBCs and Other Open Classes (Gaikwad
et al 2018: 73). Of the total sample, the Maratha households
constitute 29,814 households, whereas OBCs and Other Open
Classes together constitute 13,815 households (Gaikwad et al
2018: 416). The study assumes the average family size to be
4.66 persons and accordingly calculates the total individual-
level sample size to be 2,03,149 (Gaikwad et al 2018: 416). Such
a sampling design is likely to produce estimates with an up-
ward bias in favour of Maratha households. This is because
there is a disproportionate household-level data distribution
between the Maratha and non-Maratha households. Neverthe-
less, the survey has used uniform individual weights for all the
sampled households. Therefore, any average estimate to com-
pare all three subgroups will have measurement bias since the
subsamples are drawn purposively and disproportionately.
The study assumed that economic backwardness among the
Marathas is primarily caused and driven by social and educa-
tional backwardness as compared to other social groups. This
becomes evident through the fact that marks were unequally
assigned to the three parameters of backwardness, namely
social (10 marks), educational (eight marks), and economic
(seven marks). This marking scheme increases the probability
of extreme variation in sample weights, which could result in
unplanned subsampling, non-response adjustments, or post-
stratification. Further, the study assigned homogeneous weights
to all samples despite having disproportionate sample counts
across all subgroups. Such an oversampling of the Marathas
and under-sampling of the OBCs and Other Open Classes in-
creases the probability of a statistical bias. Besides statistical
flaws, the Gaikwad Commission cited merely 23 narratives to
make a point about the Maratha backwardness.
The commission drew on various government databases to
show intra-community/caste variations in multidimensional
deprivation. For instance, it used the agriculture census to
measure the distress and backwardness across the aforesaid
three social groups. However, we contend that the data gathered
through the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India
(economic, population or agriculture) does not provide caste or
sub-caste level information, except for the data on Scheduled
Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The Socio Economic and
Caste Census (SECC) of 2011, too, is not available in the public
domain. Due to these methodological flaws in the study con-
ducted by the Gaikwad Commission, it is not surprising that wide-
ranging stakeholders have raised concerns about its reliability.
IHDS Data (2011–12)
We now turn to the IHDS 2011–12 data that is a reliable source
of information, especially because its methods are publicly
known, and they make raw data available for public examina-
tion. Our study examines the socio-economic status of the
dominant Maratha caste vis-à-vis non-Marathas, using the
IHDS’s nationally representative individual and household-
level survey. This data provides two rounds of multi-topic
panel data for 41,554 households in 1,503 villages and 971
april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

urban neighbourhoods across India. The first round was con- Brahmins and OUCs constitute about 1.77% and 6.61%, respec-
ducted in 2004–05 and the same households were reinter- tively. These figures correspond with the 2011 SECC.
viewed in 2011–12. Notably, while conducting the survey, the In terms of rural–urban demographic patterns, 66.73% of
respondents were asked to disclose their religion, caste and Maharashtra’s population is based in rural areas and 33.27%
sub-caste. Though both rounds of the data set have been exten- in urban areas. Among the Marathas, a little over 70% reside
sively used by researchers, its use in terms of caste and sub- in rural areas, and about 28% live in urban areas. Likewise,
caste remain underexplored. Only three empirical analyses 73% of the OBC population is in the rural areas, and nearly 27%
(Dongre 2017; Jaffrelot and Kalaiyarasan 2019; Deshpande and in urban areas. However, the one group that surpasses the
Ramachandran 2020) have been hitherto carried out using the Marathas and the OBCs in their rural share is that of the STs.
sub-caste data. We build on these studies by carefully explor- Nearly 92% of the STs are based in the countryside, and merely
ing the sub-caste categories of the Maratha community. 7.54% live in urban areas. The trend, however, begins to di-
Earlier analysis (Deshpande and Ramachandran 2020) has verge with the SCs, 55% of whose population is in the country-
used a broad self-declared sub-caste variable—the Jats in side and about 45% live in urban areas. Followed by them,
Haryana, Patels in Gujarat, and Marathas in Maharashtra— nearly 44% Muslims reside in rural areas, and 56% in urban
to estimate their socio-economic differences with other social areas. Lastly, only 36% of the OUCs live in rural areas, while
groups. However, they have used self-reported data, which, at 64% of their counterparts are found in urban areas. Among
times, includes non-Marathas within the Maratha communi- the Brahmins, only 31% live in rural areas and 69% inhabit
ty. For instance, in Maharashtra, the study did not segregate urban areas. Thus, the least urbanised population is that of the
the Maratha sub-castes (jatis) from the Kunbi, Kunbi–Patil, STs with the Brahmins being the most urbanised.
Hatkar, Kinbai, Rajput, Patil, and Patel, which are either Table 1: Socio-demographics of Maharashtra (%)
part of the OBCs or OUCs (excluding Brahmins). As a result, Caste and Communities All Rural Urban
there are 905 self-reported households belonging to the Brahmins 58 (1.77) 18 (31.03) 40 (68.97)
Maratha caste group. Of that, six households are identified as OUCs 217 (6.61) 78 (35.94) 139 (64.06)
Brahmin, 880 households as general, 11 households as OBC, Marathas 874 (26.61) 625 (71.51) 249 (28.49)
two households as SC, and six households as others in their OBCs 1,078 (32.82) 789 (73.19) 289 (26.81)
main caste variable (Deshpande and Ramachandran 2017). SCs 317 (9.65) 175 (55.21) 142 (44.79)
STs 305 (9.28) 282 (92.46) 23 (7.54)
Similarly, Dongre (2017) has separated households who re-
Muslims 191 (5.81) 84 (43.98) 107 (56.02)
ported their jati as Maratha but their jatis could be either
Other religious minorities 245 (7.46) 141 (57.55) 104 (42.45)
Maratha, Patil, Kshatriya, or Rajput. The study by Christophe Total 3,285 (100.00) 2,192 (66.73) 1,093 (33.27)
Jaffrelot and A Kalaiyarasan (2019) has used the sub-caste Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12).
