Is Maratha demand for reservation tenable?

: Evidence from India Human Development Survey

Ambrish Dongre1

April 27, 2017

Abstract

Year 2016 witnessed massive agitations by ‘dominant’ castes such as Marathas in Maharashtra, Jats
in Haryana and Patidars in Gujarat demanding reservation in education and government jobs.
Though several commentaries have attempted to identify factors contributing to such demands,
there has been lack of evidence on what exactly is current status of these communities relative to
the rest of the caste groups in respective states.

This paper fills that gap by presenting descriptive findings on economic and educational status of
Marathas in Maharashtra by utilising India Human Development Survey. The paper finds that on an
average, Maratha households have higher incomes and lower poverty relative to the others with the
exception of Brahman households. They are also over-represented in government and public sector
jobs and in white collar or professional occupations when compared with their share in the sample.
Hence, demand for inclusion of Marathas among ‘Other Backward Classes’ is untenable. But at the
same time, a large section of Marathas are in the two bottom income quintiles and engaged in
occupations that are not well-paying. Further, a substantial proportion of them are in rural areas
and in some instances, rural-urban dimension turns out to be more important than the caste
dimension. Thus, caste alone is unlikely to capture various ways in which households are deprived.
How does one move beyond caste and incorporate other dimension leading to deprivation is an
important policy question that needs urgent attention.

Keywords: reservation; affirmative action; Maratha; caste; India; IHDS;

1Ambrish Dongre is a fellow at Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. He can be contacted at
ambrish@cprindia.org, ambudon@gmail.com.

1
Introduction

Year 2016 witnessed massive ‘silent’ marches by the Marathas to demand reservation in education
and government jobs in Maharashtra2. There have been a series of commentaries attempting to
make sense of these developments, and demand for reservation by the Marathas specifically. These
commentaries point to massive agrarian crisis, disappearance of relatively well-paid manufacturing
jobs, growth strategy adopted by successive governments which neglected larger rural and agrarian
interests while advocating export-oriented commercialisation of agriculture that benefited only a
few, inability of the Marathas to take advantage of newer economic opportunities as well as jobs in
service sector, stratification within the community, ability of the Maratha elite to mobilize the
entire Maratha community on the basis of ‘Maratha’ identity and thereby divert attention away
from their own role in suppressing the rest of the community, perception that Dalits and other
erstwhile backward castes have made more progress at their expense, as the factors contributing to
rising frustration and anger among the Marathas that led to massive participation in the silent
marches on an unprecedented scale3.

An important reason offered to justify the demand for reservation is the claim that the Maratha
community is ‘backward’4. The previous state government, led by Congress and Nationalist Congree
Party (NCP) had appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Narayan Rane, one of the
ministers in the then Cabinet, in December 2012 to look into the demand of reservation for the
community. The committee submitted its report in February 2014. It was claimed that the
committee had done a survey of more than four lakh families, compiled the dataset of presence of
the Marathas in government jobs, banking etc. On the basis of this survey, the committee came to
the conclusion that the Maratha community is indeed socially, educationally and economically
backward, and recommended extending reservation to them without touching the existing
reservations. The survey methodology, sampling details, the questionnaire, key survey findings or
for that matter even the report are not to be found in the public domain. The Congress-NCP
government then approved a proposal of 16% reservation for the Marathas and 5% for Muslims in
government jobs and seats in educational institutions in June 2014, thus taking the extent of
reservation much beyond 50%5. Implementation of this decision was stayed by the Bombay High
Court in November 2014. The BJP-led government which had assumed power in October 2014
approached the Supreme Court which refused to vacate the stay. The BJP-led government then
appointed another Committee to undertake a fresh survey to ascertain the economic backwardness
of the Maratha community, headed by Mr. Vinod Tawde, a minister in the current state government,

2 Along with reservations, the ‘silent’ marchers also demanded a) death penalty for the accused in the rape
case of a minor Maratha girl by Dalit men in Kopardi, Ahmednagar which triggered these marches and b)
scrapping or amending The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989) to
prevent its ‘misuse’, and c) implementation of Swaminathan committee recommendations. Precise nature of
demands have undergone change over time.
3 See (Kumar 2009), (Deshpande 2014), (Murugkar 2016b; Murugkar 2016a), (Mhaskar 2016), (Mungekar

2016), (Teltumbde 2016), (Waghmare 2016).

4 (Deshpande 2014) refers to this as the process of OBCisation i.e. castes demanding inclusion in the list of

Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and trying to justify their social, educational and economic backward status
in the form of elaborate narratives.
5 The ruling Congress-NCP suffered a heavy defeat in Lok Sabha elections in May 2014 managing to win only

six out of 48 Lok Sabha seats. The elections for state legislature were barely a few months away.

2
and a member of the Rane Committee. Progress made by the Committee in this regard is not yet
known. Thus, as of now, there is no clarity as far as the relative position of the Marathas due to lack
of any credible data in the public domain. This paper attempts to fill this important gap by utilising
the data collected through India Human Development Survey (IHDS).

Why IHDS?

Analysis of socio-economic status of any caste/caste-group relative to the rest necessarily requires
relevant information at the level of caste or sub-caste. Unfortunately, there is paucity of such
datasets in the Indian context6. The standard practice is to provide information on broad caste
group of the respondent (i.e. whether the respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes,
Other Backward Classes or none of these.), but not reporting the actual caste and sub-caste of the
respondent. As a result, one can’t identify say, a Maratha or a Jat or a Patidar household.

IHDS, implemented by National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) and University of
Maryland, USA, is an exception to this. It provides raw text data on each surveyed household’s caste
and sub-caste thereby giving the flexibility in terms of categorisation. Further, it provides
information on broad range of indicators such as education, migration, occupation of each
household member, details of income-earning activities, income earned, consumption expenditure,
ownership of various assets, access to water and sanitation, fuel for daily use, social networks, and
short-term and major morbidities. Separate questionnaires are administered to women in the
surveyed households to gather information about fertility, and natal care. Another important
feature of the dataset is that it is a panel of households i.e. households that were interviewed in
2004-05 were interviewed again in 2011-12. Both rounds of dataset have been extensively used by
researchers to investigate various issues7. Surprisingly, the caste and sub-caste level information in
IHDS has remained unexploited with the exception of recent work by (Deshpande & Ramachandran
2016) and (Kalaiyarasan 2016).

