Ugrappa’s warning to Siddaramaiah: a voice for real social justice

 

The simmering tension within the Congress in Karnataka has burst into the open, thanks to senior leader V. S. Ugrappa’s blunt warning to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over the proposal to include the Kuruba community in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category. At a public meeting where the Chief Minister himself was present, Ugrappa said, “We are ready to have lunch with the Kurubas, but bring your own food. Do not put your hand into our plate.” The remark, though sharp, captures the mood of resentment brewing among existing Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities across the state.

The issue stems from a recommendation made by the Budakattu Samshodhana Samsthe (Tribal Research Institute), reportedly at the behest of the Chief Minister, suggesting that Kurubas — currently listed under Category-IIA (Other Backward Classes) — be considered for inclusion in the ST list. The move is widely seen as an attempt to politically consolidate Siddaramaiah’s own caste base ahead of elections, by promising them a higher reservation status and a larger share of state benefits.

But the implications of such a move go far beyond political arithmetic. The Kurubas, forming nearly 16 percent of Karnataka’s population, are one of the largest OBC groups in the state. In contrast, the total Scheduled Tribe population — comprising Soligas, Jenu Kurubas, Yeravas, Koragas and others — is roughly 7 percent. Bringing the Kurubas under the ST umbrella would drastically distort the reservation framework, effectively crowding out those who are genuinely deprived and constitutionally recognised as tribes.

Ugrappa’s warning, therefore, is not a personal attack but a principled objection. He is giving voice to the fear that inclusion of a dominant agrarian community like the Kurubas would dilute the very purpose of reservation. The ST category was created for groups with distinct social, cultural, and economic backwardness — isolated communities with limited access to education, land, and political representation. The Kurubas, with their strong political presence and substantial economic mobility, simply do not fit that description.

Ironically, the same government that appointed an expert committee to review internal caste classifications seems unwilling to wait for its findings. The haste to push this proposal reveals a larger pattern — using caste identity as an instrument of electoral reward. Siddaramaiah, who built his political image around the idea of “AHINDA” (a coalition of minorities, backward classes, and Dalits), risks undermining that very idea by alienating the Dalit and tribal sections that once stood by him.

Ugrappa’s outburst may have embarrassed the government, but it has also forced the ruling party to confront an uncomfortable truth: that social justice cannot be twisted into a tool for political expansion. His dissent reflects the unease of many within the Congress who still believe in the constitutional spirit of affirmative action — that benefits must go to those most in need, not to those best organised.

In the end, this controversy is not about caste pride; it is about moral clarity. By warning Siddaramaiah, V. S. Ugrappa has reminded Karnataka’s political class that reservation is a remedy, not a privilege — and certainly not a political prize.