(jati) matrix to filter out the various names of Jats used in col-
loquial language and separated them into the forward caste Income Distribution
(excluding Brahmins), non-OBCs, and non-SCs. At the aggregate level, the income status of the population is
Our study overcomes these limitations and focuses on caste discussed by using five quantiles (Table 2). The first quantile
and sub-castes reported at the household level that actually group represents 20% of the population with the lowest income
belong to the Maratha community. To overcome the shortcom- (poorest), and the last quantile group represents 20% of the
ings of Ashwini Deshpande and Rajesh Ramachandran (2017), population with the highest income (wealthy). The proportion
this paper further reclassifies jati, namely Maratha–Kunbi, of the rich and wealthy population is 37.44%. About 67% Brah-
Wani, Koshti, Banjara, Vanjari, Pinjari, Rajput Bhamta, Mali, mins, 53% OUCs, and 50% Marathas are in the rich and wealthy
etc, to the OBC category (BARTI nd). As a result, our sample income groups. These results clearly demonstrate that the
consists of the information on 3,308 households of Maharashtra Brahmins, OUCs and Marathas have a much larger share among
in the IHDS (2011–12). Of that, 874 households belong only to the the rich and wealthy income quantile. The other remaining
Maratha community, 58 to Brahmin community, 1,078 to OBCs, groups, such as the OBCs, SCs, STs, and Muslims, are significantly
317 to SCs, 305 to STs, 191 to Muslims and 245 to other religious
minorities. Lastly, unlike the Gaikwad Commission, we have Table 2: Distribution of Income Quantiles across Caste and Community
(%)
included information on the SCs and STs in our analyses. Caste Poorest Poor Middle Rich Wealthy
(Bottom 20%) (Second 20%) (Third 20%) (Fourth 20%) (Top 20%)
Socio-demographics of Maharashtra Brahmins 8.62 10.34 13.79 29.31 37.93
According to the IHDS (2011–12) survey data of 3,285 house- OUCs 12.9 14.29 19.82 25.81 27.19
Marathas 14.87 15.22 19.68 25.63 24.6
holds in Maharashtra, the Marathas constitute about 26.61% of
OBCs 26.99 23.28 17.44 18.00 14.29
the total surveyed population. This is the highest figure for
SCs 17.67 29.34 21.77 15.14 16.09
any single sub-caste or jati in Maharashtra. Such numerical
STs 26.89 35.41 21.97 10.49 5.25
dominance of the Marathas has a direct bearing on the politics
Muslims 17.28 25.13 21.99 21.47 14.14
and economy of the region (Palshikar and Birmal 2007). As Other religious minorities 20.82 26.94 22.04 17.96 12.24
shown in Table 1, the OBCs account for 32.82%, SCs 9.65%, STs All 20.58 22.4 19.57 19.97 17.47
9.28% and Muslims 5.81% of the surveyed population. The Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12).

Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16 53
SPECIAL ARTICLE

under-represented in the rich and wealthy income quantiles. moves from the middle level to rich and from the rich to wealthy
About 32% of the OBCs and 31% of the SCs, and merely 16% of quantiles, that is, 45% and 17%, respectively, in urban areas.
the STs are in the rich and wealthy income quantile. Among the About 82% Brahmin households, 62% OUC households, and
socially marginalised groups, about 35% of Muslims feature in 70% Maratha households fall in the rich and wealthy income
the top income quantiles. This variation among the Muslims quantile in urban areas. Interestingly, among the urban OBC
could be due to the presence of Muslim business communities, households, their share in the top two income quantiles is
such as the Bohras, in Maharashtra. Further analysis is needed 62.63%, which is similar to the OUCs. Against these trends,
to explore if Ashraf (upper caste) Muslims dominate these top only 54.83% SCs, 43.92% Muslims, and 39.13% STs fall in the
income quantiles (see, for instance, Sachar et al 2006). wealthy and rich income quantile. Unlike the overall income
The income patterns begin to diverge from the middle-level patterns that we discussed previously, the OBCs are perform-
income quantile, as we see a major convergence across various ing marginally better in urban areas. The situation is in con-
castes and communities. The Brahmins remain an exception trast when we analyse the poorest and poor households.
in this case. The situation at the bottom contrasts to the top- Among the Brahmins, OUCs and Marathas, only 5%, 21.58%
income quantiles. Among the Brahmins, OUCs and Marathas, and 12.45% households, respectively, are in the poorest and
about 18.96%, 27% and 30% are found in the poor and poorest poor income groups. The gap between the Marathas and OUCs
income-level groups, suggesting a much lower share among on the one hand and the Brahmins on the other is substantial.
the low-income sections of the population. In contrast, the The OUCs have a way bigger share among the poorest and poor
remaining groups—OBCs (50%), SCs (47%), STs (62%), and compared to the Marathas. And the proportion of the poorest
Muslims (42%)—are significantly over-represented among the and the poor among the Marathas is higher only in compari-
poor and poorest income level groups. Thus, the Brahmins, son to the Brahmins. Among the urban OBCs, about 19.69% are
OUCs and Marathas have a larger share in the rich and wealthy found among the poorest and the poor income groups, which
income groups and their proportion among the poor and poorest is lower than OUCs but higher than the Marathas. The SCs, STs,
income groups is lesser than the OBCs, SCs, STs, and Muslims. and Muslims in urban areas are significantly over-represented
These findings suggest that the Brahmins, OUCs and Marathas among the poorest and poor income quantiles. About 39.13%
are able to utilise their socially superior position to consolidate ST households, 26.16% Muslims, and 22.54% SCs fall in the bot-
their economic status. Whereas, the socially inferior position of tom two income quantiles. However, there is a significant vari-
the OBCs, SCs, STs, and Muslims pushes them towards the lower ation among them. The STs have the highest proportion of
side of the income spectrum. households among the poorest and poor, and the Muslims and
SCs have a comparatively lower proportion.