(Deshpande & Ramachandran 2016) compare Jats in Haryana, Patels in Gujarat and Marathas in
Maharashtra to other major social groups in respective states. Their empirical analysis is based on a
regression specification which controls for residence location (rural/urban), age of the household
head, household size and district dummies. The specification is estimated separately for each state
with Jats, Patels and Marathas as the reference category in respective states. Thus, the estimated
coefficients on caste dummies indicate difference between the reference category and each of the
other castes. Their analysis suggest that claim to backwardness of these communities is not
justified by the empirical data. Using a combination of historical narrative, analysis of sector-wise
growth patterns and IHDS sample for Haryana, (Kalaiyarasan 2016) argues that the mobilization of
Jats and their concerns primarily originate in the ‘Mandal’ and the ‘Market’ (i.e. decline in
agriculture and emergence of service sector in terms of growth rates and contribution to state’s
GDP), the processes initiated in 1991. These two processes, the paper claims, have dislocated Jats
from their earlier economic and political positions, and created a sense of loss.

6 Socio-economic Caste Census (SECC) along with caste data will fill that gap, whenever it is made public.
7 See http://ihds.info/ for details.

3
This paper also utilizes IHDS and reports on prevalence on poverty, per capita income, per capita
consumption expenditure, occupational status, educational status and finally, income mobility of
major caste-groups in Maharashtra, including the Marathas. The paper makes a number of
important contributions. First, I follow the literature on occupational mobility and expand the
discussion on occupational status beyond government jobs. Secondly, I compare share of each caste
group in income quintiles as well as in educational and occupational categories with their shares in
the sample which sheds light on a caste group’s representation in that particular income
quintile/educational or occupational category. Thirdly, I utilise the panel structure of IHDS and
analyse income mobility between 2004-05 and 2011-12. By incorporating these additional
analytical elements, this paper continues the pioneering work initiated by (Deshpande &
Ramachandran 2016) and (Kalaiyarasan 2016).

The paper finds that Brahman and ST households are at the two ends while other caste groups,
including Marathas, are in the middle irrespective of outcome chosen. Secondly, on an average,
Brahman and Maratha households have lowest poverty and highest per capita incomes. They are
over-represented in higher income groups and under-represented in lower income groups as
compared to their population share. They are also over-represented in government jobs and white-
collar occupations, as well as in higher education levels. On the other hand, OBCs and SCs, on an
average, have lower incomes and are over-represented in lower income groups. Thirdly and
importantly, there is a substantial number and fraction of Maratha households and individuals who
have lower incomes, lower education and jobs that are not white-collar. On the other hand, a
substantial fraction of OBC and SC households are in high income group, have government or white-
collar occupation and relatively more education. In other words, these caste groups are becoming
heterogeneous. Finally, outcomes also differ systematically across rural and urban samples. In fact,
in many instances, rural-urban dimension turns out to be more important than caste-dimension.

Caste categorisation

The first step in the empirical analysis is to create appropriate caste categories. 2011-12 round of
the IHDS asked the households their caste/jati (variable ID12ANM), sub-caste (variable ID12BNM)
and broad caste-group (variable ID13)8. All these variables in the data denote response by the
households. The households who report their jati to be Maratha were defined as Maratha
households. Their sub-jati can be either of Maratha, Patil, Kshatriya, Rajput. In some instances, no
sub-caste is mentioned. Instances where jati is Maratha but sub-jati is Agri, Kunbi, Hatkar are not
categorized as Maratha but as OBCs, in line with government rules. In all, 905 households are
identified as Maratha households. Note that almost all the households that I categorise as Maratha
report themselves to be belonging to ‘General/ Forward (except Brahman)’ group. This is
noteworthy in the context of demand of the community to be included in the OBC category.

I classify the remaining households as– a) Brahman, b) non Brahman non Maratha General
(henceforth, Other General - OG), d) Other Backward classes (OBC), e) Scheduled Castes (SC), and
finally f) Scheduled Tribes (ST). This categorisation is based on households’ responses as recorded
in ID12ANM and ID12BNM and not on ID13. This distinction deserves some discussion.

8 Broad caste groups are Brahman, General/ Forward (except Brahmin), OBC, SC, ST and Others.

4
 Table 1 here

Consider Table 1. It indicates that categories which I have created based on ID12ANM and
ID12BNM, and categories based on ID13 are identical for more than 90% households9. This suggests
that overall results or comparisons across caste groups would yield similar results irrespective of
type of categorisation used. Overlap is more than 80% for each caste-group, with lowest match in
case of Brahman (83%) and ST households (85%).

But instances of mis-match do exist. There are 14 households which have mentioned their
caste/sub-caste (ID12ANM or ID12BNM) as Brahman, but at the same time, declared their broad
caste group (ID13) to be ‘Forward/General (except Brahmin)’10. On the other hand, there are six
households which are Brahman according to ID13, but categorized as Maratha by me (based on
ID12ANM or ID12BNM). In all, there are 11 households which declare themselves to be Brahman
(ID13), while my categorisation doesn’t. A closer look at jati and sub-jati reported by these
households indicate that my classification based on ID12ANM and ID12BNM is more likely to be
accurate. Similarly, there are 75 households which declare themselves to be ‘Forward/General
(except Brahman)’, while I identify them as OBCs. These instances include the households who
report their jati/ sub-jati to be Maratha-Kunbi, Wani, Koshti, Banjara, Vanjari, Pinjari, Rajput
Bhamta, Mali etc., and thus should belong to OBC category as per the government documents. On
the other hand, 38 households which I classify as OBC are categorized as ST as per ID13. The
jati/sub-jati of these households are Banjara, Wanjari, Dhangar, Bhoi, Dhiwar, Wadar, Koshti,
Ramoshi etc., all of which are OBCs. Thus, my classification is more likely to be correct. Hence, the
analysis in this paper utilizes caste-group as per my classification, and not as reported by the
households themselves. Even though overall results won’t be impacted, this seems a better
approach. The table also shows that there are 25 households which I have not been able to
categorise. In all, my sample consists of 3283 households. This is the sample that I have used for
analysis throughout the paper.

Describing the sample

Table 2 shows that OBCs form the largest caste-group (36%) followed by Marathas (24%). OBCs
include Kunbi households which constitute 9.2% of the surveyed households11. Maharashtra is a
highly urbanized state with 45.1% of the households located in urban areas. Brahman and OG are
overwhelmingly urban while STs are overwhelmingly rural. Marathas, OBCs and SCs have
substantial presence in both, rural and urban locations12. Extremely low presence of Brahman and
OG households in rural areas and ST households in urban areas imply that corresponding estimates
need to be interpreted with caution. With the exception of OG, the other caste groups
overwhelmingly report Marathi as their mother tongue. Among OG, Marathi (45.9%), Hindi

9 Overlap here means my categorisation and categorisation as per ID13 being the same. For example, the

same household is classified as Brahman by me as well as by ID13.

