Mandal Commission Indicators of Backwardness

The Mandal Commission made backwardness measurable by using eleven indicators covering social position, education and economic conditions. It assessed castes or classes through a weighted scoring system, giving greater importance to social and educational disadvantage than to economic disadvantage alone.

Social indicators

Each of the four social indicators carried 3 points.

• The caste or class was considered socially backward by others.
• The caste or class mainly depended on manual labour for its livelihood.
• Marriage below age 17 years exceeded the state average by at least 25% for females and 10% for males in rural areas, and by at least 10% for females and 5% for males in urban areas.
• Female participation in work was at least 25% above the state average.

Educational indicators

Each of the three educational indicators carried 2 points.

• The proportion of children aged 5-15 years who had never attended school was at least 25% above the state average.
• The school dropout rate among children aged 5-15 years was at least 25% above the state average.
• The proportion of matriculates was at least 25% below the state average.

Economic indicators

Each of the four economic indicators carried 1 point.

• The average value of family assets was at least 25% below the state average.
• The proportion of families living in kutcha houses was at least 25% above the state average.
• The source of drinking water was more than half a kilometre away for over 50% of households.
• The proportion of households having taken consumption loans was at least 25% above the state average.

How the indicators produced a classification

The weights produced a maximum score of 22 points: 12 for social, 6 for educational and 4 for economic indicators. Castes or classes scoring 11 points or more, equivalent to at least half the total, were treated as socially and educationally backward.

• The method assessed backwardness at the caste or class level, rather than treating an individual's poverty as sufficient evidence.
• Most indicators used the state average as a benchmark, allowing disadvantage to be assessed relative to conditions within the state.