Urban Income Patterns The income patterns for urban areas indicate that among
Given the vast disparity in rural and urban earnings, it is the Brahmin, OUC and Maratha households, the proportion of
important to analyse the patterns in each region separately. The rich and wealthy households is the highest. In contrast, the
income levels in urban areas, presented in Table 3, suggest that proportion of SC, ST and Muslim households among the rich
at the aggregate level, only 7% of households are in the poorest and wealthy is significantly lower. The OBCs have an approxi-
and 12% in the poor income quantiles. The mid-level income mately similar proportion as OUCs among the rich and wealth
quantile has about 19% households. As for the rich and wealthy groups. While the overall proportion of the poorest and poor
income quantiles, the proportion is about 28% and 33% house- Marathas is much lower, they are only higher in comparison to
holds, respectively. It is interesting to note that the distribution the Brahmins. Likewise, the proportion of the poorest and poor
of households across income quantiles increases substantially OBCs is less than the OUCs but it is higher than the Marathas.
from poorest to wealthy income groups. A point estimate of As for the SCs, STs and Muslims, they have significantly more
percentage change of growth from the poorest to poor income households in the poorest and poor income quantiles.
quantile is 73% and from the poor to middle-income quantile is
57%. The growth rates decline drastically when the household Rural Income Patterns
In Table 4 (p 55), broad patterns can be found in rural income
Table 3: Distribution of Income Quantiles across Caste and Community
(Urban) (%) distribution among the Brahmins, OUCs and Marathas on the
Caste Poorest Poor Middle Rich Wealthy one hand, and the OBCs, SCs, STs, and Muslims on the other.
(Bottom 20%) (Second 20%) (Third 20%) (Fourth 20%) (Top 20%)
The Brahmins (33.33%), OUCs (37.18%) and Marathas (42.24%)
Brahmins 0.0 5.0 12.5 32.5 50.0
have a higher share in rich and wealthy income quantiles in
OUCs 10.07 11.51 16.55 28.78 33.09
rural areas. However, there are significant variations within them
Marathas 3.61 8.84 17.27 26.91 43.37
when we analyse the poorest and poor income quantiles: 50%
OBCs 10.03 9.69 17.65 30.8 31.83
SCs 7.75 14.79 22.54 21.83 33.1
Brahmins, 37.18% OUCs, and 37.12% Marathas. The Marathas
STs 4.35 34.78 21.74 30.43 8.7
have the highest share among the rich and wealthy in rural
Muslims 7.48 18.69 29.91 27.1 16.82 areas, and a lower share among the poorest and poor groups.
Other religious minorities 5.77 17.31 20.19 30.77 25.96 Among the OBCs, SCs, STs, and Muslims, the patterns are
All 7.14 12.35 19.4 28.18 32.94 similar at both ends of the income spectrum. About 25%
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12). Muslim, 21.17% OBC, 12% SC, and 13.83% ST households fall in
54 april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE
Figure 1: Income Quartile Range across Castes In urban areas, the interquartile range for income is the highest
60,000
48,115
for the Brahmins, followed by the OUCs and Marathas, and lowest
39,900
37,200 38,250 37,768 for the Muslims, showing that the former are better off in in-
40,000
29,375 31,125 come distribution vis-à-vis the Muslims and STs. Therefore, we
23,340 24,571
17,483 21,940 16,033 IQR (Urban) can infer that the spread of income moving towards convergence
20,000
IQR (Rural)
8,894
17,002 at the middle interquartile is much better off among Maratha
12,191 11,600
households as compared to other higher caste households.
0
Brahmins OUCs Marathas OBCs SCs STs Muslims Other The IHDS (2011–12) also provides information on the number
religious
minorities of households below the poverty line (BPL), estimated by the
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12). Tendulkar Committee (2009) report. It was later used in the
the rich and wealthy income groups. While all these groups Twelfth Five Year Plan by the Planning Commission of India
are heavily under-represented in the rich and wealthy income for estimating the poverty rate. According to this estimate,
quantiles, there is a variation within them too. The Muslims 3.45% of Brahmin and 7.87% of OUC households across social
and OBCs in rural areas have a slightly better share in the higher groups, fall BPL. Following these two groups, the Marathas
income groups than the SCs and STs. As for the bottom of the are the third caste group with 10.09% of households BPL.
income spectrum, over 60% households within the OBCs, SCs, About 37.38% of ST households, highest across all groups, fall
STs and Muslims fall in the poorest and poor quantiles. BPL. They are followed by SC households with 27.76% house-
Table 4: Distribution of Income Quantiles across Caste and Community holds BPL. The OBCs, Muslims and other religious minorities
(Rural) (%) have between 20% and 25% of households respectively BPL.