10 14 out of 68 households mean slightly above one-fifth of the sample of Brahman households.
11 Thus, Maratha and Kunbi combined are one-third of the sample.
12 Keeping in mind this caste-wise difference in residential locations and differences in outcomes across rural

and urban areas, this paper provides estimates for rural and urban areas separately.

5
(32.8%), Urdu (7.7%) and Gujarati (4.6%) are the main languages. Thus, this group is cosmopolitan
in terms of religion (Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs, Jain etc.) as well as languages spoken13.

Table 2 here

Economic Characteristics – Poverty, income and expenditure

Table 3 shows that overall poverty level (as measured by expenditure being less than the Tendulkar
poverty line) is 17.9%, with levels in rural area being almost two and half times that of the urban
area. The poverty differential across rural and urban areas exists for all the caste-groups. Brahman
and Maratha households have the lowest incidence of poverty, while ST households have the largest
fraction of poor households. Note that poverty among rural Marathas is comparable with poverty
among urban OBCs and only marginally less than poverty among the urban SCs.

Table 3 here

Table 4 shows mean and median per capita annual income for rural and urban areas, as well as for
the combined sample. Again, Brahman and Maratha households have the highest average incomes
with OG not far behind, while the ST households have the lowest incomes 14. Urban median income
is more than twice of the median rural income, with similar trend visible for each caste group. In
fact, rural-urban dimension is more dominant than the caste dimension in the sense that median
income of rural Maratha household is lower than the median income of urban OBC or SC household
and this is despite Maratha households having higher per capita median incomes in rural areas.
Another noteworthy observation is that in both rural and urban areas, SC households have higher
median income as compared to OBC households. in both, rural and urban areas.

Table 4 here

Next, we divide the households into five income quintiles (i.e. lowest 20% in the first quintile, next
20% in the second quintile and so on).

Table 5A shows share of each caste group within each income quintile along with its population
share. To explain, while share of Maratha households in population is 23.9%, its share in Q1 and Q2
(the two lowest quintiles) is 16% each, which is less than their population share. Their share in Q4
and Q5 is higher than the population share. On the other hand, share of OBCs in the two lowest
quintiles (48% and 42%) is much higher than their share in population (36%), while they are
under-represented in higher quintiles. SC households perform better than the OBC households i.e.
SC share in Q1 (16%) is lower than their share in population (18.3%), while share is higher in Q2
and Q4, and almost same in case of Q3. Again, Brahman and ST households are at the two ends of
the spectrum.

13 In addition to the languages mentioned above, other languages reported by the households in OG include

Punjabi, English, Marwari, Kannad, and Telugu (all more than 0.5% within the group).
14 As mentioned, OG is a diverse group. The median income of the entire group is Rs. 26,333, while the median

income of Hindi-speakers is Rs. 24,000, of Marathi speakers is Rs. 29467, of Urdu speakers 19,950, and Rs.
36,857 for speakers of other languages (see footnote 10). Thus, these households have higher income than
the Marathas but lower income than Brahman households. The median income of Urdu speakers is
comparable to that of SC households.

6
 Table 5A here

Table 5B shows for each caste-group, fraction of population within each quintile. So, 80% of the
Brahman households are in the top two income quintiles. The corresponding proportion is 53% for
Marathas, 49% for OG, 32% for OBC, 38% for SC and 18% for ST. On the other hand, the fractions of
households in the two lowest quintiles are 7% for Brahmans, 27% for Maratha, 27% for OG, 50%
for OBC, 43% for SC and 61% for ST.

Thus, for all the caste groups other than Brahman and STs, a significant fraction of the households
are in top two and also in bottom two quintiles indicating within caste inequalities among these
relatively large caste-groups.

Table 5B here

Tables 6A and 6B show fraction of population within each quintile for each caste group and
separately for rural and urban areas. The trends are qualitatively similar.

Trends in per capita consumption expenditure are qualitatively similar and hence, not discussed
here15.

Economic Characteristics – Income sources and occupations

Table 7 shows main source of income as reported by the household, which also mirror residential
pattern. Brahman households overwhelmingly report salary as the main source of income, followed
by petty shop at distant second. Cultivation and salary are the two most important sources of
income for Maratha and OBC households but % of households reporting salary as the main income
source is much lower among the OBC households as compared to Maratha. Further, a higher
fraction of OBC households are engaged in agricultural and non-agricultural wage labor (24%) as
compared to Maratha households (8%). Salary and wage labor (agriculture and non-agriculture)
are the main primary income sources for SC households. In fact, fraction of households with salary
as the main source of income is higher among SCs than OBCs and not much behind that of Marathas.
But at the same time, 42% of SC households are engaged in agricultural and non-agricultural wage
labor. In case of ST households, agriculture wage labor and cultivation are primary income source.
Only 10% of ST households report being salaried as the main income source, least among all the
caste groups. The last two columns of table 7 show that households reporting organized business,
salary or profession as the main source of income report higher per capita income on average. Also
note that median per capita income of the households reporting cultivation as the main source of
income is not very different from the households which report agriculture wage labor as the main
income source.

Table 7 here

So far, we have looked at the outcomes at the household level. Now we analyse outcomes at the
individual level starting with employment with the government or public sector units (PSUs).

15 Results are shown in the appendix (Tables A.1, A.2).

7
Table 8A shows that of the individuals (male and female combined) in the age-group of 25 to 65
years, 5.3% are employed in government or PSUs. An urban individual is more than four times
likely to be in government/ PSU employment as compared to rural individual. In the urban context,
there isn’t much difference in percentage of individuals employed in government/PSU between
Brahman, Maratha and SC individuals. In fact, SC, Maratha and Brahman share of government
employment is more than their population share in urban area as shown in table 8B. In fact, gap
between the two is higher for SCs as compared to Maratha and Brahman individuals. Given the
weight of urban observations, these trends are also reflected in the sample which combines rural
and urban individuals16.

Table 8A and 8B here

Next, taking a cue from the literature on occupation mobility in the Indian context, we extend the
analysis beyond government/PSU employment, as explained below.