Caste Poorest Poor Middle Rich Wealthy
(Bottom 20%) (Second 20%) (Third 20%) (Fourth 20%) (Top 20%) In the previous section, we discussed how the middle-
Brahmins 27.78 22.22 16.67 22.22 11.11 income quantile fared across all groups. Among those, the in-
OUCs 17.95 19.23 25.64 20.51 16.67 come convergence for the Marathas was a surprise since their
Marathas 19.36 17.76 20.64 25.12 17.12 claim of economic backwardness does not seem to have corre-
OBCs 33.21 28.26 17.36 13.31 7.86
sponding empirical evidence. Hence, in Table 5, we provide
SCs 25.71 41.14 21.14 9.71 2.29
another measure of income distribution for all caste groups,
STs 28.72 35.46 21.99 8.87 4.96
Muslims 29.76 33.33 11.9 14.29 10.71 that is, the Gini coefficient, also known as the Gini index,
Other religious minorities 31.91 34.04 23.4 8.51 2.13 which explains the distribution of income share vis-à-vis re-
All 27.28 27.42 19.66 15.88 9.76 spective population share. About 26.61% of Maratha house-
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12). holds earn about 31.52% of total income. Their Gini coefficient
In urban areas, more than 70% of Maratha households are at 0.83% indicates the highest income disparity within a caste
in the rich and wealthy income quantiles, whereas only 13% of group along with the highest average income (`70,704) across
households are in the poorest and poor income quantile. This all caste groups. The Brahmins enjoy 2% of the total income
implies that Marathas are relatively better off in urban areas spread across 1.77% of total households. The OBCs also have a
considering smaller proportion of their households is in the high incidence of income inequality wherein 32.82% of the
lowest income segment. On the other hand, in rural areas, population enjoys 40.84% of the total income share. The SCs,
about 42.24% Maratha households are in the rich and wealthy STs and Muslims have the lowest income share compared to
income quantiles and about 37% households are in the poorest their population share. Therefore, we deduce that the Marathas
and poor income quantile. and OBCs demonstrate a greater concentration of wealth lead-
Figure 1 shows the spread of income differential by inter- ing to high income inequality within the communities.
quartile3 range across all caste groups in Maharashtra. The inter- Table 5: Income Distribution across Caste
quartile range for income distribution has been used to explore the Caste Population Income Mean Income Gini
Share Share (`) Coefficient
income spread between the poorest and middle-level income Brahmins 1.77 2.00 52,410 0.26
groups among the Marathas. The convergence of interquartile is OUCs 6.61 6.62 46,306 0.49
an important indicator to understand how middle-income house- Marathas 26.61 31.52 70,704 0.83
holds are significantly different from the poorest income house- OBCs 32.82 40.84 62,205 0.62
holds. To understand the distribution dynamics, we plotted the SCs 9.65 6.14 30,510 0.35
income interquartile range for all caste groups. We observe that STs 9.28 4.05 25,047 0.47
the income interquartile range for the Marathas and Muslims is Muslims 5.81 2.85 25,398 0.31
Other religious minorities 7.46 5.38 29,204 0.33
converging for both rural and urban areas. It indicates that the
All 100.00 100.00 36,608 0.51
expansion of the income of the lowest and middle-income groups Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12).
is significant and leading towards less income inequality, at least
in the middle-income interquartile. On the other hand, such a Educational and Occupational Attainment
convergence is not to be seen in other caste groups, including One of the central claims put forward by the Marathas is that
those who have benefited from affirmative action policies. In our they are lagging behind in higher education compared to
sample estimates, both the Marathas and Muslims show positive other caste groups. Table 6 (p 56) reveals a shared pattern
convergence in the middle-income interquartile households. among the Brahmins, OUCs and Marathas on the one hand,
Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16 55
SPECIAL ARTICLE

and the OBCs, SCs, STs, and Muslims on the other. One must, until the secondary level. Similarly, the proportion of Mar-
of course, note the differences within these two blocks. About athas among illiterates and those with primary education is
22.88% of Marathas are graduates and 4.81% have completed higher than the Brahmins and OUCs, although they perform
postgraduation, which is higher than the figures for all better compared to the OBCs, SCs, STs and Muslims.
groups. However, in comparison to the Brahmins and OUCs, the As for the other block, the proportion of graduates and post-
Marathas are far behind: the Brahmins have 34.48% graduates graduates among OBCs, SCs, STs and Muslims is lower than the
and 25.86% postgraduates, whereas the OUCs have 36.41% grad- figures for all groups. For instance, 18.74% OBCs, 19.24% SCs,
uates, and 10.14% postgraduates. In contrast, the Marathas have 7.87% STs and 15.71% Muslims are graduates. Likewise, 3.62%
a higher concentration at lower levels of educational attain- OBCs, 2.21% SCs, 2.3% STs, and 2.09% Muslims are postgradu-
ment. About 40% of Marathas have completed their educa- ates. Thus, the OBCs, SCs, STs and Muslims have fewer graduates
tion till the secondary level. However, among the Brahmins and and postgraduates. When we look at the lower-level education-
OUCs, this figure hovers around 20% and 29%, respectively, al attainment, the patterns are varied among the OBCs, SCs, STs
Table 6: Educational Attainment by Caste Groups (%) and Muslims. Most of them are either close to the proportion
Illiterate Primary Secondary Higher Graduation Post- Total for all groups or are over-represented.
Secondary graduation The data on educational attainment informs us that the
Brahmins 0 2 12 9 20 15 58 Brahmins, OUCs and Marathas have a better share among gradu-
(0.00) (3.45) (20.69) (15.52) (34.48) (25.86) (100.00)
OUCs 11 12 64 29 79 22 217
ates and postgraduates. However, the difference between the
(5.07) (5.53) (29.49) (13.36) (36.41) (10.14) (100.00) Marathas, on the one hand, and the Brahmins and OUCs, on
Marathas 74 59 352 147 200 42 874 the other, is substantial. However, compared to the other block
(8.47) (6.75) (40.27) (16.82) (22.88) (4.81) (100.00) (OBCs, SCs, STs and Muslims), the Marathas are better placed.
OBCs 87 118 423 209 202 39 1,078 Thus, it is only in comparison to the Brahmins and OUCs that
(8.07) (10.95) (39.24) (19.39) (18.74) (3.62) (100.00)
SCs 38 38 129 44 61 7 317
the Marathas lag in educational attainment.
(11.99) (11.99) (40.69) (13.88) (19.24) (2.21) (100.00) The occupational patterns by status (Table 7.1), analysed using
STs 82 43 107 42 24 7 305 Iversen et al’s (2016) classification, show that the Marathas
(26.89) (14.1) (35.08) (13.77) (7.87) (2.30) (100.00) dominate the farming occupation. While the average propor-
Muslims 18 21 90 28 30 4 191 tion of those opting for farming in general is 51%, among the
(9.42) (10.99) (47.12) (14.66) (15.71) (2.09) (100.00)
Other religious 17 28 90 43 49 18 245
Marathas, the same is 72.59%. These figures also indicate the
minorities (6.94) (11.43) (36.73) (17.55) (20.00) (7.35) (100.00) control of the Marathas over cultivable land in Maharashtra.
Total 327 321 1,267 551 665 154 3,285 Followed by the Marathas, about 57.85% OBCs and 46.56%
(9.95) (9.77) (38.57) (16.77) (20.24) (4.69) (100.00) tribals have reported farming as their occupation. Among the
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12).
Dalits and Muslims, only 24.29% and 25.65%, respectively, are
Table 7.1: Occupation Pattern by Status engaged in farming, where this low
Professional Clerical and Farmers Higher Status Lower Status Agricultural Unidentifiable Total
Other Vocational Vocational and Other Occupation
proportion is an indication of limited
Occupations Occupations Manual landownership. The Brahmins and OUCs
Labourers
are under-represented in farming. In
Brahmins 25.86 12.07 34.48 1.72 6.90 13.79 5.17 100
contrast, only 15% Marathas and 13.79%
OUCs 8.29 17.97 34.10 7.83 7.37 22.12 2.30 100
Brahmins are agricultural and manual
Marathas 2.06 6.08 72.59 1.72 2.18 15.02 0.34 100
OBCs 3.53 3.81 57.85 3.81 5.94 24.14 0.93 100
labourers. Among the OUCs and OBCs,
SCs 1.89 4.73 24.29 5.36 14.20 48.90 0.63 100 the proportion is 22% and 24.14%,
STs 0.66 1.31 46.56 1.64 3.93 45.57 0.33 100 which suggests marginal under-repre-
Muslims 2.09 12.04 25.65 12.04 12.57 34.55 1.05 100 sentation. On the other hand, Dalits with
Other religious minorities 4.08 11.02 25.31 5.31 8.16 44.90 1.22 100 48.90% and tribals with 45.57% are
All 3.38 6.37 51.19 4.02 6.22 27.94 0.88 100 significantly over-represented among
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12).
agricultural and manual labourers.
Table 7.2: Occupation Pattern by Skill Intensity About 2.06% Marathas are in profes-
White Skilled/ Unskilled Farm Cultivators Farmers Unidentified Total
Collar Semi-skilled Manager and Other Than Occupation
sional occupations, which is much lower
Supervisors Cultivators than the Brahmins and OUCs at 25.86%
Brahmins 25.86 18.97 15.52 0.00 34.48 0.00 5.17 100 and 8.29%, respectively. Interestingly,
OUCs 8.29 34.10 21.20 0.46 33.64 0.00 2.30 100 the OBCs at 3.53% have a better share
Marathas 2.06 10.89 14.11 0.00 72.48 0.11 0.34 100 among the professionals. As for the SCs,
OBCs 3.53 13.46 24.23 0.28 56.73 0.84 0.93 100
merely 1.89% and, among STs, only
SCs 1.89 20.19 53.00 0.00 24.29 0.00 0.63 100
0.66% are in professional occupations.
STs 0.66 7.54 44.92 0.00 46.56 0.00 0.33 100
When we examine clerical occupations,
Muslims 2.09 39.27 31.94 0.00 24.61 1.05 1.05 100
Other religious minorities 4.08 23.67 45.71 0.41 24.90 0.00 1.22 100
the proportion of Marathas (6.08%) is
All 3.38 16.61 27.94 0.15 50.67 0.37 0.88 100 close to the figures for all groups.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12). Whereas the Brahmins at 12.07% and
56 april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

OUCs at 17.97% are significantly over-represented. Interest- reduces significantly, so much so that among the wealthy
ingly, the Muslims at 12% are significantly over-represented in groups, it is merely 1.36%. Similar patterns are visible in the
clerical occupations. Once again, Dalits (4.73%), OBCs (3.81%) case for primary education. For the graduates, there is a strong
and STs (1.31%) are under-represented in the clerical occupa- link between income and education. For instance, while there
tion. Thus, in the case of clerical occupations, as compared to are 41.36% graduates among the wealthy Marathas, it comes
the Brahmins and OUCs, the Marathas have lower numbers. down to 28.32% for the rich, 13.22% for the middle income,
The occupational patterns presented in Table 7.1 show simi- 11.19% for the poor, and 8.33% for the poorest.