We divide occupations into four categories:- 1) white collar, 2) farming/ cultivation, 3)

skilled/semi-skilled, and finally, 4) unskilled17. White collar occupations pertain to the occupations
included in divisions 1 and 2 of the National Classification of Occupations, 196818. Occupations in
division 1 include professional and technical workers such as physical scientists, engineers,
architects, physicians and surgeons, social scientists, accountants, jurists, teachers, sculptors,
painters among others. Occupations in division 2 include administrative, executive and managerial
workers such as administrative and executive officials in government and local bodies, working
proprietors, directors and managers etc. Farming/ cultivation corresponds to occupation codes 60
to 62 – cultivators, farm plantation/dairy and other managers and supervisors. Skilled/semi-skilled
occupations include clerical and related workers (division 3), sales workers (division 4) and finally
production and related workers, transport equipment operators (division 7 to 9, except occupation
code 99). Unskilled occupations correspond to various types of service workers, agricultural/
plantation laborers and workers, and finally unskilled laborers not classified anywhere else.

Table 9 shows distribution of occupation categories, overall and separately for rural and urban
areas. Note that summing up proportions involved in four occupations won’t equal 100 since we
have not restricted the denominator to employed individuals. The denominator also includes
unemployed, not fit to work, those who perform household work (especially women) etc19.
Proportion of individuals working in white collar occupations is marginally above 4%, and it is
significantly higher in urban areas. Skilled occupations are more prevalent in urban areas while
farming and unskilled occupations are mostly in rural areas. This occupational distribution also
implies that sample size may not be enough to estimate caste-wise break-up of white collar
occupations in rural areas.

16 Only 2.21% of rural individuals are in government/PSU employment. Hence caste-wise break-up of rural

government/ PSU employment is less likely to reliable.

17 See (Azam 2015) for details.
18 IHDS 2011-12 provide occupations at the two digit level corresponding to National Classification of

Occupations, 1968.
19 Restricting the analysis to employed individuals yield very similar qualitative results.

8
 Table 9 here

Tables 10A and 10B are similar to Tables 8A and 8B respectively. Table 10A shows proportion of
individuals (overall and caste-wise) in each occupation type while Table 10B shows share within
each occupation juxtaposed against population share, for each caste. Given the space constraint,
10A and 10B show the result for combined (rural and urban) sample while Tables A3 and A4 in the
appendix show results separately for urban and rural sample.

Table 10A shows that one-fifth of Brahman individuals in the age group 25-65 are each in white
collar and skilled occupations each. The rest of the caste groups are substantially behind as far as
white collar professions are concerned. The gaps are much narrower or insignificant as far as
skilled/semi-skilled occupations are concerned. Close to 30% of Maratha individuals are involved
in farming while one-fifth of OBC and ST individuals are involved in farming. More than half of the
ST individuals are involved in unskilled work. % involved in unskilled work is also significantly high
for SCs and OBCs.

Table 10A here

Table 10B shows that share of individuals belonging to Brahman, Maratha and OG categories in
white collar occupations is higher than their population share. OBCs and STs have higher share in
farming and unskilled occupations, while SCs have higher share in skilled occupations and unskilled
work.

Table 10B here

Table A.3A and A.3B in appendix analyses the urban sample. As per Table A.3A, in the urban
context, overall, 7% individuals are in white collar occupations, while skilled/semi-skilled work
engages 32% individuals in the age group 25-65 years. All caste groups have significant presence in
the later. Brahman individuals are mostly employed in white collar occupations and skilled
occupations. For the rest of the caste groups, a higher fraction is employed in skilled occupations,
followed by unskilled occupations. The gap between Brahman and other individuals with respect to
fraction employed in white collar occupations is substantial.

How does this compare with respective population shares? Table A.3B shows Brahman and
Maratha shares in white collar occupations are higher than their population shares, while shares in
skilled/semi-skilled occupations are marginally lower than their population shares. Maratha share
in unskilled work is high and almost matches with their population share. On the other hand, SCs
are over-represented in unskilled work and skilled work, they are under-represented in white
collar occupations. OBCs are also under-represented in white-collar occupations but the gap is
much narrower compared to SCs.

As far as rural sample is concerned, more than half of Maratha individuals report employed in
farming followed by unskilled work at a distance. ST, SC and OBC are primarily engaged in unskilled
occupations followed by farming in case of STs and farming and skilled work in case of SCs and
OBCs (Table A.4A). Table A.4B shows Marathas are over-represented in farming, while under-
represented in unskilled occupations by a significant margin. SCs are under-represented in farming

9
while over-represented in unskilled occupations. OBC share in farming, unskilled occupations
matches their share in population while share in skilled occupations is more than the population
share.

Iversen et al (2016) have suggested a modified categorisation scheme with six categories. White
collar and farming categories are identical in both. Instead of skilled/semi-skilled and unskilled
categories as proposed by Azam (2015), Iversen et al (2016) propose four categories – clerical and
other, higher status vocational occupations, lower status vocational occupations and finally, manual
laborers. They do so by incorporating caste-element along with skill requirement. The key idea is to
distinguish between occupations that are skilled but low status because of caste connotation and
those that are not20. Another key difference is that Azam (2015) includes construction workers in
the category of skilled/semi-skilled, while Iversen et al (2016) include them in the category of
manual laborers21. The results are presented in Tables 11A and 11B.

Table 11A here

Table 11A combines rural and urban sample. It shows that 20% and 17% of Brahman individuals
are involved in professional and clerical occupations respectively. These proportions are relatively
lower for the remaining caste groups with the exception of OG in case of clerical occupations. Also
note that percentage of individuals involved in clerical occupations is much higher than % involved
in professional/ white collar occupations for the caste groups other than Brahman. Further, highest
fraction of ST, SC and OBC individuals are involved in manual labor followed by farming (OBC, ST)
or low-status vocational occupation (SC).

Comparison with population shares (Table 11B) indicate that Brahman, Maratha and OG
individuals are over-represented in professional and clerical occupations while OBC, SC and ST
individuals are under-represented. Marathas and General are also over-represented in hi-status
vocational occupations. On the other hand, SCs are over-represented in low-status vocational
occupations and in manual labor (along with STs and OBCs).

Table 11B here

Tables A5 and A6 in the appendix restrict the sample to urban and rural samples respectively. Table
A.5A shows that in urban sample, proportion of individuals involved in clerical occupations is
similar among Brahman and Marathas, and between 12 to 15% among other caste groups. Majority
of the individuals are employed in clerical, hi status vocational and professional occupations among
Marathas while in case of OBCs and SCs, a majority are employed in clerical, low status and hi status
vocational occupations. Comparison with population shares (Table A.5B) indicate that Brahman
and Maratha individuals are over-represented in professional and clerical occupations. Marathas
are also over-represented in hi status vocational occupations. OBC and SC share in hi-status
occupations is close to their population share. OBC share in professional and clerical occupation is
only marginally less than their population share. On the other hand, gap between SC population

20 To give example, blacksmiths, shoe-makers would be low-status vocational occupations, while tailor,
machinery/ electrical fitter.
21 See (Iversen et al. 2016) for details.