lar patterns when we use the occupational classification by For secondary, higher secondary and postgraduates, there
skill intensity, given by Azam (2015), in Table 7.2 (p 56). While are mixed results. While the wealthy and rich have 9.09% and
considering the skill component, 72.48% of the Maratha com- 6.64% graduates, respectively, it drops significantly for the
munity is concentred in agricultural cultivation, the highest rest of the income groups. However, the gap between the poor
across all social groups. Around 11% of Maratha households (11.19%) and middle level income (13.22%) is very less, sug-
are in skilled/semi-skilled occupations, while 14% are in gesting that the poor are availing higher education through
unskilled jobs. Only 2% of Maratha households are in white- scholarships.4 Interestingly, the poor at 2.24% and the poorest
collar jobs. In these jobs, also considered well-paid and high at 1.52% have a better proportion of postgraduates compared
status jobs, the Brahmins are over-represented (25.86%) and to the middle-income group (1.15%). As mentioned earlier, this
substantially higher than other social groups. Apart from the may be due to the scholarships, which the poorest and poor
Brahmins, the OUCs, OBCs and other religious minorities have are able to avail for higher education, but which the middle-
a slightly better representation than the figures for all the income groups are left out of. Thus, income has a direct bear-
groups in white-collar jobs. On the contrary, the Muslims, SCs ing on accessing higher education. While the wealthy and rich
and STs are under-represented in this category. In the unskilled use their private financial resources to fund higher education,
occupation, the SCs, STs and other religious minorities are the poorest and poor access it via the scholarships meant for
over-represented, in relation to other social groups, and it is low-income groups. It is the middle-income groups among the
much higher than the figures for all the groups in the state Marathas that are at the receiving end, as they neither have
(27.94%). The lowest proportion of workers (14.11%) working private financial resources nor are they eligible for the scholar-
as unskilled workers in Maharashtra belong to the Maratha ships meant for low-income groups.
caste. The Dalits (53%) comprise the highest share of the Table 9.1 shows that within the Marathas merely 2.3% are
workforce working as unskilled workers. engaged in white-collar occupations. Since education has a
direct bearing on occupational choices, we see that the
Differential within Marathas wealthy and rich Marathas at 3.2% and 3.6%, respectively,
In this section, we explore the dynamics of differential socio- have a better share than the rest of the income groups. Like
economic parameters within the Maratha caste. Table 8 provides the patterns for higher education, the share of the poorest
an overview of educational attainments among the Marathas Marathas at 1.5% is higher than the middle-income groups
by their income quintiles. We observe that 40% of the Maratha who have 1.2% in white-collar jobs. If we look at Table 9.2,
population has completed their education till the secondary within the Marathas, 75% of white-collar jobs are taken away
level, while 16.82% and 23% have done so till the higher by the rich and wealthy Marathas and merely 15% by poorest
secondary and graduation levels. About 9% of Maratha re- and poor households. This clearly indicates an over-representa-
spondents were illiterate. These broader patterns within the tion of the higher income groups in high status and decent jobs.
Maratha caste are influenced by income levels. Among the rich Among the Marathas, 10.9% are found in skilled and semi-
and wealthy Marathas, the proportion of graduates and post- skilled jobs (Table 9.1). While only 7.6% of the poorest are
graduates is significantly higher than the figures for all groups. Table 9.1: Occupation Patterns by Income Quantiles among Marathas
As expected, their share among illiterates and those with pri- (Column %)
Income Quantiles White-collar Skilled/ Semi-skilled Unskilled Cultivators
mary education is substantially lower.
Poorest 1.5 7.6 11.5 79.4
We observe a positive relationship between income and Poor 0.8 9.7 14.9 74.6
educational attainments. For instance, while among the poorest, Middle 1.2 10.3 18.4 69.5
28.79% are illiterates, among the poor, it is 13.43%. As we Rich 3.6 10.7 16.4 68.9
move up the income ladder, the proportion of illiterates Wealthy 3.2 14.1 9.6 72.3
Table 8: Educational Attainment by Income Quantiles among Marathas All 2.3 10.9 14.1 72.3
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS 2011–12.
Illiterate Primary Secondary Higher Graduation Postgraduation Total
Secondary Table 9.2: Occupation Patterns by Income Quintiles among Marathas (Row %)
Poorest 28.79 13.64 38.64 9.09 8.33 1.52 100 Poorest Poor Middle Rich Wealthy Total
Poor 13.43 12.69 44.03 16.42 11.19 2.24 100 White-collar 10.00 5.00 10.00 40.00 35.00 100.00
Middle 3.45 6.32 57.47 18.39 13.22 1.15 100 Skilled/semi-skilled 10.42 13.54 18.75 25.00 32.29 100.00
Rich 4.87 4.42 36.73 19.03 28.32 6.64 100 Unskilled 12.00 16.00 25.6 29.6 16.8 100.00
Wealthy 1.36 1.82 28.18 18.18 41.36 9.09 100 Cultivators 16.28 15.65 18.94 24.26 24.88 100.00
All 8.58 6.77 40.07 16.82 23.02 4.74 100 All 14.82 15.16 19.68 25.45 24.89 100.00
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12). Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12).

Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16 57
SPECIAL ARTICLE
engaged in this occupational group, among the wealthy, the
proportion is 14%. The proportion increases with the rise in
income levels. Table 9.2 shows that within the Marathas, the
rich and wealthy corner 57.3% of the skilled and semi-skilled
jobs, and 18.8% are taken by the middle-level income group.
The remaining 23.9% jobs are taken by the poorest and poor
income groups. Here, the higher and middle-level income
groups take away the largest share of jobs.
In unskilled jobs, we find that 14% of Maratha households
are engaged in it (Table 9.1). Of the total unskilled jobs, the
middle level at 18.4% has the highest share. This is followed
by the poor at 14.9%, rich at 16.4%, poorest at 11.5%, and
wealthy at 9.6%. While this occupational group demonstrates
a mixed pattern, among the Marathas, the proportion of the
unskilled increases from the poorest at 12% to the poor at
16%, middle level at 25.6% and rich at 29.6% (Table 9.2).
However, for the wealthy Marathas, it drops to 16.8%. Thus,
except for the wealthy, those with better income share also
have a better share in unskilled jobs.
The overwhelming majority of Marathas (72.3%) are engaged
as cultivators (Table 9.1). The share of cultivators decreases as
we move from the poorest (79.4%) to the rich (68.9%). However,
once again, the wealthy at 72.3% demonstrate a different
pattern. Among the Marathas, while 49.2% of the rich and
wealthy are cultivators, among the middle level and poor,
the proportion is 18.9% and 15.7%, respectively (Table 9.2).