10
share and share in professional and to some extent clerical occupations is substantial. Both, OBCs
and SCs are over-represented in occupations involving manual labor.

Educational status

Now we investigate educational status by analyzing education attainment across caste groups.

Table 12A here

In the combined (rural+urban) sample, the percentage of individuals in age-group 25 to 65 years

who are at least graduates is highest (at 37%) among Brahman, and lowest among STs at barely one
percent. Percentage of graduates and above among Marathas is one-third of Brahman individuals.
Again, the rural-urban differential is quite stark with urban educational attainments being much
better compared to rural areas (Tables A.7A and A.8A in the appendix). In urban sample, Marathas
are next to Brahman as far as fraction of individuals with at least graduate degree is concerned.
They are significantly ahead of rest of the caste groups (excluding Brahman). On the other hand,
educational profiles of Maratha and OBC look very similar if we focus on rural sample.

Caste-wise comparison of population share and share of individuals within each category in Table
12 B indicates that Brahman, Maratha and OG are over-represented in the two higher categories,
while OBC, SC and ST are under-represented. The reverse holds for the lowest educational category.

Table 12B here

Income mobility

Now we examine income mobility, overall and across caste groups, by utilizing the panel structure
of the IHDS. Income mobility here is conceptualised as tendency of the households to change
positions in the income distribution over time22. I use per capita income which is obtained as total
household income divided by number of members in the household to analyse income mobility. The
first round of the IHDS (2004-05) covered 3203 households while the second round (2011-12)
covered 3309 households. In all, there are 3265 households which are common across both the
rounds and used in the income mobility analysis23.

It is a standard practice in the income mobility literature to calculate the transition matrix which
indicates the probability of transitioning from a particular income quintile in 2004-05 to another in

22 There are a number of recent studies analyzing income mobility in the Indian context such as (Madhur et al.
2012), (Ranganathan et al. 2016) and (Azam 2016). The later two have also used IHDS. (Thorat et al. 2017)
also employ IHDS panel to study movement into and out of poverty over the time period 2004-05 and 2011-
12. This list is not exhaustive and there are several useful references in these papers.
23 An important issue that arises in the panel context is that of splitting of households i.e. one household

splitting into multiple households between one round and the next. Out of 3203 households in the first round,
326 households couldn’t be tracked, leaving 2877 households. Of these 2877 households, 2584 households
did not experience a split, while 293 households experienced a split - two households split into five, 12
households split into four, 69 households split into three, and 212 households split into two. This implies that
instead of 293 original households, the 2011-12 round has 681 households. This yields 3265 households. The
income mobility analysis is based on these 3265 households. 44 new households were added in the second
round which gives the final sample of 3309 households.

11
2011-12. To illustrate, a sample of households can be divided into five income quintiles with the
first quintile being the bottom quintile. Movement from the first quintile to any other quintile then
would indicate ‘upward mobility’. More generally, if the household moves to a lower (higher)
quintile between 2004-05 and 2011-12, it is termed as ‘downward’ (‘upward) mobility. On the
other hand, no mobility would suggest that the household has remained in the same quintile across
the two rounds.

Table 13 here

Table 13 shows mobility patterns for the entire sample as well for each caste group. It indicates that
Maratha households as a whole have not suffered any particularly adverse circumstances as far as
income mobility is concerned.

Conclusion

This paper is an attempt to throw a light on economic and educational status of Maratha
community relative to the rest of the caste-groups. Marathas constitute close to one-fourth of the
surveyed households and like SCs and OBCs, reside in both, rural and urban locations. On the other
hand, Brahman and Other Generals are predominantly in urban areas while STs are
overwhelmingly in rural areas. This is important since outcomes differ dramatically along rural-
urban dimension. In fact, differences along rural-urban dimension eclipse differences along caste-
dimension. The results also indicate that Marathas are well-represented in government jobs and in
white collar occupations. Further, in terms of poverty levels and average incomes, they are next
only to Brahman households. But at the same time, it needs to be recognised that a large section of
this community is in the bottom two income quintiles, and as deprived as SC or OBC households.
How does one move beyond caste and incorporate other dimension leading to deprivation is an
important policy question that needs urgent attention. Ignoring it longer is not fair and will
probably lead to even bigger political backlash.

12
References

Azam, M., 2016. Household Income Mobility in India: 1993-2011, Available at:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtZWh0YWJh
emFtfGd4OjU1NjhkOGI4MWJkZjkyYzA

Azam, M., 2015. Intergenerational occupational mobility among men in India. Journal of
Development Studies, 51(10), pp.1389–1408. Available at:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/00220388.2015.1036040?scroll=top

Deshpande, A. & Ramachandran, R., 2016. Dominant or backward? Political economy of the demand
for quotas by Jats, Patels and Marathas, Available at: http://www.cdedse.org/pdf/work268.pdf

Deshpande, R., 2014. Seeking OBC Status: Political Strategies of Two Dominant Castes. Studies in
Indian Politics, 2(2), pp.169–183. Available at:
http://inp.sagepub.com/content/2/2/169.abstract

Iversen, V., Krishna, A. & Sen, K., 2016. Rags to riches? Intergenerational occupational mobility in
India, GDI WorkinG Paper 2016-004, the University of Manchester, Manchester. Available at:
http://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/gdi/publications/workingpapers/GDI/GDI_W
P2016004_Iversen_Krishna_Sen.pdf

Kalaiyarasan, A., 2016. Mapping the Discourse from Domination to Deprivation: A Case Study of
Jats. , Working Paper. Available at:
http://www.igidr.ac.in/indiapolecon/temp/Paperstobepresented/Kalai.pdf

Kumar, M., 2009. Reservations for Marathas in Maharashtra. Economic & Political Weekly, XLIV(14),
pp.10–12. Available at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2009/14/commentary/reservations-
marathas-maharashtra.html

Madhur, G., Nagarajan, H.K. & Pradhan, K.C., 2012. The income , consumption and asset mobility in
Indian rural households : evidence from ARIS / REDS surveys. NCAER Working Paper series on
Decentralisation and Rural Governance in India, NCAER, New Delhi. Available at:
http://www.ncaer.org/publication_details.php?pID=217

Mhaskar, S., 2016. The roots of the Maratha Unrest Lie in Mumbai’s Changing Political Economy.
Available at https://thewire.in/84198/maratha-unrest-linkages-mumbai-political-economy/