For the poorest, it increases to 16.3%. Thus, except for the
poorest, the proportion of cultivators increases with the rise
in income levels.
The discussion above reveals that income has a strong cor-
relation with occupational choices. The share of the Marathas
in nearly all jobs increases with the levels of income. There are
two exceptions. Except for the wealthy income group, the share
in unskilled jobs increases as we move up the income ladder.
Similar is the case with cultivators. Except for the poorest, the
share in cultivators increases with the rise in income levels.
Table 10 shows that 90% of the land possession among
Marathas is through inheritance or gifts to male members.
The proportion increases from that of the poor at 83.7% to the
wealthy at 94.3%. This clearly shows that the transfer of land
between generations becomes a major source of wealth accumu-
lation and income growth for the Maratha community. Again,
the poorest at 91.6% demonstrate a different trend. As for
land possession in the form of undivided family land (collective
ownership in a joint family), the poor at 12.8% and middle
income at 12.5% have the highest proportion. It is the least
among the rich (5.8%) and wealthy (5.7%) Marathas. Here,
Table 10: Land Possession by Income Quantiles among Marathas
Income Quantiles Inherited/ Gifted to Undivided Family Land
Male Members
Poorest 91.6 8.4
Poor 83.7 12.8
Middle 86.5 12.5
Rich 93.5 5.8
Wealthy 94.3 5.7
All 90.4 8.7
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IHDS (2011–12).
58
the per capita income share diminishes if the size of the family
is large. As for land possession through purchase, the poor at
3.5% demonstrate the highest proportion. The income earned
by the poor in urban areas is invested in purchasing cultivable
land in rural areas (Mhaskar 2021). Interestingly, the wealthy
and the poorest Marathas have no land possession through
purchase.
Conclusions
This paper has examined the income, education and occupa-
tional patterns of the Marathas vis-à-vis non-Marathas, using the
IHDS data for 2011–12. As for income patterns, the Marathas,
together with the Brahmins and OUCs, have a higher share
among the rich and wealthy in rural and urban areas. While
the share of urban OBCs among the rich and wealthy is like
the OUCs, it is considerably lower than the Marathas. The
OUC’s share among the poorest and poor is higher than the
Marathas. It is only in comparison to the Brahmins that the
proportion of the poorest and poor among the Marathas is
higher. While the poorest and the poor among urban OBCs is
lower than the OUCs, it is higher than the Marathas. Similarly,
in rural areas, the Marathas have the lowest proportion among
the poorest and poor in comparison to the Brahmins and OUCs.
And, unlike urban areas, the rural OBCs have a much lower
share among the rich and wealthy and their share among the
poorest and poor is closer to the SCs, STs, and Muslims, which
is substantially higher than the Marathas, OUCs and Brahmins.
Thus, in terms of income, the pattern of the Marathas has
much in common with the Brahmins and OUCs, not the OBCs.
In terms of educational attainment, there is a shared pat-
tern among the Brahmins, OUCs and Marathas. It is only in
comparison to the Brahmins and OUCs that the Marathas lag
in educational attainment in higher education. However,
compared to the OBCs, SCs, STs and Muslims, the Marathas are
better placed. Among the Marathas, we find that income has a
direct relation in accessing higher education. While the
wealthy and rich use their private financial resources to fund
higher education, the poorest and poor access it through the
scholarships meant for low-income groups. The middle-in-
come groups are at the receiving end as they neither have pri-
vate financial resources nor are they eligible for the scholar-
ships meant for low-income groups.
As for occupational patterns, the proportion of Marathas in
professional occupations is substantially lower than the Brahmins
and OUCs. The OBCs have a slightly better share among profes-
sionals than the Marathas. In clerical occupations too, the pro-
portion of Marathas is significantly lower than the Brahmins
and OUCs. However, in comparison to the SCs, STs, and OBCs,
Purchased the Marathas perform better in clerical occupations. In terms
of skill, an overwhelming majority of the Marathas are con-
0.0
centred in agricultural cultivation, which is the highest across
3.5
all social groups. Within the Marathas, income has a strong
1.0
correlation with occupational choices. In nearly all jobs, their
0.7
0.0
share increases with levels of income. Except for the wealthy
1.0 Marathas, the share of the rest of the community in unskilled
jobs increases as we move up the income ladder. Similar is
april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

the case with cultivators. Except for the poorest Marathas, the
community share in cultivators increases with the rise in
income levels.
Thus, Marathas perform extremely well on income indicators.
Their share among the poorest and poor is higher than the
Notes
1 Before the Maratha reservation came into place,
about 52% reservation was already in place for
the following groups: 13% for the Scheduled
Castes (SCs), 7% for the Scheduled Tribes (STs),
19% for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs),
2% for the Special Backward Classes (SBCs),
3% for the Vimukti Jati (Denotified Tribe) and
Nomadic Tribe, 2.5% for the Nomadic Tribe
(B), 3.5% for Nomadic Tribe (C) (Dhangar),
and 2% for Nomadic Tribe (D) (Vanjari).
2 The category of the Other Open Classes used
by the Gaikwad Commission includes all indi-
viduals except the Marathas, OBCs, SCs, and
STs. It, therefore, consists of the Brahmins,
OUCs, Muslims, Parsis, and Christians, who do
not qualify for reservations in jobs and educa-
tion. In this paper, we have treated Muslims,
Brahmins, OUCs, and other religious minori-
ties separately.
3 In Figure 1, we have provided graphical repre-
sentation of interquartile range to analyse within
group variations between rural and urban are-
as. However, in the rest of the paper, the quan-
tile groups has been used to provide variations
between groups.