Mungekar, B., 2016. March of the Maratha. Available at:

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/maratha-quota-rally-protests-dalit-
reservation-devendra-fadnavis-3043083/

Murugkar, M., 2016a. Irrigation could quell the Maratha unrest. Livemint. Available at:
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/UlHkEyr4M1OVsG2vqAZ99I/Irrigation-could-quell-the-
Maratha-unrest.html

Murugkar, M., 2016b. Silent marches, disturbing echoes. Livemint. Available at:
http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/kgfnWblGThObZfoAhvTFhK/Silent-marches-disturbing-
echoes.html

Ranganathan, T., Tripathi, A. & Pandey, G., 2016. Income mobility among social groups in Indian rural
households: Findings from the Indian Human Development Survey. IEG Working Paper No. 368,
Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi. Available at:

13
 http://www.iegindia.org/upload/profile_publication/doc-
130616_190212IEG%20WP%20368%20Ranganathan%20IHDS.pdf

Teltumbde, A., 2016. Behind the Ire of the Marathas. Economic & Political Weekly, LI(40), pp.10–11.
Available at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/40/margin-speak/behind-ire-marathas.html

Thorat, A., Vanneman, R., Desai, S., Dubey, A., 2017. Escaping and Falling into Poverty in India today.
World Development, 93, pp.413–426. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X17300062

Waghmare, K., 2016. मराठा समाजाला धोका, पण कुणाकडून ? Divya Marathi. Available at:
http://divyamarathi.bhaskar.com/news/MAG-keshav-waghmare-writes-about-maratha-
community-5419383-PHO.html

14
Table 1: Overlap between categorisations

ID13
Brahman General OBC SC ST Others Total
Brahman 54 14 68
Maratha 6 880 11 2 6 905
Other General 2 282 26 8 318
Author's OBC 1 75 1061 10 38 16 1201
Categorisation SC 1 4 7 502 4 518
ST 1 2 3 3 264 273
Uncategorised 25
Total 65 1259 1124 517 310 33 3308

Table 2: Population shares, urbanization and mother tongue among caste groups in Maharashtra

Caste
% share* % Urban
group % Marathi
Brahman 2.48 87.02 83.42
Maratha 23.9 45.75 99.22
OG 11.73 87.21 45.93
OBC 36.17 33.79 91.44
SC 18.27 48.7 93.8
ST 7.45 8.93 91.79
Total 100 45.11 88.22
Note: * % share in surveyed and categorised households

Table 3: Percentage of poor households among caste groups in Maharashtra

Caste
Rural + Urban Rural Urban
groups
Brahman 0.8 6.19 0
Maratha 8.36 13.47 2.29
OG 12.06 22.25 10.57
OBC 20.33 24.08 12.97
SC 23.47 30.23 16.36
ST 38.17 40.08 18.75
Total 17.92 24.45 9.97

15
Table 4: Mean and median per capita annual income (Rs.) among caste groups in Maharashtra

Rural + Urban Rural Urban

Caste
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
groups
Brahman 56215.7 48000 24776.59 19447.14 60906.51 50700
Maratha 39390.64 29447.27 28241.38 20520 52612.57 44500
OG 39304.78 26333.33 28492.62 17666.67 40890.64 29400
OBC 25179.05 16530 18695.52 12733.33 37883.3 30875
SC 28451.2 19750 20100.86 15233.33 37245.62 33312.5
ST 17961.2 12425 16788.95 12000 29922.4 26750
Total 31062.9 21000 21257.85 14490 42995.72 36000

Table 5A: Caste distribution within each income quintile

Population Share in Share in Share in Share in Share in

share Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Brahman 2.48 0 0 2 4 6
Maratha 23.9 15.82 16.21 24.26 28.21 35.1
OG 11.73 7.26 8.67 13.8 12.84 16.11
OBC 36.17 48.03 41.57 34.09 32.34 24.73
SC 18.27 16.04 22.8 18.14 18.55 15.76
ST 7.45 12.46 10.29 7.94 4.28 2.25
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 5B: Caste distribution across income quintiles

Brahman Maratha OG OBC SC ST

Q1 3.10 13.24 12.39 26.56 17.56 33.45

Q2 3.79 13.65 14.88 23.14 25.13 27.81
Q3 14.10 20.19 23.40 18.74 19.75 21.19
Q4 30.58 23.73 22.02 17.97 20.42 11.56
Q5 48.43 29.19 27.31 13.59 17.15 5.99
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

16
Table 6A: Caste distribution across income quintiles – urban

Brahman Maratha OG OBC SC ST

Q1 1.92 9.89 24.80 23.81 25.70 25.00
Q2 11.54 18.25 23.17 21.09 18.69 25.00
Q3 15.38 18.63 17.89 23.81 22.43 18.75
Q4 34.62 26.62 17.48 12.93 18.22 25.00
Q5 36.54 26.62 16.67 18.37 14.95 6.25
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 6B: Caste distribution across income quintiles – rural

Brahman Maratha OG OBC SC ST

Q1 23.86 15.81 15.03 23.52 16.31 21.77
Q2 0.00 12.75 11.82 22.68 20.18 28.19
Q3 16.29 15.65 24.32 20.43 25.15 18.02
Q4 31.26 23.88 20.58 18.31 20.08 18.30
Q5 28.59 31.91 28.24 15.05 18.27 13.72
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 7: Main income source as reported by households

All Brahman Maratha OG OBC SC ST Median Mean

Cultivation 28.77 7.67 41.18 5.51 38.04 10.17 33.2 13580 23,319
Allied
1.18 1.2 1.06 1.8 0.52 0.3 19750 21,521
agriculture
Ag wage labour 14.77 4.22 3.44 14.96 26.6 41.39 13166.67 15,593
Non ag wage
10 4.42 17.74 9.22 15.12 8.48 16666.67 21,789
labour
Artisan/Indept 1.82 0.87 3.35 2.37 1.59 0.92 20400 22,764
Petty shop 8.29 12.37 6.38 17.36 8.64 6.34 1.89 23571.43 28,480
Organized
1.78 3.35 2.28 6.59 0.52 1.04 49000 65,625
Business
Salaried 26.32 59.64 31.97 37.18 18.78 28.9 10.21 48391.12 42,650
Profession 0.79 7.58 0.86 1.06 0.7 0.12 38000 66697.97
Pension/Rent
4.88 1.67 5.49 5.64 3.34 8.02 2.53 42000 44,713
etc.
Others 1.55 7.72 1.14 1.06 1.63 1.59 1.08 14000 17,099
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 21000 31062.9

17
Table 8A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) in government/ PSU employment

Rural +
Caste groups Urban Urban Rural
Brahman 11.48 12.5 5.1
Maratha 5.84 10.46 1.96
OG 4.71 4.98 2.8
OBC 4.41 7.66 2.56
SC 6.9 11.99 0.85
ST 3.23 6.67 2.94
Total 5.34 8.81 2.21

Table 8B: Share in population and share in government/PSU employment

Rural + Urban Urban Rural

Caste Population share in Population share in Population share in
groups share gov/PSU share gov/PSU share gov/PSU
Brahman 2.63 5.64 4.76 6.75 0.69 1.6
Maratha 25.18 27.49 24.16 28.69 26.1 23.13
OG 12.58 11.07 23.12 13.08 3.01 3.81
OBC 35.11 28.91 26.69 23.21 42.76 49.56
SC 17.68 22.77 20.15 27.43 15.43 5.93
ST 6.82 4.12 1.12 0.84 12 15.97
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 9: Distribution of occupational categories (Azam, 2015)

Occupational categories Rural + Urban Urban Rural

White collar 4.39 7.06 1.96
Skilled/ semi-skilled 20.51 32.19 9.9
Farming 17.37 1.71 31.59
Unskilled 24.24 9.78 37.38

18
Table 10A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) in occupation categories as per Azam (2015)

Caste group White collar skilled Farming Unskilled

Brahman 19.86 21.19 4.23 5.56
Maratha 4.89 18.15 28.44 15.63
OG 5.7 32.86 3.92 10.54
OBC 3.55 19.19 20.75 26.38
SC 3.07 21.68 5.5 34.16
ST 1.84 9.91 19.72 51.83
Total 4.39 20.51 17.37 24.24

Table 10B: Share in population and share in occupation categories as per Azam (2015)

share in
Caste Share in White
group population collar Skilled Farming Unskilled
Brahman 2.63 11.9 2.72 0.64 0.6
Maratha 25.18 28.08 22.28 41.23 16.23
OG 12.58 16.35 20.16 2.84 5.47
OBC 35.11 28.43 32.86 41.95 38.2
SC 17.68 12.38 18.69 5.6 24.91
ST 6.82 2.85 3.3 7.74 14.58
Total 100 100 100 100 100

19
Table 11A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) in occupation categories as per Iversen et al
(2016)

Hi status Low status Manual

Caste group Professional Farming Clerical
vocational vocational Labor

Brahman 19.86 4.23 16.65 3.37 5.88 0.85

Maratha 4.89 28.44 9.93 6.31 3.73 13.82
OG 5.7 3.92 14.62 6.16 11.8 10.81
OBC 3.55 20.75 7.83 4.61 6.2 26.93
SC 3.07 5.5 7.33 4.97 9.06 34.5
ST 1.84 19.72 3.55 1.93 3.1 53.16
Total 4.39 17.37 9.06 5.08 6.57 24.04

Table 11B: Share in population and share in occupation categories as per Iversen et al (2016)

share in

Caste Low
Group Hi status Manual
Population Professional Farming Clerical status
vocational Labor
(25-65 vocational
years)
Brahman 2.63 11.9 0.64 4.83 1.74 2.35 0.09
Maratha 25.18 28.08 41.23 27.57 31.26 14.3 14.47
OG 12.58 16.35 2.84 20.3 15.26 22.61 5.66
OBC 35.11 28.43 41.95 30.33 31.87 33.14 39.33
SC 17.68 12.38 5.6 14.29 17.28 24.37 25.37
ST 6.82 2.85 7.74 2.67 2.59 3.22 15.08
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

20
Table 12A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) and educational attainment

Caste group Brahman Maratha OG OBC SC ST Total

Less than secondary 16.89 54.04 49.67 65.18 70.37 84.07 61.36
Secondary/ Higher
46.43 33.54 35.92 26.23 23.64 14.45 28.56
Secondary
Graduate & Above 36.69 12.43 14.4 8.59 5.99 1.45 10.09

Table 12B: Share in population and share in educational categories

Share in
Caste population
group Less than Sec/Higher Graduate
(25-65
secondary Sec & above
years)
Brahman 2.63 0.72 4.27 9.57
Maratha 25.18 22.18 29.57 31.05
OG 12.58 10.19 15.83 17.99
OBC 35.11 37.28 32.23 29.89
SC 17.68 20.28 14.64 10.52
ST 6.82 9.35 3.45 0.99
Total 100 100 100 100

Table 13: Income mobility between 2004-05 and 2011-12 in Maharashtra

Mobility Brahman Maratha Rest OBC SC ST All

Down 27.18 30.94 38.98 31.58 30.99 26.48 31.61
No 42.84 33.01 36.45 34.94 34.69 35.93 34.84
Up 29.97 36.05 24.57 33.48 34.32 37.59 33.55
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

21
 Appendix

Table A.1: Mean and Median per capita consumption expenditure

Rural + Urban Rural Urban

Caste
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
groups
Brahman 45196.16 40596 25768.03 18254.5 48094.9 43333.5
Maratha 30669.22 25383 25112.61 20058.4 37273.74 31980.58
OG 28697.78 24523.25 22289.35 18186 29637.73 25170.8
OBC 24180.03 19063 21445.25 16610 29553.36 25446
SC 23712.03 19738 19075.94 15524.95 28514.05 25119
ST 16527.69 13818.33 15798.62 13171.2 23966.86 22204.7
Total 26125.38 20929.5 21269.02 16677 32042.61 27652.8

Table A.2A: Caste distribution within each exp quintile

Population Share in Share in Share in Share Share in

share Q1 Q2 Q3 in Q4 Q5
Brahman 2.48 0.1 0.88 1.75 2.91 6.81
Maratha 23.9 12.06 18.22 27.69 28.13 33.27
OG 11.73 6.14 12.09 11.66 14.37 14.45
OBC 36.17 41.99 41.45 36.01 34.2 27.11
SC 18.27 23.06 17.7 16.85 16.9 16.93
ST 7.45 16.66 9.66 6.04 3.49 1.43
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table A.2B: Caste distribution across expenditure quintiles

Brahman Maratha OG OBC SC ST

Q1 0.8 10.11 10.46 23.24 25.23 44.69

Q2 7.04 15.28 20.61 22.95 19.37 25.93
Q3 14.08 23.18 19.85 19.9 18.41 16.18
Q4 23.43 23.59 24.5 18.94 18.5 9.37
Q5 54.65 27.83 24.58 14.97 18.48 3.83
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