4 For instance, the Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu
Maharaj Shikshan Shulkh Shishyavrutti Scheme,
which provides 100% subsidy in government
and non-government aided institutions to stu-
dents whose families earn less than `2.5 lakh
annually. The same scholarship provides 50%
fee subsidy for individuals whose families earn
between `2.5 lakh and `8 lakh annually. Further,
the Government of Maharashtra announced a
reimbursement on the tuition fee of those open
category students affected by the reservations
for the Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes and the Economically Weaker Sections
in medical and dental colleges.
References
Azam, Mehtabul (2015): “Intergenerational Occu-
pational Mobility among Men in India,”
Journal of Development Studies, Vol 51, No 10,
pp 1389–1408.
BARTI (nd): “Caste List,” Caste Certificate Verifica-
tion Information System, Dr Babasaheb Ambed-
kar Research and Training Institute (BARTI),
Pune, https://bartievalidity.maharashtra.gov.
in/ccvis_pdf/download/caste/caste_list.pdf.
Deshpande, Ashwini and Rajesh Ramachandran
(2017): “Dominant or Backward? Political Econo-
my of Demand for Quotas by Jats, Patels, and
Marathas,” Economic & Politcal Weekly, Vol 52,
No 19, pp 81–92.
Dongre, Ambrish (2017): “Is Maratha Demand for
Reservation Tenable? Evidence from India
Human Development Survey,” Social Science
Research Network, 16 May, https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2968146.
Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v the Chief Minister and
Ors (2021): Civil Appeal No 3123 of 2020,
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/-
23618/23618_2019_35_1501_27992_Judgeme-
nt_05-May-2021.pdf.
Gaikwad, M G, Sudhir Thakre, P G Yeole, Suvarna
Raval, C B Deshpande, D D Balsaraf and R N Karpe
Economic & Political Weekly EPW april 16, 2022 vol lVii no 16
View publication stats
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Brahmins but much less compared to other groups. Their per-
formance in education is linked to economic resources, whether
through private means or scholarships. As for sharing any sim-
ilarities with the OBCs, we did not find any evidence to support
the Marathas’ claims.
(2018): A Report on Social, Educational, Eco- Behind Enabling Clauses Such as Articles 15
nomic Status of the Marathas and Allied Aspects, and 16,” Indian Express, 10 July, https://indi-
Volumes I–III, Mumbai: Maharashtra State anexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/obc-
Backward Classes Commission. reservation-maratha-quota-sc-ninth-sched-
Iversen, Vegard, Anirudh Krishna and Kunal Sen ule-indra-sawhney-mandal-5822927/.
(2016): “Rags to Riches? Intergenerational Oc- Palshikar, Suhas and Nitin Birmal (eds) (2007):
cupational Mobility in India,” Global Develop- Maharashtrache Rajkaaran: Rajkiya Prakriyeche
ment Institute Working Paper 2016-004, Uni- Sthanik Sandarbh, Pune: Pratima Prakashan.
versity of Manchester, https://hummedia. Sachar, Rajinder, Hamid Saiyid, T K Oommen,
manchester.ac.uk/institutes/gdi/publica- M A Basith, Rakesh Basant, Akhtar Majeed and
tions/workingpapers/GDI/GDI_WP2016004_ Abusaleh Shariff (2006): Social, Economic and
Iversen_Krishna_Sen.pdf. Educational Status of the Muslim Community of
Jaffrelot, Christophe and A Kalaiyarasan (2019): India: A Report, New Delhi: Government of India.
The Political Economy of the Jat Agitation for Tendulkar Committee (2009): Report of the Expert
Other Backward Class Status, Economic & Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation
Politcal Weekly, Vol 54, No 7, pp 29–37. of Poverty, Planning Commission, Government
Lele, Jayant (1981): Elite Pluralism and Class Rule: of India, New Delhi.
Political Development in Maharashtra, India, Vora, Rajendra (2009): “Maharashtra or Maratha
Toronto and London: University of Toronto Rashtra?” Rise of the Plebeians? The Changing
Press. Face of Indian Legislative Assemblies, C Jaffrelot
Mhaskar, Sumeet (2021): “Crisis of Dominance: and S Kumar (eds), New Delhi: Routledge,
Understanding the Rural–Urban Roots of Mar- pp 215–44.
atha Caste Mobilisation for Reservation,” Ur- Waghmore, Suryakant (2013): Civility against
banisation, Vol 6, No 1, pp 64–81. Caste: Dalit Politics and Citizenship in Western
Palshikar, Suhas (2019): “One More Quota: We Are India, New Delhi: Thousand Oaks and London:
Moving Away from the Constitutional Logic Sage Publications.
N
S IO EPWRF India Time Series
AN
P (www.epwrfits.in)
EX
State Government Receipts and Expenditure
(CAG Monthly Data)
The EPW Research Foundation has added a new sub-module on State Government
Receipts and Expenditure (CAG Monthly Data) to the Finances of State Governments
module of the EPWRF India Time Series (EPWRFITS) online database.
This sub-module provides the following monthly key indicators:
● Receipts
 Revenue Receipts: Tax Revenue and Non-Tax Revenue
 Capital Receipts: Recovery of Loan, Borrowing & Liabilities, and Other Receipts
● Expenditures
 By Heads of Account: Revenue and Capital Account
 By Sector: General, Social and Economic Sector
 By Plan and Non-Plan (Upto 2016–17)
● Loans and Advances Disbursed
● Surplus/Deficit
 Revenue
 Fiscal
 Primary
This series is available monthly and progressive from April 2008 onwards. It also presents
quarterly and annual series based on monthly data.
The data-sets compiled are sourced from the publications of Comptroller and Auditor
General of India (CAG).
EPWRFITS covers a wide range of macroeconomic, financial and social sector indicators
of the Indian economy.
For subscription details, visit www.epwrfits.in or write to us at its@epwrf.in
EPWRF India Time Series is an e-ShodhSindhu consortium approved online database.
59