22
Table A.3A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) in occupation categories as per Azam (2015) –
urban sample

Caste group White collar skilled Farming Unskilled

Brahman 21.09 21.09 1.56 5.47
Maratha 8.77 30.15 0.92 9.54
OG 5.47 34.89 2.09 8.68
OBC 6.41 33.29 2.37 9.61
SC 4.43 32.29 1.29 12.55
ST 6.67 40 3.33 10
Total 7.06 32.19 1.71 9.78

Table A.3B: Share in population and share in occupation categories as per Azam (2015) – urban
sample

Caste Share in
group Population White collar skilled farming unskilled
Brahman 4.76 14.21 3.12 4.35 2.66
Maratha 24.16 30.00 22.63 13.04 23.57
OG 23.12 17.89 25.06 28.26 20.53
OBC 26.69 24.21 27.6 36.96 26.24
SC 20.15 12.63 20.21 15.22 25.86
ST 1.12 1.05 1.39 2.17 1.14
Total 100 100 100 100 100

23
Table A.4A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) in occupation categories as per Azam (2015) –
rural sample

White
Caste group collar skilled Farming Unskilled
Brahman 12.18 21.77 20.81 6.15
Maratha 1.64 8.06 51.58 20.75
OG 7.35 18.71 16.65 23.53
OBC 1.94 11.2 31.17 35.88
SC 1.47 9.11 10.49 59.79
ST 1.43 7.37 21.1 55.36
Total 1.96 9.9 31.59 37.38

Table A.4B: Share in population and share in occupation categories as per Azam (2015) – rural
sample

Caste Share in
group Population White collar skilled farming unskilled
Brahman 0.69 4.31 1.53 0.46 0.11
Maratha 26.10 21.81 21.24 42.62 14.49
OG 3.01 11.3 5.69 1.59 1.90
OBC 42.76 42.27 48.4 42.19 41.04
SC 15.43 11.55 14.2 5.12 24.68
ST 12.00 8.76 8.94 8.02 18
Total 100 100 100 100 100

24
Table A.5A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) in occupation categories as per Iversen et al
(2016) – urban sample

Low
Hi status Manual
Caste Group Professional Farming Clerical status
vocational Labor
vocational

Brahman 21.09 1.56 17.97 3.91 4.69 0

Maratha 8.77 0.92 18.77 12.15 5.54 3.23
OG 5.47 2.09 15.43 6.59 13.18 8.36
OBC 6.41 2.37 14.76 8.5 11.84 7.8
SC 4.43 1.29 12.55 7.93 14.76 9.59
ST 6.67 3.33 20 6.67 6.67 16.67
Total 7.06 1.71 15.65 8.59 10.82 6.91

Table A.5B: Share in population and share in occupation categories as per Ivesen et al (2016) –
urban sample

share in
Caste Low
Group Population Hi status Manual
Professional Farming Clerical status
(25-65 vocational Labor
vocational
years)
Brahman 4.76 14.21 4.35 5.46 2.16 2.06 0
Maratha 24.16 30.00 13.04 28.98 34.2 12.37 11.29
OG 23.12 17.89 28.26 22.8 17.75 28.18 27.96
OBC 26.69 24.21 36.96 25.18 26.41 29.21 30.11
SC 20.15 12.63 15.22 16.15 18.61 27.49 27.96
ST 1.12 1.05 2.17 1.43 0.87 0.69 2.69
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

25
Table A.6A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) in occupation categories as per Iversen et al
(2016) – rural sample

Hi status Low status Manual

Caste Group Professional Farming Clerical
vocational vocational Labor

Brahman 12.18 20.81 8.45 0 13.31 6.15

Maratha 1.64 51.58 2.49 1.39 2.21 22.72
OG 7.35 16.65 8.97 3.17 2.19 27.91
OBC 1.94 31.17 3.9 2.41 3 37.77
SC 1.47 10.49 1.14 1.45 2.29 64.03
ST 1.43 21.1 2.17 1.53 2.8 56.24
Total 1.96 31.59 3.08 1.89 2.71 6.91

Table A.6B: Share in population and share in occupation categories as per Ivesen et al (2016) –
rural sample

share in

Caste Low
Group Hi status Manual
Population Professional Farming Clerical status
vocational Labor
(25-65 vocational
years)
Brahman 0.69 4.31 0.46 1.9 0 3.41 0.11
Maratha 26.10 21.81 42.62 21.09 19.14 21.28 14.98
OG 3.01 11.3 1.59 8.77 5.04 2.44 2.12
OBC 42.76 42.27 42.19 54.11 54.37 47.4 40.79
SC 15.43 11.55 5.12 5.69 11.77 13.06 24.95
ST 12.00 8.76 8.02 8.43 9.67 12.42 17.05
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

26
Table A.7A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) and educational attainment – urban sample

Caste group Brahman Maratha OG OBC SC ST Overall

Less than secondary 14.84 33.70 46.79 49.02 58.12 53.34 45.05
Secondary/ Higher
46.09 45.08 37.95 37.05 32.10 36.67 38.63
Secondary
Graduate & Above 39.06 21.24 15.27 13.93 9.78 10.00 16.32

Table A.7B: Share in population and share in educational categories – urban sample

Share in
Caste population
group Less than Sec/Higher Graduate
(25-65
secondary Sec & above
years)
Brahman 4.76 1.57 5.68 11.39
Maratha 24.16 18.07 28.2 31.44
OG 23.12 24.01 22.71 21.64
OBC 26.69 29.04 25.6 22.78
SC 20.15 25.99 16.75 12.07
ST 1.12 1.32 1.06 0.68
Total 100 100 100 100

Table A.8A: Proportion of individuals (25-65 years) and educational attainment – rural sample

Caste group Brahman Maratha OG OBC SC ST Overall

Less than secondary 29.59 71.14 69.85 74.36 84.88 86.68 76.17
Secondary/ Higher
48.50 23.83 21.79 20.09 13.60 12.58 19.41
Secondary
Graduate & Above 21.91 5.03 8.36 5.56 1.52 0.74 4.42

27
Table A.8B: Share in population and share in educational categories – rural sample

Share in
Caste population
group Less than Sec/Higher Graduate
(25-65
secondary Sec & above
years)
Brahman 0.69 0.27 1.73 3.45
Maratha 26.1 24.39 32.06 29.77
OG 3.01 2.76 3.38 5.71
OBC 42.76 41.71 44.22 53.78
SC 15.43 17.21 10.82 5.3
ST 12 13.66 7.78 2.00
Total 100 100 100 100

28